The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-02-28 -- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28TH, 1990 INDEX USê Variancê No. 12-1990 David E. Williams l. USê Variancê No. 13-1990 J. Paul Barton 4. dlbla Docksidêr Rê S t. Arêa Variancê No. 14-1990 J. Paul Barton 13. dlbla Docksidêr Rê S t. USê Variancê No. 15-1990 E & T O'Connor Constr. 14. Arêa Variancê No. 16-1990 E & T O'Connor Constr. 16. Arêa Variancê No. 17-1990 Tiêrnan, Bêrnstêin, and 17. Pinchuk THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28TH, 1990 7:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JEFFREY KELLEY CHARLES SICARD MICHAEL SHEA BRUCE CARR MEMBERS ABSENT JOYCE EGGLESTON DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER CORRECTION OF MINUTES January l7th, 1990: Page 21, Variance 2-1990, down on the bottom where Mr. Mathias is talking, sib Collector Streets; Page 24, same Variance, middle of page, where Mrs. Collard states, you didn't get six lots, you got site plan approval to build sib two buildings; Page 26, same Variance, third paragraph from the bottom, where Mr. Bean is speaking, first sentence at the top sib a bird sanctuary; Page 31, Variance 3-1990, at the bottom of the page where Mr. Jordan's is talking, next to the last sentence sib building; Page 32, same Variance, middle of page, Mr. Kelley's speaking, sib Ramsco; Page 33, same Variance, middle of page where Mr. Turner's speaking, sib Henry Sleight; Page 37, Variance 4-l990, sixth sentence down, Mr. Chase speaking, sib change of plans; Page 46, Variance 5-l990, top of the page, Mr. Turner's speaking, sib 25 feet, not 20 feet; Page 47, Area Variance 6-1990, second paragraph down, Mrs. Goetz's is speaking, sib carport, not carpool; Page 53, Variance 7-1990, middle of page, Mr. McMorris speaking, sib land assessment stayed the same, not stated the same; Page 8, middle of the page, Mrs. Goetz's speaking, sib for the holding tank, not in the holding tank; Page 9, bottom paragraph, Miss Weber speaking, Catskill, sib Katskil1; Page 12, towards the bottom of the page, fourth paragraph up, Mrs. Goetz's speaking, septic to sib inserted after where was the lot that they said they were going to pump the; Page 36, Jake Dugree sib Jake Doughrey; Page 42, halfway down, Mrs. Goetz is speaking, sib Nigro, not Nigral; Page 11, John Matthews speaking, ninth line down, folks sib Foulks (peoples name) APPROVAL, AS CORRECTED, OF THE QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 17TH, 1990: Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 12-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED RR.-3A DAVID E. WILLIAMS, SR. CORNER OF BAY ROAD AT ROUTE 149, BLUE RANCH ON RIGHT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE BUILDING AND SHOP TO HOUSE DUCTWORK, FURNACES, SUPPLIES, AND TRUCK AND UNLOADING DOCK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 51-1-40 LOT SIZE: 6.85 ACRES SECTION 4.020-C DAVID WILLIAMS, SR. PRESENT MR. WILLIAMS-Stated I believe you said 3 acres here down here. 6.85 acres. I really have 1 - MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d ok, right, you hav~ 6.85 acr~s, but th~ zoning is rural r~sid~ntial 3 acr~s. MR. WILLIAMS-Stat~d y~s, w~ did purchas~ this property as comm~rcia1 prop~rty to mov~ our busin~ss on to and w~ had a lot of straight~ning up to do with th~ prop~rty wh~n w~ first got it and, th~r~for~, w~ could not put our building up for our busin~ss, right away. Wh~n w~ did g~t r~ady to put this building up, w~ found that it had b~~n chang~d to r~sid~ntia1. MR. TURNER-Ask~d, wh~n did you purchas~ th~ prop~rty? MR. WILLIAMS-Stat~d it will b~ thr~~ y~ars ago, May 1st. Th~ building is going to, hop~ful1y, b~ put 75 f~~t back into th~ tr~~s, mor~ or l~ss, so w~ can s~~ th~. . up front. W~ hop~ to k~~p th~ charact~r of that corn~r looking as it is, mor~ or l~ss. Th~r~' s no high vo1um~ of traffic. Our busin~ss is out on th~ road. W~ hav~ good acc~ss to th~ highway. Oth~r than that, I don't know what ~ls~ you'd lik~ to h~ar. MR. TURNER-Stat~d wh~n you purchas~d th~ prop~rty in '87, that was highway comm~rcia1, but th~ usag~ you hav~ th~r~ wasn' t al10w~d und~r highway comm~rcia1 to start with. I look~d through th~ old book, right h~r~, ...th~ us~s in highway comm~rcial and that's not a list~d p~rmitt~d us~ in a highway comm~rcia1 zon~. So what you'r~ proposing tonight is a light industrial us~ in a rural r~sid~ntial, 3 acr~ zon~. You'v~ got to prov~ that you can't r~aliz~ a r~asonab1~ r~turn on th~ prop~rty as zon~d or for any p~rmitt~d us~ in that zon~. MR. WILLIAMS-Stat~d w~ll, th~ zon~s I don't fully und~rstand, th~ light comm~rcia1 and what not. Lik~ I say, th~r~'s no busin~ss to b~ conduct~d, so to sp~ak, on th~ prop~rty. It's th~ typ~ of busin~ss that work is down away from th~ prop~rty. MR. TURNER-Stat~d y~s, but what you'r~ proposing is a light industrial application. MR. WILLIAMS-Stat~d y~s. MR. TURNER-Stat~d and that's not allow~d. Und~r highway comm~rcia1, th~ p~rmitt~d us~ b~for~ was fast food r~staurants, din~rs, and bars, plac~s of public ass~mb1y, prof~ssional offic~s, offic~ buildings, gr~~nhous~s, social clubs, mot~ls and hot~ls, fir~ stations. Typ~ II was public garag~s and gas stations, driv~ in th~at~rs, amus~m~nt c~nt~rs, golf driving rang~s, miniatur~ golf cours~s, r~cr~ation faci1iti~s, prof~ssiona1 offic~ buildings ov~r 5 units, dw~lling units in combination with p~rmitt~d us~s op~rat~d by th~ r~sid~nts and..trav~l trail~r parks, offic~ buildings ov~r 5 units, hospitals, nursing hom~s, and h~a1th r~lat~d faciliti~s, day car~ c~nt~rs, auto r~pair shops, auto sa1~s and s~rvic~, boat storag~, r~pair, and sa1~s, farm and construction ~quipm~nt sa1~s and s~rvic~, mobil~ hom~ sa1~s, that's what you w~r~ al1ow~d th~r~ b~for~, wh~n you purchas~d the prop~rty. Now, und~r th~ n~w r~gu1ation, your p~rmitt~d use is singl~ family dw~lling, that's for 3 acr~s and und~r th~ Typ~ II Sit~ Plan R~vi~w you 'v~ got group. . .min~ral, grav~l, and sand ~xtraction, dog k~nn~l, riding stabl~, animal husbandry and agricultural us~, prof~ssional offic~...of th~ r~sid~nts, golf cours~, school, church, planning or d~v~lopm~nt of comm~rcia1 gr~~nhous~, privat~ boat hous~ and dock, s~asona1 produc~ stand, thos~ ar~ th~ us~s now. So, th~ us~ that you'r~ r~qu~sting is a light industrial use. MR. SICARD-Ask~d, do you und~rstand that, John, what transpir~d h~r~, th~ chang~ in zon~, tim~ wis~ and ~v~rything? JOHN ROTHERMAL, CONTRACTOR MR. ROTHERMAL-Stat~d I didn't know that th~y had a r~striction as to right now that prohibits th~m from putting up a storag~ building. what it is is a storag~ building. It's a 1arg~ garag~. what ~xists Bas ica lly, MR. TURNER-Stat~d it's a storag~ building and a r~sid~ntial zon~, a distribution c~nt~r, in r~lation to th~ ~quipm~nt that you' r~ going to s~ll, so that puts it in a light industrial zon~. MR. ROTHERMAL-Stat~d as it is now, it's us~d as a two car garag~ and it's pr~tty w~ll jamm~d up, which is a r~lativ~ly unsaf~ condition. I didn' t r~a1iz~ th~ storag~ building would b~ that MR. TURNER-Stat~d what I'm saying is, ~v~n though h~'s using it now for what h~'s using it for, it's not an al1ow~d us~ right now, but, pr~vious to th~ chang~ in th~ ordinanc~, that wasn't an a1low~d us~ anyway, just r~sid~ntial and thos~ it~ms that ar~ list~d in highway comm~rcial, but now it's r~sid~ntial. 2 - MR. ROTHERMAL-Stated right, residential, period. MR. TURNER-Stated period. I'm just elaborating on the points that you've got to bring up. I don't think we'd be satisfied. MR. SICARD-Asked, Mr. Chairman, if the previous zone permitted what he tried to do then he would have MR. TURNER-Stated then he'd have some preexisting, nonconforming use. Now he's light industrial. MR. SICARD-Stated even at that time it wasn't permitted. MR. TURNER-Stated no. Even at the time when he went in there and he thought it was permitted, it wasn't. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Memorandum to the Zoning Board from Pat Collard, dated February 27th, 1990 (on file) Memo dated February 26th, 1990, from John Symanski (on file) Letter dated February 23rd, 1990, from Scherer's Antiques, corner of Rt. 149 and Bay Road: Dave and Joan Williams are very good neighbors with a well kept and clean yard and lawn. Dave's company trucks and vans are always lined up side by side and clean, with no junk or garbage lying about. We have no objection to their building a storage building. STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file) Warren County Planning Board approved MR. KELLEY-Stated one question for Mr. Williams. Do you presently live in this house? MR. WILLIAMS-Stated yes. MR. KELLEY-Asked and you've lived there since you bought it in '87? MR. WILLIAMS-Stated yes. MR. KELLEY-Asked, that's your single family residence and it's not a two family or anything like that? MR. WILLIAMS-Stated no. MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 12-1990 DAVID E. WILLIAMS, SR., Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: The applicant is asking for a use variance to place a light industrial use in an RR-3A zone. The applicant doesn't pass all the criteria necessary to pass the variance. He presently lives in the single family residence and has lived there for the three years since he bought the property. It is an allowed use there. The light industrial use here would be detrimental to the ordinance. The residential qualifications say that he should be providing openness. A light industrial building here wouldn't be conducive to the residents near by. The hardship is self imposed. The property was highway commercial when it was purchased. The use that he wants now wasn't allowed then. This should remain as a residential lot. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston 3 -./ USE VARIANCE NO. 13-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER REST. GLEN LAKE ROAD, HALFWAY BETWEEN BAY ROAD AND ROUTE 9 (LAKE GEORGE ROAD) TO ADD 1,826 SQ. FT. TO THE EXISTING RESTAURANT SPACE WITH STORAGE OF DRY GOODS, BUSINESS RECORDS ON SECOND STORY PORTION. FIRST STORY OF EXISTING RESTAURANT TO BE RENOVATED. . SLEEPING QUARTERS TO REMAIN AS IS (SECOND STORY). (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-2 LOT SIZE: .98 ACRES SECTION 9.014 MACK DEAN, MORSE ENGINEERING AND PAUL BARTON, PRESENT MR. DEAN-Statêd good êVêning. My namê is Mack Dêan with Morsê Enginêêring rêprêsênting Paul Barton of thê Docksidêr Rêstaurant. Also hêrê tonight is Paul Barton who 1ivês on thê propêrty. Wê havê somê displays hêrê for thê Board. MR. BARTON-Statêd good êVêning. Oncê again, my namê is Paul Barton. I'm thê ownêr of thê Docksidêr Rêstaurant. I'Vê bêên thê ownêr for fivê Yêars as of this Junê 15th. I'm a lifê long rêsidênt of thê Lakê. I rêalizê thê importancê of thê propêrty and thê businêss as bêing a positivê part in thê G1ên Lakê community and I rêspêct thê rights of my nêighbors. I am mêmbêr of thê G1ên Lakê Protêctivê Association and SêrVê as a mêmbêr of thê Board of Dirêctors. I havê bêên a mêmbêr of thê Bay Ridgê Vo1untêêr Rêscuê Squad for 10 Yêars, which SêrVêS this arêa and now SêrVê as Assistant Captain of that Rêscuê Squad. I am a mêmbêr of thê G1ên Lakê Park Association which owns thê park dirêct1y across thê road from mysêlf. I havê a good rê1ationship with thêm as far as its uSê. I havê prOVên that I am vêry concêrnêd about thê quality of thê Lakê and thê safêty of thosê that USê it. I rêalizê I havê thê only major aCCêSS to thê Lakê and havê, in thê past, prêvêntêd pêrsons from having that aCCêSS in ordêr to prêsêrvê that quality and safêty. Six months aftêr I purchasêd thê propêrty I, with thê ok of thê Town of QUêênsbury, put in a sêptic systêm which was vêry badly nêêdêd and it cost mê monêY that I didn't havê and I was vêry lucky to find somêonê that would lênd mê thê monêY to gêt it donê. It would takê mê a Yêar and a half to payoff. That madê mê fêê1 much bêttêr onCê I had takên carê of that prob1êm. I'Vê takên grêat pridê in thê aêsthêtics of my propêrty in êVêry way possiblê in