The URL can be used to link to this page

1988-04-27 SP -- QUEERS BURY ZORIRG BOARD OF APPEALS Special Meeting: Wednesday, April 27, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Present: Theodore Turner, Chairman Charles o. Sicard Gustave Behr Susan Goetz, Secretary Daniel Griffin Jeffrey Kelley R. Case Prime, Counsel Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer Absent: Michael Muller Mr. Turner called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. OLD BUS lOSS ROTICE OF APPEAL RO. 1-1988 John W. Caffrey Appeal of Building Permit No. 87-827 of Atlantic Refining and Market- ing Corp. by Meadow Run Development Corp. and Highway Hosts, Inc.. This is an appeal of a canopy that had been erected over its gasoline pumps at 52 Aviation Road which is less than 80 feet from the Aviation Road right of way. Restrictions, covenants and conditions contained in a 1965 agreement and a 1978 stipulation have been violated. A building permit should not have been issued without a Site Plan Review per Section 5.020 of the Zoning Ordinance as the canopy is an acces- sory structure see Section 2.020 of the Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit A). Mrs. Goetz read into the record a letter from John W. Caffrey, Esq., dated February 23, 1988 regarding the appeal on behalf of Meadow Run Development Corp. and Highway Hosts, Inc. (Exhibit B). Mr. Caffrey represented Meadow Run and Highway Hosts. Explaining some background, he stated that over the years the client has tried to maintain his rights not to have the canopy erected, there have been lawsuits. The new owner applied for a permit, the above client was not notified, and the canopy was built. Further, if it is not a permitted accessory use, then Atlantic would need a variance before applying for a Site Plan Review. Anything that is a Site Plan Review use is not supposed to get a Building Permit until after it has been to the Planning Board, and the Board has had a chance to review all the issues (impact, etc.). Anything that 1 '- materially if it is structure. changes a Site the Plan appearance of a site requires a Site Plan Review, Review use, and the canopy is a major accessory Mr. Prime felt he had difficulty ruling out a canopy as an acceptable accessory structure. Whether the ordinance is specific as to list a can- opy, a canopy would be an acceptable accessory use to a service station, in the traditional sense of a service station. He does feel that Mr. Caffrey is correct in that the canopy should have received Site Plan Re- view before a Building Permit was issued. Mr. Caffrey stated that the canopy is 1300 square feet - 46 feet long by 30 feet wide by 14 feet high - not attached to the building. Mr. Matt Jones represented Atlantic Refining and felt that Mr. Caffrey presented two issues: 1) the law suit which is before the Supreme Court, and 2) whether or not the structure (canopy) is an accessory use structure within the regulations which govern the Zoning Board. The Board has to look to whether or not by definition the canopy is an incidental or inte- gral use to the business of a filling station. In support of the argu- ment, the canopy at this particular Atlantic Station serves four separate and distinct funtions which are integral to the business: 1. Safety: There are 28 sprockets which fall from the ceiling of the canopy and are connected to a fire prevention system, 2. Lighting: Lights are mounted into the canopy and serve 24 hour use. 3. Advertising: Has slogan. 4. Pumps: They are separate and dissociated with the actual dispenser of the gasoline. By law, the pumps are below ground and the canopy serves as a mounting structure. Because of the above four reasons, Mr. Jones does not feel the canopy is an incidental use. Mr. Turner clarified the issues before the Board: 1) whether or not the canopy is an accessory use, and 2) whether the canopy required a Site Plan Review. Mr. Jones felt a determination has to be made if the canopy is an incidental use (nature of a car wash, tire store), or is it some- thing integrally connected with the station. If the use is incidental, it is accessory, if it is integral, it is not accessory. Mr. Turner referred to the Zoning Ordinance, 4.020-h, Type II (Exhibit C). Mr. Prime felt that the Zoning Board does not have to revoke the Building Permit, however, they do have the authority to send it to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. 2 Mr. Kelley made a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals' interpreta- tion on Notice of Appeal No. 1-1988 is that I} the Board is interpreting the particular canopy as an accessory use structure, with reference made to Article 2, Section 2.020 a} 2., and it is incidental to the permitted principle use as long as there is a Site Plan Type II Review with the Plan- ning Board; and 2} under Plaza Commercial 4.020-h, public garage or gaso- line station is not listed as a permitted use. However; under Type II of Plaza Commercial, a public garage or gasoline station is permitted with Site Plan Review. It is recommended that this be to sent to the Town Plan- ning Board for that purpose. Seconded by Mr. Griffin. Passed unanimously NEW BUSINESS USE VARIANCE NO. 1344 Louis J. Russell, Sr. Mrs. Goetz read the application for construction of an additional room (12 ft. by 14 ft.) on the side of the garage on French Mt. Drive, north off of Farm to Market Road, RR-3A. It will be used for storage of tools and parts for the boat business (Michael's Marine Service). It will not be heated and will not have electricity. Mr. Louis Russell represented the project and said that there will be no consistent, gradual add-ons to the building. Mrs. Goetz also confirmed that the earlier Variance No. 977, July 17, 1985 (rehearing) did allow boat storage. There was a question as to whether or not Mr. Russell fulfilled the required prior obligation of screening. There were such bills in the file for proof. Mr. Turner acknowledged that the neighbors were very acceptable to Mr. Russell and his project. Public Hearing Openedl no comment Mr. Behr moved APPROVAL of Use Variance No. 1344, Louis J. Russell, Sr., on the basis that it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and is an additional needed facility to store tools. The same reasons apply to this variance as did apply to Variance No. 977, July 1985. All the requirements of the Use Variance were met. The property had been adver- tised as Commercial property by the realtor. Seconded by Mr. Sicard. 