Loading...
1989-04-19 -- -/ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 19, 1989 INDEX APPLICANT PAGE Dock Rentals Dave Ratin, Pat Collard 1. Use Variance No. 38-1989 Janet Somerville 3. Use Variance No. 1288 Elaina's Beauty Boutique 3. Use Variance No. 1333 Madaline Drellos 4. Area Variance No. 22-1989 Marilyn VanDyke 5. Interpretation No. 189 The Great Escape 5. Use Variance No. 35-1989 The Great Escape 5. Area Variance No. 39-1989 Stefano Fasulo 5. Use Variance No. 40-1989 Douglas & Debra Petroski 6. Area Variance No. 41-1989 Douglas & Debra Petroski 7. Area Variance No. 42-1989 Robert Eckardt 8. Area Variance No. 43-1989 VanDusen & Steves 8. Area Variance No. 44-1989 George E. Dunphy 9. Area Variance No. 45-1989 Adirondack Coffee Services 12. 1 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 1989 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES O. SICARD JOYCE EGGLESTON MICHAEL MULLER MEMBERS ABSENT SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY DANIEL GRIFFIN JEFFREY KELLEY TOWN ATIORNEY-PAUL DUSEK JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 15, 1989, Page 3... last sentence, to injustice s/b/... be a injustice, Page 6, second Para. 4th line from bottom... be imposed, s/b/...be opposed, Page 7, 3rd Para. 1st line... the floor s/b/...and the floor, Page 7, 2nd Para. from bottom, 1st sentence, double typed where the, strict out one, Page 9, middle of page, Tony Carins, s/b/... We have stands in which, Page 10, Champlain Oil Company, motion to deny, 1st sentence, dictated on s/b/...dictated that. RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 15, 1989, MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS CORRECTED,Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Muller: Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz March 22, 1989, Page 3, 11th line down...Mr. Turner, An interior authorization s/b/...interior alteration, Page 5, 14th line down...Mr. Turner, 2nd sentence...s/b/ You have. RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 22, 1989, MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS CORRECTED,Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz BUSINESS NOT ON AGENDA Letter from Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Codes Enforcement, and Patricia Collard, Zoning Administrator, concerning Dock Rentals. MR. TURNER-Read letter, See Attached. Asked Town Attorney, Paul Dusek, to address this issue. PAUL DUSEK-This matter is concerning dock rentals in the Town of Queensbury. The word that came to be was that the Town of Queensbury by virtues of this Ordinance was not allowing dock rentals to occur in this part of Lake George, that lies within the Town of Queensbury. Their were a number of things that had to be reviewed, I research this and will offer the Board the following for the Board's consideration. It appears that the proposal that has come before you has come before in terms of requesting an interpretation of the Ordinance, it appears that their is at least one Supreme Court case, that has reviewed the questions of the interpretation by the Zoning Board, and has indicated that unless the Ordinance for the particular Town says ~ 2 that it would be one of the primary responsibility of the Board, the Board's obligations primarily that of an Appellate nature, therefore, unless their is an issue that has been decided it really should not come before the Board, that's the opinion of that case. In reviewing the Town Law, and the Ordinance, I was unable to find any authority within the Ordinance for the matter to come to you in the first instance as an interpretation. If the Board should decided to consider the matter than I would offer the following. The issue seems to be that of being unable to rent dock space. I tried to locate that in the Ordinance, It really doesn't come out and say anywhere in the Ordinance that you can't rent dock space, however, under the definition of marina, on Page 17, of the Ordinance, it says a marina operation will be defined as included the sale lease rental of docks space. I then went to the water front districts that are outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, and I find that no where is it listed in the Ordinance that a marina is a permissible use. It looks like that type of use has been excluded from the Ordinance. Secondly, I also went down through the list of uses to see if their is anything close that would allow the rental of dock space, and I find that it does provide for private docks to be utilize in a residential water front area, if you go to private docks, it defines those to be used for people who have boats themselves, the property owners. Their is no leeway there it would appear to say that the Ordinance would allow the rental of dock space. The next idea that comes to find is that it may preclude people who