Loading...
1986-11-19 c J J ¡ ¡ ¡ 1 1 L ~, ;( to QU..saURY ZONDIG BOARD OF APPBALS Re.gula!' Meeting held: Wedne8êht,.Nøvembet-19, 1986 @ 7:30 P.M. Present: ~ Twner, Chairman Chátiee O. Sicard Jefhyi. Kelley Guttave Beht- Susan Goetz, Secretary Daniel S. Griffin Michael Muller StUM't F. Meainger, Senior Town Plalmer R.. Case Prime. Attorney The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chainnan Turner. Con-eetioas to the October 1 S, li86 ~_. 1f'-' made u folloW's: Page Z paragrå.ph Z:Shoœð, reå.d "MBt'kSh.ckner, . attorney for Frank . and . Eileen Collins... " Page 3 VariìU1ee No. 1160.3rd line: the parçel of land i. not his, it is owned by Mr. Nelson. Page 7 Varianee No. 1168, tat·p.....pb" 'bottom line should. read ftdivide the lotft Mr. Sicard MOVED APPROV ALof theOctøbeT 15 mimítes as c~ed. Mr. Turner secOSÞl.ed. Paaaed\u..-mOUldy. CorrectiODS to the Oetober ZZ, 1986 mÎJ!t.1Jte$ ..., made as '''ows: Page 3 VariaRce No. 1159, paraøraPh 3: Mr. Behr said that the sign could be moved closer .-4 be allowed 64 Square feet at a ZS foot setback, not tbat the sign could be made 1Imuch largerft. Mr. Sicard MOVED APPROVAL of 'the mimttea as cOft'ected. Mr. Turner seconded. Passed UÐ~~.""". Mr. T~ aNlouaced that Variance 1'(.0. 1166, Reliable RadIIg Supply, had been witbdrawn ad Vmanee No. 1171., Walter Ðomhk., had been tabled by the applicant. c o ;lll OI..D',~ AREA v.alUAWCBwo. 1166 :Fruk Schulman. Mrs.. Goetz ..... ,the application from ~k Scbu1.um to CO$IltrUCt a ...... on Park View A ,the "R-10 zoae with 13 foot ..~backs On eaCh side in lieu of the required 30 feet cotå letback. , . Schulr.an expJ4dÞed. that a 2.0 foot wide too ..aU; 2.4 feet was, t_ minimum UN to own the aIIi_eet. houM but had , _~ ye.. ago. 11ìe S,cWmans were . Mr. Schulman also noted. dtat a smaller In re.,... to .ueations from the Bo8nI house which would. coafOl'ì'n to setbacks house size feasible. Mae. Schul_., said sold, it. Tbe lot in question was , 1mSUccell'ut 'Ùí attemptiaa to buy an àdj~ ' lot in the aNa had: _en gzoanted a setback v " Bo""'¡ Members noted that this was for_ ddition to an existing house. Mr. Kelley agreed that a 2.0 foot· wide hOUle was very small. . Public Heat'iDj Opeøed: no comment Public He~ C10sed Mr. Me..... recommen4ed «PPf'éW" p'datÙII out that no m.tter who owned the lot, a variance would be required to c~ a reasonably sized house. Mr. Be_ MO~ AJ'P"OVAt, .,Øf..V demonstrated as' te> ..~., of lþt.Tohj.,4it to agree with the req_at. Tbe Boards ' feet on each side. No. 11M. Pracdéa1 difficulty bas been ci.'b1e size home the Board wouÌd have tø that the side line Sétbadtal must be 13 Passed U~. -'~ INTERPRBTA'ftOII1fO. 35 Mrs. Goetz .",84 a letter rr.m Fire whether tr\J.ck bodies used for storage are Zoning Orciina:Dce. BodeII_.... dId. the Board the meaning of the Queensbury Mr. Boden...... esplaiÞed that botlt·tNeJt tFailere with w!aeè. and Shipping bodies without wheels w.. being used for stor... peposes. He needed direction from the Board as to whether tldl was allowed. ' MrB. Goøz _all ... øpinionfrom BoatttCounsel Mr. Prime stating that tNdt 'bodies used fer at.....' were strUd.ures. (; G ~,)... Mr. Prime clarified. that trailer bodies. with wheels, and. cap~ of road travel were simply ~t .,_de.. which are prohibited. ',' U~ and. ....... tIøt8e vehicle. doe. Dot ~ their I tbey ere '·".it«l. for rrr type con.taiaen without wkeels, comm known at' ute_tataers, w couidered structures ami be subjêet to Building n.pertmeat Î'equiì'emeat¡. Mr. Bodeuwei... 8aid that in hi. view ~ whieb were moved. œ ... off a property were okay; t~tóadiDø aad 'Qj¡...aiag 'd reasoa for:ba'riag a tfti1er. Further, tempo,rary trai1en f. coaatructfOI1 office. ' aeeeptab1e. Public H~ ()peaed: Mr. ~ Bia :Boom Road, sat~ t1tat trailers were being UMd for warehousing at property 011 the Bi8 :BOom Road. Mr. .....et... said that these were bebIø JeasecI far both on site aad Off sit.....taL Mr. Priøe eaid. that the ~ce 8 it must be d_e in structures. A "ebiele 0If not be used for this purpøae. warehewdDl in the U ....', . is traaldent, not a struetUl"e,' Mr. Griffin MOVED that truck bodJ. R. Case Prime fa his 11/13186 lett., ,... storage of penœal pro,perty in tr'aUient v ' use in any of our zones. for storage are exactly as preeea.ted. by to Jr.t......tatiOl1 No. 35. In aclditiOl1, comaerdaJ: purpoaes Is not a permitted Second by Mr. TtII'IIer. A copy of Mr. Prime's 11/13/86 letter is. appeaded to these mmutes. AREA V AlUAJlca 1IG.1tT9 Mary Trella Mrs. Goetz read the app1ioatfØl1 fro. .....,. ~, to keep a ataàe dock' at the property situated at Assembly Point Read in the LR-IA ZÒDe Zfeet from her property lme in lieu of the required. 