1990-06-27 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27TH, 1990 INDEX Sign Variance No. 42-1990 Aviation Mall 1. Use Variance No. 46-1990 Glens Falls Elks Lodge No. 81 B.P.O.E 9. Area Variance No. 47-1990 Bessie Callejo 12. Use Variance No. 48-1990 Emmanuel J. Maille 19. Area Variance No. 49-1990 Haanen Packard Machinery 24. Area Variance No. 50-1990 Walter Dombek 27. 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. ZONUIG BOARD OF APPEALS SECORD REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON BRUCE CARR CHARLES SICARD MICHAEL SHEA JEFFREY KELLEY DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD ASSISTANT PLAN1ŒR-STUART BAKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 31st, 1990, Special Meeting: Page 4, the middle of the page, where Mr. Turner is speaking, "state's going to take the high road", sib highway MOTION TO MAY 31ST MIR1JTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 42-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-IA AVIATION MALL PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS OWNER: PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS AVIATION ROAD BETWEEN ROUTE 9 AND 1-87 FOR COpy CHARGE: READERBOARD TO PERMAlŒRT COPY. (WARREN COUNTY PLARRING) TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.2 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE LOUIS C. GAGLIANO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Mr. Gagliano, would you care to add to that? MR. GAGLIANO-No, want to see them. I just wanted to, I brought some pictures along, Basically, that's what the sign looks like today. in case you MR. TURNER-I guess you, well, obviously, you wouldn't be here, but the mall was not allowed any text on the sign except the name of the plaza. MR. GAGLIANO-Okay. MR. TURNER-It's a freestanding sign and the wall signs are limited. There's an agreement, an original agreement on the signage on that whole plaza. So, I'd like to hear about the partnership and why, eviden t1y, Sears, Penney's and the rest of them, are they anchor tenant's. Are they regarded as anchor tenants? MR. GAGLIANO-That's correct, based on the size of the store. Basically, Mr. Turner, the intent is to upgrade the appearance of the sign. Since 1987, as many of you know, we've done a lot to upgrade the internal appearance of the Center. Stores have upgraded. We went through a renovation in 1987. Our 10 go has changed. Basically, the lower portion of the western sign is the only one that's effected by this. It's currently, as you can see from the picture, known as a readerboard. We change the copy on a regular basis. Basically, readerboard' s are outdated and we're just trying to upgrade and make more permanent and, hopefully, more aesthetically pleasing, the sign that's out on on the street. 1 MR. CARR-Lou, how did you choose these three company's to be placed on the sign? MR. GAGLIANO-Basically, Bruce, our intent, again, is to upgrade the sign. We had three choices. One eliminated, altogether, the lower portion of the sign, which, if you look at the sign, would certainly alter, I think, in a negative way, the overall appearance of the sign. One, keep it the same and, again, you've got a 1990 style logo on top of the sign and, basically, a 1975 lower portion of the sign, or come up with a more permanent and consistent resolution and, obviously, our anchor tenants were our more permanent fixtures in the shopping center and that would seem to make more sense. MR. TURNER-What alternative would you have, other than taking that out of there. MR. GAGLIANO-I really don't see, other than..1eaving as it is. Again, I just don't think it's aesthetically pleasing, as it currently is,..regards to the upper portion of the sign. MR. GOETZ-Is there any consideration to change the easterly freestanding sign? MR. GAGLIANO-The lower portion of that sign is controlled by the Cinemas. They own and operate that and that's where they list the movies that they're playing. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, and that's just going to stay as it is? MR. GAGLIANO-Yes, I don't have any control over it, that's basically their's. MRS. GOETZ-One concern I do have is that you do change, because that's been the changeable copy, you know, you change Easter or Christmas, you know, you're always changing the message there. MR. GAGLIANO-Right. MRS. GOETZ-That you will try to put an additional, temporary-type sign out, to still get your messages across. MR. GAGLIANO-It's certainly not my intent. I recogpize what you're saying. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. GAGLIANO-We' re g~v~ng up a marketing opportunity by not being able to put out our messages and our sales and that type of thing, but we really felt that it would be a more positive statement to make a permanent, positive upgrade to the overall appearance of the sign. We have absolutely no intention of putting a temporary sign out of any way, shape or form. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, if we were to grant this variance, I would like to see that as a stipulation because, wit bin the law, you would have the right to come in and ask for temporary signs and you're there now, on the job, but who's to say that somebody else will be there later? MR. GAGLIANO-Well, I agree. I mean, I can't tell you what somebody else might do, two or five years down the road. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. GAGLIANO-I mean, if we had the right, under the law, to ask for temporary signs, I wouldn't want that altered as a stipulation, but I would certainly be willing to stipulate that that's not our intent. MRS. GOETZ-But I would rather stipulate that you are to ask for no other temporary signage because I can just see what could happen. The Aviation Mall has a special sign package, anyway. It's the only one in Town that's different from anybody else's. Are you familiar with that, as it stands? MR. GAGLIANO-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Since 1979. MR. GAGLIANO-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Well, how do other pe op1e on the Board feel about the possibility of other signs going up, once they can't change their promotional portion. 2 --- ---./ MR. SHEA-Quite frankly, I don't understand the hardship and, if you're looking for consistency, and, on the Cinema sign, there, obviously, a change of message is imperative, each week. I think the fact that you are able to change the message is a benefit in advertising and you say you're going to lose a marketing opportunity. I know for a fact that we've used this for a lot of the smaller tenants, on their behalf, in the past, and without that opportunity, I think something is lost there. I think, for the most part, people who shop at Aviation Mall do know the anchor tenants and they do not change, as you pointed out, but if your mix of tenants, inside, do change, and I think that we've used that marketing opportunity well, to assist those retailers inside, and to promote the special events that you have, which are, I think, a benefit to the community. I don't understand the hardship and I also don't understand the fact that this is an outdated-type sign. It's news to me. MR. GAGLIANO-When I read through the Sign Ordinance, I would think that if someone wanted to put a readerboard in the Town of Queensbury, today, that I'd question whether it would even happen at this point, because it is an outdated method. The fact that you can alter the copy gives me a lot of freedom to put, basically, anything up there I would like. You're point about the majors, it's a good one. I do have opportunities, now, to advertise events, to put smaller tenant's events up there and that type of thing, that's what I'm sacrificing. A term used in the industry for anchors is also, inducement tenants and that's what they are. They induce people to come shop there and there are very loyal shoppers to Caldors, and Penney's and Sears and all the major department stores. A lot of our shoppers are not from this area, especially during the summer. We attract pe ople from a wide distance all the way into Vermont and up to Ticonderoga. So, having the names of the so-called, inducement tenants, up there would, indeed, be, again, an inducement for those people to come into the shopping center. There's positive and negatives both ways. MR. SHEA-I certainly can understand that, but the only way that I can keep track of holidays, I know it's Easter when I drive by the mall, it's not going to help me. MR. CARR-Lou, maybe. . like I said, it I S a great marketing tool on the readerboard for those.. special events and things like that. It I s going to be missed by your tenants, obviously..\\b.at are your plans, this kind of addresses Sue's comments, you know, the fear of having to put up temporary signs for these special events. What are your plans to make up for the lost marketing opportunity of the readerboard? MR. GAGLIANO-That's a good question. A lot of our plans are already in place, but I'll reinforce those. We're spending a lot more money on advertising, reaching people before they actually come to our doorstep. A lot of people who are driving to the Center or by t he Center are there for the Center. What we're doing is, again, getting our message out a lot more on the radio, in print, both in the newspapers, through our brochures on all t he visitors and tourist center s along the Northway and that type of thing and a lot of that's already in place, Bruce, but that's really what we're trying to do, expand our markets, reach into our secondary and tertiary market. Again, the overall effort has just been to make the signs consistent. To upgrade the general appearance of the sign. MRS. GOETZ-You should listen to us, though, the a lot of customers and what they might say about person and we really read that readerboard. How did you get the idea to do this? Have you it? customers because, have you heard it? We're just a common, ordinary Could you answer that question? listened to what pe ople say about MR. GAGLIANO-We solicit a lot of COI\1I[ents from customers. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. GAGLIANO-We've initiated, I don't know if you're aware, a customer comment survey. We..in the Center and we ask a wide variety of questions. I, quite frankly, am not aware that it's an issue one way or the other with customers..raise the issue, but I'm not aware that it is. I do know that I've heard a lot of comments from customers about the fact that the letters are not aligned properly, occasionally some of my people misspell things out there. So, there's a downside to the readerboard, as well. MR. SHEA-But it is a contractual issue with these three tenants, is it not? 3 ----,,' MR. GAGLIANO-If I alter the sign and, again, it's a question of permanency. How can I make this sign more permanent and upgrade it at the same time and the answer it, obviously, the anchor tenant. If I'm going to do that, I have to put them up there and it's based on square footage. MR. CARR-I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. I think the mall may be making a mistake putting..however, I do feel, I'd rather see a permanent structure rather than a readerboard. MR. TURNER-I don't agree with that. MRS. EGGLESTON-You see, my thou¡;þts are you're going to wind up with both. So, I don't think he's going to give up the readerboard. MRS. GOETZ-I don't either. MR. TURNER-I think the readerboard provides a lot of necessary opportunities for the public to know what's going on there. I think, if you're a customer of the mall and you go there on quite a few occasions, and they put up Sears up there and Caldor and Penney's, you're not even going to look at that sign. You could care less what's on there, but if special events were there MR. CARR-But isn't a Sign Ordinance to make signs... MRS. GOETZ-No, it's to also advertise business, but, for instance MR. TURNER-I think this presents a better message. MR. CARR-Alright, but, aesthetically, that's what the sign is for, aesthetics. MR. TURNER-Well,..change aesthetically, except the MR. CARR-Well, I'm just thinking about, as Lou has pointed out here, that sometimes the letters are misaligned. There are, sometimes, spelling mistakes on there. I mean, what kind of a, how does that present the Town. I'm just thinking a well done permanent sign. We may end up with a temporary sign and we may not. Hopefully, we won't, but I just think a well maintained, well designed, permanent sign might be better than what's there. MRS. GOETZ-Just last meeting we heard comment's about the fact that the Aviation Mall's anchor signs have way more signage than other malls, like on the back and the front, and Penney's and CVS, they mentioned, I know it's not anchor store. So, those stores already have more signage than their allowed in other shopping malls and centers. MR. GAGLIANO-When you say other shopping, in the whole Town? MRS. GOETZ-Right, yes. They were saying, well, why couldn't Aviation Mall have blah blah and we had to refer to this special sign plan. MR. GAGLIANO-I think, thou¡;þ, that if you look at other shopping centers in the Town and, off the top of my head, the Super or the Price Chopper Center down on Glen Street, it lists all the stores right out on the sign. It says Toy for Joy. It lists all the signs. MRS. GOETZ-But that's not, technically, a shopping center because it's not three or more stores. That's how they got around that. MR. KELLEY-What was the original sign plan for this and was it by Variance? MRS. GOETZ-It was just a special.., I wasn't on the Board. I don't remember. MR. TURNER-..by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Aviation Mall. MR. KELLEY-Just to know how they got what they got to start with. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. signs overall? What was the intent of that agreement? Was it to cut down on MR. SICARD-Yes, we wanted all the signs to be exactly the same in form.. I think that the Board was a little easy on them. Really, it's the only place in Town where we have that. MR. GAGLIANO-Where you have what? 4 -- MR. SICARD-All the same colors and MRS. GOETZ-Color coordinated on the wall signs. MR. GAGLIANO-Isn't that how the current Zoning reads? MRS. GOETZ-There's been a recent change, but yes, for the most part. MR. GAGLIANO-But we're current with the current intent? MRS. GOETZ-Right, like Northway Plaza. They all coordinate, but there's some that don't. I'm just afraid that it's going to open up the possibility of a lot of other signs going up there. MR. GAGLIANO- I don't know how to address your concern, other than to say that our intent is not to come in here and ask for temporary signage to promote Mall events or special sales and that type of thing. We really look to our advertising and our marketing and our customer service to keep people coming back and to make them aware of these types of things. The use and the function and the appearance of a readerboard is 15 years old. It's just not current with what's happening in the industry. MR. SICARD-Mr. Gagliano, what is the feeling of the smaller stores? Do they know that this is happening? I would think that, probably, if they don't, we need it..Caldors and Sears, what about us? MR. GAGLIANO-Just so you understand, in the past, it's been dealt with. Basically, we charge for the service, because there is s cme cost in it, and it's on a first come first serve basis. It's been available to, basically, every merchant on an equal opportunity basis. The individual merchants also recognize, getting back to the inducement comment that I made earlier, that the Caldors and the Sears and the Penney's of the world do draw a lot of customers into the Center and that's why they go into shopping malls, in a big way, is to feed off that traffic that they generate. So, your point is well taken. For periods of time, when they're having a week long sale or a one day event, yes, there is a downside, but long term, it makes good sense. MR. TURNER-Okay, anyone else on the Board? Okay, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NOCOMKEBT PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Anyone want to discuss it? MR. KELLEY-In other words they were granted, according to that formula that's there, apparently, they can have a certain size sign. A certain size total signage. .all the walls and all the freestanding signs and whatever. I have no idea whether there is any support ion to that formula or not. You'd have to go down and survey the whole building, but it's obvious that it was built, this particular sign has been there and must be still entitled to that square footage. I guess my question would be if he wants to change, like it says on it, that he's not adding any square footage and if he thinks that's a better value for the sign, I don't know if we're the ones that should tell him how to run the business. I mean, he still has the same area of sign. MR. CARR-Ted, just. .Jeff was saying, is there anything in his current variance that prevents him from putting up a readerboard, Caldors, Penney's, Sears, because I think by us denying him, doesn't mean he can't do it, he can put it on the readerboard. I think, just looking at the aesthetics of it, I think a permanent sign is much more aesthetically pleasing than a readerboard that, sometimes, on a high wind, letters falloff, misspellings, misalignments. I'm not a marketer. I'm sure that they have marketing people that tell them whether or not..readerboard or a current sign. Maybe readerboards went out 15 years ago. 5 MR. TURNER-We11~ the major stores~ Sears~ Penney's~ Ca1dors~ if they have specia1s~ they have sa1es~ they send out f1yers~ allover. It's no big secret that they're having sales. So~ I don't feel that they should be on that board because the Ordinance says one freestanding sign denoting the name of the.. MR. CARR-But he's got a readerboard. Could he... MR. TURNER-I'd rather see it stay like it is. MR. CARR-But could he do it? MRS. GOETZ-Good question. MR. CARR-I think he could. I mean~ he's been granted a readerboard. MR. TURNER-No~ I don't think so. MRS. GOETZ-I don't think so because they can't put any of the store names on it. MR. CARR-Pat~ when he was granted the readerboard~ was there any stipulation that he could not put the names of the stores on it. MRS. COLLARD-I was not here. MR. GAGLIANO-Could I say something? I'm just listening to this line of reasoning~ here and ~ based on what you're saying ~ I can't put any store names up there at all ~ that totally ~ lean' t advertise for the smaller tenants ~ as you mentioned Mr. Sicard~ and I can't put their names up there either. I mean~ that was the original intent of the readerboard~ was to advertise events and sales and special events~ that's how it's been used for 15 years. MR. TURNER-..here for a change of copy from copy