3 Passed unaniœous1y SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1345 Creative Dinettes Mrs. Goetz read the proposal for a non-conforming, free-standing sign: 10.8 ft. from the property line, width 3 ft., length 10 ft., height 20 to 24 ft. on the Old Consumer Auto Building, Upper Glen Street, PC-1A. The sign would be 30 square feet (double faced) and would be placed on the existing pole. Mr. Norman A. Gultz represented the project and said that, after tak- ing the signs off the cupola, his business dropped to almost 20\ of what he was doing. For fear of going bankrupt, he put up a wall sign (taken from the cupola) about two weeks ago , which will be taken down. Dan Kane from the Warren County Planning Board suggested a 6 ft. x 5 ft. sign to be placed on the existing pole. The sign would be facing north and south. The reason for requesting the Variance is that the pole is 10.8 feet from the property line (middle of the existing curb) and the setback of the sign is 7.8 feet from the curb. Mr. Gultz explained that he has a problem with trucks loading/unload- ing because the neighboring business, Sav-On Plumbing, was allowed a fence to Route 9, which therefore does not allow a truck to go to the back of the subject building. In regard for safety, he attempts to have the truck- driver park directly in the parking lot. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Warren County Planning Board modified with conditions. They recom- mended an alternative: a rectanglar 30 square foot sign that does not project more than five to six feet from the existing vertical pole. Mr. Behr moved APPROVAL of Sign Variance No. 1345, Creative Dinettes. There is a definite hardship because of the layout of the property as well as the building, plus wishing to use the existing sign pole. The front edge of the sign will be no closer to the curb than fourteen feet. The curb may not be the property line. The dimensions of the sign will be a maxiumum of thirty square feet. Seconded by Mr. Griffin. Passed unanimously. 4 IIII'l'BRPRB'.rA'.rIOII 1110. 40-1988 J. Peter Garvey and Roger G. Hewlett Definition of -Public Garage- - whether a public garage encompasses a business that traditionally does the same kinds of things done at a public garage, but does not have any accessory gasoline facilities. The proposed use is for an automobile body repair and design business. Dennis Phillips, Esq., represented the project. Peter Garvey ex- plained that the proposed building would be made out of the same block as the present Garvey building, the same earthtone colors, would be surround- ed on three sides by a canopy (for parking of cars that are being re- paired). The front will be used for customer parking. The building itself will be set back approximately 80 feet from Quaker Road. Repairs will not be associated with Garvey Volkswagen - the company's name is PSM Auto. The lease for the present PSM Auto has run out, which necessitates the move. All work will be done inside and, as was presented to the Beautification Committee, the outside will have bushes and wild flowers. Mr. Phillips stated that the applicants seek a Site Plan Review. When the application was made to the Building Inspector, the Inspector was not clear on what a public garage was. The applicants feel that the proposed use falls within a definition of a public garage. Mr. Phillips quoted definitions from Robert Anderson's book on 1) New York Zoning Law and Prac- tice and 2) American Law of Zoning. 1) -The public garage is a building other than a private or minor garage, one or more stories in height used for housing, storage or repair of trucks, trailers or automobiles, whether or not accessory or incidental to another use.- 2) -A public garage is a building or portion thereof other than a private or storage garage de- signed or used for equipping, servicing, repairing, hiring, selling or storing motor equipment vehicles.- With the above definitions, an Interpretation is requested that a Use Variance would not be required, but a Site Plan Review of a Type II nature would be required before the Planning Board. Mr. Phillips is seeking a referral to the Planning Board. Further discussed was Article 4.020-j of the Zoning Ordinance, specifi- cally Type II, '1, '13 and '14 (Exhibit C) J and 4.020-h, Type II, '4. (Exhibit D). In this particular area, most public garages are separate from auto body shops, in separate buildings. Mr. Behr summarized that what is being attempted at this meeting is to determine whether or not the public garage and gas station would require a Site Plan Review II, whether Highway Commercial or Plaza Commercial, and whether it would include a repair shop. Mr. Behr feels, since under one 5 '--' category public garage is shown as one item and automobile repair shop as a separate item, that when the