10 feet. Percy Denton, 'buØder, said he 4W not kaéw a permit was required wbeD hecon.struct- ed the dock. The deck was built in the apriag. Mr. Behr øai4 there was no 'bardsldp. T:besituattoa cóuld be ea&Üyrecttfied by cutting 8 feet off of the d.oek. Public HeariQ¡ OPened: Gardner ...,.' ~tiaØ the to the request. Peop1e/ ..ext door bave obeyed; ly Point AaIociatiOD. spoke in opposition ,10 foot rule s'åwld M enforced. Mn. 1\'eUO sai4.she built tüdock be..,'... was brush ancl rocks 011 where ~"aD. 11te ehUdren could sUp 011 .' roeb aDd be hurt; she could 3 '" down 0/ QuuMbul'lJ L- Q!,IEENSBUR Y TOWN OFFICE BUILDING ~ . -)':b.-' BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801 TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832 November 13, '1986 1heodore Turner, Chairman Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 139 Meadowbrook Road Glens Falls, NY 128~1 ".n RE; IntèfjJri:tøtion No. 35 Dear Ted: I am rèsponding to Bill Bodenweiser~s letter of October 7, 1986, questioning whether truck bod¡es an1' trailers with their wheels removed and used for storage purposes comes within our ordinance. .The question specifically1s whether theses truck' bodies and trailers become structures within our ordinance when used for storage purposes. I am assuming that the storage Mr. Bodenweiser's refers to in his letter is of a commercial nature, such as warehousing. Under our ordinance, a "structure" m2ans any object construc- ted, installed or placed on land tG facilitate land use and development... Certãlnly the usë of a truck or-trai ler body for comm rcial storage purposes comes~3thin this definition and is subject to all provisions of the crdinance and tte building codes applicable thereto.' I w 0 u I'd a Iso poi n t 0 u t t hat the I 0'= a t ion Mr. \ Bod e n we i s e r refers to, along tne CorInth Road at EXIt lH. IS hignway commer- cial, ·and warehousing is not a permitted use in that zone. The only warehousing that is permitted unaer our ordinance is in the light industrial zone. Very truly y'ours, R. Case Prime Town Counse] "- RCP:ws cc: ftéwartMessinger 3A SETTLED 1763. . . HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE ~If \.....- Mr. Harris said that the lot was 100 feet wide, so ample room for complying docks existed. Mrs. Trello reiterated her fear of lawsuit and how much easier having the dock made swimming. Mr. Behr said that a feasible alternative existed, namely cutting the dock to the required setback. The personal circumstances were not relevant. Herman Shyer, Assembly Point, said he was opposed to the variance. Public Hearing Closed Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Richard Kuka, president of the Assembly Point Association, opposed to the variance. The Warren County Planning Board voted 2 in favor, 4 opposed, which constitutes no action. Mr. Behr MOVED the Variance No. 1179 be denied. No practical difficulty has been demonstrated. The existing dock must comply with setbacks. Mrs. Goetz seconded. Passed Un( lnitIJous1y. USE VARIANCE NO. 1180 Tracy Tabor and Drew Monthie Mrs. Goetz read the application to run a landscape office and retail bonsai shop in a split SR-IA, LC-IOA zone on West Mountain Road. Mr. Tabor said that the land was owned by his father who, until 3 years ago, ran an auto body shop there. The applicants planned to convert the 24 foot by 24 foot garage into an office and store. The lot is 50 feet wide going back 400 feet, where it opens up into about 18 acres. Mr. Griffin noted the lot was on a dangerous turn. The Board engaged in a lengthy discussion over the size, configuration and ownership of the parcel. It was determined that the entire lot was indeed 18 acres and that the proposed shop was in the narrow (50 foot) front strip which provided access to the bulk of the property. Various Board members explained to the applicants that there was no financial hardship; the property could be used as zoned: it was large enough for residential uses and access existed through the 50 foot