now want to rent dock space, but what about the people who years ago rented dock space up until the time the Ordinance was adopted. That would essentially be a nonconforming use, I then went to the nonconforming use section of the Ordinance, I found that their is a specific provision in the nonconforming use section of the Ordinance, Article 9.060, which says that the rental of dock space will not cause a nonconforming use to come into play. What they done is said you didn't get a nonconforming use just because you rented dock space in the past, thereby, anyone who has previously rented dock space isn't grandfathered under the Ordinance. At this point, the next phase would be what can be done. It seems that the options of anyone affected by this provisions of the Ordinance are either one of two options. First, would be to come to this Board on an case by case basis to attempt to secure a use permit, or a use variance, having to meet the terms that are set forth in the Ordinance for use variances. The second option would be to perhaps to be petition the Town for an amendment of the Ordinance. MICHAEL MULLER-Asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals is in the position to give advice to the Town Board, as to what they would like to see in an Ordinance for their consideration? PAUL DUSEK-Thinks that this lies within the main of the Board to do that. MICHAEL MULLER-There are two reasons that I would not want to consider this tonight; (1) Its in the nature of their is not a justiciable case here, we don't have an actual application, (2) I would like the Town Board to take a very close look at this to determine how they feel the Town of Queensbury should go with respect to preexisting private docks that are used for multiple boats and that mayor may not be treated as a nonconforming use. Our Town Board might want to consider looking at the Town of Lake George Zoning, Town of Bolton Zoning Ordinance, I would not like to act as a legislative body. MOTION IN RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF DOCK RENTALS,Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Would move that this Zoning Board of Appeals not take action on this request for interpretation this evening, but rather we refer this matter to The Town Board, for the purpose of their legislative consideration and legislative action that they feel is necessary. The reasons for which (1) As counsel as indicated Section 9.060 of our Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to nonconforming uses does not appear to grandfather preexisting nonconforming private dock use rental of multiple boats. (2) This is in the nature of the legislative concern and this Board ought not to act in those matters. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz DISCUSSION HELD MR. BLEIBTREY-from Queensbury, I was here before about the guy running the charter business next store to me. I like this the way it is, I wouldn't want to see this change, because of the noise, I would urge you to urge the Board not to change it. MICHAEL MULLER-The guy you are talking about I think he is running a public vessel: off that dock. If this is what the Town Board wants to take about prohibiting the use of a public ~- --' 3 vessel from a private dock that may be correct. MR. BLEIBTREY-Paul Dusek tells me that I have to have a receipt from this guy to prove it. MICHAEL MULLER-What this seems to be doing is taking a private dock where this is multiple use of that dock, that is that they have three to four space, they rented out the extra spaces, its different that the use of a public vessel. I think their is a need to regulate some of it and I think we maybe over reaching in prohibiting all of it. MR. BLEIBTREY-I don't see how you can regulate this public vessel business if you have to have a receipt. MICHAEL MULLER-You should watch this issue. DONALD READ-Cleverdale, I want to make sure what your doing. Your sending this back to the Town Board simply on the basis that it seems to be heavy handed and you would like them to reconsider what they should do, is this all that it amount to? MR. TURNER-Yes. DONALD READ-Your not putting a recommendation in one way or the other? MR. TURNER-No. OLD BUSINESS USE VARIANCE NO. 38-1989 JANET SOMERVILLE AVIATION ROAD, SECOND HOUSE ON RIGHT AFTER MT. VIEW LANE. SFR-IA Will CONTINUE TO BE A HOME AND RESIDENCE OF SOMERVILLE FAMILY WITH AN OFFICE FOR REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE, GENERAL OFFICE 105 SQ. FT. NO EMPLOYEES. NEEDS A SIGN 12 IN. BY 24 IN. WITH NAME AND OCCUPATION ON IT. LOT SIZE: .516 ACRES GENERAL OFFICE: 105 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 82-5-21 SECTION 4.02o-H TABLED TO DUE LACK OF QUORUM USE VARIANCE NO. 1288, AMENDMENT ELAINA'S BEAUTY BOUTIQUE 51 AVIATION ROAD UR-5, ZONING PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1988, TO