ordêr to plêase my nêighbors as wêll as thê customêrs. Numêrous f10wêrs arê p1antêd êach summêr. Thê lawn and groundsarê maintainêd vêry wêll. I havê oftên, on numêrous timês, gonê onto Town propêrty which is adjacênt to mysê1f. I havê mowêd it, I havê wêêdêd it, and I'Vê rakêd it. I do not havê any thoughts of sêl1ing this propêrty. I hopê to maintain and kêêp it for quitê somê timê. I'm hoping to makê thêsê changês in ordêr to makê my businêss morê profitab1ê and functional as wêll as attractivê and a positivê focal point to thê G1ên Lakê community. I havê briêf1y madê my own list of rêasons for thê projêct and I will try to makê it as briêf as possib1ê. Thê biggêst conCêrn, of two main concêrns, is thê unobstructêd viêw of thê Lakê from virtually êVêry sêat in thê rêstaurant. I havê pêop1ê that will comê in to thê rêstaurant and want to sit in thê front room, cannot and lêavê. Thê othêr big conCêrn is a safêr, 1argêr, morê functional kitchên. I nêêd room for morê êquipmênt in ordêr to incrêasê thê turnOVêr ratê bêcausê pêop1ê arê gêtting Upsêt bêcausê it's taking so long to gêt thêir food bêcausê thê kitchên is so small. I nêêd morê frêêzêr arêa. A lot of this has bêên mêntionêd in thê application so I won't go OVêr it again. I nêêd bêttêr insidê aCCêSS to thê dêck for patrons and waitpêrsons in ordêr to gêt to thê dêck, as wêll as insidê flow of traffic. Rêstrooms arê in bad nêêd of rênovating, nêêd c1êanêr sêrvicês and incrêasêd numbêr of fixturês and also handicappêd accêSS. Morê storagê is nêêdêd for bêêr caSêS, ... papêr products, êxtra êquipmênt, and businêss rêcords. Thê êxpansion would ênab1ê mê to host small groups, approximatê1y 40 pêoplê, in privatê rooms and still havê a rêgu1ar arêa for customêrs and thêir viêw. Thêrê has bêên numêrous timês that I havê turnêd away pêop1ê, groups of 40, 50 pêop1ê, who would likê to havê a function and I havê had to turn thêm away bêcausê I did not havê thê room. Thê cocktail loungê arêa and bar will bê locatêd away from thê majority of thê dining room sêating which makês pêOp lê fêê1 morê comfortab1ê and has a divêrsê arêa for thêm to êithêr êat or drink and êat. It will also hê1p mê providê a morê dêfinitivê smoking and nonsmoking sêction which is now rêquirêd by law. To upgradê thê sêptic systêm, a grêasê trap will bê addêd, two morê tanks will bê installêd to hold thê solids and liquids, givê mê an incrêasêd capacity. All thê plumbing will be all in onê cornêr of thê building. It will not bê spread out from onê sidê to thê othêr which will makê it much morê functional and, last but cêrtain1y not lêast, I do p Ian on doing structural maintênancê to thê êxisting building, to makê it safêr for êVêryonê invo1vêd. Rêcêntly, in thê last 10 days, I havê put a complêtê Sêt of plans, which you havê hêrê, thê samê plans, up for disp lay for 10 days in thê rêstaurant and I postêd a noticê for public mêêting this past Monday at 7 0' clock for anyonê that would 1ikê to attênd. I also madê phonê calls to all thê rêsidênts within thê 500 fêet boundary from thê propêrty, as many as I could gêt a hold of, to 1êt thêm know. If thêY did not comê to thê 4 "-" mêêting, I havê ta1kêd to quitê a fêw of thêm and I bêliêvê you havê in thê rêcords thêrê a pêtition that I had in thê rêstaurant that's signêd only by pêOp lê who 1ivê on thê Lakê. Forty pêop1ê I think, roughly, havê signêd it and ê1êvên pêOplê arê within that 500 foot zonê from my propêrty, thê pêoplê that havê signêd it or sênt lêttêrs and I just hopê for your vêry carêful considêration. Thank you. MR. DEAN-Statêd I think I'd likê to êxpand on what Paul has a1rêady touchêd on in têrms of thê morê têchnical aspêcts. Onê of thê rêasons that thê building proposêd is thê sizê of which Wê arê proposing, first of all, this arêa hêrê(rêfêrring to map)I hopê êVêryonê can Sêê it fairly wêll. This arêa's basically thê original, êxisting building. Mêchanica1 room, storagê arêa is in thê arêa now shown as thê kitchên. I bêliêvê YOU'Vê all had an opportunity to look at this. Originally, Wê had startêd with a dêsign that was no morê than, I think, 38 fêêt. As soon as Wê startêd looking into NêW York Statê codês as to handicapPêd rêquirêmênts, êVên suggêstêd sizês for kitchêns basêd on numbêr of sêats availablê, first of all, handicappêd rêquirêmênts. Wê had to dêsign a bathroom...at minimum sizê as shown, that dictatêd SiZê of thê bathroom spacê. Kitchên spacê is dictatêd by thê numbêr of sêats avai1ab1ê and thê turnOVêr ratê for two mêa1s a day, that 1êft thê proposêd dining arêa at about onê third thê êngrossab1ê arêa of thê addition, that obviously is thêrê to hê1p pay for thê cost of thê rênovations. Building COdêS did havê a lot to do with thê dêsign. Wê havê providêd amplê êmêrgêncy êgrêss arêas with morê than ênough êxit doors. Thê spacês bêtwêên thê tab1ês shown arê, pêrhaps, a littlê bit morê than minimal rêquirêd by.. .but what Wê fêêl safê. Thêrê arê also provisions for thê additÍ()n of a portab1ê salad bar and thêsê tablês could bê movêd slightly about thê salad bar and still havê thê nêcêssary .. from the tab1êS. On thê handicappêd êntranCê into thê building, it is proposêd to bê on thê sidê of thê building by mêans of a ramp. It's in a rêasonab1ê location for that. Entrancê to Mr. Barton's apartmênt and thê storagê arêa abovê and thê small officê spacê will bê locatêd bêtwêên thê kitchên and thê bathroom. Thêrê is a minimum amount of storagê arêa providêd. Wê had, rêal1y, no dêsirê to mOVê closêr to thê nêighboring propêrty ownêr. Mrs. Sullivan and Ann Sullivan havê bêên good nêighbors of Paul's for a numbêr of yêars. Wê want to maintain that 50 foot sêtback. Wê nêêdêd to maintain it to concêivê thê sêptic systêm, which is on thê shêêt. Thê sêptic systêm tanks will bê locatêd in that arêa. Thêrê a numbêr of vêry nicê Birch trêêS and othêr Hardwoods, Pinês and so forth in that arêa and Wê rêally wênt through a grêat dêa1 of planning to p 1acê thê tanks and thê sêptic systêm in an arêa with a minimal amount of cutting nêcêssary. Original dêsign had movêd thê proposêd kitchên arêa to thê rêar most portion of thê building, as c10sê to thê sêptic systêm as Wê could possibly gêt it. Wê would havê to maintain a 20 foot sêtback from thê building to any privatê sêptic systêm, 10 fêêt from thê sêptic tanks. Thêrê was just no way Wê could go any furthêr back, but it kind of left us with a situation with a 12 foot êxpansion towards thê Lakê, 12 fêêt bêyond thê êxisting building, considêrab1y lêss than thê êxisting dêck. Originally, Wê had lookêd at thê possibility of rêbuilding thê kitchên in its prêsênt location, but that also would havê put us bêforê thê Board tonight, looking for an arêa variancê. Currêntly, I bêliêvê wê'rê, approximatê1y, 30 fêêt from thê Lakêshorê to thê êxisting building. So, in any rêspêct, any placê Wê nêêdêd to add on, would'vê rêquirêd a variancê, including thê rêar of thê building which facês thê parking lot...parking lot arêa. I think, rathêr than ramblê on, pêrhaps thê Board has somê qUêstions. MR. CARR-Askêd, Mack, Mr. Barton was just saying, maybê it was you also, that thê sizê by which êVêrything has bêên situatêd has basically bêên thê numbêr of sêats or sittings this rêstaurant can hold bêcausê you nêêd that sizê kitchên for that amount of tab1ês. Havê you considêrêd, instêad of having 30 or 40 tablês, stations, cutting it down a 1ittlê, maybê shrink thê wholê proposal? MR. DEAN-Statêd if Wê shrink thê proposal, your cost of construction not only would prêc1udê thê cost of doing businêss, this rêa1ly is a rêasonab1ê numbêr and it's almost a minimal numbêr of sêats to continuê. MR. CARR-Askêd do you know how long thê pay back is êXpêctêd to...1ikê a 10 Yêar payoff? MR. DEAN-Statêd that dêpênds considêrably on thê... and thê pricês. arê very compêtitivê. Thê pricês MR. CARR-Askêd, arê thêrê any projêctions now, Mr. Barton, as to whên you would havê this paid for, thê addition. MR. BARTON-Statêd thê only contact I'Vê had, so far, with thê bank, it would probably êxtênd to 15 yêars as far as what I would takê out as paymênts on this. It dêpênds, 5 a1se, en the cest ef the preject which I cannet really ceme up with at this peint because there's ne sense trying te find eut what the cest ef the preject is until I find the size ef the building, the censtructien, the architectural dimensiens that are geing te be a1lewed. As far as the seating gees, I weu1d enly add that I had mentiened the greups that I am turning away, small parties, weddings, greups, rehearsal parties, there's numereus things, bew1ing banquets and a let ef them are right areund the area ef 40, 50 peeple and that's where it weu1d help me greatly as far as helping te pay fer the medificatiens and additiens te the building. MR. SHEA-Asked, Mr. Barten, what's the present seating capacity ef the building? MR. BARTON-Stated 50. MR. DEAN-Stated I weuld be very surprised if the size ef the additien was larger than this reem. It may seund like a let ef space, 1800 square feet, but it's net. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, it's the size ef this reem? MR. DEAN-Stated it's net a let bigger than that. MRS. GOETZ-Stated I think this reem is big. MR. DEAN-Stated it is big, but when yeu fill up the space with kitchen, bathreems. Yeu're new leeking at less than 600 square feet ef usable, that's if yeu add a few square feet here fer the back area, but, basically, yeu' re 1eeking at 600 square feet ef dining space that's being added te the building. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, was the eutside deck added by variance? MR. DEAN-Stated yes, that's cerrect. MRS. GOETZ-Stated se when yeu say that yeu' re net ceming eut as far as the deck is eut, true, but that deck was by variance. MR. DEAN-Stated that's cerrect. A1se, yeur setbacks that are established te the deck, yeur building line was a deck, er balceny er.. MR. SHEA-Asked, when was the deck censtructed? MR. DEAN-Stated 4 years age. MRS. GOETZ-Stated I just weu1d like te make the peint that it already has been expanded ence in seme way. MR. DEAN-Stated it's well taken. MR. KELLEY-Asked, reugh1y, new, what is the square feetage ef the bathreems that exist? MR. DEAN-Stated abeut 40 square feet. MR. KELLEY-Stated alright, and what is the reugh area ef the new enes. MR. DEAN-Stated we're 1eeking at, reughly 8 by 18 in the wemens reem. 16 by 8 in the mens reem. I'd say MR. KELLEY-Asked, 16 by 8 in the mens reem and the ladies reem is semething similar? MR. DEAN-Stated 18 by 8. MR. KELLEY-Asked, is there presently handicapped access? MR. DEAN-Asked, te the building? MR. KELLEY-Stated yes. MR. DEAN-Stated ne. There are ne handicapped tei1ets, ne handicapped access. MR. KELLEY-Asked, and yeu said the bathreems that yeu prepesed in the new, are the minimal te meet the new cedes and handicapped access and se ferth? 6 '-- MR. DEAN-Absolutely, the numbers of fixtures plus handicapped requirements. MR. KELLEY-Asked, can you give me some kind of a comparison of what the current kitchen square footage is and compare it to what the new is. MR. BARTON-Stated our kitchen, I believe, is close to 500 square feet. The kitchen, currently, is split between the two rooms. It's closer to 357, the proposed kitchen is about, with the walk-in cooler, basically we're looking at, well, this says 27'-9" by 17'-6" that's to the walk-in cooler and the freezer, that's, basically, work area, functional space. It's about 4 and a half square feet per seat. MRS. COLLARD-Stated Mr. Chairman, the permeability requirement in the zoning is 65 percent and they will be requiring a variance from that. MR. BARTON-Asked, why is that? MRS. COLLARD-Stated the permeability on that property as is, doesn't come close to that. MR. GORALSKI-Stated I think, if I could just clarify that. Historically, the Planning Board and the Zoning Board have not considered gravel parking as permeable area because our consulting engineer has discussed this significantly and, after gravel or stone dust type of parking lot is driven over several times and oils drip on it and what not, it becomes, basically, a solid, paved area and the water simply runs over it. So, basically, the green area would be what's considered permeable area. MR. DEAN-Stated I don't quite understand. neither does SEQRA. You're reg's don't express that and MR. GORALSKI-Stated if you read our definition of permeable area, that would fall under the definition and that's the way it's been considered, historically. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, the first time that came up, was that the motel on Aviation Road? MR. GORALSKI-Stated that was the first time it came up in front of the Zoning Board. It had come up before, in front of the Planning Board. MRS. GOETZ-Stated and at that time, we made that determination. MR. GORALSKI-Stated right. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, what percentage of permeability can they meet? MR. GORALSKI-Stated well, their existing permeability, if you consider only the green area, I would say would be about 35 to 40 percent. MR. DEAN-Stated I'd say 37 percent. MR. GORALSKI-Stated ok. MR. DEAN-Stated however, to my knowledge, for the last several years, having been on the property during and after a number of rainstorms, the water seems to have disappeared and it certainly hasn't run into the Lake, nor has it run onto neighboring property and I would submit to you that a gravel parking lot is certainly a permeable area. Perhaps not 100 percent permeable that we may find strictly in a grass or a meadow, but I think there is a necessity, here, for some way to understand it, that your reg's do not specify gravel areas as being hard surface and, traditionally, hard surface has been...building or something of that nature. MR. CARR-Asked, John, what was decided with the Aviation motel? MR. GORALSKI-Stated since October of '88 or, actually, I can say since November of '88, any time that a gravel parking area was proposed, in front of this Board or in front of the Planning Board, that was not considered as permeable area. What happened before that, I don't know, but, for example, the motel on Aviation Road received a permeability variance because they could not include the gravel parking as part of their permeable area. MR. BARTON-Stated the only thing I would add to that is, being there for 5 years, after any storm, whether it's even in the winter time when the snow melts, there 7 are definite puddles there. The water's got to be going into the ground. They're not running into the Lake and that's been a big problem that I've had is the water that does congregate there, kind of goes into the ground. The majority of it does not run into the Lake and that's just what I've seen from my years of being there. MR. SHEA-Stated Mr. Barton, I have a question with regards to reasonable return on the property. At it's present level and capacity, is the business profitable? MR. BARTON-Stated I am making a profit, yes. (TAPE TURNED) now, I wouldn't be borrowing money for five years just to keep it afloat. MR. SICARD-Asked, Mack, could a test be taken, in that particular location, for permeability? I think every parking lot is different. MR. DEAN-Stated that's correct. Percolation rates will vary from one area to another, whether it's a parking lot or not. MR. SICARD-Stated I'm acquainted with that particular parking lot and what you're saying is true,...what's there and I'm thinking, probably, every parking lot, soil differentials in Queensbury vary. Some places are.. .other places are rock and that particular place just happens to be one that, even when I see boats go out of there many times and the water coming off the boat puddles for just a short time and what I'm thinking about, there must be some kind of permeability test that could be taken for that particular parking lot.. to be restricted to this Ordinance. MR. DEAN-Stated yes, we can certainly have a the form of a percolation test. MR. SICARD-Asked, percolation test? MR. DEAN-Stated it might be a little difficult with the stones. The stones are loose. MR. SICARD-Asked, wasn't there quite a bit of stone dust in there, at one time, as far as gravel and dirt? MR. DEAN-Stated yes, stone. The danger in is use a larger size the...as the dust. I believe Paul has, at least once a year, has had crushed using any kind of dust, what we recommended in the past, stone. It doesn't have a tendency to compact as much of MR. SICARD-Stated it wou1d...in the winter time, anyway. MR. DEAN-Stated in addition to that, we've also proposed the parking area, in our storm water drainage calculations, is a bit of a retention area and the addition of 4 to 6 inches of crushed stone as a retention area. MR. TURNER-Stated Mack, lets talk about the parking. MR. DEAN-Stated ok. MR. TURNER-Stated.. spaces are 10 by 20, but there's not a 20 foot clear drive between the spaces. MR. DEAN-Stated I'd like to apologize to the Board in that the parking plans submitted with the app lication, the parking plan that I have before you tonight contains 52 spaces. Each space is 10 by 20 with a minimum of 20 feet from the driving lane, some areas 30 feet..so from 22 feet to 25 feet on the westerly driving lane and a 20 foot minimum along the easterly driving lane. I became aware of the problem with the previous design. One of the inherent problems with a diagonal parking line such as that is, basically, with a gravel lot, it's hard to regulate how people park. If you had a straight lot and you put your diagonal lines in, you have a better chance, at least in the winter time. We have met and exceeded the required parking numbers of 2. Aside from using some of the lawn area, I think what we're looking at is about 52 spaces, based on the 10 by 20, it would be 200 square feet per vehicle. MR. DEAN-Stated I would like to stress one thing to the Board and it's really imperative for anyone who hasn't been to the Docksider what the existing layout is for, in terms of precedent. You have separate dining areas, very difficu1t..by the staff and I think what we're really looking at is to provide more comfortable 8 dining for the customers, but also a safe and workable environment for the owner and his staff and to provide them an area of privacy for any group that may wish to use that area. It will be closed off in the winter time. It will not be used, to conserve energy in that respect. I think we could have come to the Board tonight with a much larger expansion proposal. There's no doubt in my mind we could have come with a larger proposal. We sat down, figured the cost of construction, projected return, and whether it was worth it, what are we actually providing? You can make an income any number of places, but it has become almost a necessity in the neighborhood. It may sound a little funny, but it is very much a neighborhood gathering spot and we'd like to continue to be able to provide better service than I think we could without it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUSAN ROURKE, IN SUPPORT MRS. ROURKE-Hi, my name is Susan Rourke on Jay Road, Glen Lake. I just want to say, as a neighbor and a patron, we are in favor of the project. ANN SULLIVAN, IN SUPPORT MRS. SULLIVAN-My name is Ann Sullivan and my property adjoins the Docksider. My family's enjoyed a friendly relationship with Paul Barton. I reviewed the building addition and have no objections to the expansion of the building. MARIANNE DIEHL, OPPOSED MRS. DIEHL-My name is Marianne Diehl and I live within the 500 foot area of the Docks ider. I res ide, in the summer, at a camp north of the Docks ider and I'm wondering about adverse effect on the neighborhood character. As you know this is placed in a residential area. People have lived in this area for many years or for the summer for many years, like I have and I think the main goal of the people coming to that Lake was to find peace and quiet and I find that, even though Paul is a good neighbor, he's very helpful, I find that this peacefulness is gradually eroding, with the increasing of traffic, with the boats that are continually coming into the Docksider and I noticed that, at night, when you want to sit out on your porch, or if you have the windows open that, even though I am, like, 500 feet away, what I find is that the voices are carrying over the water. If anyone has been near a lake, they know how easily that sound carries. I find that peop 1e getting in and out of their boat, even though they aren't intentionally talking loud, it seems like they're right next to me in my camp and I find that, when people are sometimes even sitting on the dock that's there, it's a lovely dock and if you've been there, you'd really enjoy it, but I find I can sometimes hear their voices too and I do find it's very noisy and sometimes, when Paul is having activities in the outside area adjoining the restaurant, I find that the parking space that he has is not adequate and, as a result, they are parking all along the roads on both sides and the road is very narrow to begin with and there really isn't any place for people to pull off the road unless they park on our property and I notice sometimes that you'll have to watch it on weekends if there's something going on because somebody will come and park in blocking your driveway or park on the land that is yours and, if you've ever been in that area when both sides of thß road has cars on it, you'll notice how dangerous it is if therß was an ßmergßncy vßhicle to go through or if there's two cars trying to pass each other. That's a vßry narrow road to begin with, and with the cars parked on each side, I think it makßs it a safßty hazard and also it makßs it an inconvenißncß for the pßople living in that area. Then I noticed that it was mßntionßd that you could've had a largßr proposed addition and if that should happen in thß futurß, we'd eVßn havß more pßop Ie frequenting that area which has been rezoned which was originally a residßntial area. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Stated (rßfßrring to his notes) Mr. Chairman, in thß next to last paragraph about evidßncß of a reasonablß return, in the application I was reviewing, the explanation that thßY had given was not in there for somß reason. So, I don't know if it fßll out in our file or if it just wasn't in the filß, but it is in the other applications. I just wanted to point that out. 9 Warren County Planning Board approved MRS. GOETZ-Stated there are several pages of petitions in support of the Docksider Restaurant expansion proposal with many signatures. Letter from Baldwin Brothers Refrigeration, Dar Baldwin: I have received notification from the Town on the proposed expansion of the Docksider Restaurant. I have thoroughly reviewed the plans and, after doing so, I feel this project to be a great asset to the Glen Lake area. Therefore, I am definitely in favor of the expansion and renovation of the restaurant. Letter from William J. and Jean S. Sullivan: Please be advised that we live across the Glen Lake Road from the Docks ider and that we have seen the plans for the extension of the building. We are part of the family that previously owned the property which was then called Sullivan's Pavilion. We approve, wholeheartedly, of the planned expansion. Mr. Barton's operation of the restaurant has been a credit to the area. He has maintained the property and he's run a very respectable business. Mr. Barton's interest in the Glen Lake area covers many years and I am sure that he always has the best interest of the Glen Lake area uppermost in his mind. We would appreciate it if you would grant the variance. We would be at the meeting if we were in town. Letter from Gary Evans, Birch Road, Glen Lake: This letter is to express my personal support for the proposed expansion and renovation to the Docksider Restaurant. I have resided at approximately one half mile distance for this past seven years. I have personally known the proprietor for more than a dozen years. I have frequently been a patron at the restaurant. The restaurant and