strip and on Lilac Lane. ~ Mr. Tabor argued that the proposal would improve the property and that there was 4 ~15 L no desire on the part of the applicants to create residential lots. Public Hearing Opened: William Bodenweiser, Queensbury, said that the property had been beautified and the variance should be granted. Don Tabor, father of the applicant, said he was the owner. m health had forced him to discontinue business. He had predated zoning and had no problems and had planned to restart the business before his health failed. There was no opposition from the neighbors. Mr. Behr asked whether Mr. Tabor would be grandfathered. Mr. Mesinger said that if the use had been discontinued for more than 18 months, a variance would be required to restart it. Public Hearing Closed The Wan-en County Planning Board approved without comment. The Beautification Committee reported that a plan had been submitted for consideration at the December meeting. Mr. Kelley MOVED disapproval. The Board understands the plight of the applicant, however the 4 necessary criteria for a use variance are not proven. The land can be used as zoned and the use would be detrimental to the area as it is in a residential zone. Mr. Muller seconded. Passed Un=-nimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1181 Bob Buruchian Mrs. Goetz read the application from Bob Buruchian to construct a 28 ft. by 15 ft. boathouse on the property situated on Route 9L in the LC zone at a 25 foot setback in lieu of the required 50 foot setback. Mr. Bell, builder, explained that a rock wall prevented the boathouse from meeting the required setback. The builder proposed to turn the boathouse so the doors faced the main house; the setback would therefore be approximately 40 feet. Mr. Behr noted that the Board had previously granted a similar variance for a garage on the other side of the property. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed "'-' The Wan-en County Planning Board approved with the modification that the boathouse 5 ~10 "- be placed parallel to Route 9L at a greater setback. Mr. Sicard MOVED APPROVAL of Variance No. 1181 based on a new amended drawing showing the building turned to line up with the existing extension of the building on the south. The setback will be approximately 40 feet. Mrs. Goetz seconded. Passed Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 118Z Copper Kettle Mrs. Goetz read the application from the Aviation Road Development Corporation to place a 5 foot addition on three sides of the Copper Kettle Restaurant resulting in setbacks of 37.5 feet in lieu of the required 50 feet. The property is located at the intersection of Corinth Road and the Northway ramp. Attorney Malcolm O'Hara explained that tne side on the Northway was being treated as the intersection of two roads and therefore Z front setbacks must be met. Mr. Muller said that in previous sign variances the Northway was not treated as a road for intersection purposes since it was not a true intersection. Therefore, only the sideline setback must be met. Mr. Sicard agreed that the ramp should not be considered as an intersection for setback purposes. The Board discussed plans for the building which showed a 6~ foot addition not 5~ feet. The setback on the side would be 30 feet (requirement for a side setback is ZO feet). The front setback would be 43~ feet. Public Hearing Opened: Barbara DeSantis, part owner, said the building is ZO years old and needs upgrading. The owners wish to make it more attractive. John DeMars, Big Boom Road, said he represented 40 homeowners in the Big Boom Association. He asked if the seating capacity would change. Mr. O'Hara said there would be less seating. Mr. DeMars asked if enough parking was available. Mr. Mesinger said that 1 space per 100 square feet was needed. * Mr. DeSantis said there were sufficient spaces. Mr. O'Hara said that the applicants would comply with parking requirements. If there was a shortage when they applied for building permit, another variance would be required. The applicants believed there was sufficient spaces. \-. * Mrs. DeSantis spoke, not Mister 6 ;<l7 '-' Mr. DeMars said there were traffic problems at times with trucks parked along the road. Extension of the building could create a blind spot. Mr. O'Hara said there would be no expansion on the Big Boom side and