AMEND THE VARIANCE APPROVAL OF JUNE 15, 1988 (CHANGE IN SITE). TAX MAP NO. 73-1-17 ELAIN A BISSELL PRESENT CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Elaina Bissell dated March 3, 1989, (on file) Letter from the State Department of Transportation to Mr. Skip Potter, dated February 27, 1989, (on file). STAFF NOTES Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner MR. TURNER-I did receive a note from Mrs. Bissell, in reference to this matter. Her concern at the time was they wouldn't issue an occupancy permit, she was ready to open and the occupancy permit wasn't forthcoming because of the mix up. I went and look at the subject property with her and came back and discussed the matter with Vick Lefebvre, and he issued a temporary C.O., then asked Mrs. Bissell if he did? MRS. BISSELL-At that point, yes. MR. TURNER-I talked with Roger Hulett, from H.F .H. and Duplex Construction about this matter, he told me that he had discussed this matter with the D.O. T. Office, and explained what the letter had said, I recommended to Mrs. Bissell, that it was fine but we had to have a copy of that letter, (letter on file), I also recommended at that point in time that there is only going to be 24 foot driveway and that the variance was issued with a right turn only to be placed with a directional sign out front indicating right turn only on to Aviation Road. This is where we stand. MICHAEL MULLER-Look as this there is one driveway, asked if this is what D.O.T. wanted you to have? MRS. BISSELL-The curb cut has been made, the permit was issued, I have full occupancy. This works out better because of the parking in the rear and having a wider access in the front --'~ 4 with the handicapped in front of the ramp. MR. TURNER-Asked if the parking works out better for the handicapped? MRS. BISSELL-Yes it does. MR. TURNER-Asked if a directional sign was put out front for right turn only? MRS. BISSELL-Yes. MICHAEL MULLER-The only change that is necessary is that were going to amend our variance requirement that would eliminate the second curb cut and allowing a 24 foot wide one curb cut on the easterly side of the building, and it is working out fine for them? MRS. BISSELL-It is working out very well. The final inspection has either just taken place or is about to. MOTION TO AMEND USE VARIANCE NO. 1288, ELAINA'S BEAUTY BOUTIQUE,Introduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: To reflect the 24 foot wide two-way driveway centered on the existing residential driveway with the directional sign on the egress indicating right turn only. Based on letter indicated by D.O.T. dated 2/27/89 from J. W Kelley, Regional Traffic Engineer, from the original site plan to new site plan. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz USE VARIANCE NO. 1333, SR-20 MADALINE DRELLOS NORTH SIDE OF LUZERNE ROAD FOR OPERATION OF A ONE-MAN ENGINE REPAIR SHOP AT THE APPLICANTS RESIDENCE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LUZERNE ROAD. APPROVAL GRANTED ON MARCH 16, 1988. IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE BOARD WISHED TO REVIEW THE OPERATION AFTER ONE YEAR TO CONFIRM THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT OPERATE A BUSINESS IN EXCESS OF THESE LIMITATIONS. TAX MAP NO. 121-3-7.1 MALCOLM O'HARA REPRESENTING MADALINE DRELLOS MR. TURNER-This is an application we granted a variance for one year ago pending a review by this Board. Stated in the original application that there was a septic tank and excavating business, and as stated in the original application the area on the property where the activity takes place in behind a eight foot fence. Brought the applicant back to review the application. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) MALCOLM O'HARA-It is my understanding that when this was granted a year ago the Board had some bad experiences with some of the variances that had been granted where applicants came forward said where just going to do some very small home occupations for the use variance and it expanded into a use variance that was more offensive or greater in scope than had been presented to the Board. The Board wanted to review our variance in a year to make sure that we are operating in the limits that are in representation. We believe that we have meet all of the conditions. MR. TURNER-I think we made a point of one condition that the variance would expire if the property was sold. MALCOLM O'HARA-That condition did apply. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 1333, MADALINE DRELLOS,Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Muller: ..... .- Give permanent approval as per the original application and the variance will expire if the property is sold. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1989, AMENDMENT, RR-5A, LC-I0A, MARILYN J. VANDYKE WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD I MILE NORTH OF LOCKHART MT. RD. AMENDMENT TO THIS VARIANCE APPROVAL OF FEB. 22, 1989. THE APA REVERSED THIS DECISION VIA NOW WISHES TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL AND INCLUDE DEED RESTRICTION BARRING FURTHER SUBDMSION OF THE PROPERTY. TAX MAP NO. 23-1-30 MARIL YN VANDYKE PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked if Mrs. VanDyke had the deed restrictions? MRS. V ANDYKE-I have the correspondence in relation to that, that I sent you. CORRESPONDENCE Letter addressed to Mr. Ted Turner, from Robert C. Glennon, Executive Director,Adirondack Park Agency, dated March 20, 1989. (on file) Letter addressed to James A. Davidson Esq., from Barbara A. Rottier, Associate Counsel, Adirondack Park Agency, dated April 4, 1989. (on file) Letter addressed to Mr. Ted Turner, from Marilyn VanDyke, dated April 18, 1989. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) MOTION TO AMEND VARIANCE NO. 22-1989, MARILYN VANDYKE, Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Approve as previously approved in the August spec. Applicant will satisfy all requirements set forth in detail in writing as shown in letter of April 4, 1989, written by Barbara A. Rottier, Associate Counsel, Adirondack Park Agency, to Mr. James A. Davidson. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz NEW BUSINESS INTERPRETATION NO. 189 STORYTOWN USA, INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE EAST OF ROUTE 9, BETWEEN ROUND POND ROAD AND GLEN LAKE ROAD SPECIFIC INTERPRETATION: THAT A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LYING IN THE LC-42 ZONE HAS mSTORICALLY BEEN USED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING. THE REQUEST IS TO CONTINUE TmS USE AND EXPAND IT WITH THE ADDmON OF THE WATER PARK FACILITY. TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3 SECTION 9.010 LC-42 TABLED DUE TO LACK OF QUOROM USE VARIANCE NO. 35-1989 STORYTOWN USA, INC. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE ROUTE 9, LAKE GEORGE ROAD TO ALLOW A PARKING LOT IN A LC-42 ZONE (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3 SECTION 4.020 A LC-42 TABLED DUE TO LACK OF QUOROM AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1989 STEFANO FASULO D/B/A FRANK'S PIZZERIA WEST SIDE OF LAKE GEORGE ROAD BETWEEN DEXTER SHOES AND TROPICANA RESTAURANT FOR AN ADDmON ON THE EXISTING CONCESSION SLAB NOW USED FOR DINING;TO BE ABLE TO USE DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER. THE EXISTING OPEN DINING AREA -- 6 IS 21 FT. BY 42 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-1-11 SECTION 4.020 K LOT SIZE: 324 FT. BY 50 FT. HC-15 TABLED DUE TO LACK OF QUOROM USE VARIANCE NO. 40-1989 DOUGLAS AND DEBRA PETROSKI CORNER OF EVERTS AND HOMER A VB. FOR AN ADDITION OF A SWIMMING POOL - TO BE ENCLOSED IN THE FUTURE (PHASE 3). PHASE 3 IS OFFICES, RECEPTION, POOL, FITNESS. TAX MAP NO. 10'1-1-4.1 SECTION 9.014 LOT SIZE: 143 FT. BY 39'1.5'1 FT. LI-lA DEBRA PETROSKI PRESENT MAP SHOWN TO BOARD DEBRA PETROSKI-I am dealing with Adirondack Pools, showed map to Board. I have been to Warren County Planning, Beautification Committee and got their approval. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Approve. Beautification Committee Approved. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) MIKE MULLER-Asked John Goralski, to clarify Staff Input Notes. JOHN GORALSKI-It means that at the current time their legally maintaining a use that is not a allowable use under light industrial zone. The addition of the swimming pool in my opinion would not be any more detrimental to the Ordinance of the Masterplan that what is currently there. MIKE MULLER-Asked if this would not be in opposition to the request? JOHN GORALSKI-Not at all. MR. TURNER-Asked how long it would be before they would start the enclosure of the swimming pool? DEBRA PETROSKI-One or two years to give you a guess. The program is growing to the point that Gurney Lane can no longer handle the amount of students. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Asked about fencing around the pool? DEBRA PETROSKI-Their will be a fence. MR. TURNER-Asked if she considered going any higher than a four foot fence? DEBRA PETROSKI-I'm still talking to my lawyers about this. JOHN GORALSKI-Would like to advise applicant that in the Zoning Ordinance, under Section 9.010, we would require a site plan review on this also. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 40-1989, DOUGLAS AND DEBRA PETROSKI, Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: Applicant has demonstrated that this is an extension of the existing facility for which we have previously granted variances for Phase I and II. For the same reasons as in the first two variances in keeping with the plan for the property it is not detrimental to the Zoning Ordinance or the neighborhood. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ..- ---r' ABSENT:Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1989 DOUGLAS AND DEBRA PETROSKI FITZGERALD ROAD, GLEN LAKE TO REPLACE EXISTING DECAYING, UNSIGHTLY STAIRS TO LAKE LEVEL AND LAKESIDE (15 FT.) STONE DECK (ALSO DECAYING) WITH CASCADING PRESSURE TREATED, CASCADING DECKS, STAIRS AND LANDSCAPING TOO. TIllS WOULD BE WITmN 15 FT.. OF THE LAKE (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-14 SECTION 7.012 A3 LOT SIZE: 0.604 ACRES WR -IA DOUGLAS PETROSKI PRESENT GRAPH SHOWN TO BOARD DOUGLAS PETROSKI-What is in red is what is proposed what is existing within 15 feet of the lake level is an old flagstone deck. We want to replace it with something else that we can tie in the whole property with. Would like to have the same landscaping as, Mr. Kristensen, has at his camp. MR. TURNER-Asked if Mr. Kristensen's camp was on the same side as his. DOUGLAS PETROSKI-Yes, five camps east. MICHAEL MULLER-On graph paper left hand side of drawing their is a rectangular box, what are you adding? DOUGLAS PETROSKI-A planter. It is right on the property line. MICHAEL MULLER-Asked if the planter was considered a structure? JOHN GORALSKI-It would not require a variance. MICHAEL MULLER-The existing stone deck what are you going to do there? DOUGLAS PETROSKI-Points out existing stone deck on map, we would be covering it with pressure treated lumber and we would be creating patio and a stairway to it from a upper level. This is a flat area but it is mud and rocks, we wanted to cover that with a deck, stairs to the lower deck. MICHAEL MULLER-Asked that patio that will be covered with a new wooden deck it will be set back 15 feet from the lakeshore? DOUGLASPETROSK~Yæ. MICHAEL MULLER-Asked about the side? DOUGLAS PETROSKI-It would be eight feet. MICHAEL MULLER-You are going to stay eight feet from the property line on the deck that is closes to the lake on the left hand side of the property. Coming up you have a U deck how far are you going to be from the property line? DOUGLAS PETROSKI-Fifteen feet. MICHAEL MULLER-On the other side of the property what would the distance from this side to the property line be? DOUGLAS PETROSKI-Eight feet. MICHAEL MULLER-Asked if it just connects to the boathouse? DOUGLASPETROSK~Yæ. MICHAEL MULLER-Questioned the planter, its not a structure so we don't have to worry about the setback? MR. TURNER-Right, it is just landscaping. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT ~ -- 8 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter to Mrs. Lee A. York, from Hyung Kim, not opposed to application. Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1989, DOUGLAS AND DEBRA PETROSKI,lntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: The applicant is seeking set back relief on two sides lines and shoreline setbacks. The applicant seeks setback relief on the northerly line of 8 feet on the property line for the deck over the stone deck, the deck behind that deck the new deck is 15 feet from that property line. The deck that is eight feet from the northerly property line is 15 feet from the shoreline. Going to the southerly property line the stairway that is attached to the boathouse and will join the boathouse is 8 feet from the southerly property line, this is also a variance from the shoreline set back. A 4 foot wide walk from the existing upper deck connected to the new decks on the northerly side will be 38 feet from the shoreline. This is not detrimental to the Ordinance and does not change the character of the neighborhood, it is an improvement to this parcel. The planter adjancet to the north property line was considered to be landscaping and did not have to meet the set back requirements. The short EAF was reviewed and no negative impact was found. Having reviewed the application submitted by the applicant as a self assessment form we find no negative impacts as indicated previous in application 40-1989. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1989 ROBERT ECKARDT ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, NORTHERLY ALONG ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD FOR ONE MILE, FIRST HOUSE ON THE WATER ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, GRAY IN COLOR IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO BLUE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WATER STORAGE TANK APPLICANT WISHES TO REMOVE SOME DETERIORATED PORTIONS OF AN EXISTING DECK AND PORCH AND CONSTRUCT NEW DECKS (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 8-2-6 SECTION 7.012 A 3 LOT SIZE: 50 FT. BY 160 FT. WR-IA TABLED BY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1989, SR-lA-NOW, SR-20-oLD, VANDUSEN AND STEVES LOT 44, SOUTH SIDE QUEEN MARY DRIVE, QUEEN VICTORIA'S GRANT SUBDMSION TO MAINTAIN EXISTING