Zoning Code was prepared there was no inten- tion to be one or the other, there were two separate types of businesses. Mrs. ARCE. and Goetz moved that Interpretation No. 40-1988 should be by VARI- There is no definition of a pUblic garage in the Zoning Ordinance, there is a distinction in the Zoning Ordinance between public garage gas station and automobile repair shop needed under Site Plan Review. automobile repair shop is not permitted in a Plaza Commercial Zone. or An Seconded by Mr. Sicard. Passed uAaD1.o..1y USE VARIARCE RO. 1349 ~_~1-88 J. Peter Garvey and Roger G. Hewlett Mrs. Goetz read the proposal for automobile body repair and design on Quaker Road, PC-1A. The public garage would be in the appearance of the present Garvey automobile dealership. Mr. Dennis Phillips, Esq., represented the project. On the issue of reasonable return Mr. Roger Hewlett, property owner, expounded on his experience with the people with whom he has been dealing who are inter- ested in the property and how the sales are developing with the changing neighborhood in that particular area. The Barrett's (Hertz) were the first to purchase property on Quaker Road (moved from Dix and Airport Road), the second parcel is the Kingsberg car wash, Garvey is next to the car wash, and the proposed garage repairs is the fourth and seems to fit in with the businesses that are presently established. In the immediate future, there will probably be a proposal by another car dealership who, at this point, has made a deposit for the next 460 feet on Quaker Road, next to Garvey's. In essence, Mr. Hewlett said it seems to be without question that cars are the type of interest in the property. No one has contacted Mr. Hewlett ,about a retail store, grocery, office building, etc.. The first parcel that was sold was 3 1/2 years ago. The five-acre parcel to the west of Barrett (opposite from Garvey) is still vacant. Mr. Hewlett confirmed to Mr. Prime that the service roads are private. There is a loop around the U. S. Government property, which is also private. No subdivision permit from the Planning Board was neces- sary. The zoning is splits Plaza Commercial on the Quaker Road side and Light Industrial on the Dix Avenue side. Regarding the uniqueness and character issues, Mr. Phillips said the entire triangle is two zoness LI and HC. It is unique also in that Quaker 6 "--' Road is high volume, high speed corridor. There are also mixed uses re- lated to heavy uses, rather than retail, Plaza Commercial uses. As far as the subject building affecting the neighborhood, the building is attrac- tive, non-obtrusive and, since the proposed use will be contained entirely within the building, there will be no undue adverse impact on the neighbor- hood. Mr. Hewlett commented on his achieving a reasonable rate of return from the sale to those uses permitted by the Ordinance. The property has been for sale since soon after it was purchased in 1977. Duplex Construc- tion moved there in 1978 and took the back parcel, basically because of the unsightliness of a construction company. On the Dix Avenue side, there is rock, no sewage and no place for heavy industrial. The zoning was changed to Light Industrial, which is in there now. As far as the lots are concerned, they have been sold on the basis of minimum zoning requirements for that particular zoned property. There are those persons desiring an excess of the minimum, therefore, parcels have been sold greater than the required 200 front footage. Mr. Hewlett said he had no idea at that time where the demand would come from for that property, or what the demand would be. What happens after the available 460 feet, he has no idea. Mr. Hewlett said he did not own both sides of Quaker Road. Mr. Garvey confirmed that their would be no excessive repair noise that would affect the neighborhood. Today's society takes a bad part off and puts a new part on and that pounding is held to a minimum. The build- ing is 80 feet from the road and is well insulated. Storage of vehicles to be repaired is on the inside, repaired vehicles will be under the can- opy on the outside. Public Reariag ope.eds no comment Correspondences Warren County approved. approved with recommendations (Exhibit E). Beautification Committee Mr. Griffin moved APPROVAL of Variance 1349, J. Peter Garvey and Roger G. Hewlett. No reasonable return: The property was purchased in 1977 and has been for sale since then. The property has just recently begun to sell. Uniqueness are the types of businesses that have evolved there. The uses are different than Plaza Commercial type uses. No adverse affect on the neighborhood character. Similar businesses are surrounding them. This use will be entirely contained within the building. No storage be- tween the building and the highway. Recommendations of the Beautification Committee will apply. Secoa4eel by Mr.. Goetz. pas.eel uaa.t.oualy. AREA VAltIAIIICB 1110. 