only 6~ feet on the Northway and Corinth sides. Mr. DeMars reiterated concerns with seating capacity and parking. Mr. Behr said the only request before the Board was for a setback variance; the Board was not being asked to address parking. Mr. O'Hara said that there would be no increase in seating capacity. Parking would be displaced, but ample spaces remained. Public Hearing Closed The Board again discussed the plans to determine the exact setbacks proposed. The Wan-en County Planning Board approved without comment. Mr. Muller MOVED APPROVAL of Variance No. 1182 based on the understanding that the lot portion facing the Northway is sideline and not frontage; the setback is adequate. Variance is needed for front setback on Corinth Road; it would be 43~ foot setback for a 6~ foot addition to the building and there would be no adverse impact on the neighborhood. Adequate buffers exist. Mr. Griffin seconded. * Passed Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1185 Michael and Susan Kajdasz Mrs. Goetz read the application from Michael and Susan Kajdasz for an area variance to maintain a fence within 75 feet of Lake George in the LR-1A zone on Seeyle Road. Attorney Michael O'Connor represented the application. He said the applicant was here because of an earlier decision of the Zoning Board ruling that a fence was a structure. The applicant disagreed with this ruling but was now requesting a variance from the 75 foot setback required for structures in the LR-1A zone. The property in question was subdivided in 1975, predating the zoning ordinance. The lots are oddly shaped whereby the Kajdasz house has no privacy because of the Middleton camp in its front yard. The Middleton camp dates from the 50's or earlier; the Kajdasz house was built after the lots were split in 1975. At the time Kajdasz built his house, there were no rules for fences. The applicant asked both the AP A and the buildings department whether there were rules on fences. Both said no. He then began construction of a 6 foot tall wood stockade '-' * Var. 118Z, Mr. Turner abstained due to a conflict of interest. The final vote was 6 yes, 1 abstention (Turner). 7 ~Tg-- "-' fence on his property line,S feet from the Middleton camp. Work was stopped when the Board issued its interpretation. Mr. Kajadsz acted in good faith when construction began on the fence. Mr. Prime asked whether there was anything on record from the APA regarding the lack of rules for fences. Mr. O'Conner said there wasn't. He didn't know who Mr. Kajdasz had talked to at the APA. The date of this contact was at the same time the applicant contacted the building department. Mr. O'Connor said the applicant wanted the fence for privacy and to define his property line. He would forego extending the fence all the way to the lake and would be willing to cut it down to 4 feet on the north side where the Middleton porch is. Mr. O'Conner said that the ordinance had no provision for measuring a fence. The APA measures a fence by determining what portion is visible from the lake. Mr. O'Conner reviewed a plot plan of the building and said that the 6 foot tall back portion was not visible from the lake; only the north facing portion could be seen. Mr. O'Conner said the variance was for the 44 foot long north facing section which would be cut down to 4 feet and the 40 foot long west section which was 6 feet tall and could not be seen from the lake. The APA has approved Lake George's Zoning Ordinance which allows fences up to 4 feet high within 50 feet of the lake. Bolton also allows fences; Hague does not. Ft. Ann doesn't have an AP A approved ordinance. By cutting the north portion down to 4 feet the fence will not block the view from the Middleton porch; the porch is 72 inches above the ground at one end running to 38 inches above the ground a the other end. A four foot tall fence would be below the majority of the porch and 10 inches above the porch friezeboard at one end. Mrs. Goetz asked what good this limited fence was if privacy was the object? Mr. O'Conner said that the fence marked the boundary line. He interpreted the Boards ruling to mean that only fences over 100 square feet within 75 feet of the shoreline were structures. All of the fence is within 75 feet of the shore. The total area is 420 square feet. Mr. O'Conner said there was no provision on how