POURED SLAB; SIDELINE SETBACK. STAKEOUT OF BUILDING FOR CONSTRUCTION BY SURVEYOR FORGETTING 10 FT. STRIP BETWEEN LOTS 44 AND 45 EXISTED. TAX MAP NO. 121-12-44.1,44.2 SECTION 4.020 G LOT SIZE: LEON STEVES PRESENTIV ANDUSEN AND STEVES MAP SHOWN TO BOARD LEON STEVES-(Refers to map), this indicates lot configurations. Records in the files in previous plans their is another map that doesn't have this strip. The strip itself was created when Phase I was approved. It was noted their was area adjancet to the common area in disposal of sewage so a strip had to be created here (refers to map) so that the sewer line could run off back into the common area. The purpose of that strip was for the sewer easement. The adjancet lot to the east which is lot 45 there is presently a duplex, which is almost 39 feet away from that line, which would make it 49 feet from that lot. The area variance is being sought because of the 30 foot requirement which is 2.57 feet to meet that 30 foot requirement. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT -" 9 Notes from John Goralski, Planner, (On file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1989, VANDUSEN AND STEVES,lntroduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Move to grant relief of 2.57 feet on Lot 44. This is minimum for the reasonable use of the property. The short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1989, SR-IA GEORGE E. DUNPHY LISA NOLIN ATKINSON LUZERNE ROAD REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO SUBDIVIDE FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (PERMITTED USES) AND/OR DUPLEX, MULTI-FAMILY LISTED UNDER TYPE TWO SITE PLAN REVIEW. THE LUZERNE ROAD IS CONSIDERED A COLLECTOR STREET. WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE EFFECTIVE OCT.!, 1988 ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS FRONTING COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL STREETS REQUIRE TWO TIMES THE LOT WIDTH PERMITTED IN THE ZONE IN WIDCH THE LOT IS LOCATED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 125-1-2 SECTION 4.053, 4.020 G LOT SIZE: 4.715±ACRES LISA ATKINSON/MANOR HOMES/GEORGE DUNPHY PRESENT MAP SHOWN TO BOARD LISA ATKINSON-We are trying to get a variance to subdivide because this is in a collector street we need double the lot width. We have 300 feet of lot width, but Mr. Dunphy would like to keep approximately one acre himself and the remainder would be 150.30 for frontage, going back onto the lot approximately the acre that runs back out to the 300 feet of lot width. The Warren County Planning Board has approved this with conditions. First, now existing where the garage is that the driveway would have to be moved. GEORGE DUNPHY-The County was worried about the entrance out onto Luzerne Road. They would like me to eliminate this driveway (refers to map) and put my garage doors on the back side of my garage come in through around the back so that their would only one egress for both properties. That would be no problem, I agreed to do that. LISA ATKINSON-This is outside of the AP A. The wetlands that are in the real corner to the property they are not regulated wetlands according to the Conservation Department. This property was zoned old SR-30, asked if duplex's used to be under permitted uses? MR. TURNER-Correct, they still are, the only subject matter here is the lot width which is 300 feet per lot. GEORGE DUNPHY-The back lot is 300 feet wide, asked if this was correct? MR. MULLER-Correct. GEORGE DUNPHY-The front lot could be made wider if it needed. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Asked if he was proposed a one family home? GEORGE DUNPHY-It is zoned for both. LISA ATKINSON-We don't know yet, and what was proposed would have to go before site plan approval. MICHAEL MULLER-Addressed the issue on applicant's application, page 3. On the collector streets the Zoning Ordinance was changed to require more road frontage to minimize road cuts. LISA ATKINSON-We understand that. MICHAEL MULLER-I understand how you are trying to elevate this by taking your 300 feet of available frontage that is already spread between two parcels, it would now appear that your answer to minimize the road cut to only have one for two lots. --~ 10 LISA ATKINSON-Correct. MICHAEL MULLER-On public facilities you have water and electric utilities, and you have private septic, you have a firehouse down the street. Asked if the road was a private driveway or do you just have a driveway would it be wide enough for emergency vehicles? LISA ATKINSON-What we have proposed it 40 feet wide. MICHAEL MULLER-On the feasible alternatives, one of the alternatives would be not to allow this. It would strictly require 300 feet of road frontage, this is with keeping with the Ordinance. It would be helpful if you could show that you are not allowed to obtain a reasonable