change to permanent. MR. GAGLIANO-I understand. The point I'm trying to make~ though~ is along with..reasoning~ I guess I can't advertise any store.. MR. SHEA-Are special promotions and holiday periods when retailing dove tails with that~ are they still an important part of the marketing strategy of the Pyramid Ma 11 ? MR. GAGLIANO-Overa11~ mall-type events? MR. SHEA-Yes. MR. GAGLIANO-We certainly have them~ periodica11y~ through the year. MR. SHEA-And they will remain an important and integral part of the marketing plan? MR. GAGLIANO-I have to assume so. period of time. It's not all year long. It's just a certain MR. SHEA-And they are intended to assist the business of both the tenants and the small retailers in the mall? MR. GAGLIANO-As are the inducement kinds of shoppers. MR. SHEA-Okay ~ but if you were the reasoning that they are the in the mall ~ then the tenants ~ benefit~ are they not? to put out the names of the three anchors with inducement and they assist the smaller retailers the anchor tenants are really getting a double MR. GAGLIANO-I don't agree with~ no. MR. SHEA-My point is that I believe that ~ if you're reasoning is t hat ~ through the zoning~ you are not able to put the names and advertise the names of the smaller tenants there ~ that certainly may be. However ~ the special promotions t hat the Pyramid Mall conducts are certainly a draw for the smaller retailers t here and ~ without the readerboard ~ those smaller tenants lose t hat marketing opportunity. The three tenants~ as inducement~ are there whether or not they're name is out on the readerboard in permanent fashion or temporary fashion. 6 -' MR. GAGLIANO-We're talking about the business. right now. is basically what we're talking about and yes. that's true. but to have them out on the road and advertising 52 weeks a year. is more of an inducement than a one week sidewalk sale in January. July. I think I understand where you're going and I do understand what you're saying. but. again. having their names out there. so that people who are not familiar wit h the Center come into the area and reco ~:1Íze. immediately. what that Center has to offer. I mean. they know there's other stores in there. MR. SHEA-And. through the present zoning. the anchors do have all of the signage that they are entitled to under the present zoning. MR. GAGLIANO-..other buildings. now. signs on the buildings. Not just the anchor tenants. but there's other stores. MR. SHEA-No. I'm talking specifically about the anchor tenants requesting that they get more signage then they now have. So. have all the signage that they're entitled to under the zone. because you're presently. they MR. GAGLIANO-Again. I'm not fully versed on the zoning. issue of what..building. I know that there I s an MR. SICARD-. .more than they're entitled to. MR. GAGLIANO-On the building. I think it I S a separate the road. I don't know that the two are tied together. on it. issue with what's out on I'm not that well versed MR. CARR-Mike. I think there was a special packet with the Aviation Mall. So. under the zoning. with a variance or whatever. they probably have got everything that they're entitled to. but the point is. they've got everything they're entitled to which includes a readerboard that could have anybody's name and I've seen Sears name on it before. I mean. live seen probably every store in that Mall. they're name on that readerboard. So. I don't see where the issue is that we're putting a name on a board that advertises a mall because that's what the readerboard is there for. So. I think that issue about a name being on a board. I don I t see as an issue. I see as an issue. being whether a permanent sign. well done. is better than a readerboard because that changes every week. MR. GOETZ-Are you trying to do extra advertising on anchors because of the Wilton Mall coming into existence? MR. GAGLIANO-No. ma'am. These plans went into place back in '87 when we renovated the Center. MRS. GOETZ-But. I mean. trying to get those anchors on the sign and keep business here instead of MR. GAGLIANO-Everything I do is an attempt to keep business here. MRS. GOETZ-I would assume so. but is that what.. MR. GAGLIANO-This doesn't tie into Wilton in any way. shape. or form. MR. SHEA-Could you elaborate on the contractual agreement that you have. relative to the signs? MR. GAGLIANO-They all tie in. It's based on the anchor tenants. If they're over a certain square footage. they're considered an anchor or inducement tenant. depending on what document you're reading. Basically. if I put a name out there. I have to include all of the anchor tenants in that..Again. as I alluded to earlier. 11m looking for a permanency out there and upgrade. that's really what I'm trying to achieve. is to improve the appearance of the sign with some type of permanent installation. in conjunction with the upper portion of the sign. The only permanency that makes sense is the anchor tenants. the Mall tenants. as anybody who's been up there during the last three years know. some don't make it. some move on. and new ones come in. I couldn't fit 80 names on the board. anyway. MR. SHEA-But if we were to grant this variance and each of these three anchor tenants have. under the present zoning. all of the signage that they're entitled to. as far as square footage. and now get an additional amount which is out on the readerboard, are we then not opening up the possibility for the next mall to come in to get more square footage or more signage available to t hem and how do we rationalize that the next time around? 7 ---" MRS. GOETZ-Yes, especially when they've already got more than anybody else to begin with. MR. TURNER-They've got a..there that serves everybody in that Mall. MR. KELLEY-The question I would have is, where are they in proportion to what they're allowed? I mean, the formula, they're allowed a total sign area and they talk about, if the number of tenants, then, was 75 percent.. MR. TURNER-That's the signage on the building. That doesn't really have anything to do with the freestanding sign. The freestanding sign is allowed, period, to address the Aviation Mall and I don't see where advertising Sears, Penney's, and Caldors out on that readerboard does anything for the Mall. .take away from the smaller guy and give to the big guy. MR. KELLEY-Let me ask you this, then. If they said they didn't want the readerboard anymore, you say..take it off completely and just have the Aviation Mall sign? MR. SICARD-That's right. MR. TURNER-If they feel that they're not getting anything out of that readerboard, then that's up to them to determine that, but really I think that readerboard ..because it advertises the events going on in the Mall. MR. KELLEY-Would you offer any alternative, say, either leave the readerboard or if you don't want the readerboard then you've got to take it off and just have the large part that says Aviation Mall? Those would be the two options that you would propose? MR. TURNER-Yes, right. Let's not open up a Pandora's Box. MR. KELLEY-No, I know. I mean, it sounds if they want to use the readerboard, fine, if not, go back to saying, this is Aviation Mall, and that's it, which is what they would be allowed. MRS. COLLARD-Mr. Chairman, as the Ordinance is written, those store names should not be out on the readerboard. MRS. EGGLESTON-Could I ask you a question, Ted? Is even the proper person here, asking for more advertising for Penney's, Sears, and Caldors or should that be the individual stores and they should be able to say or come up with proof that they don't have enough sign required, or is it even being asked by the proper party here, for the individual stores or should they be doing it themselves, is my question. MR. TURNER-Is the promotion by the Aviation Mall? MR. GAGLIANO-Basically, the sign is ours, -æ own and operate the signs. I don't know if that answers your question. MR. TURNER-So you govern what's on it? MR. GAGLIANO-That's correct. MR. CARR-Pat, are you saying that, under the present Ordinance, nobody's name can be on that readerboard? MR. TURNER-That's right. MRS. COLLARD-That's correct. MR. CARR-Then, I guess, the question goes back to, what was the readerboard for, to begin with, if no one's name can be on there? MRS. COLLARD-"Easter Bunny in the Mall all week", "Santa Claus in the Mall all week", that type of thing. MR. CARR-That's what it was there for? There's minutes to say that? MRS. COLLARD-No, that's what I'm interpreting the Ordinance to say. 8 ---" MR. GAGLIANO-Is that the current Ordinance? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. GAGLIANO-Not necessarily what was in effect then? MRS. COLLARD-Right, this current Ordinance was '76. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? MR. SHEA-I see they do blood benefit to the of the anchor in malls, Wio those places. it as a benefit in the form of public service. I know, at times, drives for Red Cross and things of that sort and I think it's a community and to lose it for pure commercialism, to benefit three tenants who, and I know something about how rents are structured get the benefit of the doubt compared to the smaller retailers in I don't see, the hardship has not been proved to me. MR. TURNER-They have the contractual sign. to. Anyone else? Motion's in order. I think that's all they're entitled MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 45-1990 AVIATION MALL, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: There are no special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or signs that would cause any reason for granting the variance. The signs there were negotiated previously and seem to be doing the job in a good fashion. A strict application of the Zoning Ordinance doesn't deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land and signs. The sign program existing is in harmony with the area and no changes are necessary. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Carr MR. GAGLIANO-Can I ask one question? I really feel that denial of this variance is resulting in a sign that is not going to be of the quality and appearance that I think the Ordinance was designed to achieve. Can I just make that statement? A clarification, as passed, the denial stated that the current program is in harmony? Does that mean that I can continue to use the readerboard as we have for the last 15 years? MR. TURNER-I believe that's correct. MR. GAGLIANO-Okay. USE VARIANCE NO. 46-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A GLENS FALLS LODGE NO. 81 B.P.O.:H~ OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CRONIN ROAD, ACROSS FROM BAY MEADOWS GOLF COURSE FOR AN ADDITION OF A STORAGE BUILDING (26 FT. BY 36 FT. ) AT REAR OF LODGE BUILDING. TAX MAP NO. 59-1-5.4-5.7 LOT SIZE: 9.35 ACRES SECTION 4.020-K DONALD J. FREEBERN, ESQ., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREEBERN-My name is Don Freebern. I represent the Glens Falls Elks. Mr. Carl Kretz is also here with me. I do not believe I can expand greatly on what was already presented to the Board( in the application). I am taking note of the Planning Department's Notes on File which was presented to me, which, I believe, is part of the record. Apparently, they do not disagree with our position that there is a hardship because of the lack of storage space and does require outside storage. There was not some kind of structure to put it in, that..a1so jeopardize it being stored..this building. Number two, they indicated, no evidence has been presented that would indicate that a reasonable return cannot be realized from this property. I think that what was stated in the applicant's petition, although lacking some..features..individua1 organization's that couldn't hold a function there because of the limited space resulting from the inside storage of furniture and other equipment, but that is the case and I'm happy to say that the Planning Department does agree that this Variance would not be detrimental to the Ovdinance. It says, a well planned, well designed storage building would be much more beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the community. I do believe this. I think we have sufficient submissions before the Board, that they can review this plan set forth on the survey map. I there's any further questions that I can answer or Mr. Kretz, please feel free. 9 ~ MR. TURNER-Anyone have a question? MRS. GOETZ-What are the exact measurements? MR. TURNER-It's 32 by 26. ..feet from the building. MR. KRETZ-Mr. Chairman, there is one other building on there, but it will be removed. I think, maybe, you observed it when you were there. We overlooked that when we submitted that. MR. TURNER-Is that the part that's shaded on the map? You show the total building and then you show a shaded area. MR. KRETZ-No, that indicates that... MR. FREEBERN-The one shaded in here is the proposed new one. The one that he' s talking about is a small, connnercial type of storage building that's in here and ..trucks here. That's the brand new one going up. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you've got half of it shaded and the other half not. MR. FREEBERN-That indicates the roof line, the peak roof line. MR. TURNER-What do you store in the present building, other than the furniture? MR. KRETZ-Within the structure itself, there's various pieces of kitchen items that are used, that have to be moved around a lot, out in the back there. We have to keep empty beer cases and beer kegs. We have lodge furniture that we use for our.. that type of stuff. We have extra musical equipment that's in the room that has to be moved around all the time, bingo equipment that has to be shuffled around all the time and we have tables that are going in and out of that main dining room at different times. We shuffle the.. back out to the lodge room all the time. We do that only to make space when we have a large function going on. MR. TURNER-This is kind of like the Knights of Columbus. MR. KELLEY-They are allowed the use in the zone. They're here for a Use Variance, only, I guess, because it's not listed as an accessory. MR. TURNER-It's not an accessory. MR. KELLEY-Because if they attached the storage building, to the building, it would be an expansion, and as long as they met the areas and the square footages, I don't know that they have to be here, right? MR. FREEBERN-We were told to come here? MRS. COLLARD-Just thinking quickly, if they came to me and requested to expand their building for storage use, I don't see storage permitted in the Ordinance. MR. KELLEY-Well, let's say they wanted to expand the building. MRS. COLLARD-Right. MR. KELLEY-And they might store something in it or they might store things in some other the building and use this as part of their dance hall or whatever and then they wouldn' t even be here as long as they met square footage areas and parking. MRS. COLLARD - Ri gh t . here, unfortunately. Connnercial or Highway I would tend to agree with you, but that isn't the I don't know why storage sheds are not permitted in Connnercial Zones as accessory uses. case, Plaza MR. TURNER-Well, you've only got, really, I don't know what else you could put in there. You've got social clubs and paternal organizations. Now, when the Knights of Columbus went up on Lake Georgß Road, that was Highway Connnercial. MRS. COLLARD - Ye s . MR. TURNER-Alright, we allowed, they came and got a variance for the shed that they've got out in back. They had a lean-to type picnic area out there and they've got a storage building. 10 ~ MRS. COLLARD-That's something I would like to address at some point in time, other than at a Zoning Board meeting, as to why storage sheds aren't permitted in these zones. MR. KELLEY-I don't as there's a problem with it. question, I think it's a good point. It's just, Mike raised the MRS. COLLARD-It is a good point, Jeff. MR. KELLEY-Well, I guess the other thing would be, if you talk about storage, we certainly would want to know, What was going to be stored. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KRETZ-Don mentioned the fact that we have these two trucks that are out there, now. Well, they were donated 13, 14 years ago, when the lodge was first put up there by a gentleman, in Town, Who had access to these and they presently store items for us. One of them, we have some electrical equipment. We have some wood that we do repair work with. Another one that we keep our outside machinery in and paint and stuff like that that's allowed to be stored in those buildings. Different things that we do maintenance work and things of that nature and they're stored in these two old trucks. I don't know as this is the proper place for them or not, but we are embarking on a 10 year expansion program at the Lodge where we're going to be expanding our recreational facilities in the back end of our lot and these two trucks that we have there now, that are used for storage, they're unsightly and they're in the way and we do want to get them out of there and we want the appropriate building for these materials plus other items that are within our Lodge that we want to get out into the storage building and we just felt that a more suitable building would be much more in line with our future plans as well as..the general nature of the neighborhood. MR. TURNER-You've had an ongoing construction job there ever since you got there. You kept adding on and adding on, moving out to the east. MR. KRETZ-If I could, someone mentioned, why couldn't we add on the shed building to the main building as it already stands, now. We I re in a position, now, to the north, is the front of the building. We cannot add to that. That would definitely take away from the whole property and everything. To the east, which is our dining room area, and where are kitchen facilities are and our service to the kitchen is, that's not an appropriate place to put on a shed building for a storage. On to the west side, again, we've used up all the space that we can on that side of the building with an office addition we put on a little over a year ago. Toward the back, we just recently put in a new freezer, to the south side of the building, and what is left on the south side of the building, we would like to reserve that for the possibility, that portion is still. .the original width of the building which is 70 feet, that width of the building, we would like to reserve that to be able to expand that room if that Lodge can keep growing like it has been. When the Lodge first moved up there, there was about 300 people. Today we have a 1,050 members and more than likely we hope to continue on and we just are trying to plan for the future, here, and, under our site plan, we wanted to put a storage building there, but we couldn't do it because of the Ordinances. MR. TURNER-If there are no further questions, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED COIUmSPONDENCE STAFF IHPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Any further comment on it? None, okay, motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 46-1990 GLENS FALLS LODGE NO. 81 B.P.O.E., Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: 11 There doesn't appear to be any extraordinary circumstances applying to this property. They do have a specific hardship, that being a lack of storage space. The Zoning Ordinance, as written, seems to have denied them the storage privilege. This variance would not be detrimental to the Ordinance. In fact, it would enhance the looks of the property. The Short EAF Form shows no negative impact and there is no neighborhood opposition. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-1990 TYPE II LC-10A BESSIE CALLEJO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORMUS ROAD, OFF LUZERRE ROAD FOR Q>NSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENCE LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY LINES. TAX MAP NO. 124-1-9 Lor SIZE: 1.69 ACRES SECrrON 4.020-A JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper and 11m here on behalf of Joe and Bessie Callejo who are here also and they'll be happy to answer some question. There I s something that I have to add to the application that is, really, incorrect. When they said that the depth of the lot is 130 feet, they really think of it as 130 feet because of the nature of the lot. It drops off so severely at the top of West Mountain, there, that, when they said 130 feet at that part of the lot, that's the only thing that's flat land. MR. TURNER-That's a buildable area? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it drops off at about 40 percent grade immediately after the area where they're proposing to build a house. They've owned it, as the application reads, since the early 60's and, as such, it is a preexisting, nonconforming lot, with respect to size, in a 10 acre zone, but we feel the hardship is because of the grade and not really because of the setback or the width of the lot. At the north end of the lot, it is 221 plus or minus feet, but..40 percent grade is totally unsuitable for construction of a house, that really gets to the nature of the practical difficulty here. MR. TURNER-In reference to their map, are you saying, as shown here on the map, you want the house 20 feet from the property line. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Alright, and then 110 feet, this is flat area. MR. LAPPER-No, it starts here MR. TURNER-And goes like this. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and Joe explained to me, and he's here to discuss this, is that 50 feet to the edge of the house to where it drops off, but that's, for engineering reasons, just.. MR. TURNER-Any reason why you couldn't put..a little bit farther than 20 feet? MR. LAPPER-I asked that, because the obvious is that you go back into the.. you have..30 feet line and what they explained is that it drops off so severely there that it wouldn't be possible to.. \\here it drops off and that I s the reason? I don't know if anyone had the chance to go up there and look. MRS. EGGLESTON-It was the For Sale sign just before you get to Mr. Cormus's house? MR. LAPPER-Yes, they've actually been using this property since the early 60 IS for camping, now and again, and come up here from, just outside of Kingston and had always planned on building a house there, themselves with a marvelous view, but just on age and health considerations came on they figured that it was probably appropriate to sell it. MR. CARR-Jon, what's the size of the house, what are the dimensions? JOE CALLEJO 12 MR. CALLEJO-Obviously, at this time, we don't have any plans..but I'm assuming 30 feet deep, 30 feet wide. If I may, I took the opportunity to..a piece of property. .and this would be Cormus Road and, at this point, it's level and then it drops off quite sever. We had a bulldozer, years ago, go in a cut in a road and level off this part. We thought we could build in here. After the bulldozer went in and cut this driveway in, it still was to steep and decided, with that lower area, we probably could put a septic system down there, the percolation was very good and there's no other alternative to putting the house up on top of the hill. MRS. GOETZ-We've all seen it. We do site inspections. Where would the view be because the trees would be blocking any view? MR. CALLEJO-Well, there is a view, certainly, in the winter time. MRS. GOETZ-That's true. Right now, I was wondering if you'd be taking off.. MR. CALLEJO-The view is there, whatever is there, that's not The issue is this is the only possible place to build a house. just drops off. really an issue. Everything else MRS. EGGLESTON-There is a lower..why couldn't you build on there? MR. CALLEJO-Because this is where..bulldozer goes in there and, if you walk down, the initial part, when you first start down for, maybe, 50 feet, the roadway is usable, but right after that, it just drops off. You'd have to climb up on your hands and knees. MR. LAPPER-There' d be an access problem because the road would be so steep, the driveway and that also wouldn't meet the setback.. from the other side, for a 100 foot setback. MR. CALLEJO-This other portion of the property, right off the road, it just drops right off. There's just no way to access the property, other than up on the top. MR. SICARD-Would you pinpoint where the original Cormus house is on that map? MR. CALLEJO-Yes, I had seen Mrs. Cormus, asking where the property was originally. This is, Cormus is here. Luzerne Road comes here and Cormus Road comes off this road and it's, I'd say, about 500 feet. From Luzerne Road, our property starts, it goes 400 feet and then there's the first house and after that is Cormus, the house that burned down and this is the area, right in here, that I'm trying to. MR. TURNER-Yes, could you come back a little bit more? MR. CALLEJO-If we did, we'd have to try putting it on stilts. MR. TURNER-Well, you're talking 45 feet from the center of... MR. CALLEJO-Well, I can't actually be..26 feet. MR. TURNER-You could widen the road. MR. CALLEJO-Well, I don't think they'd be able to widen the road on this side because of this side here. They'd have to take the other side, which goes up. MR. LAPPER-Your point is really taken. It's just that, because of the nature of the property, it really is a practical difficulty, if not a hardship because there is no other choice of place to put a house. That's the only flat part of the property. Joe, do you think it would be possible to move it back to 25 feet? MR. CALLEJO-Twenty five feet? Unless we cut the size of the house down and maybe move over this way a little bit. MR. LAPPER-..30 by 36 foot house. MR. TURNER-Thirty, thirty, that's sixty, which is sixty feet from the property line. MR. CALLEJO-It would be..from here..50 feet over this way. 13 ,- MR. CARR-Okay, has he done any engineering work on it or anything like that. I guess, ..anything about, that this is the only place to be built on. MR. CALLEJO-At this point, I think... MRS. GOETZ-The house isn't for you? MR. CALLEJO-No, we're just looking for a variance for it, right now... MR. CARR-Ted, I didn't catch a lot of the discussion. Just for the Board's attention, did you get what's the minimum..is that what you were working on? MR. TURNER-..from the property, the center of the road.. MR. CALLEJO-It's five feet..twenty five feet. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD ROGGE MR. ROGGE name is Richard Rogge. I own the residence directly next to where this proposed building would be. I very much object to it. I'm concerned about a number of things. First of all, it does not fit into the neighborhood at all, I do not believe. There's a number of things that are concerning me. One, any house or building that's only 20 feet back from the road or the property line that is the road property line, we know that a garage is, traditionally, about 24 feet deep, that means they don't even have the depth of an average garage, between the house and the road. So, where are cars going to be parked. I know the amount of snow that we get on top of the mountain versus down here that's substantially more. I know what the plows do with all that snow and where are those cars going to go. I also know the problems that exist on those roads up there because of the amount of snow and the winter conditions that we have and I believe it'll create traffic problems, as well. Aesthetically, I do not believe it fits in, even closely, with what that neighborhood is developing to. The new homes that are all being built in the area are very nice. None of them are nearly this minimum square footage size of what they're suggesting, 900 square feet. I understand that the property is preexisting, as was mine. I built my house up there and came to find out, unfortunately, that the people that I hired to put in the foundation didn't put it in the correct location. I did not meet the setback requirements. I never came to the Board and asked for a setback variance, instead I bought some additional property to meet those requirements. I would be really abused and hurt, at this point, if I found somebody else could get away with something so simply. As a person that's been involved in the building industry, I believe there's a number of other applications