Loading...
1989-02-22 '--- INDEX ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 22, 1989 APPLICANT PAGE Area Variance No. 18-1989 Steve & Sandra Ingraham 1. Area Variance No. 19-1989 Jerry & Kezia Howe 3. Area Variance No. 20-1989 Dr. Shimon Shalit MaIka Shalit 6. Area Variance No. 21-1989 Sears Roebuck & Co., Donald Brown 9. Area Variance No. 22-1989 Marilyn J. VanDyke 11. ------ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22,1989 7:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER-CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ-SECRETARY CHARLES O. SICARD DANIEL S. GRIFFIN JEFFREY L. KELLEY ,JOYCE EGGLESTON JOHN GORALSKI-PLANNER PAT COLLARD-ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ABSENT MICHAEL MULLER PAUL DUSEK-TOWN ATTORNEY LEE A. YORK-SENIOR PLANNER DA VID HA TIN-DIRECTOR BUILDING AND CODES NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1989 STEVE AND SANDRA INGRAHAM FLEETW A Y CONSTRUCTION CO. KNOPKA CONSTRUCTION CO. WEST END OF SWEET ROAD, 300 FT. EAST FROM MONTRA Y ROAD ON SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE F AMIL Y HOME. REQUESTING AN AREA VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE SETBACK: 15 FT. FOR BOTH SIDES TAX MAP NO. 71-3-10 SECTION 4.020-h LOT SIZE: 20,880 SQ. FT. BRUCE KNOPKA OWNER OF KNOPKA CONSTRUCTION MR. TURNER-Questioned the size of the lot? BRUCE KNOPKA-240 ft. by 87 ft. The house is going to be 57 by 36 - 28 feet on one side. The 104 measurement is from the 28 feet. It it 92 feet back from the garage, 100 feet back from the house. JEFFREY KELLEY-Asked Mr. Knopka for plans of the house. BRUCE KNOPKA-(Showed blue prints of house to Board). MR. TURNER-My only thought was that you could turn the house the other way. BRUCE KNOPKA-For resale value it wouldn't be possible for us. The Town of Queensbury owns property next door so the people would be riding down through there and if you wanted to do something to clean it up you would have to back to the Town of Queensbury because you have a 50 foot right-of-way through there. MR. TURNER-Your not going to have much excess to the back yard. BRUCE KNOPKA-To build an affordable house you have to have at least 57 feet with a two car garage. I am not going to sell a house without a two car garage it won't sell, the lot is small. SUE GOETZ-It won't sell with a one car garage? BRUCE KNOPKA-No. Most people want a two car garage and besides if I don't put a two car garage on it cuts off from the family room, the family room is behind the two car garage. All I want to do it dress up Sweet Road. JEFFREY KELLEY-I have a questioned about when you say the Town of Queensbury owns property...Are you asking for 15 feet from the side of this house to your property line? BRUCE KNOPKA-No. I just want to change the setbacks from 20 feet to 15 feet. '-"""- -2 JEFFREY KELLEY-The edge of your house is 15 feet from your property line? BRUCE KNOPKA-Right. JEFFREY KELLEY-The Town right-of-way is beyond that? BRUCE KNOPKA-No. At 87 feet the Town owns... JEFFREY KELLEY-What is the size of the piece of property the Town owns? BRUCE KNOPKA-The Town has either 15 or 30 ft. of right-of-way. JEFFREY KELLEY-In addition to your 15 feet? BRUCE KNOPKA-No. Their right-of-way goes back to the cemetery, they didn't want to put an access road back into the cemetery. If they ever did that and I did put a house right there I don't think the people would enjoy the cars going up and down. MR. TURNER-Who used to own the trailer? BRUCE KNOPKA-The Ingraham's. JOYCE EGGLESTON-The 15 foot right-of-way goes right along the side of the house? BRUCE KNOPKA-What I'm really asking for is twenty. (Explained to Board where his property line is and Town of Queensbury's by referring to the blue prints) DANIEL GRIFFIN-Is there a mobile home on the west side of this? BRUCE KNOPKA-Yes. There is also a mobile home park up on the corner of Montray Road. DANIEL GRIFFIN-Did you consider sighting the house in different positions? BRUCE KNOPKA-No. We tried to look at the resale value of putting it sideways and its not beneficial to us. We are in the process of buying the property, if I put the house sideways then the people who would live in the house would be looking at a run-down trailer and I don't think their going to buy it. SUE GOETZ-You think that trailer will affect the selling of the house? BRUCE KNOPKA-Of course it will. If you were buying a beautiful house and you had a trailer that was built in 1957, as you go up Sweet Road, its an old grey trailer sitting there,and if you were going to have this house built and if you looked out your back kitchen window you would be looking at this trailer would you buy it? That's what I'm saying that's why I would like to face the house the way I have it drawn in the plans. The house would be away from it and they would have a beautiful back yard the other way they would have no backyard. JOYCE EGGLESTON-What ever you build you plan to resell? BRUCE KNOPKA-Right, pending on the Variance and whether the trailer stays there. MR. TURNER-What your saying is that if we don't approve it the option to buy the property is dead. BRUCE KNOPKA-Its no good for me. JEFFREY KELLEY-My other comment would be is that there are other house plans. You have a 87 foot wide usable space and the design is for 57 foot wide. BRUCE KNOPKA-We have a tentative buyer that wants this house that's why we designed it this way. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Whatever you build there is going to have window space towards the trailer that's not going to go away. BRUCE KNOPKA-I'm not going to say its not going to go away, what I am going to say is that the Hoyt's might sell the property later on. JEFFREY KELLEY-What's the square footage of the house of the living space? BRUCE KNOPKA-(Didn't have those plans with him) maybe 17.00 not exactly sure. ~----- JEFFREY KELLEY-He has come up with a design I think seems to be squashed down. DANIEL GRIFFIN-I don't think if you put it sideways on the lot it would be the solution, or turning it around. JEFFREY KELLEY-In theory what were asking according to the Zoning Ordinances is if you build a house it can't be more 87 feet wide in this particular lot. That's pretty restrictive. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Considering the setback would you have room for the septic in the back considering the setback from the road? JEFFREY KELLEY-Your only looking at 21 feet difference and the septic only goes out maybe 30 feet and then you have leach fields in the back yard which is 100 feet or more. I wouldn't recommend turning the house sideways. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO FURTHER COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes on File, from John Goralski, Planner MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE MO. 18-1989, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Applicant shows practical difficulty. This is a 87 foot wide preexisting nonconforming lot. The previous Ordinance allowed for a 15 foot setback the new Ordinance requires 20 feet each side. The Variance will be 5 feet on each side. The proposed plan is for a 57 foot wide single family home within the 57 feet it will encompass a two car garage we think an attempt has been made to provide as much house as possible by proposing a 57 foot wide house. This is not detrimental to the Ordinance or neighborhood the house will replace an existing condemned mobile home it will bea neighborhood improvement. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1989 JERRY AND KEZIA HOWE WEST SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD, i MILE SOUTH OF ONEIDA CORNERS FOR A ROAD FRONTAGE VARIANCE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 54-3-3 SECTION 4.050 to 4.053 LOT SIZE: 5.12 ACRES AGENT MARK BOMBARD, D. L. DICKINSON REPRESENTING JERRY AND KEIZA HOWE/MOTHER AND FATHER-IN-LAW MARK BOMBARD-The Ordinance as stated has doubled the lot width on those streets to try to eliminate I would imagine the number of curb cuts entering onto a major road. The Howe's would like to remove this part of land (plans shown to the Board) it doesn't seems to be important there not hurting for money they have an opportunity to sell each of the lots as they stand. They explained to the Board that the new Ordinance as of October 1st requires that you have to go to Planning Board for any subdivision prior to that all that was necessary that you write a deed and file them. It would have been all right but we waited to long and got caught by the new Ordinance. We were approved under Warren County Planning. I have letters and highway entrance permits from the State which they came an reviewed it and saw no problems with site distance or entrance or exits. They do recommend that you try to cut the problem of the amount of curb cuts down and they require you to move the driveways, they will be separate driveways but they will be merged together at the common property line. There will be two entrances but they will be side by side so that will be one curb cut the other will be twice the width. Any road frontage that you try to subdivide has to be twice the lot width. If it was in a zone which was a 100 foot road frontage you would have to double it, this happens to be a 150 road frontage you have to double it which is 300 feet, we originally asked for the subdivided lots to be 164 feet we only have a total of 300 feet which would create only one lot on the road. This would amount to a substantial sum of money if you only have one lot. - 4 MR. TURNER-Is this piece of property that was in question a while ago about subdivision of duplex's that were suppose to go in there? MARK BOMBARD-Yes. There was a very large public against it, I was one of them against it. They have contracts on both lots one and two pending approval through here and the Planning Board approval goes next for single family dwellings. MR. TURNER-You have one right-of-way. . . MARK BOMBARD-That goes to my private home and the access for that is specifically for Jerry and Keiza Howe to get to the other back parcel its not to be deeded any further or any less. Its authorized by my wife and I. MR. KELLEY-In the back of the two lots would it be lots one and two proposed or does it look... MARK BOMBARD-These lots are broke up as tax maps numbers in the deed. They own this whole parcel (referring to the map) and there is just separate deeds and tax maps and this is one lot that just happens to be shown in a particular form. Actually it will under the Planning Department a three lot subdivision. This one will be combined with this lot and create a road frontage off of Rockwell Road. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MAP SHOWN TO BOARD JERRY BECKWITH-I live four homes down from the subject land, I didn't really understand what was going on until tonight actually what they were proposing here, I had the basic idea that this is what is was. My objections are that all the other homes in that area, all the immediate neighbors all have large lots. His home and his parents home they have two lovely homes there, they are out away from Ridge Road in a confined area where they have a lot of privacy. Like I say I live four homes down, I like my large lot, I like the character of the neighborhood, and I feel that this greatly alters the character of the neighborhood that's my objection. Thank you. SUE GOETZ-Do you live to the south Mr. Beckwith? JERRY BECKWITH-Yes to the south. MR. TURNER-On the same side of the road? JERRY BECKWITH-Yes sir. ELIZABETH MILLER-I live with my husband on the lot next door. Brought letter from Mrs. Wilcox, handed it to the Board. My husband and I are both opposed to it, basically for the same reasons as Mr. Beckwith is. I can't understand why instead of separating this (refers to the drawing) and the two lots here and have a house on each lot why he can't give the right-of-way to these other people and come down this way and if he wants propose it here and build a good size house on a big size lot here and then build one here with the use of his... MARK BOMBARD-Would you want people driving down your driveway? ELIZABETH MILLER-Well you have a good size road its almost like a main road. MARK BOMBARD-Yes, and I'm sorry about that because it has a lot of problems with it with people coming in. It is a single