to measure a fence. Mr. Behr wondered how else one could measure a fence except by length times height. Further, towns have leeway in defining fences. Mr. O'Conner submitted sketches showing the existing fence and the proposed fence cut to 4 feet on the north side, and showing the new fences relation to the Middleton porch. Mr. O'Conner noted that Mr. Kajdasz shared a boathouse with the Middleton's located in the Middleton's front yard. Mr. Kajdasz had a Right of Way to reach the boathouse. Mr. Behr said that it appeared to be a spite fence. Mr. O'Conner disagreed, saying again it was to mark the property line. Mr. Kajdasz said that the Building Department told him that fences could be up to 10 feet tall and that fences had been deliberately removed from the ordinances definition of structures. 'L 8 J.I~ --- í L Mr. Muller said that the APA's fence definition was baffling. The Kajdasz fence was an eyesore. Mr. O'Conner again said the purpose of the fence was to define the boundary line. Mr. Behr suggested that a smaller cyclone fence could accomplish the same purpose. Mr. Kajdasz said it would still be the same size; he couldn't see the objection to a cedar fence. Mr. Muller noted that one test for practical difficulty for an area variance was the impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Prime asked whether Mr. O'Conner took issue with defining a fence as a structure. Mr. O'Conner said he did as it was previously deleted from the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Prime asked if it wasn't a structure, what was it? Mr. O'Conner said the town didn't include it in the definition of a structure. Other fences were built in town on property lines. It could be a lawn ornament; it wasn't defined by the ordinance. At one time a fence was included in the definition of structure; now it wasn't. Mr. Behr said that it was removed because of concerns over making fences meet yard setback requirements. Mr. O'Conner said that the setback was the problem here and noted for the record that he had submitted a survey map showing the configuration of the property. Public Hearing Opened: Attorney Malcolm O'Hara represented the Middletons. He said there was no practical difficulty. The Middleton house predated the Kajdasz; the Kajdasz fence blocked the Middleton's view. If the purpose of the fence is to provide privacy, the Middleton's view must be blocked. There are less obtrusive ways to mark the boundary lines, if this is the purpose. Mr. O'Hara submitted an August Z7, 1985 letter from the AP A concerning how fences are measured and noted a petition had been sent to the Board with ZZ signees opposed to the fence. Mr. O'Hara also submitted photos of the fence. Guy Middleton said the fence impacts their view and the property value. All sides of the fence can be seen from the lake. He also noted that after the interpretation had been requested the building inspector had verbally told the Kajdaszs' that the fence might have to be removed. . Linda McCollister, Seelye Road, said she lived north of the Kajdaszs' and was wonied about fencing on the northern property line. She suggested that a more attractive fence could be used to mark the line. Mr. Kajdasz was aware of the complications that could arise when he bought the property. \.......- 9 ;;(~Ù .--. L * Rose Guera, Seelye Road, said she had a chain link fence for her dogs. She submitted a petition with 4 additional names opposed to the variance. Mr. O'Conner asked Mr. Guera how close her fence was to the lake. * Mrs. Guera said her fence went all the way down to the shore and along her dock; on the dock it was a picket fence. * Andrew Kemprel, Seeyle Road, said he was against the fence. Public Hearin~ Closed: Mr. Muller asked whether the fence intercepted the Middleton's septic tank. Mr. Kajdasz said it did not. Mrs. Goetz read letters from Albert and Violet Simidian and Grace Koshgarian, and Mark McCollister opposed to the variance. The WaITen County Planning Board approved with the modification that the fence on the north side be cut down to 4 feet. The 6 feet tall portion on the west side could remain. Mr. Muller MOVED DENIAL of Variance No. 1185. There is substantial testimony that this impacts on the visual scene at the lake. There is concern about access to the house in case of fire; it impacts public facilities. A