1347 7 ---- Peter King Mrs. Goetz read the application to construct an above-ground swimming pool with a deck. The proposed pool is to be situated on the north side of the house, in lieu of the requirement that a pool shall be erected in the rear yard (behind the principal structure on the property). Required setbacks cannot be met, therefore, the applicant is requesting relief from this problem. Peter King represented the project and verified that the above-ground pool is 16 ft. x 32 ft., screened from the road, is located off Eldridge Road and landscaping has been started. Mr. King agreed that the pool could be turned 90 degrees, so that it would be lined up with the rear of the building and be located farther away from Eldridge Road. There would be no problem with the septic system. There is a two-car garage. PUblic hearing opened. No comment. Mr. Kelley moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1347, Peter King, who has shown practical difficulty in that the lot is only 88 ft. x 81 ft. in depth. Because of the shape of the lot, the obvious practical place is in the sideyard, and it can meet all the setback requirements. The applicant has agreed to turn the pool 90 degrees, so the back of the pool lines up with the back of the house and then come forward 16 feet. Seconded by Mr. Sicard. Passed unanimously. AREA VARIAlCE NO. 1348 David Eastwood Mrs. Goetz read the proposal to split an existing lot into two lots at 40 Zenas Drive, UR-10. One lot will be 20,645.22 square feet with a dup- lex. The other lot will be 8,391.64 square feet (for a possible single family dwelling). Mr. David Eastwood represented the project, who confirmed the reason for the Variance request is because of the -T- at the end of the street where the snowplows turn around and is owned by the Town. It is not a cul de sac per se, the turnaround measures 25 ft. x 50 ft. If the street were a pass-through, the lot measuring 8,391.64 would basically be legal. Mrs. Goetz pointed out that, because Mr. Eastwood has continguous property, there could be a conforming-size lot. However, it was noted that there is a barn on the back lot. In order for a dwelling to be built on the front 8 parcel, the applicant wants to keep the properties separate. There is a right-of-way from Dixon Road to get to the parcels in the rear. Mr. Eastwood affirmed his intention to buy the land from James E. Shoemaker and then sell to Sharon Reynolds. He was advised that the zoning is SFR one acre because of the perk soil. Mrs. Goetz questioned why Sharon Reynolds was not applying. Answer I Because she was not aware of the application for the property. Mr. Eastwood said he will buy the property and she will go to the closing and buy the lot. Mr. Prime informed that the Area Variance would go to Shoemaker, because he owns the property. The Variance would be to permit the subdivision and the sale of the substandard lot, and it goes with the property not the owner. Mr. Eastwood confirmed to Mr. Kelley that the future building on the 8,391.64 foot lot could be designed so as to meet the setbacks, etc. How- ever, from a practical standpoint he would like the Board to recognize that, if a normal ranch-style house were to be placed there to fit in with the neighborhood and lined up with the other houses on the street, the 30 foot setback requirement could not be met because the Town has the turn- around. The setback would be met for only part of the property. The re- quest, therefore, is for a variance to allow the minimum setback require- ment from the normal street line, it will be less than minimum from the town jog. Considering the 63 ft. across the end of the property and if a 24 foot house were to be built and considering setbacks of 30 feet in the front and 10 feet in the rear, Mr. Kelley said the structure would be 29 feet in the front which is off one foot from the required amount. Mr. Eastwood stated the proposed house is 26 feet x 48 feet and, if it is lined up with the next door duplex, it does not sit in the neighbor's front yard. The house was staked out to be 10 feet from the proposed property lot line, from the edge of the neighboring garage it would be over 20 feet, and would give a 30 foot front yard (10 feet at the Town turnaround). The Town does pile the snow in the turnaround. Public Bearing Openedl Support I Shawn Garvey, 38 Zenas Drive. Mr. Garvey stated he has lived there for ten years and was one of the first houses on the lot. He would like to see a house in front of the barn, if the duplex had been placed properly the subject lot would have been larger, there are problems with the barn appearance, but these have been discussed with the prospective owner and he has promised to take care of them (better maintenance, siding, painting), the proposed house would improve the neighborhood, the driveway placement would be safer if placed closer to the duplex, which would be more opposite the Garvey house, and the snow dumping would be more in the corner of the unused lot. Mr. Garvey presented a letter from Tim Russio, 55 Zenas Drive, who also sup- ports the proposed subdivision. 9 Rick/Donna Rothsteina Mrs. Rothstein stated their property runs along the stockade fence, next to Warren Clark, runs 100 feet across the front, fronts on the neigh- boring front lawn. The Rothstein's house is situated at the end of Zenas Drive, so they can see directly down the street, they do not like looking at the barn. If the proposed house is put too far forward, they will only see the side, if it is set back far enough, there are no objections be- cause it would be better to look at the house than the barn. Mr. Eastwood said he would clean up the back of the barn, it is the No. 1 factor. The subject lot should have a house on it, it is just a matter of putting it in the right position. The Rothstein's felt it would help the value of the homes that are already in there. Mr. Eastwood verified the barn was used for material storage, scenery, etc. and is insured. Mr. Turner asked Mr. and Mrs. Rothstein if they were in favor or opposed to the proposal, which is to split the property. The lot is undersized, he has to have 10,000 square feet for a house. The home which Mr. Eastwood proposes (26 feet x 48 feet) cannot be put on the lot without a Variance. Mr. and Mrs. Rothstein said they were for the division of the parcel. The decision was made when they were informed that they would