family drive and my privacy is very important to me. That's why I designed the lot like it is. ELIZABETH MILLER-You really don't have it listed as a private driveway do you? MARK BOMBARD-Not yet. This right-of-way isn't a right-of-way to the public, it isn't a right- of-way for any other use except for the man that lives in this house (points this out on the drawing) it is not in the deed such that it can be used by anybody else except myself. ELIZABETH MILLER-For instance, all you would have to do is widened this driveway as you say, instead of doubling it here you could double it here and then just make a house on this small lot here and then on this one instead of making twice the traffic going into these two smaller lots. MR. TURNER-In reference to the other application on the duplex's, what relationship does that road have to those duplex's? ---s~ MARK BOMBARD-The lots were the same, the subdivision looked the same, they were going to divide lot one and they were going to have their own access. This driveway and this access of mine was never to be considered for use for any other lot. It is still that way and will remain that way. Both people here has voiced there opinion on the lot size. We are in a SR 1Acre Zone the dominant lot size is one acre it had been re-zoned and it is one acre. Across the road the Stonehurst subdivision very nice subdivision one acre lots, I think these people are saying that the Howe's still own a large track of land, but the majority of lots on Ridge Road is a SR 1Acre they all own on the average one acre lots. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Nancy Wilcox, she is within 500 feet. Opposed to multiple buildings/and/or driveways. Warren County Planning Board, approved but modified with conditions. STAFF INPUT Notes on File, from John Goralski, Planner DISCUSSION HELD MARK BOMBARD-The road frontage by our sight inspection and from the State Department of Transportation we have unlimited sight distance coming off these accesses, there is excess of 1000 feet. You can see all the way the to the corner of Sunnyside or Oneida Corners. The other way you can see down past as far as the eye can see its starts drifting away on the horizon. SUE GOETZ-What would you say your practical difficulty is for wanting this? MARK BOMBARD-That reasonable use of the land has been taken away by the Ordinance and it is causing a hardship because its not able to subdivide as planned. MR. TURNER-Did you attend any of the hearings on these? MARK BOMBARD-Yes. I voiced my opinion against the double lot width as just a planner through the firm I worked for, and as a private resident and a home-owner in the Town of Queensbury. I think it is a very poor Ordinance and there could be waivers to this or a Variance. It may not always pertain, I don't believe it pertains in this point because I have unlimited sight distance, it meets all the requirements through the regulations except that Ordinance and that Ordinance has cut down problems with entrance and exits and this does create a problem. MR. TURNER-Well you don't have unlimited sight distance coming from the south there is a curve right there. MARK BOMBARD-It curves away from you. MR. TURNER-It also drops away so you can't see anything until you get around the corner. MARK BOMBARD-The requirements for on wet pavements on a 55 m.p.h. road is 400 feet. MR. TURNER-That might be but you can't always take into consideration somebody coming out of a drive that might not see you, you might not be able to stop. ELIZABETH MILLER-Why can't you use your private driveway and make it a little larger and go length of the two lots? MARK BOMBARD-The Howe's don't own that. If the Howe's are going to subdivide and be forced into building a drive they will subdivide the whole piece. If they are forced to create and build roads it doesn't financially make sense for two lots. If there not granted this Variance and do decide to subdivide and that's the only way they will, then the only way feasible to financially to do is to create, (they have a potential for 25 lot). Substantially you cannot finance building a road for three lots. You can financially substantiate building a road for 25 lots. SUE GOETZ-it might make better sense to make a better subdivision. MARK BOMBARD-They don't want to create a subdivision. They just want to get rid of this land that they don't want, and don't need. They have the right to subdivide it except for this Ordinance. ELIZABETH MILLER-Eventually it will be a subdivision? MARK BOMBARD-No. We don't want that. Their son lives here (shown on map) and we liv-é here, we have through our family meetings and discussions this is as far as we are going to go, the rest of this land will be subdivided but it will be subdivided to my wife and and her brother. The house may be subdivided off and sold at another date, but the rest of the land will be retained a,s is. They don't have any interest in Ridge Road, their not over on Ridge Road, and don't find it necessary to own it. SUE GOETZ-One thing that concerns me is that you just said is that "they don't care what happens over on Ridge Road". MAIU( UOMBAIU)-Thcy don't plun uny dcvclopmcnt thct'c Bnd thcy don't havc an intCl'cst in that part of the land. They don't go over there its wet and wooded. JEFFREY KELLEY-On this map where it says right-of-way, as I understand it you actually own that and it is a part of your lot. MARK BOMBARD-That is my lot. That's my only exit and my only road frontage. The right-of-way is an exclusive right-of-way to Jerry and Keiza Howe which will go no further, it just for ingress and egress if something happens to the Howe's or if they sell a piece of property the right-of-way does not go any further. If you look at the overall site plan, If I we're to come in and subdivide a major subdivision yes I would use my driveway. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO.19-1989,lntroduced by Mrs. Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Eggleston: No practical difficulty has been shown. The Board has to look closely and uphold the Ordinance. The requirement is to maintain the rural character of the community and there seems to be feasible alternatives to this piecemeal subdivision. We are concerned about the safety factor on Ridge Road. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Michael Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1989 (DR. SlUMON SHALIT MALKA SHALIT) ROUTE 9, NORTH OF WARREN COUNTY MUNICIPAL CENTER OPPOSITE MONTCALM SOUTH RESTAURANT (THE PRESENT LAKE GEORGE PLAZA AND EXIT 20 MOTEL) FOR RETAIL STORES. VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR PARKING AND BUILDING. A 50 FT. BUFFER ZONE IS REQUIRED FOR ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL ZONES-REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE FROM THIS REQUIREMENT AS A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING; SOUTHEAST CORNER 12 FT. BY 32 FT. ENCROACHES AS WELL AS A PORTION OF THE RAMP AND 8 PARKING SPACES. THE ADJOINING LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, IT IS USED FOR WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE FACILITY BY JOHN MCCORMACK FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 36-1-26 AND 27.2 SECTION 7.052 LOT SIZE: 5.44 acres AGENT MIKE O'CONNOR FROM THE FIRM OF LITTLE AND O'CONNOR REPRESENTING DR. SHIMON SHALIT JAMES HUNT FROM T.C. MALE ASSOCIATES DRA WINGS SHOWN TO BOARD MIKE O'CONNER-Presently there are two buildings on the existing site owned by the Shalit's. I have outlined those by what I handed up to the Board in yellow and they are connected by a breeze-way or building between them in red. Immediately to the south of that is Exit 20 Motel. The plan here is, this is just for background information so you will have an understanding of what we're trying to do with the concept. Is to leave the existing building to the north as is, demolish the connecting structure between that and the south building, demolish the restaurant, and demolish the motel buildings and have them removed. Move the southerly building to the south where it is marked on there relocated building, so we have a U shape in the front of our site utilizing as best we can the present grade of the site. The building to the north will not be moved at all that pretty much dictates its location. We are trying to match it with the building who size is already dictated by its existing construction and move it to the south and we are trying to get some level parking on the street level of the site. If you use tier parking or the double layer parking that we designed there the space between the two sets --7 of buildings is pretty well dictated by the sizes that you need to accommodate the parking. This is just an overview as to what we're talking about. I marked the back part of this map with the yellow line and that's really what were here for to talk about the 50 foot buffer zone around the south line of our property This is a unique piece of property (map shown). This is a photocopy of a portion of the tax map. You will see that the property for the Exit 20 Motel runs back from Route 9 a distance of 699 feet I believe on the southerly boundary, and 700 feet on the northerly boundary. When we redid the Zoning in 1988, in October, we adopted a provision that is pretty much the zoning lines of the different classifications would follow the property line, it does in this particular instance. The Exit 20 Motel property is zoned Highway Commercial 1Acre, and the whole odd shape of this parcel is highway commercial. John and Tom McCormack own the parcel that surrounds it and there property was zoned residential. You also have to take a look at the immediate use of the property, use of the property immediately to the south of our property. This buffer-zone was created to protect residential adjoining uses. The adjoining use to the south of this is not residential prior to the change in zoning, Mr. McCormack built a construction warehouse there. What we're talking about is a buffer-zone that really is not protected residential it adjoining a commercial use. He built that without a variance because if you take a look at the last sketch I showed you this is the old zone line the old zone lined went deeper than this existing line. He built to the west of that zone line which was then a commercial zone. We have an oddity because of the shape of the ownership of the property here. What were really talking about is intruding upon that buffer-zone (file map with Board). We talk here about a distance of 33 feet between the extreme corner of the building we propose and the property line. We talk about 6 feet between the driveway and the property line and the parking that we talk about is 8 feet. The 50 foot buffer-zone we are going to maintain beyond this area (refers to map), if you measured this and scaled it out I think its about a 150 feet into here. We're talking about a much better buffer-zone than actually what was required for this far end of the property. This won't increase the actually density or use of the property, it just makes it more orderly and sensible use of the property. If you take a look at the total 5.4 acres, if you look at the top part of the Ordinance we are one compliant when we're talking about a 58,000 square foot building. There is already approved and built on the building at 38,000 square feet. I am just trying to tell you that your not over-burdening the property by allowing us to intrude upon this buffer-zone that serves no particular purpose. With me also is Nick Sartelli, from Morse Engineering, Nick is more involved with us on the site-plan business he did traffic studies etc. When we do this we are decreasing the number of entrances on to Route 9 from four to two. The buffer-zone when you take its total square footage of parcel and take it raw land cost not its grading, demolition cost, not anything that buffer-zone is $310,000, so there is more than practical difficulty here there is some real difficulty. Basically what we're talking about is a Variance that would allow us to intrude upo n the southerly buffer-zone as we propose it if we're approved by the Planning Board. The person that is most affected is Mr. McCormack and he has been kind enough to give us his thoughts ahead of time. He was concerned if you put parking