that would permit construction of a home on this property and I think it really should be looked into further. I would welcome a neighbor up there. I have no problem with that, but the way this is proposed, I am totally against it. MR. CARR-Mr. Rogge, can I just ask you, as a builder, do you feel there are other locations on that property on which a home could go, comfortably? MR. ROGGE-I absolutely do, yes. MRS. GOETZ-What would that be? MR. ROGGE-There's a number of locations. I don't know their exact property lines and I'd have to take a look at that to know, but the house could, well I'd need a topographical map to show you, from a construction standpoint, where their other locations may be, but r've walked around on some of this and around the perimeter of it, and I know that down in here there certainly would be areas and, even if it was brought back over in this direction, it could still be built, a home could be built in here and I don't really have a problem with, even a variance. I just think that the one that's being requested is completely unreasonable. Again, I'm really not opposed to having a neighbor at all, but I'm opposed to having a house stuck right out on the side of the road, that doesn't conform to anything about what that neighborhood has developed to. MR. TURNER-How much work did you have to do on your property to put your house where it is now? MR. ROGGE-In hours or in work or, how do you want me to describe it? 14 MR. TURNER-It's quite a drop from the road. MR. ROGGE-It I S a substantial drop. I mean s we have three s 4-whee1 drives. We know that we s I mean s our house is much lower from the road than their house is being proposed to be built and we're living with it. We had to do a lot of work. I can'ts 11m going to guesss at least 200 truck loads of fill were brought in to create the grades and situations that we have and still we have to have 4-whee1 drives to get out of our driveway. I don't object to that. I like it. That's why I live there s but s if I went through all that s and I conformed to the Ordinancess 11m sure they cou1ds too. MRS. GOETZ-Is that the road that was closed in the winter? What was all that? MR. ROGGE-A lower section of this road was closed in the winter for a short period of time. I don't believe that that would have to be dones hopefully. MRS. GOETZ-Buts I means from your point about the safety factor? MR. ROGGE-Well s from the safety factor s I mean s they closed the road at a lower section of the mountain because of the problems that we live with up there on the mountain. Agains they are problems that we've chosens which is fines but 1et's not grant a variance that's going to enhance the problems and create further difficulties and dangers. RICK IRVINE MR. IRVINE-I just recently bought a piece of property on Cormus Road to build a house at a later date. The reason why I bought on Cormus Road was I wanted to have a lot of property between the houses. I currently live on Lincoln Avenue in Glens Falls and the houses are only setback 20..from the road. SOs lid like to see that the nature of that neighborhood is kept the way it iss with the houses setback far from the road. PAUL GALVAN MR. GALVAN-My name's Paul Galvan. I don't know if I can speak in oppositions but 11m a proposed buyer. I kind of object to Mr. Rogge's traffic jam up on the mountain because there's only four homes up there and I feel that's kind of misleading to the Board. Second of all s as far as the nature of the house s we have no idea of the size s other than the outside dimensions of 30 by 36 s whether it would disrupt the existing homes in the area. SOs I feel it's a little mis1eadings but if you people have seen the propertys there's a sufficient decline and the problem would be s obviously s the fill and s under that agreement of the purchase s J .grade s that the extreme cost of the fill trying to move the house out further. Second of a11s as far as the garage situations the garage is built underneath the houses therefore there is not a problem putting an additional garage towards the existing ..Cormus Road. MR. KELLEY-Mr. Ga1vans do you have a plan of this particular house with you? MR. GALVAN-Yess I dos out in my car. Would you like to see it? MR. KELLEY-Yes. BILL COOK MR. COOK-Yess my name's Bill Cook. My wife Sue and I have owned the property and lived on the property that's adjacent to this property for the past 12 years. We would not like to see a variance granted shere s allowing a house so close to the road. It doesn't fit in withs I thinks what was intended with 10 acre parcels and the setting that I s there. We think that there's plenty of land on that particular spot. The fact that it costs more to build further in on that particular parcel of land is not an excuse to allow somebody to put a house closer to the road than what's intended. Furthermore s I'd like to say that the land up there has very poor drainage and if it I s situated too close s if the leach field is situated too close on the downhill side s it will either pollute the groundwater which percolates through there freely s the part of land which we own is filled with many streams and in the summer time s even the water runs from there. So s special considerations would have to be given to any sort of leach field or arrangement. Also s many of the houses downstream from there have wells which go into an underground stream. That spot may be the source or near the source of such an underground stream. So s we would be very concerned about that. Thank you. 15 '- ---" MR. KELLEY-Jon, when I was up there, there was a stake or a piece of wood that was driven into the ground kind of in the flat portion and, roughly, looking at it, I would say, maybe, wu1d represent the corner of the house. Would that be true? MR. CALLEJO-There were three stakes that I put in. MR. KELLEY-Well, I'm sorry, there's one that's like 3 or 4 feet high. MR. CALLEJO-A1right, I put three stakes in and I believe I marked on the map one down the hill where the plateau is and would be for the leaching field and the septic system and it's certainly large enough that it would comply with the percolation. Up on top there was one stake that would be, approximately, the corner of the house that I measured the 45 feet off the center line of the road and the 60 feet from Rogge's property line and also a stake where the well would be, proposed, Which would, I measured it off, it has to be 100 feet from the septic system, and I believe I came up with about 150 feet. In regards to any parking problem, there's plenty of room between the house and the Rogge's property next door. MR. KELLEY-I'm not sure which, the stake that I saw, whether it was the well point or the corner of the house point. You're saying there's one here and one here. I don't know which one I was looking at. MR. CALLEJO-There was one here and one here. MR. KELLEY-Ted, I really kind of almost think we're at a handicap without topo lines or something. MR. TURNER-Yes, \Ie are. MR. KELLEY-I don't know that I'm necessarily going to say there's no way to build a house on there. I don't know that that's true, but without really having the lines to look at and knowing how far back you could go without having 50 foot foundation walls or something, I don I t think it's fair to the neighbors or the owner, really. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's the way I look at it. You can build roads down in and I think you could get down and back away from the road. You go up around Lake George. Look at the site inspections we do where you have to get down in the roads. It wasn't an easy job building them, but, if you want the land, that's what you have to do so that it doesn't change the character of the neighborhood. MR. TURNER-Would you consider tabling this for further information? MR. LAPPER-Yes, if I could just respond, quickly, to some of the comments. In terms of the issue, I mean, I think that, pure and simple, and I hope that, ultimately, you'll agree with me. I terms of the character of the land, that this is fitting for a Use Variance and the issue of bringing in 200 truck loads of fill really proves the point, that there's a problem up there and that constitutes a practical difficulty. In terms of the visibility of this to the road and the neighbors, I think that's valid, in terms of a mitigation measure and a conditional variance. If you wanted some sort of significant vegetative screening between the road and the front of the house, I think that would be appropriate and that would be agreeable to the applicant. Moving the house, perhaps, five feet back further is significant in terms of 20 to 25 feet and that would be agreeable as well, but, in terms of the real issue of the slope there, I think the leach field is an area where that's been filled for a number of years and it's graded, it's flat. There's sufficient space for double the size of a leach field, there. In case it fails, for another leach field to be put in, so that's taken care of, but the real issue, in terms of proving this to you, I only came on board after the application was filed and clearly, the real issue is the grade and not the setback, not the lot width, excuse me, that weld be happy to table this and come back with a topo map, Which the applicant does have, to really prove a point because we think that this is a case where it's related to the land and we'd like to prove it. MR. CARR-I think that's.. I mean, there's no doubt that people are building lots. I mean, that's preexisting. MR. LAPPER-Right. 