have the opportunity to attend another meeting for a Variance, if the 30 foot setback was not met. Joseph DeFoura 63 Zenas Drive (Lot A next to Shoemaker) Has been there five years and the vacant lot has been there since that time, as well as the barn. If the house will increase the property value and beautification and complete the Zenas Drive development, he is for the subdivision. Opposed a Mr. Robert Hanna, 51 Zenas Drive. Mr. Hanna does not want to see undersized lots in the neighborhood, there is an importance to preserving the character of the neighborhood and the lot sizes. There are 51 houses in compliance, including the three duplexes. Mr. Hanna first stated that he had no objection to the subdivi- sion as long as he has an opportunity to return to oppose the Variance to put a house on the 8,391 square feet. However, he retracted his statement and stated he did oppose division of the duplex property, on the basis of the character of the neighborhood. Pu~lic Øeariag Clo..d. Correspondence a Letter from Timothy Russio, 55 Zenas Drive, stating he was for the subdivision. Warren County Board approved. 10 Mr. Kelley was concerned about this Variance meeting the applicable criteria, specifically the practical difficulty with the existing lot. Mr. Eastwood said that the neighborhood feels that a house would be an asset to that particular location and division of the land is necessary in order to build. Mr. Turner asked if the neighborhood would be content to look at a cleaned-up barn, instead of a new home. Mr. Eastwood felt the neighbors would rather look at a house because of the residential appear- ance, even if the barn is fixed up (which he has assured will be done). The uniqueness is the cul de sac for the Town and has limited use. From the practical standpoint, it is a lot, however, if the house is placed properly, it is not a detriment to the community but an asset. Mr. Prime asked if this was a subdivision. Answer a Yes and was filed with the County Clerk. Mr. Prime wondered if this would be an amendment to a filed subdivision map, if it were to be approved. Answer a Yes. Mr. Prime felt that, if this is an amendment to a filed subdivision map, the entire subdivision map has not been presented at this meeting. Addition- ally, if this is a subdivision of an approved lot, it has to go to the Planning Board for revision to the subdivision map, as there is a problem in trying to approve the subject Variance out of the Zoning Board. Mrs. Goetz moved DENIAL of Area Variance No. 1348, David Eastwood, because the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot render a decision of a subdivi- sion because it is a pre-existing, approved subdivision, namely Crest Haven Subdivision, dated August 22, 1978. This should be referred to the Queensbury Town Planning Board. Seconded by Mr. Turner. Passed unant.ously. AREA VARIANCE RO. 1346 George Maggiolo Mrs. Goetz read the proposal for a single family dwelling on Clever- dale Road, LR-1A, in addition to a letter from Audrey Ann Wanamaker, dated March 24, 1988 (on file). Mr. Robert Stewart represented the project. There was considerable discussion at the dais regarding the location of the two lots, docks, roads, etc. which was unintelligible and could not be transcribed. Harry Pulver, neighbor, verified that next to his property there is a lot owned by Kirchoff/Kraft of approximately 120 feet, then there is the first subject lot which has an old original dock, and the next lot has the newer boat house. The property can be reached from Cleverdale Road (2nd left). 11 Mr. Stewart said the lots were created about 1973 when APA had juris- diction. They were legal - 100 feet each, 25,000 square feet, larger than most lots in the Cleverdale area. When the lots were in the control of the Wanamaker family, they were kept in separate ownership to avoid mer- ger. In 1987, Mrs. Wanamaker acquired these parcels in a divorce agree- ment, and two deeds were drawn. After that one of the lots was deeded out to a corporation that she owns, to maintain a separate identity. Present- ly, the owner would like to build on one of the lots, however, there is need for a Variance to approve the size lot. Mr. Prime advised there can be no building permit unless there is 30 feet on a public road, if it is pre-existing. Mr. Stewart mentioned that there is a deeded right of way to the two lots in question, and felt there would be no change in the character of the neighborhood. If they have to be sold as one lot, there would be an enormous financial loss to the family. Mrs. Goetz asked Mr. Stewart if he was aware of tree cutting and APA, that 25 to 27 trees were cut in the Spring within 30 feet of the shore- line, two trees might have been in 1987. She questioned the possibility of a violation. Mr. Stewart was not aware of the fact but assured that he would look into it. P1Iblic Heariag. no comment. Mr. Sicard moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1346, George Maggiolo, subject to whatever the APA has to say regarding reasonable use of the lots. There is no adverse effect on the neighborhood character. Seconded a none. Mr. Kelley moved DENIAL of Area Variance No. 1346, George Maggiolo, as there has not been shown proof of the the practical difficulty other than for monetary reasons. That is not a justifiable reason to change the Zon- ing Ordinance. When the lots were legally joined, it became a conforming lot and should remain that way. Seconded by Mr. Behr. Passed Votesa Yes 5 (Kelley, Turner, Goetz, Griffin, Behr) No I (Sicard) AItBA VARIANCE NO. 1350 Harold Ruecker Mr. Turner announced WITHDRAWAL of the variance. 