back there what security he would have for his warehouse, equipment, and for goods. We worked out something that we satisfy him and it did. The adjoining owner is Mobil Gas Station (refers to map) this is there property line this is like a 378 foot strip it joins McCormack's. The only person that this Variance will affect has offered this statement that I have prepared, (Consent to Variance, John E. McCormack, on file). Condition on the Consent to the Variance was that the developer install an 8 foot height stockade fence along our common boundary of 378.10 feet in length, our northerly boundary and the developers southerly boundary and that the developer continue that fence for 20 feet along its easterly boundary. I would also say that what we request is the minimum variance to alleviate some difficulty. We have not talk about alleviating the entire buffer, we recognized the buffer along the back property. We have not even asked to have the buffer along the entire south line eliminated. If you don't do this you end up with a very odd 24 foot strip down through the center of the parcel that's usable. As far as houses go, the nearest subdivision road from this point (refers to the map) is like a 170 feet from the east of the property line. We talking about being a 150 feet in on our property plus there 170 feet. DANIEL GRIFFIN-How many feet are talking about in the southern boundary? MIKE O'CONNOR-There is 235 feet along the southerly boundary that we are actually intruding upon the buffer. The property immediately south of the McCormack's property which would have a direct or indirect benefit maybe is the County of Warren, and this is never going to be residential. JEFFREY KELLEY-My comment would be how much discussion did you have on the type of fence? MR. TURNER-They can only use 8 foot in an commercial industrial zone and when it comes to residential only 3 feet, which you would have to have a Variance for. MIKE O'CONNOR-We came to eight feet. We talked about stockade fence which was fine with us, Mr. McCormack is here if he has some other questions on some other type.... MR. TURNER-What I'm saying is that you would have to have a Variance for a fence it violates - 8 the Ordinance of the residential zone on the south side there is 135 feet... MIKE O'CONNOR-You can't put a fence up adjoining a residential zone? John do you understand that, there saying that there another division in the Ordinance that says "we can use the 8 foot fence along the .... MR. TURNER-commercial industrial zone line, but when you come to the residential line it reduces to 3 feet in height. JOHN GORALSKI-Explained to John McCormack that his entire is zoned highway commercial, if they construct the fence on their property in the highway commercial zone then they can go up to eight feet. MR. SICARD-Are you talking about the 50 foot buffer.... JOHN GORALSKI-What I'm saying is the eight foot fence they are proposing along this property line (refers to map, if they hold it back off the property line it would be completely in the highway commercial zone. Are you keeping that fence entirely on your property? MIKE O'CONNOR-Yes, I would think so. JOHN GORALSKI-I think if they keep in completely on their property then it would be within the highway commercial zone, but I think that's up to you to decide. JEFFREY KELLEY-What exactly is the zone line that separates... JOHN GORALSKI-This is all residential. JEFFREY KELLEY-Did you have to appear in front of the Beautification Committee? MIKE O'CONNOR-No. I spoke to Mr. Eddy and Mr. Eddy said that "understanding that we were going to be submitting a site-plan review before we could do anything he would wave us appearing before the Beautification Committee". PUBLIC HEARING NO FURTHER COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Linda Hudon, 2 Forest Road, Lake George, NY, Opposed to Area Variance No 20-1989. Short E.F.A. form no negative impact. Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner DISCUSSION HELD MIKE O'CONNOR-I think there is a misunderstanding by staff as to the use of that property as to the south of us that were talking about not having a buffer-zone for. There was no Variance required because under prior zoning that was highway commercial. JOHN GORALSKI-At the time I didn't know that, I agree with that. MIKE O'CONNOR-The use that is there is legitimate it is commercial. I don't think in our perceivable time its going to change from commercial, the property immediately to the south of that is owned by the County of Warren. I don't think we're really impacting a residential zone by what we're proposing. If we're denied the proposal I'm not saying it has practical difficulty as to the shape or size of the building, I'm saying the practical difficulty is simply not being able to use that entire sliver of the property. We're not talking about maximizing use even the proposal I've submitted is less than what is permitted. These people haven't really tried to maximize what there trying to do which also might relate to practical difficulty is to esthetically balance the site. They have an existing building, the size is already there, we're talking about moving this other building (refers to map) down to here, leaving enough room for some decent planning as to the parking area, walkways in the front, particularly some spaces for handicap parking, which will come off at the level of the stores as they are reconstructed if the site-plan is approved by the Planning Board. You have a lot of qualifications for practical difficulty. JEFFREY KELLEY-I don't know that I have personally have ever seen the plan for what's proposed -.. 