feasible alternative to denote the property line could be less obtrusive; there are feasible alternatives. Because of the above reasons listed, it has been proven to the Board that there is no practical difficulty. Mr. Turner seconded. Passed Unanimously. Mr. O'Conner requested that at its next meeting the Board interpret whether fences less than 100 square feet with 75 feet of the lake are allowed and interpret how fences are measured. AREA V ARIANCK NO. 1186 Lake Sunnyside Estates, Inc. Mrs. Goetz and Mr. Prime left the meeting at this point. Mr. Turner read. the application form Michael O'Conner for an area variance for lots 1,2, and 3 at Lake Sunnyside Estates on Sunnyside Road in an SR-30 zone. Mr. O'Conner explained that the subdivision dated from 1974 when the zoning requirement was 20,000 square feet; 13 lots were sold, 9 remained. Four houses were now built. Each lot owner also had a 1/22 interest in a common beach lot of about 20,000 square feet. The new zoning in 1982 called for 30,000 square feet in this area. The road was dedicated and power already in. Subdivision lot lines couldn't be arbitrarily changed. L * spelling should be Rose Guerra * spelling should be Campriello 10 ;<~I L The intent was to get a variance on these 3 lots, then make 5 lots out of the remaining 6. One lot would be slightly undersized. The Board was asked whether the common beach area could be considered part of a lot for area requirements. Mr. O'Conner also asked for a variance on lot 14 since it would be very slightly undersized. Mr. Mesinger said that lot 14 would have to go to Warren County as it was within 500 feet of Bay Road; lot 1 was in the same situation. Also, only the Planning Board could change the lot lines in an approved subdivision. The subdivision must go to the Planning Board for overall density review. Lastly, he was unsure whether the beach area could be applied to each lot for area requirements; this would need to be researched. Public Hearin~ Opened: Frank Hardick, QueeIlsbury, said he owned a lot in this subdivision which was 32,100 square feet and wondered if it conformed to area requirements. The Board confirmed that it did. Mr. Hardick said that he was neither for nor against the application. Mr. O'Conner noted the intent was to sell the lots for single family homes. Public Hearing Closed * Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Robert Heintz, Peekskill, asking for more information on the application. Mr. Mesinger said he had tried several time to contact Mr. Heintz without success. Mr. O'Conner agreed to table lot number 1 so that it could be refen-ed to Warren County. A long discussion of lot size and layout followed during which several Board members suggested that because of unusual lot shapes and topography, Mr. O'Conner might want to consider applying for variances on 6 lots while consolidating the other 3 into 2 lots with Planning Board approval. Mr. O'Conner agreed to consider this. Mr. Griffin MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1186 to allow undersized lots numbers 2 and 3 in the subdivision. Practical difficulty is the preexisting subdivision and the prior change in the zoning ordinance. Lot number 1 is tabled. Passed 6 yes, 1 ab~t (Goetz). Mr. Turner then said that staff research indicated that time limits on use variances were valid where there was good course. He recommended rehearing the Quaker Village Development Corporation application because of fears that this could become a permanent manufacturing use in a commercial zone without some time limit. Mr. Turner MOVED the Use Variance No. 1169 be reheard because of new evidence. Mr. Muller seconded. ~ * Mr. Griffin read the letter, Dot Mr. Goetz 11 ~~ L Passed 6 yes, 1 absent (Goetz) Mr. Mesinger said that a Use Variance application for a 60 unit motel at the intersection of Corinth and the Northway had been received. Did the Board wish for the Planning Board to give this Site Plan Review at its December meeting? Mr. Muller MOVED that Use Variance No. 1184 be refen-ed to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review at its December meeting. Mr. Turner seconded. Passed Unanift'Jously. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 12:15 A.M. ~~ Theodore Turner, Chairman Minutes prepared by Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Town Planner G 12