12 The meeting was adjourned at 1ltOO p.m. Qk~" a~~/4- Theodore Turner, C~airman Minutes transcribed by Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer 13 ARTICLE 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS > "n__ _...~.___...~_"....._...__,,________~.__ .'- "--'~-'~" ---:-r ---_._-~------_._. J Section 2.020 Definitions. ..: a) As used in this Ordinance, or in the Appendices thereto, unless the context otherwise requires: I I 1 1. "Accessory Use" means any use of a structure, lot or portiQn thereof, that is customarily incidental and subordinate ~o qnd dòes not change th~ char~cter of a principal land use or development, 1nclud1ng the case of residential structures, professional and artisan activities carried on by the residents of such structures. See Section 4.040 (d). . . . Amend. 6/83 2. "Accessory Use Structure" means any building or structur affixed to land or a por~ion of a main structure or any movable structure in excess of 100 square feet that is located within a required shoreline setback, and is incidental and subordinate to and associated with a per- mitted principal use. ARTICLE 5 USES PERMITTED BY SITE PLAN REVIFW .__,_",_~,_" _,...__._~_._.___....__.n". ._""'...._." --_...,-,.__._,-_._--~~--_...-----,_..__...__.-~...~-- . ~ection 5.020 Applicability of Article. A land use or development involving a use listed as a site plan review use in Article 4 or Article 7 hereof shall not be undertaken unless and until the planning Board has approved or approved with con- ditions such use, and the Zoning Administrator has issued a permit tor such land use or development pursuant to the terms of Article 12 hereof. Type I uses are applicable to Article 5 as well, except that if such projects are located within the Adirondack Park they also require a permit from the Adirondack Park Agency as a Class A project. The Adiron- dack Park Agency has jurisdiction only within those portions of the Town within the Adirondack Park. EXHIBIT A .------- ~ A I:'íhc C: .é /:. () ,~¡ ;./L :,.:~ L- /£ I 01 A/¿J. .1- Jtj¡rE( RICH"'''D J. S"'RTLETT PAUL E. PONTII''' fl08EAT S. STEWART ALAN fl. R"ODt.:S H. W...YljE JUDGE RaBun S. McMILLEN PHIL.P C. MclNTtHE UR'í TELEPttON E III III' 782-2117 ~.A~:W~'E~~:O;~:~"Q~l"?~~r;~OF a¥;~ENS~~®ûELECOPIER Cila. 71i12-3308 MALCOLM B. O'H...R'" Ð U1,\1 { ~ ~ BERTR"'M J. DUBE f.. THOMAS A. ULASI:WIC" ~B PATRIC'''' E. WATKIN5 ~t:'B 2'11 JOHN W. C...,'RY r 'J;) /' GAleY C. H""lIb ,_ ~ ~ebruary 23, 1988 M...RK E. CE""'S.o.NO PL.ANNING,. ON'N MONICA A. KOW...Lt;W5KI DEPARTMENT SUSAN E. DI:C:;KER BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART, RHODES 8c JUDGE, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONI: W...SHINGTON STlU:ET HUDSON F"'LLS O",..ICE ---.-.-----..--- 167 MAIN $TRI:ET HUDSON FALLS, NI:WVOHK 12839 (518) 747-3224 p, 0. Box 380 GL.ENS FAL.L.S, NEW YORK 12001-0380 LAKI: PLACID O",..ICE __.__._..__ø_,___. 8''':WSTI:R PLACE 51-53 M...'N STR£ET LAKI: PLACID, New YOHK 12946 (5181523-9772 AL,.RED D. CLARK .'1;08-19661 H. GLEN CA""RY (1"2"-1~15. Hand Delivered ALEXANDI:R P. ROBI:RTSON COUNSEL, Ru. Mr. Ted Turner, Chairman Queensbury zoning Board of Appeals Bay and Haviland Roads GlanD F~lls, NY 12801 Re: Appeal of Building Permit of Atlantic Refining and Marketing Corp. by Meadow Run Development Corþ. and Highway Hosts. Inc. Dear Mr. Turner: This law firm represents Meadow Run Development Corp. and Highway Hosts, Inc. These companies own and operate the Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge on Aviation Road in the Town of Queensbury. On behalf of them, we hereby appeal the issuance of building permit No. 87-827 to Atlantic Refining and Marketing Corp. (Atlantic) for the construction of a c;1nopy structure on property adjacent to the Howard Johnson's property. I have been told by Mack Dean that there is no official form for such an appeal and that a letter would suffice. This appeal is made pursuant to section 12.010 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. . J~ ~he building ?ermit should not have beßn issued without site p.la..DJe\ci.~,-~ Atlantic operates a gas station and mini lnarket at 52 Aviation Road, which is in a Plaza-Commercial l-Acre zone. Gas stations may. only be operated in this zone after approval of a site plan (Schedule 4.020-h). section 5.020 provides that no land use or dt~veloprnent "IL:;ted as a site plan review use in Article 4" shall be . undertaken !!li tb..9Jlt. sitfLplan review. Land use or development is defined as any construction that materially changes the appearance of 1and or a str~cture (Section 2.020). This definition clearly includes modifications of existing uses. The 6anopy is over 1300 square feet in arüa and stands approximately 20 feet high. It materially changes the appearance of the site. It has impacted our clients by blocking motorists' view of their business. Given the recent effort by the Town to reduce visual clutter by strict enforcement of the sign ordinancp., .it would be inconsistent to allow this structure to be built without requiring site plan review. EXHIBIT B1 -' Mr. Ted Turner -2- February 23, 1988 Also according to Schedule 4.020-h "construction of minor facilities accessory or appurtenant to existing facilities" in the PC-1A Zone requires site plan review. section 12.071(c) requires site plan review before issuance of a building permit. No site plan review of this accessory structure was undertaken and the building permit is therefore void. IT. The canopy is not a permitted accessory structure i.n t:he PC-1A zone. Only those structures which are listed as permitted accessories may be built in any zone. A canopy, is an accessory structure as defined in section 2.020 