9 out there in terms of I guess its more of a subdivision, Courthouse Estates. MIKE O'CONNOR-There are two lots as I understand them, that are along the back of this property, this is not a building lot (refers to map), this is reserved for his own use as a warehouse. MR. TURNER-Are the lots on the north? MIKE O'CONNOR-East of the property... MR. TURNER-Their on the west side of the road. MIKE O'CONNOR-There's a road out here, the closet place to the road is a 170 feet as it adjoins this up here (refers to map) those lots actually are going to be probably 200 and some feet deep. MR. TURNER-Where is the bend in the road in the back is that anywhere near the curve in the road? The garage is down a little ways from that bend? JOHN MCCORMACK-eo-owner Courthouse Estates, Section 3, I don't know if I can put that in relationship to this parcel here. Our road is now, Section 3 comes up and takes a 90 degree curve right about there (refers to map) we have two lots... MR. TURNER-There is a turn off there? JOHN MCCORMACK-Eventually it will go straight through, which will be a T and the two lots would be to the west of the existing Courthouse Drive Extension and they take say a westerly turn down Equinox Drive. There are two lots here (refers to map) everything on this side of the road is about butting the highway commercial zone. JEFFREY KELLEY-My only thing in my mind was that if their is residential there we should afford them the 50 foot buffer... JOHN MCCORMACK-I would not be agreeing to any of this if I thought this was going to in any manner hurt the sale of these two lots. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE No-20-1989,lntroduced by Mr. Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Goetz: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty due to the shape of the lot and change of the zoning. The applicant is asking for relief from the southerly buffer-zone that would start 150 feet from the southeast corner and then along the south line west 235 feet, at which point property abuts the highway commercial zone. This is minimum variance to alleviate this difficulty. The buffer-zone on the back of the property or the east and the part of the south remains. Owner of Courthouse Estates has agreed to this. The applicant is to abide by the fence consent agreed to by Mr. McCormack. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Michael Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1989 SEARS ROEBUCK &: CO. DONALD BROWN, STORE MANAGER A VIA TION MALL, A VIA TION ROAD FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 6 FT. SATELLITE DISH ON THE ROOF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.2 SECTION 7.080 LOT SIZE: N/A DONALD BROWN/STORE MANAGER PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-I have a questioned, we turned this down once right? Why did it come back? I thought there were rules about that. MR. TURNER-It was denied because there were no feasible alternatives. MRS. GOETZ-They are presenting the other feasible alternatives? '~"---"" 10 JOHN GORALSKI-Right. They are presenting new information. DONALD BROWN-During the Warren County review we had not explored the position of the satellite dish on the ground to the south of the building beyond the parking spaces of the actual parking lot. We had not explored positioning the dish in the parking lot itself. We had not explored positioning it against the building. When I went back to Warren County for the meeting on February 8th, we felt we fulfilled those requirements and Warren County did approve the Variance. The actual Variance that we can go with is one that we find not acceptable. The package that you have in front of you there is a letter from Louis Gagliano, Mall Manager, and he has also agreed with us that it is not acceptable. It would be acceptable to you because it fulfills the requirements of the Ordinance. We feel that positioning this post that would come out of the ground and rise through location approximately 3 feet below the height of the building, the top of the building it would jet out at a 90 degree angle and the 6 foot dish would be suspended from that position. It will not go above the height of the building it would fulfill the requirements of the Ordinance, but it would be a eyesore right there to our customers and we think it would be objectionable to you as well. MRS. GOETZ-Why didn't someone appear when it was first before us? DONALD BROWN-Quite frankly it was my first appearance of this nature. When we we're rejected at the Warren County meeting in December from not presenting feasible alternatives, we went back to the drawing boards. We felt that we had to have approval at both meetings and we didn't have it at the first one with good reason. MRS. GOETZ-What I'm concerned about it is letting them come back, because I feel that it was denied and that everything should of been worked out when they first applied. I have seen things get worn down by letting them come back and back. I personally have a problem with it coming back. MR. SICARD-What's the size of it? DONALD BROWN-Six feet. I don't know if your aware but J.C. Penny's has done a wonderful job in July of last year... MR. GRIFFIN-What's the diameter of the one at J.C. Penny's? DONALD BROWN-Approximately 6 feet. MR. GRIFFIN-I drove around there today, I had to go around there twice. It's way around the back, its not visible from the mall anywhere that I could see. It says here "the system will be use to receive only antenna" then you go on to say "its our video teleconferencing", does it mean two-way? DONALD BROWN-Its not. MR. GRIFFIN-Then at the end it says "other important exchanges", that again is two-way conversa tion. DONALD BROWN-Its not two-way. To the point on visibility of the unit, I looked for the one at J.C. Penny's also. They very selectively positioned the unit not in the middle, I would estimate 30 or 40 feet in from the south part of their roof. We actually feel comfortable saying that you won't see ours except from the air. MR. GRIFFIN-I think if you erect a semi-antenna on a pole mount from the side of the building its going to be an eyesore, it can't be put into the ground its to much interference with the trees. I think the roof placement is the best place. MR. SICARD-Its no worse than an air-conditioning or heating unit. MR. TURNER-Where is it going to be located? DONALD BROWN-The center. I think the reason you can't see it is because of the size of the roof and the fact that it is flat. MR. TURNER-Its not visible from some neighbor's side or from yard, this is a complex all by itself. Its going to be back in from the center of the store you won't see it from the ground. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO FURTHER COMMENT - ~ -' 11 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning approved. Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification, they are not in favor of granting this Variance No. 21-1989, for satellite dish on the roof of this building. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1989, Introduced by Mr. Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Sicard: This is an Area Variance for placement of a 6 foot satellite dish on the roof of Sears Roebuck, A viation Mall. The location will be the center of the roof of the Sears portion of the complex per plan submitted. The applicant has explored other alternatives, this is not a permitted place, it seems to be the least obtrusive place to put the dish. All the testimony and the Z.B.A. site inspections find visual impact of this placement will be negligible. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz ABSENT:Michael Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1989 MARILYN J. VANDYKE WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD I MILE NORTH OF LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT WISHES TO CONVEY THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF HER PROPERTY TO HER DAUGHTER, TO ENCOMPASS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE; APPLICANT WILL RETAIN THE SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THEREON. MARILYN J. VANDYKE / CHARLES T. NACY, COULTER & MCCORMACK MARIL YN V ANDYKE-I live on this residence which is 19.75 acres. Its on the northern end of the Bay Road about one mile from Dunham's Bay, and it is in the Adirondack Park Agency. What I would like to do is to divide the existing 19.75 acres into two equal parcels so they can be eventually transferred to my two children. The most northerly portion which contains the present residence and which I live I will convey to my daughter Heather sometime after March 11th, 1989. On the existing parcel I will build a new residence which will be approximately equivalent in size to the existing residence in which I live. This will mean that you will have two parcels that are 9.75 acres and another one that is 9.77 acres. One of the reason for doing this is insure that in the future that the children will be paying approximately equal taxes as taxes rise. You will notice that since the land is both rural residential 5 acres and land conservation 10 that a major portion of our land is in the land conservation section, which we have kept conserved since I have owned the land in 1960, in which our family plans to retain in a forever wild state. MAP SHOWN TO THE BOARD MR. TURNER-You have one parcel that is 4.7 acres in a 5 acres zone, the other one 3.4 acres in a 5 acre zone. MRS. VANDYKE-You have to consider the land in back of it. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's what were talking about. If you take and divide it up and have 5 acres on the northerly part of the property you would end up with over 14 acres in the other parcel. MRS. VANDYKE-Then you would have a very small lot size on the southerly portion. Anyway you divide a rural residential 5 acres your going to get a nonconforming use. This way you get one piece that is almost 5 acres and the other one that is 3.4 acres, that's about as close as you can come to be equitable and to get as close to the requirements as possible. MR. KELLEY-For some reason this one looks different. Your saying that it is 4.7 acres in ~. 12 a 5 acre zone so its short there, but in reality the piece of property is 9.7 acres. Its a matter as to the way that line is drawn. MARIL YN V ANDYKE-I think the major problems come from is the way the zoning line is drawn. JOHN GORALKSKI-The question arises in the fact that this property is split zoned. The requirement when the property is split zone that the piece of properties must meet the requirements of the more restricted zone. It isn't a question how much is in the 5 acre zone and how much is in the 10 acre zone, any of the parcel properties within the 10 acre zone doesn't have to meet any of the requirements of the five acre zone it has to meet all the requirements of the ten acre zone. The question isn't how much is in each zone but is there any in the ten acre zone, if there is you have to meet those requirements. MR. KELLEY-Your saying the zone that we have to look at is 10 acre, the 5 acre doesn't mean anything? JOHN GORALSKI-If part of the property is going to be in the 10 acre zone. MARILYN VANDYKE-What you have then is in the 10 acre zone is 11.44 acres that you would be dividing approximately equally, that land is undevelopable land because of the rise, I live on the side of a mountain and basically its undevelopable unless you want to put in extremely expensive roadway which is not feasible to our family. MR. KELLEy-If we're dealing with the LC10 acre zone, her northerly piece of property your saying we should look at that piece of property with its 9.7 acres? JOHN GORALSKI-Correct. MR. KELLEY-So it misses by 3/10th's and the 9.7 one misses by about the same width. JOHN GORALSKI-Correct. MARL YIN VANDYKE-The road frontage on the property is 580 feet. The two existing lots would then become 290 feet and 300 feet, I don't know anyway you could divide that... CHARLES NACY-I believe the question is lot width. These are the regular shaped parcels that were created. I guess its a matter of arbitration or somebody's guess as to exactly where this mean lot width should be zoned. In your case it will fall short of either requirement for this double lot width for the LC10 or 5 acre zone. MR. KELLEY-My question is that the requirement is 300 feet could someone tell what the real mean lot width is at? CHARLES NACY-I can add up the old frontage for you, but we're really talking about lot width which isn't necessarily the same as the old frontage. JOHN GORALSKI-The southerly portion has about 290 feet of average lot width, and the northerly portion has well over the 300 required feet. MR. KELLEY-We're missing somewhere by 10 feet. JOHN GORALSKI-Correct. MR. KELLEy-If we're talking about a difference of about 10 feet is there a way to reconstruct the division of the property line that splits the two parcels in half to get the 300 and still maintain approximately the same acreage of each plot. CHARLES NACY-If you can tell us where you would like us to draw the mean line to determine the lot width certainly. MR. KELLEY-Are we concerned with road frontage or lot width? JOHN GORALSKI-With lot width. The ordinance says "average lot width" that's the reason its done like that is because there are irregular shaped lots. MR. KELLEY-I guess I'm questioning the Ordinance. What if we had 3 pieces of pie on a curb and they all got 40 feet on the road but because it is flared and such a wide section the way they have written the Ordinance that the average lot width your saying is 20 feet, 20 feet, 20 feet, and three driveways dumping on here and that's permissible. I think that is the opposite of what I heard earlier in the intent of what that Ordinance is all about. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN - 13 DA VID AUST/future son-in-law of Mrs. VanDyke, my fiancee and I Heather, are purchasing the existing house that she has here (refers to the map) and she is proposing to build a small retirement home. What she has done is split here property virtually in half so that in future years its already said and done with. There is plenty of road frontage for one additional driveway. The 9.7 acres is so minimal its just a small amount away from the 10 acres that is required to build one home in this whole 10 acre lot. I am all for this, I see no problem as far as the Zoning Board is concerned. I really don't see any major problem whatsoever. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Phone call from John Bantham, directly north of existing dwelling, in favor of Variance No. 22-1989. Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner. DISCUSSION HELD MRS. VANDYKE-Questioning Staff Input letter. If I understand what they said just said they are talking about making a 5 acre lot here (refers to map) reduces this to a narrow piece with a wide part of the land here. That would create two problems. It would push we have the current house planned into a tighter area and closer to an existing area into Ken and Carol Fuchslocher, or it would cause us to have to redesign something to put the house up in here. You would have to know the lay of this land once you get back into the rural residential 5 section going into LC10 you have major rock problem with a 500 foot rise. There is no way that you could put a road through there and attempt to build a home in this area. MR. TURNER-What's going to be the size of the house? MRS. VANDYKE-Approximately about 1200 square foot. Its going to be a two bedroom home on approximately the same square footage as the present home with a single car garage. I don't favor the suggestion of the alternative because I think it doesn't really limit itself to the estheics of the land unless you divide it in that manner. I think if you keep it this way you will have a sizeable space between the Fuschslocher's and the new house, and between the new house and the existing house. Esthetically this will be very well planned on the land if it is done in this fashion. Its a hardship also because if anyone knows what roads costs and to build a road back into a interior section is extremely expensive. MR. TURNER-Another factor too is the elevation. Its on the side of Lockhart Mountain. MRS. VANDYKE-Because we have that conservation land, I have an assessment from the assessor's office that each new divided parcel is now assessed at $18,400.00. Not only that, but the land taxes you have to think about the chances that they are going to increase, and then the school taxes are also going to increase where there building which is in the Lake George Central School District. We have to try to keep this equitable as possible. MR. KELLEY-In the Planning Departments proposal did you see how that was proposed? Its saying which would be the 5 acre zone lot and this would be a 10 acre lot. If I could just asked your opinion. If the lot was reduced to that width, its now 290 feet if you cut it down by 34 feet, how feasible do you think it would be to put a driveway in? CHARLES NACY- We are required to stay within 10 per cent and the driveway that is shown here marginally meets that now. Its sighting of the house is somewhat critical as is the sighting of the sewage disposal area, the simple fact that we have to keep that on a slope also. The reason for positioning it there and having the entrance drive in the position that it is in was to accommodate the 10 per cent slope and drive, and to be able to site the septic system in the position its in shown on the map which is also in a side slope of less than 10 per cent. That's one of the few areas on that proposed lot where that could be done and still maintain a gravity flow from that house to that location. I also understand that there is a 100 foot side set back, we meet that with no trouble on the south, we are within 5 feet of it on the north line. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.22-1989,lntroduced by Mr. Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Eggleston: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty, this is a split zone. Also much of the land is unusable due to rocky land and rising in back. There asking to develop 19.518 acre parcel into two equal parts. They need the variance for an undersized lot and a variance for a 290 foot road frontage on the southerly lot, they will need a 10 foot road frontage relief ~ - "'"-- r4 on the south, and approximately 3/10ths of a acre relief on both the newly created lots. One will be 9.75 acres on the north and 9.77 acres on the south. The short E.F .A. form shows no negative impact. The feasible alternatives indicated by the staff are eliminated by the slope contours, preventing a driveway cut and it might impose difficulty in installing a septic system. The applicant has asked for minimum relief. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Michael Muller Chairman Turner adjourned the meeting at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Lee A. York, Senior Planner