its attires have been maintained in a clean type of state since Paul began operations in here. He has done much to the existing facility to improve its appearance. The Docksider is an asset to the area as well as a convenient service to the neighborhood. I have personally seen the proposed plans and believe the proposal will benefit the community as well as Paul Barton. The appearance will be improved. The parking will be brought up to requirements. More exits will be provided. Water and septic systems will be upgraded. Provision will be made to accommodate handicapped access. The landscaping and grounds appearance will also be enhanced. In short, this proposed renovation expansion will allow the Docksider to better serve its clientele as well as become a more attractive neighbor in the Glen Lake area. I urge careful consideration of this matter, believing the proposal meets the requisite concerns of the immediate community. I would ask the appropriate review agencies approve this project. Letter from Neil McPhillips: I am writing this letter in favor of approving plans to expand the Docksider. There are numerous circumstances which I think are very particular to this appeal for a variance. First of all, the history. The Docksider was once known as Sullivan's Pavilion. Growing up on Glen Lake, Sullivan's Pavilion was not only a bar and restaurant, but it was a community meeting spot. During the week, the area children would meet at the Pavilion to buy candy and soda while their parents went to the restaurant. On Saturday night there would be dances and then on Sunday mornings the local families would meet at Sullivan's for church. Once a year, the Glen Lake Association would have a field day for all the children in which the children would compete for prizes in different events. The Pavilion was also a spot where many of the Glen Lake Association meetings were held. The second reason is community. For anyone that has been in or around Glen Lake, they understand just how lucky the people of Glen Lake are. Not only do they live on a beautiful lake, but they have a very tight knit family-like community associated with this Lake. Not to be redundant, but going back to the history, the Pavilion has been a hub for this community and this family type relation. The third reason is the owner. Paul has been life time resident of Glen Lake. This community has seen his dedication with the Bay Ridge Fire Department, the Glen Lake Association, the Glen Lake Park Association and numerous other community activities. When Paul purchased Sullivan I s Pavilion, he pushed his budget to make some changes that were important to the ecological life of Glen Lake but not demanded by any building codes or law. I don't believe that Paul would do anything to harm Glen Lake. To sum up this letter, I feel that the Docksider Restaurant is vital to the bloodstream of this community. I don't believe its expansion will, in any way, harm the Lake and, in the long run, will help the Lake. To keep this a viable business, some changes will have to be made and the owner is willing to make the financial commitment to make it advantageous, not only to himself, but for the Glen Lake community. Allow the Docksider to take that next step into the 1990' s and continue to be the hub of activity. Please do not allow it to go the way of other Pavilions such as Sunnyside, only a memory of the past. 10 ..- L~tt~r from Elain~ and Wa1t~r Riv~t: As r~sid~nts of G1~n Lak~, w~ would lik~ to comm~nd John Paul Barton on his plans in r~novating and improving th~ ~xisting quality of this ar~a by th~ r~mod~ling of th~ Docksid~r Restaurant. We have ta1k~d ext~nsive1y to him and revi~wed his proposed plans in regards to what this...would mean to the Gl~n Lak~ ar~a. It is our opinion that this would be a positiv~ mov~ towards the b~autification of our Lak~. Being a lif~ long r~sident of Gl~n Lak~, J. Paul Barton has always showed concern about the quality of the Lak~. With ~ach improv~m~nt h~ has already accomplished, his first concerns w~r~ always of th~ Lake. Th~y hav~ had nothing but a positive impact to our area. We support J. Paul Barton, who1eheart~d1y, on his continuing effort to improve the appearanc~ of the restaurant. L~tter from Robert and Edith Hughes: We have studi~d th~ plans for th~ propos~d r~novations and addition to the Docksider with a great deal of enthusiasm. We have been summ~r residents of Gl~n Lake for more than 30 y~ars and th~ prospect of bigger and other facilities at the Docksider for docking our boat, dining, and ~nt~rtaining our guests is particularly app~a1ing. We urge you to giv~ your approval to th~ Docksider proposal. MR. TURNER-Stated sinc~ this is a Type I action, I would propose that instead of the Zoning Board being the lead agency, that it be passed on to the Planning Board, sinc~ they're going to r~vi~w the whol~ sit~ plan anyway and those ar~ th~ issues that are in th~re. Rather than act on it right now, wait until it comes back and th~n w~'ll act on the application once it comes back from th~ Planning Board. MR. BARTON-Ask~d, are you addr~ssing, specifically, th~ Use Variance? MR. TURNER-Stat~d yes, just th~ Us~ Variance. DISCUSSION WAS HELD MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d I'm just overhearing your conversation, I think, and mayb~ I could ~xp lain what this procedure is going to b~. The policy of th~ Planning Board is not to act on any sit~ p Ian unless it is ~ither in conformance or has r~ceiv~d all th~ required variances. Und~r SEQRA, the Zoning Board can't act on this until the l~ad agency reviews the environm~nta1 ass~ssment form. So, what will happen is, if you vot~ to table this application, it will then b~ r~f~rred to the Planning Board. If they acc~pt lead agency status, th~y will r~vi~w th~ long ~nvironmenta1 assessment form and th~n they will eith~r make a positiv~ d~claration, meaning that ther~ ar~ ~nvironmenta1 impacts, or a n~gativ~ declaration. If they mak~ a n~gativ~ declaration, then this application will com~ back in front of the Zoning Board for you to revi~w th~ Use Variance. After you have r~vi~w~d th~ Use Variance, if you approve it, it will th~n hav~ to go back to th~ Planning Board for them to vote on th~ sit~ plan. MR. CARR-Asked, this needs a long ~nvironmental assessment form? MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d that's right. MR. CARR-Stat~d we do not hav~ on~ here tonight, I mean, ~v~n if we accept~d lead ag~ncy status, w~ couldn't vote anyway. MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d you could not vot~ anyway b~cause the Planning Board would hav~ 30 days to make comments. MR. CARR-Stated ok. MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d so, ev~n if you acc~pted l~ad ag~ncy status, you could not vot~ on this tonight. MR. CARR-Stated I just don't want to bounce Mr. Barton around lik~ a ping pong betwe~n these two Boards forever. MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d what will happen is, in th~ month of March, they have alr~ady submitt~d th~ir sit~ plan application, they will be on the first Planning Board m~~ting for March. Th~n, aft~r that, we can place them, if you wish, on your first Zoning Board meeting for March. So, they would be at th~ Planning Board on Tuesday night and back at the Zoning Board on W~dn~sday night, if a negativ~ d~claration was passed at the Planning Board. MR. KELLEY-Ask~d so, they'r~ not going to see any real big delay? 11 -- MR. GORALSKI-Stated I really don't think there's going to be a large delay unless there's some determination that there are going to be environmental impacts. I have not reviewed the long environmental assessment form, so I can't say at this point. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, what about the question of a permeability variance? MR. GORALSKI-Stated I think that should be discussed with the Zoning Administrator and she would have to make a determination as to whether a variance was needed. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, because say it does need to be addressed, doesn't that have to be advertised? MR. GORALSKI-Stated yes, it would. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, what about a deadline to be on the March agenda? MR. GORALSKI-Stated well, the deadline was today, for March's agenda. If the Board wishes to waive that deadline, that would be up to them, but, as far as the Planning Department is concerned, we cannot accept any new app lications for March's agenda. MR. CARR-Asked, that would be an area variance? MR. GORALSKI-Stated correct. MR. CARR-Stated there is an area variance for this applicant for us tonight. MR. GORALSKI-Stated right, for a shoreline setback. MR. CARR-Asked, if we don't act on that tonight, can we just add permeability to that application, right now? MR. GORALSKI-Stated well, it would have to be readvertised. MR. CARR-Stated yes, it would be readvertised, but then, he'd make the deadline, technically, I mean, it's still today. MR. GORALSKI-Stated the deadline is at 2 o'clock today. MR. DEAN-Stated I think there's some engineering and, perhaps, some zoning questions that we discussed. We may have to come back, at a later date, with another variance app lication. MR. CARR-Stated that's ok with me. MR. DEAN-Stated no, it's not, but if we have to do it. MR. GORALSKI-Asked, can I just ask one more question about that motion? Could you specifically state, in that motion, that you're tabling the application and could I also ask that the applicant agree to the tabling? MR. DEAN-Stated we'll agree. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 13-1990 J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER REST., Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: This is a Type I action. We are tabling to propose to pass the lead agency status to the Queensbury Planning Board as these matters are under their expertise. We will act on it after the Queensbury Planning Board satisfies the SEQRA review. A long EAF form is necessary. The applicant has agreed to the tabling. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston 12 AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1990 TYPE II WR.-1A J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER REST. GLEN LAKE ROAD, HALFWAY BETWEEN BAY ROAD AND ROUTE 9 (LAKE GEORGE ROAD) FOR A 1,826 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 2,212 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT (TO BE RENOVATED) THAT WILL BE 36 FT. FROM THE SHORELINE. ADDITION NEEDED TO PROVIDE FUNCTIONAL KITCHEN, ADEQUATE RESTROOM, DINING AREA AFFORDING PRIVACY FOR VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS WITH LESS CRAMPED DINING SPACE THROUGHOUT AND IMPROVED GUEST SERVICE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-2 LOT SIZE: 0.9 ACRES SECTION 4.020-D, 7.001-3 MACK DEAN, J. PAUL BARTON PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-Stated I think we should wait on this one because we need to get the input from the Planning Board. (TAPE TURNED) MR. SICARD-Asked, when are you going to start? When would you like to start? MR. DEAN-Stated our original hopes were to start this spring, however, due to circumstances, some of which are beyond our control, it will probably be in the fall, that's the schedule we're shooting for. That's the fall of 1990. MR. SHEA-Stated I think that the Board, here, is trying to demonstrate willingness to cooperate and not, as Bruce says, bounce you back and forth and, therefore, Ted was suggesting to us that we maybe rule on the area variance, but given the fact that you probably won't be starting this project until the fall, we'll probably table both variances for this evening. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1990 J. PAUL BARTON, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: We are waiting for the SEQRA review and we will consider all the issues at that time. We can't move forward on the area variance without the SEQRA review. MR. GORALSKI-Asked, could I ask that you instruct the applicant to meet with the Zoning Administrator to settle the permeability question and I would also like you to instruct the Planning Department as to what we should do about accepting an application, whether you're going to put them on for April, whether you want to accept the application late, that's up to the Board. As I said, we, at this point, cannot accept the application. MR. CARR-Asked, can I ask you a question? MR. GORALSKI-Stated sure. MR. CARR-Asked, if they need a permeability variance. Ok, he goes to the Planning Board, there's no negative impact, lets just assume, it comes to us, lets assume that he gets his Use Variance and Area Variance, it goes back in April to the Planning Board, they won't act if 'he doesn't have the other variance? MR. GORALSKI-Stated that's correct. MR. CARR-Stated but my feeling would be that we'd want to do this all at once. I mean, anything that's before us, all the variances that are needed, do it all at once instead of coming back month after month, that's just going to waste everybody's time and a lot of pub lic notice. I would feel that, I'd ask Mack to talk to the Zoning people tomorrow to settle the question, or to agree to the question, whether or not you will accept that a variance is necessary and maybe file the application. At least get something in writing to the Planning Department so that you can give public notice and maybe extend it for one day. Mack, is that ok? MR. DEAN-Stated I think we could work it out. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, but do you need the Zoning Board to tell the Planning Department it's ok to put it on the March agenda? MR. TURNER-Stated yes. MR. GORALSKI-Stated exactly. MR. COLLARD-Asked, can he just amend his area variance application to include the permeability? MR. TURNER-Stated just amend it. 13 -' MR. CARR-Asked, John do you have any other questions? MR. GORALSKI-Stated yes, I do have one other question. This has to be readvertised in the Post Star and I'd like to know who's going to pay for the readvertising. MR. CARR-Asked, who paid for it to begin with? MR. GORALSKI-Stated the $50 app lication fee covers the advertising and sending out the public notices. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, well whose mistake was it that the permeability question wasn't picked up? I think we need to be fair about it. MR. CARR-Asked, how much does it cost? MR. GORALSKI-Stated I don't know. If you'd like, what we can do is determine what the actual cost of the advertising is and, instead of the $50 fee assess them whatever that actual cost of advertising is. MRS. GOETZ-Stated we've added a bit to this motion. The applicant has been requested to meet with the Zoning Administrator on March 1st, 1990 to settle the permeability variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals requests the app licant to amend his Area Variance 14-1990, if necessary, to include any necessary permeability variance request. This Variance, 14-1990, could be considered at the March ZBA meeting. The applicant will be assessed the actual cost of readvertising the Variance, 14-1990. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Eggleston USE VARIANCE NO. 15-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A E & T O'CONNOR CONSTR. 114 MEADOWBROOK ROAD TO INCREASE THE PRESENT OFFICE SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE RECORDS, COMPUTERS, AND COpy MACHINES. THE OFFICE SPACE WILL ALSO BE USED FOR ESTIMATOR'S WHO CURRENTLY SHARE AN OFFICE. TAX MAP NO. 59-2-5 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION 9.014 LEON STEVES, VAN DUSEN AND STEVES, AGENT FOR APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STEVES-Stated good evening. My name is Leon Steves. I'm here representing the 0' Connors. With me tonight is Brian 0' Connor. As we have stated in the appFcation, the business has existed on Meadowbrook Road since 1958. The first house, residence, in the area was in 1955, 1956, on this land just to the north of us. This is the second parcel... on Meadowbrook and we're talking, bas ically, on the west side of the road between Quaker Road and Cronin Road. There really were very few houses in there, in the '55 era. ...three, one on the corner, brown or hill house and then below that. So this has been, historically, used as a commercial use prior to any zoning and it's now, we are in a different...zone. MR. TURNER-Stated it was UR-5, before then it was commercial. MR. STEVES-Stated this is true, but the zoning didn't come until 1967. MR. TURNER-Stated yes, right. I agree with that. MR. CARR-Asked, was the shop and the small shed there in '57, '58. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated when we bought the property, the shop was built. MR. CARR-Asked, when was that? MR. O'CONNOR-Stated approximately the time that the property was bought MR. CARR-Asked, which was? MR. TURNER-Asked, 1958? 14 -' "'-' MR. O'CONNOR-Stated yes. MR. TURNER-Stated the two sheds in the back, what they did, property...two car garage and they've added on to it since. a commercial use, before zoning. they bought the I think that was MRS. GOETZ-Stated but not a commercial zone. MR. TURNER-Stated not a commercial zone. MR. STEVES-Stated the plan that I've showed on the board is for display purposes only. It's not any part of this plan you have, but rather an enlarged master plan for demonstration purposes only. The addition I've outlined here in red, so you can see the.. Your plan shows the house on...which is the nearest adjacent owned property. The other house is to the south and some 300 feet away. MR. TURNER-Stated (referring to map) that used to be a residence at one time. MR. STEVES-Asked, here? MR. TURNER-Stated that house, before they started using it for an office. I think Mrs. French lived there. MR. STEVES-Stated ...French bought it in 1957 and ...sold it MR. TURNER-Stated yes. MRS. GOETZ-Stated when I read the application, I neglected to mention its present zoning is Single Family Residential and the Lot Size is 1 acre. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Asked, the other lots, as far as the Quaker Road, are owned by O'Connor? MR. STEVES-Stated yes, they are. That's a different tax map parcel, but they are owned by O'Connor, which gives some value, if you will, because the front of the lot, as you know, it's all wooded... The back.. MR. TURNER-Asked, of that lot? MR. STEVES-Stated yes, in this square. This lot we I re talking about there's no woods, no trees at all. MR. TURNER-Asked, that closest resident is to the north? MR. STEVES-Stated yes it is, Mrs. Bruce. MR. CARR-Asked did you happen to speak to Mrs. Bruce about this, so she knows? MR. 0' CONNOR-Stated we spoke to the neighbors. Actually, my father did and he's in Florida, now, and they had no objections to any expansion. MR. KELLEY-Asked how many people currently work in that office? MR. O'CONNOR-Stated we have two full time estimators. We have a full time secretary. We have a part-time secretary in the summer, when we're busy and my father I s office is also in there, which he's currently sharing with one of our estimators. So, that's, generally, five people and the building that we've got now is only about 800 square feet, between 800 and 900. It's pretty cramped in there when you get your filing cabinets and planning boards. MR. KELLEY-Asked, you said it currently has two people? 15 .._~ MR. O'CONNOR-Stated yes. MR. KELLEY-Asked and bathroom facilities? MR. O'CONNOR-Stated yes. MR. KELLEY-Asked, do you have kitchen facilities? MR. O'CONNOR-Stated no, we don't. MR. KELLEY-Stated so, you can't eat your lunch there unless you put it on your desk. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 15-1990 E & T CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant's demonstrated, through his application, a reasonable return on the property is not available without the minimum relief of 575 square feet of addition. We believe the applicant has demonstrated that the circumstances of the lot are unique and it has been commercial property at least 10 years prior to the existence of any zoning, 1957 to present. We believe there will be no adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood and the short EAF Form shows no environmental impact. Duly adopted this 28th, day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-1990 TYPE II SFR-1A E & T O'CONNOR CONSTR. 114 MEADOWBROOK ROAD FOR AN ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING OFFICE FOR OFFICE USE THAT WILL NOT MEET THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT. TAX MAP NO. 59-2-5 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION 4.020, 9.014 LEON STEVES, VANDUSEN AND STEVES, AGENT FOR APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STEVES-Stated the reason for the variance sought is that the intent is to project the northerly side of the present office building in a westerly direction and that being the worst scenerio, if you will, because of.. .If you projected that straight, that raises them to 13 and something off the property line, which necessitates the variance. MR. CARR-Asked, it's on the northerly end of the house? MR. STEVES-Stated yes it is. MR. CARR-Asked and you put the extension on the southerly end, they said there was a problem with the entrance? MR. STEVES-Stated yes, the entrance, itself, to the building that's there now, it's right here in this corner, and that makes it proper, then, for it to be a smooth flow into the addition, as well as a drain for the entrance right here in the same corner, for the entire building. We're not changing the present building use, we're only planning for the proposed use. MR. CARR-Stated I guess, the thing is, if you move it, just shift it all the way down, you may not need the variance, but MR. STEVES-Stated but then we'd have to go....that would be impractical. MR. KELLEY-Stated I was going to say, it would be a major expense. If you kept it off the property line 20 feet, it would be a real disaster. MR. STEVES-Stated yes, and I think you can see the difficulty of that. In entering the prop erty, by vehic ie, and your parking is in this area, to come into the building now, you come in right here. If the new addition were at this end, then you'd have to walk in through here, eliminating parking spaces to get into the building. If you could flip flop that, you still would need the addition from the entrance right at that point. 16 --../ MR. KELLEY-Stated I think you stated earlier that that building was there when the O'Connors bought it. MR. STEVES-Stated yes. MR. KELLEY-Stated. . you placed the building that close to the property line. You bought that way and that's the way it was. MR. STEVES-Stated that's correct. MR. KELLEY-Asked, it's on a sewer? MR. STEVES-Stated yes, it is. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-1990 E & T O'CONNOR CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This is an area variance. The required sideyard setback is 20 feet in the SFR-1A Zone. The applicant will be 13.17 feet from the northerly property line. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty. When he bought the property, the current office building was existing and is 13.99 feet from the northerly property line. This is a narrow lot, 80 feet wide. He is asking for minimum relief. If he were to move the proposed addition to the required setback, it would create a difficult floor plan for the new and old office building. It would be expensive. This wouldn't be detrimental to the ordinance. There appears to be no negative effects on public facilities. This is a Type II action. No EAF Form required. Present use preexisted zoning. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1990 TYPE II HC-1A PC-IA TIERNAN, BERNSTEIN, AND PINCHUK CORNER OF QUAKER ROAD AND GLENWOOD AVENUE, SITE IS ACROSS FROM NORTHERN HOMES FOR A 24,792 SQ. FT. BANK WITH DRIVE-THRU THAT WILL BE LESS THAN 75 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 104-1-4.4, 4.31 LOT SIZE: 4.06± ACRES SECTION 4.020-J, 4.033 MARK SCHACKNER FROM MILLER, MANNIX, AND PRATT, PC, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS MR. CARR-Stated I know that Mike and I are two new members to this Board. Could somebody just give us a little background on Variance 111-1989 so we know what was presented at that meeting and what was discussed? MR. TURNER-Asked, do you have the old one in the file? MR. SCHACKNER-Stated I can also include that, if you want, very quickly in that presentation. It's entirely up to you. I was certainly going to mention it and I can give you any details if you want. We have the old plan with us also. MR. GORALSKI-Stated the old file is also in there. MRS. GOETZ-Stated I'll read the motion. This was September 13th: Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 111-1989, Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This would allow the construction of a bank that would be 41 feet from Quaker Road rather than the 75 feet required for an arterial 17 - -- road. Th~ propos~d r~tai1 spac~ would b~ allow~d to b~ situat~d within th~ 75 foot s~tback. Th~ app licant has shown that th~r~ hav~ b~~n thr~~ doz~n plans for moving th~ bank s~v~ral diff~r~nt ways. Th~ us~s availab1~ to this parc~l in an HC zon~ ar~ an important asp~ct to consid~r. A bank is a mor~ suitabl~ us~. W~ ar~ conc~rn~d about th~ visual asp~ct. This will b~ addr~ss~d by sit~ plan r~vi~w. w~ hop~ th~ plann~rs ar~ conc~rn~d with th~ fact that w~'r~ on th~ ATM. Now this p Ian would improv~ th~ sit~ b~caus~ th~ ~xisting building is unsightly. It is unfair to d~ny th~ applicant r~asonab1~ us~ of th~ prop~rty. It s~~ms to b~ box~d in by th~ s~w~r lin~s. AYES: Mr. K~ll~y, Mr. Mu11~r, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. EggI~ston, Mr. Turn~r NOES: Mrs. Go~tz MR. SCHACKNER-Ask~d, can I just add for th~ r~cord, I think that was S~pt~mb~r 27th, not S~pt~mb~r 13th. MR. TURNER-Stat~d y~s. County. I was looking at th~ wrong on~. I was looking at th~ MR. SCHACKNER-Stat~d for th~ r~cord, I'm Mark Schackn~r from Mill~r, Mannix, and Pratt, and I 'm h~r~ r~pr~s~nting Ti~rnan, B~rnst~in, and Pinchuk, th~ applicants for this varianc~ and I think, unlik~ most proc~~dings that ar~ b~for~ this Board and most that I'm involv~d in b~for~ this Board, I think W~ can b~ fairly straightforward and simp1~ as long as w~ r~m~mb~r th~ proc~dural light in which w~ ar~ sitting h~r~ and that, as Mr. Carr just m~ntion~d, is that w~'v~ alr~ady b~~n grant~d th~ ar~a varianc~ that w~ initially sought. W~' r~ h~r~ m~r~ly to s~~k a slight modification of that varianc~ and I don't think th~r~'s any n~~d, although w~' r~ c~rtainly willing to answ~r any qu~stions of th~ Board m~mb~rs, I don't think th~r~'s any n~~d nor, frankly, do I think it would ~v~n b~ appropriat~, to r~consid~r, from squar~ on~ if you will, all th~ issu~s that w~nt into th~ d~cision that Mrs. Go~tz just r~ad. All w~'r~ trying to do is modify, slightly, th~ ar~a varianc~ that was a1r~ady grant~d and ~sp~cially for th~ b~n~fit of Mr. Sh~a and Mr. Carr, th~ n~w m~mb~rs, I'll highlight just th~ chang~s that hav~ occurr~d. W~ hav~ h~r~ th~ curr~nt plan and, b~n~ath it, w~ hav~ th~ plan that r~c~iv~d the approv~d ar~a varianc~s in S~pt~mb~r. What happ~n~d sinc~ th~n is, w~'v~ ~nt~r~d th~ sit~ plan mod~ and in th~ sit~ plan mod~ it was discov~r~d that th~r~ was an additional constraint on th~ prop~rty that was pr~vious1y not known of, which was basically a flood zon~ s~tback r~quir~m~nt and that r~quir~m~nt is d~pict~d by th~ r~d 1in~ on th~ north~ast sid~ of th~ parc~l on our curr~nt sit~ plan. So, ~ss~ntia11y, and most simplistically d~scrib~d, all that's happ~n~d is that th~ buildings hav~ b~~n push~d furth~r w~st. Now that's a littl~ ov~rsimplifi~d in that th~r~ has also b~~n a slight r~duction in th~ squar~ footag~ cov~rag~ of th~ buildings. Again, for th~ b~n~fits of th~ two n~w m~mb~rs, w~'v~ alr~ady d~t~rmin~d that, und~r this plan, with its 18 p~rc~nt cov~rag~, w~ m~t th~ standards for practical difficulty to r~c~iv~ th~ ar~a varianc~. W~'v~ actually, b~caus~ of the n~w constraint, slightly r~duc~d th~ lot coverag~ from 18 p~rc~nt to 16 p~rc~nt. W~'v~ r~duc~d our squar~ footag~ by about 100 squar~ f~~t, almost ~xact1y. So, ~ss~ntia11y, what's occurr~d is th~ buildings hav~ b~~n mov~d slightly to th~ w~st. Th~ oth~r diff~r~nc~, r~a11y, of not~ is th~ r~duction in squar~ footag~. W~ hav~ not d~cr~as~d our s~tback from Quak~r Road. w~ hav~ a1r~ady r~c~iv~d a varianc~ to b~ 41 f~~t back from Quak~r Road and we'v~ r~main~d 41 f~~t back from Quak~r Road with a slight modification. MR. CARR-Ask~d, Mark, that's for th~ bank, right? MR. SHACKNER-Stat~d th~ bank, corr~ct. MR. CARR-Ask~d, now on th~ building going north south th~r~. MR. SHACKNER-Ask~d, th~ w~st~rn building? MR. CARR-Stat~d y~s, that on~. of a varianc~? Has that r~c~iv~d a varianc~ or is it in n~~d MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d y~s. MR. SCHACKNER-Stat~d th~ west~rn building has now b~~n mov~d clos~r to Quak~r Road. MR. CARR-Stat~d that's what I thought. 18 "'---' --' MR. SCHACKNER-Stat~d right, that's abso1ut~ly corr~ct and th~ r~ason for that is w~ want~d to com~ up with som~thing at l~ast r~asonab1y clos~ to our cov~rag~, but w~' v~ obvious 1y got a sma1l~r si t~ now and w~ hav~ to hav~ parking conc~rns and w~'v~ got to allow amp1~ room to park and that's th~ r~ason that that building, which is th~ w~st~rn most building on th~ sit~ plan, has b~~n mov~d slightly north. Now, it has not b~~n mov~d clos~r than th~ varianc~ for th~ bank building which is th~ 41 f~~t. In fact, it's 51 f~~t from Quak~r Road, so it's an additional 10 f~~t and you should also b~ awar~ that th~ imm~diat~ adjac~nt n~ighbor, which is th~ prop~rty own~d by Mr. Gavita and Miss Howard, it's Northway Floor I think it' s call~d, th~y ar~ at 50 f~~t, so w~' r~ at th~ sam~ s~tback from Quak~r Road as that building. In addition, th~y ar~ supportiv~ of th~ varianc~ and I 'v~ got a l~tt~r that I can submit, from th~ir Council, to that ~ff~ct. So, that's anoth~r chang~. Mr. Carr is abso1ut~ly right. Thos~ ar~ th~ principal chang~s and I don't think th~r~'s much mor~ to it. I would lik~ to point out that, in th~ Staff comm~nts, which you hav~ not y~t r~ad, but will r~ad, Staff s~~ms to agr~~ that th~ proposal is a b~tt~r sit~ plan than what was pr~viously approv~d. Th~ major f~atur~ I gu~ss I want to ~mphasiz~ and chang~ is, obviously, w~' r~ significantly furth~r away from Gl~nwood Av~nu~. I assum~ that's obvious, but I just want to r~it~rat~ that, but I would also submit that in Staff's comm~nts, th~r~'s a r~qu~st to r~hash som~ of th~ issu~s that w~ alr~ady d~cid~d in S~pt~mb~r which w~ do not think is appropriat~. W~'r~ h~r~ sol~ly to g~t a slight modification of th~ ar~a varianc~. Staff' s comm~nts that Mrs. Go~tz will r~ad in shortly, I b~li~v~ you'll find, agr~~ that this sit~ plan is pr~f~rab1~, but also ~xpr~ss, again, th~ points rais~d back in S~pt~mb~r and includ~ a sp~cific r~qu~st to hav~ thos~ points r~r~ad into th~ r~cord. Th~y' r~ alr~ady in th~ r~cord. Th~y' re alr~ady part of th~ ordinanc~, but I don't s~~ th~ n~~d to r~hash th~m and I would submit that's not appropriat~. I think that' s th~ highlight of this situation. It's just a minor modification. With m~ ar~ Nancy Al~xand~r and K~ith Manz of C. T. Ma1~, th~ proj~ct' s consultants, as w~ll as two of th~ principals, N~il Pinchuk and Dr~w B~rnst~in. If th~r~ ar~ any qu~stions, w~'d b~ mor~ than happy to answ~r th~m. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d if w~ w~r~n' t r~ading th~ Staff Input, I would most lik~ly b~ bringing up thos~ points, so I'm glad that th~y'r~ in th~ Staff R~port and r~qu~st it to b~ r~ad. Wh~n was th~ prop~rty purchas~d? MR. SCHACKNER-Stat~d January 31st, of 1989. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d I'd just lik~ r~qu~st that th~ s~w~r lin~s b~ th~ Town to put th~m th~r~, right? to r~vi~w that th~ own~rs of th~ prop~rty did p lac~d wh~r~v~r th~y' r~ p 1ac~d. Th~y r~qu~s t~d MR. SCHACKNER-Stat~d not ~xact1y. Ultimat~ly, y~s, but again, this ~xact1y what I don't, w~ w~nt through this for an hour and forty minut~s, approximat~ly, in S~pt~mb~r and sinc~ all w~'r~ h~r~ for is s~~king a minor modification, I don't s~~ th~ n~~d to r~hash this. I'll answ~r, v~ry bri~f1y, but I'll again stat~, I think it' s inappropriat~, in fact, to go back and r~hash this. Th~ curr~nt own~rs w~r~ not awar~ of th~ ~as~m~nt. It's my und~rstanding that th~r~ was an agr~~m~nt r~ach~d that it was anticipat~d that th~ agr~~m~nt with th~ Town was going to b~ r~cord~d and that that agr~~m~nt was not r~cord~d by th~ Town. I discuss~d this with Mr. Dus~k, prior to our S~pt~mb~r m~~ting and h~, basically, agr~~d that it was anticipat~d to bê r~cord~d, that it had not b~~n r~cord~d. In addition, and w~ discuss~d this at l~ngth in S~pt~mb~r, th~y sp~cifically ask~d th~ s~ll~rs of th~ prop~rty about th~ ~xist~nc~ of such an ~as~m~nt and th~ s~ll~rs r~pr~s~nt~d that th~y had not sign~d any agr~~m~nt and it turn~d out th~y had sign~d an agr~~m~nt and you can und~rstand th~ frustration of th~ curr~nt own~rs in that situation, but Mrs. Go~tz is absolut~ly corr~ct in that on~ of th~ r~asons that w~ sought th~ varianc~ initially was b~caus~ of th~ r~location of a Town s~w~r 1in~ ~as~m~nt. Sh~'s absolut~ly corr~ct. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d ok, thanks for r~vi~wing that. MR. KELLEY-Ask~d, Mark, in th~ original plan, what was th~ distanc~ of th~ w~st~rly building from Quak~r Road? MR. SCHACKNER-Ask~d, from Quaker Road? MR. KELLEY-Stat~d y~s, now you say th~ n~w building is 51 f~~t, what was that plan. MR. SCHACKNER-Stat~d ok, Mr. K~l1~y, th~ original distance was just und~r th~ 75 foot n~~d~d and in r~spons~, sincê YOU'Vê ask~d that qu~stion, I'v~ r~fr~sh~d 19 my memory. I believe one of the members, maybe Mr. Carr, asked if we had received any variance for that building initially and I wasn't sure. The answer is, we did, it's depicted on the previous site plan. It's a very small variance, as you can see, of several feet, as opposed to the larger one we seek now. MRS. GOETZ-Stated I don't remember it, now. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated I reviewed the minutes before the meeting and there's a statement in the minutes, I can direct you're attention to it, where former Board member Mr. Muller, I believe, asked, is that the only variance needed and I responded no, there's also a slight variance needed in the northwest corner. It's on page 14 and it's the second comment from the bottom of the previous minutes and you'll see Mr. Muller responding: Doesn't think this is a problem. Did you find where I'm referring to? MRS. GOETZ-Stated there's a second sentence in this motion. MR. CARR-Stated it's clear that you are granted some setback so we can only assume it was the couple of feet. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated ok, you may not have been perfectly articulate, I understand, but it was Mr. Muller, and we did discuss it and, as I said, it's the second comment from the bottom on Page 14, as well as, the last comment on Page 14 of the minutes of September 27th. MRS. GOETZ-Stated but we have to be concerned with the motion. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated sure. wish. We would encourage you to be more specific if you MRS. GOETZ-Stated well, it's for your protection too. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated that's why we're encouraging it. MR. CARR-Asked, Mark, you're asking for the variance on that westerly building, basically, is what you're asking for, right, because you've made it closer to the road? MR. SCHACKNER it's not really closer to the, well, ok. MR. CARR-Stated the bank stayed the same. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated correct. MR. CARR-Stated we aren't talking about the bank's variance. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated correct. MR. CARR-Stated we're just talking about the western building. Is that the only variance we're talking about? MR. SCHACKNER-Stated yes, with respect only to that building, but it's not only from Quaker Road, it's also the setback to Mr. Gavita's property. MR. CARR-Asked, ok, which is supposed to be 30 feet off? MR. SCHACKNER-Stated correct and it's 20 feet, so there's a 10 foot setback variance requested. MR. TURNER-Asked the bank's still... MR. SCHACKNER-Stated correct. MR. CARR-Stated that's not even under discussion. MR. KELLEY-Asked the original approval, was that 30 feet from the sideyard? MR. SCHACKNER-Stated on that western boundary, yes, it was, Mr. Kelley. Exactly, and it's necessitated by having to push it all further west to get further away from Glenwood. 20 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved Beautification Committee approved(on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MRS. GOETZ-Read Staff Input from September 27, 1989 (on file) In September the County Planning Board disapproved and the Beautification Committee disapproved. MR. CARR-Stated I'm disregarding what the Zoning Board did in September, on that westerly building because it was minimal, at that point. I don't see this as a minimal relief or request(TAPE TURNED) I feel that there's more than is necessary at this time. Speaking directly to this application, it is my feeling that he has a reasonable return on the property by meeting the front setback. I don't have a problem with the sideyard setback because of the flood zone and everything being pushed to the west. I can see where they have a practical difficulty with stores having to be so many feet deep or whatever, but I do have a problem with the front setback along Quaker Road. I don't think it's necessary for them to have a 20 foot variance and still have a reasonable return or use of the property. MRS. GOETZ-Stated I would agree. Regarding this particular application, I think it's a self-imposed hardship. They knew what they were buying when they bought the property. MR. KELLEY-Stated I believe, Mark, you said the square footage of the two retail stores is now less than what is was when we approved it before. Is that correct? MR. SCHACKNER-Stated correct, about 100 square feet. It goes from 28,671 to 28,582. The Zoning Ordinance allows 29 percent lot coverage. We had previously granted approval, 18 percent coverage, we're now down to 16 percent coverage and if I could just refresh your memory, Mr. Kelley, and this is sort of unfair to Mr. Carr because he was not present previously, but we presented dollars and cents proof, we actually submitted, if you remember, financial data, to the Board which we went through in a laborious fashion to demonstrate that we had dollars and cents proof of no reasonable, financial return, keeping in mind that this is in a zone, as was mentioned earlier, split zone, plaza commercial, highway commercial. So, not withstanding any personal opinion with regard to the availability of commercial space in the Town of Queensbury, generally speaking, this is an allowed use in the zone and we submitted hard data, dollars and cents proof, demonstrating that even what we sought then, for approval, was the minimum relief necessary to enjoy a reasonable return. Now we've cut that back further, obviously, to the detriment of the applicant and with respect to Mrs. Goetz comment, with all due respect, the applicant did not know what they were purchasing because there were misrepresentations made by the seller, number one and number two, a sewer line easement, which was agreed upon with the Town of Queensbury, evidently, was not recorded. MR. CARR-Asked, but, Mark, what's the sewer line easement have to do with 75 foot setback that was in place on January 31st, 1989? MR. SCHACKNER-Asked, which 75 foot setback? MR. CARR-Stated on Quaker Road, I mean that was the Ordinance in effect at that time. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated if you're talking about your concern about the western building in this northwest corner, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. The point, in response to your comment, Mr. Carr, is that your suggestion would be, essentially, to lop off the northern most portion of the western building and what I'm trying to state is that we have already gone to the absolute minimum total square footage, that we've demonstrated that with hard, dollars and cents proof of no reasonable return if we complied with the Ordinance previously. The sewer line setback issue, certainly, does not effect that specific concern, but the point is that our total 21 square footage already met the standard for practical difficulty in September and now we're cutting it, albeit slightly, but we're reducing it even further. Now we're down to almost one half of the lot coverage that the Zoning Ordinance would allow as a right. MR. CARR-Stated if you had a perfect lot. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated if we but in terms of coverage, approximately 29 percent. had a the lot without certain constraints and Zoning Ordinance coverage allowed setbacks, would be MRS. GOETZ-Asked, where was the research, when these people were attempting to purchase the property, like finding out about the flood plain problem? Were you involved in this? I don't think you were. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated not at all. If you remember, when I was here last time, I said that it's easier for me to say all these nasty things about people not doing these things because we did not represent them at that time. MR. CARR-Asked, Mark, ...a consensus based on 100 percent occupancy? MR. GORALSKI-Stated all that information is in the old file that you have up there? MR. SCHACKNER-Stated correct. your old file, but I'm sure on 100 percent occupancy. I'm only taking Mr. Goralski's word that it's in that's true and I'm stating that it's correct based MR. SHEA-Stated apparently the variance was granted for the bank building for relief from the 75 foot setback. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated correct. MR. SHEA-Stated my only point is, to go on record as saying that, with new development in the Town of Queensbury, it would seem to me that the developers and planners should go to practically all lengths to comply with those variances. I can see a practical difficulty, in most cases or in many cases, with existing properties that have to be redone and reconfigured. Some of those that were before us earlier this evening, but I would like to see an extra effort made to comp ly with all of the variances on the books with regards to new construction and, given the fact I was not here back then, but I can tell you my intentions or my feelings on it, that I probably would not have voted for the variance with regards to the 75 foot relief of the setback there. I, therefore, would like to see some kind of effort being made to comply with the most westerly building. The other is a question that, in pushing all the buildings to the west, if you have reduced the total square footage by two percent, is that correct? MR. SCHACKNER-Stated approximately, yes. MR. SHEA-Stated so, the question now is that, is that two percent the difference between this project becoming profitable or successful and not becoming successful? MR. SCHACKNER-Stated well, I guess, I've got also a question and a comment and I might refer that specific question to one of the principals. My question is, Mr. Shea, it seemed, to me at least, that you were suggesting that applicants strive to comply with all the variances in the Town. I'm wondering if you meant all the setbacks. MR. SHEA-Stated the setbacks, I did and I asked Mr. Kelley because I was not involved in this at the time, obviously, why that was and I guess there were some extenuating circumstances with regards to the sewer and things of that sort. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated right, and I guess my comment, before I get back to your question, is twofold. First, if you recall, Mrs. Goetz read the motion that was adopted back in September and I believe that motion makes explicit reference to the fact that the app licant has shown that there have been three dozen plans pivoting the bank several different ways and I would submit that that demonstrates and, Mr. Kelley, you may recall, you asked about this back in September, that demonstrates that the applicant did strive, in every way possible, to meet the applicable setbacks and couldn't find a way to do it with reasonable return. MR. SHEA-Stated with regards to the bank. 22 MR. SCHACKNER-Stated right and I understand, I'll get to your question about the western building in a moment. Let me try to address that now. You can't really isolate the bank from the rest, in the sense of, it's a project, the project encompasses the entire parcel and, as was submitted back in September, we took square footage for all three buildings, assumed tenancy, assumed they're rented out, and demonstrated, even then, lack of reasonable return if we were to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Now that we find out that the Zoning Ordinance requirements are even more onerous, clearly we can't make a reasonable return in compliance with them. One factual point that it sounds like at least some of you may not be aware of is that there is an existing building on the site that's already as close to the two roads as we're proposing the new buildings to be and, again, in the minutes, Mr. Muller commented on the fact, and he commented sort of negatively in terms of the aesthetics of the existing building, I think he called it an ugly, existing building or something to that effect and he pointed out the merits of replacing it with some type of more, his word was upscale, project. I guess, to get back to the question you most recently asked, I think that we submitted hard, dollars and cents proof to show that at 18 percent coverage, we just barely had reasonable return so 16 percent we have even less so. I don't know if there's anymore articulate way of answering your question. I am not aware of any Board anywhere that imposes zoning to the point where a business they know in advance, can't make it and can't cover it, but I can't think of a more articulate response. MR. KELLEY-Stated one of the things, Mark, as you were I think I remember discussion here that a permitted McDonald's or Burger King and this is much more restaurant. talking, that came to mind, use there would be like a desirable than a fastfood MR. SCHACKNER-Stated right, there was a lengthy discussion about that, you're absolutely right. MR. KELLEY-Stated and I do remember separate from the other buildings. of thing and, if I remember right, it make it and we had to go back and I had there was a comment about the bank being They wanted their own identity, that sort seems like we made a motion and it didn't to change my vote, at one point. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated well, you didn't have to, but there was an earlier motion and there was a reconsideration. MR. KELLEY-Stated it was because my concern was, was this the best plan and I didn't feel that enough effort had been put into it and then, upon discussion, we said, well, there ,were dozens of plans and apparently somebody spent a lot of hours. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated right and let me just add to that, point out that, all we're seeking is a slight modification to that plan and that I don't think anyone, including Staff, disagrees with the proposition that this site plan is better than that site plan. MR. SHEA-Asked, is there any consideration given to the amount of setback in an instance like this with regards to fire protection? I mean this is a long building. MR. GORALSKI-Stated I might be able to just make a comment on that. We have reviewed that as far as access for fire apparatus and the proposal meets all of the requirements for access to the rear of the building both from the Glenwood Avenue side and the Quaker Road side. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1990 TIERNAN, BERNSTEIN AND PINCHUK, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant previously received a variance from the ZBA in relation to a proposed bank which would be 41 feet from Quaker Road in lieu of the 75 foot requirement. New information on the flood zone boundary existing on the property made it necessary for a new plan and this plan is a proposed retail building on the westerly s ide of the prop erty. It would be 50 feet from Quaker Road in lieu of the 75 foot requirement. We feel this is a minimum relief based on the fact that the total retail square footage has been reduced from the original plan. Dollar and cents proposal has shown that they needed as much square footage as possible. They are p lacing the building 50 feet from Quaker to meet their monetary return. The 50 feet requested is still greater than the distance approved on the bank building. This is reasonable request. The site distance is not effected. Public facilities will not be effected. This is minimum relief to make the project feasible. Regarding the side yard setback, the requirement is 30 feet. The westerly building is shown 23 to b~ 20 f~~t from th~ w~st~r1y prop~rty lin~. This is a m1.n1.mum r~li~f. Th~ r~ason for th~ sid~ yard s~tback was causfòd by thfò flood zonfò existencfò. This is a Type II action and we won't n~ed the short EAF. Duly adopted this 28th day of Ffòbruary, 1990, by thfò following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MRS. GOETZ-Asked, Jeffrey, the part about thfò flood plain was not know to exist, can we say not known by applicant because the Town knew it existed. MR. KELLEY-Statfòd alright, not known to exist by thfò applicant. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated I can't Town would havfò told us that you can leave it that way. the case. imagine that the Town realizfòd it or, I assume the we were building in a flood zone. If the Town knew, It I S up to you, folks, but my guess is, that's not MR. GORALSKI-Stated we knew that it was a flood p lain. I, personally, and no one in the Planning Department, knew that it was a flood zone and that a building could not be constructed and I'd just like to point out that that's not a Zoning Ordinance regulation. MR. SCHACKNER-Stated right. MRS. GOETZ-Askfòd, what is it? MR. GORALSKI-Stated I believe it's a Building Code regulation. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, Town law? MR. GORALSKI-Stated no, a Building Code, a StatIO Building Code. MR. TURNER-Stated New York State Building Code. MR. SCHACKNER-Statfòd that's definitfòly not an oVfòrsight of thfò Town Department because it I S not in the Town Ordinance. I don't mean to wreak havoc on your minutes, but during the corrfòspondence, I think I should have handed you the lettfòr from Mr. Gavita's legal representative. MRS. GOETZ-Stated this letter is from William Bacas, representing Gavita-Howard Property: This office represents Joseph A. Gavita and Ela Howard, owners of rfòal property on Quaker Road which property adjoins that of the applicant. Neithfòr Joseph Gavita nor Ela Howard are able to attend the hearing upon the instant application, howevfòr, thfòY have authorized this office to advise the ZBA that there arfò no objections on their part with rfòspect to thfò application presented. I have been askfòd to mfòntion that thfò parking arfòa dfòsignated to thfò rear of the Gavita-Howard property is approximately 18 inches above the Gavita-Howard property. They have requested that this property bfò lfòve1ed to the height of thfò Gavita-Howard property. On motion meeting was adjournfòd. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Mr. Theodore Turner, Chairman 24 - ~ - - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1anning Department · NOT E T 0 F lL E · FIl.E rnrv Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Februarv 27. 1990 By: Stuart Baker Area Variance X Use Variance - Sign Variance := Interpretation Subdbision: Sketch, _ Preliminary, Site Plan Renew - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Other: Application Number: Use Variance No. 12-1990 Applicant's Name: David E. Williams. Sr. Meeting Date: Februarv 28. 1990 ***.............................*........*..*....*..*.****.*...............*........**.*.... The applicant woold like a Use Variance for the coostruct ion of a building to contain an office, shop, garage, and in loading dock. The applicant's property is currently zoned RR-3A, and is adjacent to a HC-IA zone. Please note that the attached referral fran the Zoning Administrator describes the project as coostruction of a storage building only. Mrs. Collard has reviewed the actual project as subnútted with the application and has determined that an Area Variance is needed as ~ll. (See the attached letter.) The application does not appear to lÆ!et any of the foor necessary criteria- as ootlined in Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Any hardship experienced by the applicant by strict adherence to the Ordinance woold appear to be self Í1TpOsed. Wlen the applicant purchased the property, it was zoned as Highway Canœrcial. His proposed use was not allowed in that zone under the previoos zoning, nor is it an allowable use in a Highway Ccmœrcial zone under the present Ordinance. The proposed building \,¡aÜd be roore suitable in a light industry zone, tJ'Iere it woold be a permitted use. Such a use in the proposed location may be detrÍIœntal to the canœrcial and residential character of this neighborhood. Denial of this variance request woold not deny the applicant of any property rights applicable to sirnálar lots in RR-)A zones. Proof of an inability to achieve a reasonable return on the property fran allowable uses rrust be subnútted by the applicant. SB/pw '--.-- - .. - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Pl<llnning Department "NOTE TO FILE" Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: February 28, 1990 By: John Goralski Area Variance -Á.UseVariance Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdi.œ.on: Sketch. _ Preliminary. Site Plan Reriew - Petition fer a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Other: Application Number: Use Variance No. 13-1990 Applicant's Name: J. Paul Barton - Docksider Restaurant Meeting Date: February 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ Becétuse this proposed expansion of a cOIT,mercial lIse takes place within a Critical Environr.lenta1 Are;: and a Use VariÐnce is required, this should be treated as a Type I action. The Board shoulG consider if they wish to act as Lead Ap,ent or if they wish the Planninp, ROBrd to act as Lead Agent. Also, a Long Environmental Assessr.;ent Form should be subrni tted by the applicant. One of the reasons for reviewing expansion of nonconforming uses is to be sure that all of the proper facilities are provided. The applicant is upgrading the sept ic systeP1 to provide for the expanded use. ; There is, however, a problem with the parking facilities. The parking spaces indicated are not 10' x 20' and there is not a 20' Hide clear drive hetween the spaces. No variance from these requirenents has been requested~ The Zoning Ordinance states that the Z.B.A. must find that the property cannot yield a reasonable return without a variance. It does not appear that any evidence has been provided to support such a claim. I \-Tould recommend that the Board not take any ac t ion on th is applicat ion until SEQRA is satisfied. JG/pw ---~._- - ~ - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY p);lnning Department -NOTE TO FleE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: February 28, 1990 By: Jdm Goralski Area Variance -.-:¡. Use Variance Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdirision: Sketch. _ Preliminary. Site Plan Reriew - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Arø~ V~r;~n~ø Nn lá-lqqn Applicant's Name: J. Paul Barton - Docksider Restaurant Meeting Date: February 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ This request is for a requirement. I recommend that respect to SEQRA. variance this be from the considered 75' shoreline setback a Type II action with There is no evidence that the applicant would not have reasonable use of the property if the variance is not 8ranted. This request does not appear to be the minimum relief necesshry. I feel that minimum relief would place the addition no closer to the Lake than the existing building. This would minimize the visual and aesthetic impact on the shoreline .'1 As long as the required parkinp, can be provided I do not think this will have any impact on public facilities or services. JG/p\ol ~,----- IS I~~ ~, - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY p.=-nning Department f J l E (U P i- -NOTE TO FiLE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: FphrllSlry 77 _ I qqO By: Stuart Baker Area Variance X Use Variance -Sign Variance == Interpretation SubdiTision: Sk.etch, _ Preliminary, Site Plan Review - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Other: Application Number: Use Variance No. 15-1990 Applicant's Name: E & T O'Connor Construction Meeting Date: Februarv 28. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is request ing a Use Variance for the expansion of a commercial construct.ion company office. as required by Section 9.014 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board should use this opportunity to re-evaluate the existing nonconforming use as it prepares to expand. The application submitted appears to satisfy the "uniqueness" and "neighborhood character" tests required in Article 10. The applicant must demonstrate an inability to achieve a reasonable return before a variance can be granted. SB/pw "..:1. .._---~._. ~ . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY fit E copy PJ=-nning Department · NOT E T 0 F I-L E · Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: Februarv 27. 1990 Stuart Baker X Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdi.-ision: _ Sketch, _ Preliminary, Site Plan Rmew - Petition fer a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Area Variance No. ]6-1990 Applicant's Name: E & T O'Connor Construction Meeting Date: Februarv 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is requesting approximately 6.87 feet of relief from the required 20 foot side setback required in a SFR-IA zone. Such relief would allow for the addition of approximately 525 sq. ft. of office space. Special consideration should be given to this application. The Board should consider what. if any, limits should be placed on the expansion of nonconforming, uses - especially those in residential zones. The "reasonable use" are three different uses and a maintenance shop. reasonable use of the land. test should be carefully reviewed. Currently there on the property: office space, equipment storage. It appears as if the applicant 2urrently has SBlpw .~--_._-,._- p ~ - '- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ptSlftfti"8 Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: February 28, 1990 By: Jàm Goralski --L Area VU"ÎaDce Use Variance == Sip Variance _ Interpretation Other: Subdi'risioa: Sketch. Prelim' - - mary. Site Plan Reriew == Petition far a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Final Application Number: Area Variance No. 17-1990 Applicant'. Name: Tiernan, Bernstein & Pinchuk MeetiDg Date: February 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ I have attached a copy of my notes on Area Variance No. 111-1989 dated September 27, 1989. This application was approved. This new application does provide better site distance and visibility at the G1enwood and Quaker intersection. In this respect I feel this is a much better plan that the one that was previously approved. All of the other comments on Area Variance No. 111-1989 still apply to this application. I would like to request that these notes be read into the minutes. JGlpw .. ----_._._..._.._~