of the zoning ordinance. The definition of structure specifically mentions canopies as among the examples and even without that, a canopy is clearly a' structure. However, canopies are not specifically listed as permitted accessories in this zone and are therefore prohibited. III. The canopy violates a restrictive covenant and a stipul~tion beteween the r.arties' predecessors. In 1965 Charles R. Wood, the predecessor in title to our clients, entered into a re- strictive covenant with the predecessor of Atlantic prohibiting the building of any structure such as this canopy within 80 feet of Aviation Road. The present canopy is only 55 feet from the road. In 1977 Atlantic's predecessor applied for and received a variance, (#500) to construct such a canopy closer than the allowed setback. That var- iance was annulled by the Court in an Article 78 proceeding brought by Mr. Wood. At the same time a civil action was begun to enforce the covenant. That resulted in an injunction and then a stipulation whereby it was agreed that no canopy would be built within 80 feet of the road. since the construction of the present canopy, our clients have begun a new civil suit to enforce the covenant and stipulation. A copy of the summons and complaint are enclosed to more fully explain this issue. A building permit should not have been issued for a structure that would violate these agreements. IV. We request that the Board declare the building permit to be void because site plan review was not obtained, because a canopy is not a permitted accessory use in this zone and because of the viola- tion of the agreenlents. Upon revocation we request that Atlantic be ordered to remove'the canopy. Please put this matter on the agenda for the Zoning Board of Appeals March 16th meeting. JWC:ac Si7~LI(jt/ý JOh¡ w. caf/'rY cc: Mr. Charles R. Wood EXHIBIT B2 I( t ... t U A ~I R II . ~'í: '1:1 ~.,;;: ~ 1111.... .., ~ II .. .S . ñ II :'I !!/ I. t.~ 5 ~ i8.t·~ IIIWlð,~ =:Uþ\ H u·.. I: .., u....·.. IC .... n. II .. u¡ ~ .:tJJ :¡'211'" ...... II' s.~:i·a u" fit 3'~", ~ 1~4IØ, ¿ '" ~ ~ _... t~ IIIH.cO II 0 O'<i R U 41 a:JlIJ! . "'.....c f"4''¡ .. III 0 .. IC .. II ... ·....H..4I II U .. ... ... .. ,... ~ ø S t7I a ! ~ H l ot:~~ ... 0 0 .. II .... .... c: N :0 .... R III " II II ::I... ....'0 H II. ~'U.. f"4 .. I' '" . id II ...... ;.¡r. '& ~I IJ· t7I \/I... r' ~ H '2 .~ p.MI·~~~ ø:~;d...~ ~ H U I¥ ~ ). o U I( N :s ø. ,¡:: I o N o .c III . ... " ... III . II ~~A~ t: ~~ H ".....~ 8 00 ... .. " .... . II i1":~:: ... III 0 .... 0 ~ I. ~g ....... ...' 0 "'.... .x"'o~ 0" . ....."'111 ... . .... Ø,III 0 )::1 0 00 .. ..0 .. H"ON U ¡: , "a"'o;;: ~ "'1: =¿ ~.~ o .. ., ,...... 0r1 . I: 41'0.... 0.!;:d1: 2 .. '0 ... '" II .. .c II .... 0.<; II :> I: .. ... .... ¡(II .. .. ..... kO o(f¡..,2'j ) II k "0"''08. >0...,," ..... kO ...."H'<ik III 8::1Ø, i5~...2'k C....kO .. -- ~¡ ....... !:!~-¡; ... III 7:blll sJlII.... ~t)- J. S=!j e¡~~ ø.§kJ i: È 'f!¡ ä 1'1 I~ ~~ >0111 ~41 ~~ !:loa'; .......... 111'1:1 ... c: ~ ~ ... ~~: ~ Z H ~~o( . o '" ~ o 1'1 . o '" . o o 1'1 f"4 ~ ~ t: ~ ... III t ~ III tI ~ ~ o : = ø. '<i.... ... 4141111 '<i ... ...... . ~ì1.t' ",,0: "''''' WI t7I t7I .. .~ .~ " '1:1,1( (j, ~~'<i ;:tø.lII ~ ... ~ Po . . . "'1'1'" . 13 III P III .. III II I: U WI ........ . ~ t , A.... "'.. ... I: '<i"'" :J~J! III 0 '" kit.... .. k....'I:I 0;;: ~ f¡ :l Š ... '" k..... 011.... ~ ... ~ !oJ Po ..... ~ 1 . ... ~ .~....: !! .c '1:1 fOI .. tJ-":;':.s ...tI'25... Ø,"H'OfOI ., 'tJ .,.. .... .... ~ III 2.; tJ .III~Þ;; .. .Þ\'O 00 . c ¡: '"''''A'¡'¡... . M M H . 0 ßt' ~ >. ~: ~ fOI U I pofO .... " ø.":?I:~ ~""""'OH'" ~ .~ .g.'j :: 8 1......·.......110 ........ ... ... :f- pof U '" I:: .... II U ;:U....·...llk ,,':: Þ\:9'~ 0'" IIIH.~lí.'Ö:ti !2~t:..=~~ s'it b>~'" 5' lI.3k..: ~ogOt& tc.....~1.4I "'0"'1:.. ... 1:';1~'<i8.~O;;:ã III U R CI .... ø:~:l",u~i1 .t:~~;:r5 ... c: no 0 æ I:! .. '<i 0 ø, U 0... IIIU".c: UÞ. ~ .. .... pofN ....."'1£) . ... 101 e '0 pof .. ~ ~ ~ t71.. II .9 14 0 .. ~ õ ~:ao "ö~ .....'" . .~'2~ e~: ~~~~¡ .se~ B...... II ... ... :0. III "'.. HO"..... ~o.~ 0 '<iU'O ...'" z:;~;::... ::::~~ HNø,1JO ... U ... .. III 110' U " III '1:1 H .. '::0) "HIIIO>''' pofll :8"~>.5~ pof U ........ pof ........ .u.... "'01: ¡: 0't; ~~ ..c.8"~ I: I: ::I ~ II '" U ) ~ ... 03~"H>S~Þ\ Z '<i" ""8 bo)!i ¡ H =~oø,o..... .!!'¡f kU'I:I'" .01:!:I..... I ... R t::.... 0 Õ R 1:"'::10 .·..uO' o"~""""4I"'OU'I:I I: ... 0 ow U c pof 01 ".>." "''2'" ~3..."'g'Þ'H5:::pof 0...'2 .... 00·.. '" 0 '<i ",I( c: '<i III 1:.. 0,1( "''<iH OUIC O>.IIOHO"'U"'"... II '<i'c. ,;!,ou..t::1]o .... tø,::Ig ~.~"'~ ~~t' e~!~!gß.~~] .¡r.8';': ~ N pof ø,~ '" ~ ~ III : ~ I: >. 8.3.1114.' 8.¡.Q Ö';~"ó~OIllt1'5.~ lllpof H~ P. CI ... H oJ! ..... c.~ "'... >." ,Q{1 . . '1:1 " III II ~ ::I '0 ... ... 0 Þ\>.r: !is: ... Do !:I .:: .- :J IC . U pof II -. ~c:.8 .. '<i ... ..i . 1'1 . '"' II .... k to III I go,_ .3 ~ :I ~ ¡:: ~ 8 I :: >. ~ ~ 1110) " ~ "'0 ...."'g, "Upof 0 C ... II ~ 1110 ~1II~"'.3t::.. .... >.111 III 0( E" UH~" III~ ~ , k ... ~P; §.3 kill "'0 .. r; 111111 .. '" 100(·..... §:;tt H ~.O;;:"'."i'III.:;;i:'''':::1I1II .. 1111....:. ..111.<;1110........... "'" II UII 0 ¡:; H ... '0 ... OoA ø,.. H'<i'" H...... 14... " >........ '<i ..S:Jk..S!~.s.5lS~I::ß'itø,8.~~"ß::~ ... fllllll~l~¡IIIUIIIZ:~III~&lIIe~~~o ~ ,..t h"". . . . 0..... N "" . .-4.......... ..... ..... . . '" . '" ,.: ai å- EXHIBIT C WI II ~ ... o ;1 ... .. III i:' o '" .. U o ~ k o ... ... .-: .... 1'1... IDO I ...... J-c o III'" þ" ... u .... UIII .. "'" ....11 101111 ....... .'0 ~ ~ ) II ... WI > 8' :. ... '0 .... ... .i .... 5 .... ... II .~ :::, III 101 III Po ~r: ~:s \ ' , 1II!r! \ , f.