use of the land in question for instance, you can't use it, it is of no use to you, you have a total of 4.7 acres, are we denying you a substantial property right, which we would end up saying no because we want to protect the 300 minimum requirement. GEORGE DUNPHY-When we bought this 15 year ago, that was one of the reason we bought so much land to sell later on in life. When we had this surveyed last year. . . LISA ATKINSON-We listed the property under SR-30. I did not realize that Luzerne Road was considered a collector or arterial street and that it did have this width lot stipulation. GEORGE DUNPHY-In order to sell this I would have to start the planning now. I have no other access roads in the back of me there is a street cut through the back of my property, I don't foresee anyone ever putting roads in there in my lifetime. LISA ATKINSON-This is just for one home in using the same driveway. We thought we would eliminate the problem of having more than one drive this, is why we only have the one. MICHAEL MULLER-You elevate that concern. This Board can be criticized for allowing something like this where the Town Board says that you are not allowed to do this. With the following exception, where they have a special hardship. LISA ATKINSON-Asked if it made a difference that even though you don't have the immediate frontage that where the position of the single family home would be it is 300 feet wide? MICHAEL MULLER-Its a factor to be considered. This application has some substantial merit in terms of that you have a extremely large piece of property, and the Ordinance has tied you up, right? LISA ATKINSON-Correct. MICHAEL MULLER-They put in a one acre zone, and they have said to you that you have almost five acres put you can only put one house on it. I think that this is some of the difficulties. LISA ATKINSON-Asked if a single family was for permitted use, so we wouldn't have to go in front of the site plan review board correct? MR. TURNER-Single family you wouldn't, multifamily you would. MICHAEL MULLER-All the uses you proposed are fine. We have the practical difficulty in that you have a dimension requirement in that you have come in with an undersized lot. GEORGE DUNPHY-The lot I am going to keep is undersized. MICHAEL MULLER-You are going to create two nonconforming lots. The first one, is nonconforming by size, the one you keep. The second one, is nonconforming by its frontage. LISA ATKINSON-Asked if what they are saying, if someone was to come before the Board with a financial hardship, this would put a different light on this? MICHAEL MULLER-No, that's the worst case. This relates to the land not to the owner. LISA ATKINSON-What you are taking about double the lot width we don't have as frontage. However, you do have it where the house is going to be placed, and the roadway we are eliminating that. We only want to put one home there, its going to be one family, they are still going to be using the same roadway to get in and out of the driveway as the owners are. I don't see how its going to be that much of a problem. JOYCE EGGLESTON-I think what the problem is that the Town doesn't want this to happen and then we do this, and then the next guy down the road has the same depth as you have and he comes in and he wants to put a house in back of his present house. All down the road you have two sets rl of this. MICHAEL MULLER-The Town has imposed a strict requirement of you. I think the points you are making are the points for the Town Board, which is the only Board in this Town that could address your issues. Even if this was approved this would have to meet subdivision approval. MR. TURNER-A lot of this developed to minimize lot sizes, increase the lot sizes, by increasing the lot sizes they established the collector roads and therefore, they have the 300 foot lot width to minimize the curb cut. If you deed this 40 foot ingress and egress then you cut down the lot width in the front so you will need a variance for that. If this increases the width of this lot on the road front, it has to be 150 feet you would need a variance for that. JOHN GORALSKI-Their may be an option. If this subdivision was internalized, meaning you built a Town road into the property and then subdivided into two parcels then you would only need a 150 feet of lot width. GEORGE DUNPHY-We thought of once building a road, but the cost of the road wouldn't be feasible. JOHN GORALSKI-If you build a Town Road you may possibility be able to put more than two lots. LISA ATKINSON-With a 150 feet of road frontage on four acres. GEORGE DUNPHY-The price of building that road would not be feasible. MICHAEL MULLER-You are asking this Board for 50 per cent relief and we as a Board cannot do that. LISA ATKINSON-Asked how often a moratorium is done? MR. TURNER-This was brought on by development. Their was an apparent outcry out there to increase the acreage on the lots because of to much development. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DON CLEMENTS-On the application it states that the are is thinly populated with more unconformed property, what does unconformed property mean? MICHAEL MULLER-I discussed this with the applicant basically it was our understanding it was other similar parcels that are less than 300 feet of lot width. DON CLEMENTS-Then we are surrounded by numerous owners in large parcels of land when it was originally zoned SR-30. I owned the land that George owns now. I own forty acres down the other side of the brook. This has not been purchased in the past by anybody for resale, as is stated here originally zoned to sell later off to attract new construction, their has been no construction on the whole forty acres, except George's house, my house, and my son-in-law's house. This hasn't conformed to anything that has happened in the area. Another item I would like to question, this is an application for a single family dwelling and this number two item, it says single family, duplex, or multiple family use. MR. TURNER-He has that option to either build a single family without site plan review, or a multifamily, duplex under site plan review. DON CLEMENTS-As he was speaking he wanted a single family residence. MICHAEL MULLER-He is not required to make a choice. GEORGE DUNPHY-He mentioned that; (1) their was not people in the area with large parcel of land that were interested in selling, wrong he did own forty acres of land which he sold two parcels of. I'm saying he can't relate back to the fact that he would never sell any of his property because he already has. DON CLEMENTS-The piece of property that George owns was given to him by my brother-in-law. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board, modified with conditions. (On File). ../ 12 STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On File) MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1989, GEORGE DUNPHY, Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: To disapprove on the basis that the applicant has proposed a plan that requires a degree of change substantial relative to the Ordinance requirement. It is in contravention of the Masterplan relative to the lot width concerning collector roads. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1989 ADIRONDACK COFFEE SERVICES, INC. LI-A CORNER OF WESTERN AVENUE AND PAUL STREET TO EXPAND OFFICES AND WAREHOUSES FACILITIES. LANDS IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING PREMISES ARE COMMERCIAL AND/OR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL; ALL SETBACKS, SIDELINE, REAR LINE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRESENT ZONING ORDINANCE THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 11'1-10-6 SECTION 4.020 N LOT SIZE: 90 FT. BY 115 FT. APPLICANT NOT PRESENT MR. TURNER-The criticism I had about this it is to close to Curtis Lumber. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Their is no room on that lot for what they want to put on there. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board disapproved. (On file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1989, ADIRONDACK COFFEE SERVICES, INC.,lntroduced Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: This violates all the purposes of the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, no room for parking, no buffer and absolutely not enough room for the expansion requested. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Mr. Ted Turner, Chairman ~-_... "-.--- - ~ - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: OA VIO HATIN, DIREGTOR OF RLO(1 &. CODE ENFORCEMENT PATRICIA COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE: INTERPRETATION: DOCK RENTALS DATE: MARCH 29, 1989 76. "Dock Private" means a wharf or portion of a wharf extending along the shore and generally connected to the uplands which accommodates up to three (3) vessels, owned by the property owner, excepting canoes and rowboats and sailboats under eighteen 08') feet. I I I I I I I l ¡ I, I '. i " I I i I I I i I I ! I i I i i I ¡ I Our office has been contacted concerning private docks, 1 -. 2 spaces rented per parcel, to the public. Would you please review Page 9 of the Zoning Ordinance that states the following: 75. "Dock Commercial" means a dock or portion of a dock generally connected to the uplands which accommodates more than three (3) vessels, excepting canoes or rowboats and sailboats under eighteen (18") feet. Private docks - up to three (3) vessels, owned by property owner, what about those private docks renting 1 - 2 spaces to the public? Your discussion and interpretation would be appreciated at the April 19, 1989 meeting. "l4nM¡: n¡: NATIIRAI R¡:AIITV A r,nnn PI Ar.¡: Tn J IV¡:"