~ ~ ~ d u >. ri hI " H þ on 6 "I 0 . .. r-, t ~~ !;IH... ~a~ å to ~i; .. .R ~>. ~~ "'.... ... t:: '" .0'4 " ... 104 i " 1.1 ° ~:I 8. ~~. n t:: .. ~ "lit 1.1 a. . ., .. 0 g c.> ..'0.... ,"I .~"'0'4 gg~ ~ .. t ~ !II Of' ~ ~b ".'. = VI 110 " ,. " ~ '8 , VI .g ~~ .~i " .' 'I 0;1 ... !II ~ ... I: ; 18'9 B ~ -:; r.'t= ~ III ~~ ÞI'S.... :i 'j( no 'IJ .. 01 '" '" "0-.4 ~~ "'-~ roI'C ¡¡;n...ø f;j ~ -0'4 t:: '" ... ... " '" 14 III . ......... ''''-.40 ' " O'OO~~ M.5 ..'" ,~ ~ õ"'~;'i'8 - "~ '" "I III >'''''OH lII~ä-. '" ~. H' ~~"~ ìIj ÞI ß::t ~ ~ ~ poj'211 tL ~ g å .. '" III ... J: ... .... Po . t.oOlO4poj .....0:;3 Õ ¡ :: ) . ,IC '0 ~ . '5:: 0 ~ u >. = ~!~ "I Po ... >'111 " ,IC 1" It ~ . III 1.1 ~~¿ III ... ... os . ·r;: ~ ::= g ß t " . ~ ~~ ... ), . ~. I;~ -.4 .c .:¡ . ë 2011 ~... 0 ] ~,Q" t 8 I~f,~~ iñ ~ ~a -.4 i!:)3, ~ ... :a .~'t1a '" : ) N i ..o~ "'....".... o .. .. 1.1 ...104""" o;a ''O~I' "Þ:~....B ~1II"'8ul 0...... >. .go..... '5", . '" A "''''\11 .~Sui ~;; ~ a,o . "=,O...,IC ~~"'o~ 1.1..... .Po 0!2":,IC ~ OI/lU .0'4 III '2~.~g'8 01'" '0 "I 0 ~BlI...~ g.... t:: ~:i u...c:o ¡~ ';j~ ,,~otÍ~'5 ~'i;lI~ .c .-'U u . llpojä"104 ::I -... · 2 . ~~...~,,= 'O'4oo"'~~ §!..:1cpoj '..:::";~ ~. ~.. 2.~. ,..'Og~-~~ III roI 0 .. 0.2. ~ =,. o~' a ~:!:.! Mo.. ~ j.» I:! a '" t! ... M III '" >0 ~ .8 II! III t:: " ~ " 1.1 " = 13 = .&¡:; ~ . "'.... ... "'"~ DI~E~" t;'0'4 ... 0 a .., ... .... ]...,IC.., C d t: ~~~.~~ ... .........1111/1 ,¿ W . . ,.; '" ... "I 13 1/1 :;) ~ ¡ ... EXHIBIT D . . .... ... .... .... ! .~ '2 t 104 ~ .~~ t ~ i C;.., t ~ ~ ~ e: 4ft" . :. ,I s; ... fi ~:ñ -:1 It' t~ ~~ ~ ... ,,- .... :I .. "I :. 'U OIl I' :I àI: r: in~: ~ '" ~= ~~ - 1 ~.~ .. .............. . ... .~ ra.~~'¡.:¡.. t.~~ .... 0:-- ·,f" -.... II . . ° 4ft o.~.. U .. oil ::..ws"..~ 0 .!} ; ~~.~U~~> ~ 1~~ .. II. ~. 0 .:: .~ ~ ¡:;.... ~ 0 g' .. ~ t: : ° ~r.Orol"'·0'4·"¡:o.IIo" .....a....~ ",b~~...;~B4ftD ~ :~~~M~~ · .. ¡:; ..... .' '2 " '0'4 ;J.'" ~ . It S i~~~8"'~Ñ~~~~ t::~ .ä. ~ t: 00'4 e e - :,> .. .. ... . u .~ · f v J :. t:: ~ ~ :: .~ ~ o' IJI ~ :: .8 ~ ~ . ~::: ~ '! ·"¡.~;J~"JePo, ~......u..... ~t,~~::~~o~~~~~"a"" "'>"I04~""'~"'II>"'pojPo 00'" D~;J~~UO.....~~..>O~...! ~~~8;.~~ß~;~~B&~~~1 ~ ~ 0 '0'4 4ft 104'" o .., t.~ . . . . . . . "'1'11'1"''''.0''' .·ô ..4 (~,.;..,; CD, ~~ ....,........... " . ... 1.1 '" .. ...¡ " . .0'4 U ....elll "1.1 ... ...~:. ':1\1 ':a o.:¡..·~....!: III '110 poj'ODI". c::..t::'ili II~o. ..... IIID O....O...~ ~~Ã... g]~~~"'~~f~~u IS .O~·;: ;{U~~ ....:1 a: ...tl.IIIDII.~""'~~. "'... ...~,,~.~~ :~...~~..a,~. ""¡:;,,"o...l~u,,,~...~..roI c: :~;~=~~~~~~~~oO'4~~~ß ., .. . .'" ,,>. ... . ). c: ... QU ()IIIO~. i II ~ fI... >.0~....'U .. ...O"':JlõO·0'4. o~ O..roI.«t~...ß" '" ",,,,.3., 0....2 ..~ "'''I;et:.\(UllIotJ ti~ ~IIIDl8~.ß''''1I III' .. ...'i.~ >0110 ...;'2 ~.::':8~~;::'¡J:-~ ... ~ .:J "J ;: ~ G :I ~ :1 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ¡1 1II.c ~ l~ ~''2 >. g iï &It: ~.~ ..J ~~~~ ~ ....ce.. ....... ~t~gOl).~~~~U~ ~ 00... .~.. =..... ...'8:::..;0 g ~..'2 >o~~ ~ g ;... ,j '¡1 III 0 5 ~.8 . .. 0...1.101'0 .... "'OIg ."'~.~>o~.:J ß...o8''''......c.... ~... '0'40.'0'41110 "'UC::'¡I.. CI .. 0,1( "'~''''O ~ ,g ..A':g ~g'" 0 ):¡:;-;:l!S''¡ ~R'a,:J 'PoO¥'O >0:1 t::~ Of' U.:¡...N .õ1)'c;;:: PorL...l!c; ß>~.a::....A:lO...A:I"'>.~o....a:: "''6~~O...pojPo:'¡1~. ....: g t .. .. ~'~ ~ 0 J! t ~ ~ U"4"D U'U.c:~a,~....~.. .. .0'4 ... 00'4 ... .... U III ... ... 11\ '0'4 ... c: . ~ . .. I c: g ... ° . ... . "I . ... Ñ ";..ñ .D ~ a)"; TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMM¡TTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue 'Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 To I (x~ ¡'Warren County Planning Board Date I 4/8/88 ( ) Queensbury Town Planning Board (x) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Applicant ReI Interpretation #40-1988 & Use Variance # 1349 J. Peter Garvey and Roger G. Hewlett Quaker Road We have reviewed the request forltx) Variance, ( ) Site Plan Review, (X) Other - and have the following recommendations I (X) APproval ( ) Disapproval Plans were presented to erect a 100' x100' auto body repair shop on Quaker Road on property of Duplex Construction Company with ~ canopy under which all cars are to be placed. Between the front property line and the paved inner driveway wild flowers are to be sown and on the three sides of the wrap-around driveway toward the property borders. Along the front edge of the driveway plants are to be placed in an uneven planting pattern consisting of apreading yews and accent plants, such as burning bush (corkbark euonymous) which plants will be lwo-growing types. This should be a unique and picturesque site. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve: 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and tree.s shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~pe~~~lY s~bm~~ted, . . ,,.¿:::? ¿--l .{!-"~¡ i, ¡J:c t. cLI '-Robert L. Eddy, ChaJ.nnan('! EXHIBIT E '---... ---.-.....- -- 3/2.'-/ /38' f..O. ß~ z..rt ....- ~~I /1.'8' ~ l-i'~ I· ~ ~cp~. 14 Ä~~'/.1' ~ /!:7 ~~/d CPtA-U~1 'ï1'd./~1 ~ ~{cf Ý/W h~.6RA.µ: ðk 1973/ 7NÑ....~~ ìI...,....dJ..Li;_ -¡~~~ ~ ~ ~,~ /0-/- '/.'/ ¿%.~ >nv. "-:k-L? Z/a-,. /.,1-. ~~ ~~ ¿t.. ~'k/o-i-'Á.a1J~~' ~~ Jr:;;<<,4ft· ' . , Çk. /9ìS- R ~ ~u«1 ~7 ~ J¡~ ~ _!t,~~¡- 00/7 Va-. ,fl. )VA-K.A..,-.~~-<YV' ~' ~ ~ Þ-Cu ~ ~ A.oC..- Þd¿J. ~ ~ ~ ~PI /s-¡tW4/ 7" #'u. ~ ~~ ~ .;15;000 ~ It:,. ~ ~ ~ WY:AJI..,,'~ ~ ?~ {f ~ ~.~.~~~~~ ,fk..~ w-eA..& t.~ ~ ():;J;.;u:.l '~. , ~ f9cf7 ~.ß-tö ~ ~ :~ d~ , (J..- -~t ~ ~ -C;; . ~~, t ~ ~.tt /0 -1- </.". :l -¡;-~<I ~ -,;- w~ -/;-v.>t ~~. tl ¿)- +-e- ~ ~, ~ ..Æc-Z' ~ . A , ...., ,-."_ A "'-'-'- r.oj), ~ ~ -V~-pZ;";...J ~ ~~~~~,~' ~~~-' ~á/ ~ 7~/~ r- ~ ~ 97 EXHIBIT F