16 -- - MR. CARR-It's just a matter of where the house can be placed to everyone's satisfaction. So, I think a little more information in the application might be helpful to all parties. Perhaps, Mr. Rogge wants to talk..as a proposed builder and maybe he can come up with a unique idea. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, the Board may wish to specify What contour intervals they'd like to see on that topo map they have submitted. MR. LAPPER-If it's acceptable to the Board, What intervals, and, rather than going to the trouble, it's so steep, I think that 20 feet is sufficient to acceptable, weld rather not have to go to the expense we have is U.S.G.S. 20 foot I think that shows, because show the grades and, if that's of redoing that. MR. KELLEY-For Planning Board's, you have to have 5 foot intervals. MR. BAKER-I think it's 2 foot intervals. MR. TURNER-Is it 2? MR. BAKER-Yes, for subdivision plats. MR. TURNER-Jeff, are you satisfied with the 20 foot intervals? MR. KELLEY-Having looked at the lot, you probably could MR. CARR-Well, if Jeff tells me that he can look at it and say MR. KELLEY-Well, my question was, maybe it isn't. Are you going to bring us a U.S. Coast and Geometric survey map? MR. CALLEJa-Yes. MR. KELLEY-In other words, it's one of those green MR. CALLEJa-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And that lot on that survey. isn't going to do it, because You're going to be guessing. it isn't going to locate the MR. ROGGE-The other problem with the national done maps, it doesn't show the road that's been cut in, it doesn't show the plateau that's been..either. MR. LAPPER-What would the Board be looking for, in terms of, if it wasn't 20 feet? MR. SHEA-I think a survey on the property has to be done, Jon, with a minimum of 10 feet, maybe even 5 feet, intervals, as Mr. Rogge said, with the change of the elevations of the road in there, and the fact that the applicant wants to put the house so close to the road, 20 feet wouldn I t do it, because the house is only 30 feet wide, proposed. So, I I d say, the best thing, probably, \\lOuld be 5 foot intervals. MR. LAPPER-We think that I s reasonable. Would it be acceptable if we just brought that to the next meeting or do we have to submit that in advance. MR. TURNER-I think weld want to look at it in advance. MR. CARR-Ted, I don't know if he's going to be able to..in that amount of time. MR. LAPPER-How much would need, in terms of lead time. I'd like to to a few days, if that's possible, if that's not too much of an inconvenience. MR. TURNER-When could you ~t it to us? MR. LAPPER-I'm trying to give myself as much time. If you could give us, maybe, I don't know, 4 or 5 days before the next..that would be acceptable. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that the deadline for new submissions for July was today. MR. CARR-Well, this \\lOuldn't be a new submission. MR. TURNER-No, he's just wouldn't have to resubmit. going to provide some additional information, He's tabling so he can get this information. so he MR. LAPPER-We' 11 make an effort to work with neighbors, as well, see if we can come up with some kind of a compromise. 17 ---' MR. KELLEY-With your particular plan, you have a front elevation and a rear elevation. Is the front facing the road, or is that facing away from the road? What are you calling the front of the road. MR. CALLEJO-The front faces the back and the other is facing away. MR. KELLEY-So, this part faces the road? MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-Alright, so the left side is over here. Okay, that makes sense. You're going to drive in here and have the garage. That's what I was trying to figure out because if it was the other way around, I would want to go back and look and see how youlre going to get a driveway coming out here. MR. LAPPER-. .p1aces to put it now. I looked at this angle coming in here. I looked at this angle trying to get out to the level. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-1990 BESSIE CATJ.RTO, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Tabled at the applicant's request. The applicant will be providing mOre information in the way of a topographical map with 5 foot contour intervals. A survey is needed. This information will be available to the ZBA and Staff at least five days prior to the next ZBA meeting. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. BAKER-If you feel that' s enough time for Staff to give adequate review for us to get the information out to the Board. MRS. GOETZ-Well, you should tell us because we don't know. MR. TURNER-That's what I'm asking. Have you got time enough? MR. BAKER-Well, I think there are two considerations. One, there is a time frame of getting a surveying crew in there and I don I t know if they will have adequate time this month to get a crew in there. MR. TURNER-I think he's going to have to indicate to you whenever he's ready. MR. BAKER-Okay, certainly, if they can get the information in, we can do the review and get the MR. LAPPER-We 111 get it as soon as we possibly can. We have a survey. It's just getting somebody to go out there and plot the topo lines. MR. BAKER-Okay. MRS. COLLARD-Ted, is the hearing going to be open next month? MR. TURNER-Yes, the public hearing will be opened the next time around, again. MR. KELLEY-Will they be notified, because, right now, we don't have a set date? MR. TURNER-Well, I think the people that are concerned are here. MR. KELLEY-Well, I mean, how are they going to know when to return. MR. LAPPER-We'll be back for the next meeting. MR. KELLEY-For the next meeting? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ROGGE-When's the next meeting. 18 '- MR. TURNER-The third Wednesday in July. MRS. GOETZ-Because you're old business, you'll be on the first Zoning Meeting. MR. TURNER-You're not going to be here? MR. KELLEY-The 18th of July. MRS. GOETZ-Well, you could always have a letter, if you can't be here. MR. TURNER-Well, he won't be able to address the information that's provided. MR. ROGGE-We'll send you a letter. USE VARIANa NO. 48-1990 T1PE: 1IfLISTED MIl-5 IIHMANUEL.J. MAILLE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE œro AND LUZERNE ROAD FOR A 10 FT. B~ 10 FT. ADDITUII TO THE LAUNDROMAT AND STORE. TAX MAP NO. 127-6-16 Lor SIZE: 120 FT. B~ 100 FT. SEcnœ 4.020-R EMMANUEL J. MAILLE, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Mr. Maille, the store's already there, correct? MR. MAILLE-Yes, it is. MR. CARR-Where is it located? MR. MAILLE-It's on the south end of the building. MR. TURNER-Where are you from the south line or what, ~at have you got there? MR. MAILLE-On the land and the property? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MAILLE-I own the whole corner lot. MR. TURNER-How far are you from here to that line? MR. MAILLE-To that addition? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MAILLE-About 57 feet. MRS. GOETZ-One thing, ~en we were there, doing the site inspection, the part where you said the builders called the Town and they said you would need a building permit ? MR. MAILLE-Well, they should have told me it was going to be for commercial use and they didn't and they said anything under 101 square feet, we didn't need a permit. MRS. GOETZ-Were they thinking that it was a storage building? MR. MAILLE-Storage for something. MRS. COLLARD-I can't imagine what they were thinking, but it just sounds like there was just miscommunication between the builder and our Department. MR. MAILLE-I had to call..just a 10 by 10 addition...lOl square feet, but now, I guess, I'm going to have to get a permit to use it because of it being a commercial use. MRS. GOETZ-So, actually so.. .the service because you could've used a bigger space. MR. MAILLE-Yes, I could've. See, this was like a trial basis, for me, to see if it was going to work because the original store that was in there closed and, if you could've seen that store, this one's much cleaner, neater. I probably will go for a bigger addition, probably, down the line, yes. MRS. GOETZ-That's something we better consider right now and think about it because we need to think of the overall use. 19 ---" MR. MAILLE-If I did put an addition on, you see where that brown and white trailer is? MRS. GOETZ-The one next door? MR. MAILLE-Right, I own that. I would move that down farther down on the lot so it would give you more room. See where the big tree is. Well, that's..5 years from now, next year, I don't know. Right now I'm comfortable with the size it is, but of course.. .and I didn't want to take away from the laundromat because the laundromat does very well and. .keep it very well because it's well kept up. MRS. GOETZ-I thought you said the laundromat didn't do well. Did I misunderstand that? MR. MAILLE-It's starting to do very well with the store. People are finding it's more convenient to do their wash when they can get their groceries and I put a pay phone out by the road. You can see that. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. MAILLE-No, the business is picking up, yes. I'm giving away free coffee in the morning. MR. TURNER-Did they make a profit, last year, on it. Did they make a reasonable return, last year? MR. MAILLE-No. MR. TURNER-They didn't? MR. MAILLE-No. I just purchased this in August, okay. MR. TURNER-But, previous to that? MR. MAILLE-It's been holding it's own. I making my payments. MR. TURNER-You're making your payments? MR. MAILLE-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I'm trying to remember back, who was the original owner, your father, right? MR. MAILLE-My father. MR. KELLEY-He had the garage. MR. MAILLE-The Body Shop. MR. KELLEY-I was going to say, I remember going over there because he had to get a variance, he had to get.. Now, I've got to remember, was the building there, before he made it a laundromat? It was a lot. He owned it is part of the lot that his house was on, right. Alright, and he wanted the variance, then, that was because ..autobody or something, right? MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. KELLEY-He was having trouble doing that and he was going to try to get, and the trailer park was across the street and it was a natural...I was just trying to remember back what it was the first time. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NO (ØØ(ENT PUBLI C BEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) 20 --' MR. KELLEY-Joe, what would be the next closest grocery store of any kind in this area? MR. MAILLE-Exit 18. MR. KELLEY-That's over on Corinth Road. MR. MAILLE-Yes, there's none on Luzerne Road at all. What we used to call..Groceries, they closed back there last year, that was the closest, now their closed. MR. KELLEY-They're closed. MR. MAILLE-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And that was, where? MR. MAILLE-Over on South and Ohio. MR. KELLEY-If you went up, what would be Corinth Road, is there, what, West Mountain De li ? MR. MAILLE-West Mountain Deli. MR. KELLEY-Well, that's kind of more, the pizza, or has that got groceries? MR. MAILLE-I don't think he has groceries. I've never been in there. I couldn't tell you. MR. SICARD-I was just in there, yesterday. just a deli. I didn't see any groceries. It's MR. KELLEY-I guess my concern is, I almost think, I can see the grocery thing taking off and getting bigger and bigger and bigger and I think maybe that's What we've got a concern, and I don't know Whether it's good or bad. MR. SICARD-Well, there's a laundromat right across the street...I think, probably, most of his business, a lot of his business, comes from there. MR. MAILLE-Ninety percent of my business is kids, ice cream, candy, junk foods and every morning, I have a bus stop there and the kids come in. MR. KELLEY-I guess my thing is, I think, anyway, that maybe the potential's there that that thing could build into a real grocery store, Which would be good, I guess, from your financial standpoint. MR. SICARD-Well, if it doesn't, he could always just take the laundromat right out and..build a bigger inside. MR. KELLEY-But I think that's, we've got to, maybe, give some consideration to that. MRS. COLLARD-Jeff, he would be back before you if he expands any further. MR. KELLEY-I guess that would be my concern. MR. MAILLE-Believe me, if I do anything, I won't... MR. CARR-This reminds me of my very first meeting and there was a gentleman here who built a storage shed too close to a property line and we granted him, at the time, an area variance, and..had called the Building Department and they had told him, no, he didn't even call the Building Department. He just talked to friends that told him that he didn't need a building permit for such and such, or Whatever. It sounds like this is kind of the same thing. MRS. GOETZ-Did you vote for that? MR. CARR-I abstained. MRS. GOETZ-You did abstain? MR. CARR-That was my first meeting. 21 -..../ MRS. GOETZ-You abstained because you didn't know enough about it? MR. CARR-Yes, No. MRS. EGGLESTON-It was his first night. MR. TURNER-Joe, you said he owned the trailer next to the, you owned that lot, but he owned the trailer? MR. MAILLE-No, I own the whole, I own 550 feet on Ohio Avenue. I own 250 down on Luzerne Road. MR. TURNER-Is the trailer owned by someone else? MR. MAILLE-No, I own it. MR. TURNER-You own it? MR. MAILLE-Yes, I do. MR. TURNER-So, if you did expand, you could absorb that lot? MR. MAILLE-Yes. MR. TURNER-If you wanted to and you came back with a variance. MR. CARR-I think it's.. vbat Pat has pointed out, that any expansion or change.. he's going to have to come back, so you can kind of keep tabs to make sure it's not overburdening the property. I think that's what the concern of the Board is. MRS. GOETZ-There doesn't seem to be any neighborhood opposition. MR. TURNER-The laundromat, how many washers and dryers? MR. MAILLE-There's 12 washers and dryers..soda machine, candy machine. MRS. GOETZ-If we look at the purpose of multifamily residential, which is, multifamily residential zones are designed to provide for an anticipated increase in demand for high density, multifamily housing and professional office buildings in areas located near commercial services and subject to intense development pressure. It just touches on it a little bit, but they expect to see commercial services in such an area. MR. MAILLE-Around the corner, vbere I bought my father's house, there's a garage and I have my repair shop there for used cars. It's all commercial around me. MRS. GOETZ-Well, vben the Land Use Advisory Committee worked on all of the zoning, we were concerned that there was no neighborhood store in that area. It was a concern. MR. MAILLE-Everybody that comes in, likes it. Very good service to them. We try to keep, it's pretty hard to keep everything they want, but MRS. GOETZ-It's very small. MR. TURNER-It's a small store. MR. GOETZ-It doesn't seem like it's going to be adequate. MR. TURNER-You're going to have your milk and bread and very simple. MR. MAILLE-That's what I have bread, milk, butter, eggs. MR. TURNER-I think the Board's right. I think it's going to take right off. MR. MAILLE-I hope so. MR. KELLEY-I guess my concern is, I think, in fairness to Joe, that that situation should be analyzed, okay, let's say if he were here and he said, listen, I want to put up a 1500 square foot store, how do you feel about that. I guess why I'm asking that would be, better to tell him now then to let him get mOre money invested and say, well, Joe, now, you can't do that and Joe's very upset. 22 -- --- MR. SICARD-They just put that new trailer park in. . \\hat is that zone on that side? MRS. COLLARD-I think that's Light Industrial zoning over there. MR. KELLEY-So, Joe, you own 550 feet on Connecticut? MR. MAILLE-Connecticut and Ohio. MR. KELLEY-And Ohio and then you've got 3 something on Luzerne, well, the other one's the house in the house and the garage. Alright, then when you go down to 500, is there another street down there or are these..couple of houses? MR. MAILLE-There's two houses between that and the next street. (END OF FIRST DISK) 23 -- MR. KELLEY-(TAPE TURNED) If this thing takes off and it keeps expanding, how are you going to effect your neighbors, but it appears that you've got enough land there, I mean you could keep going and if, at some point, they objected, you'd still have land and a house or something as a buffer between themselves and the next neighbor or whatever. I guess, the testimony, the good part is, there aren't people here complaining. MR. SICARD-They're his best customers. MR. KELLEY-Well, maybe it would be good if they were here saying, yes, we like it and we..doub1e it or something. MR. MAILLE-I've asked people to come up. People don't want to get involved. MR. TURNER-Okay, any more questions for Mr. Maille? Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 48-1990 EMMANUEL J. MAILLE, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant has testified that a reasonable return on the property is not possible without this variance. They have demonstrated an unnecessary hardship exists to the applicant. The property already maintains a commercial use and this variance will maintain the existing property right of the applicant. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and a review of the Short EAF Form indicates no negative impact. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-1990 TYPE II LI-lA BAANEN PACKARD MACHINERY OWER: DONNA BAANEN EAST SIDE OF BAY STREET, !t; MILE SOUTH OF QUAKER ROAD. FOR A BUILDING ADDITION FOR MACHINE FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY (3,200 SQ. FT.). REQUESTING RELIEF FROM FRONT AND REAR. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 107-2-1,2,3 LOT SIZE: 0.98 ACHES SECTION 4.020-N TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace. I'm with Haanen Engineering and 11m here on behalf of Haanen Packard Machinery. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you one question. Is this the same plan that they presented, probably, three years ago? MR. NACE-No, at that time they were looking at. .bui1ding, larger building, for a little different purpose than a machinery business. The business has changed a little bit. They've had to scale back the size of the building they desired. To make it cost effective for us, we've had to keep it attached to the existing building so that we can maintain space in the existing building for part of our machine business. MR. CARR-Why can't you still attach t his addition and just go perpendicular to what is proposed? MR. NACE-Rotate the building..? Okay. Primarily, to maintain the flow of whatls going to happen. The existing building, we do all of our machining and assembly and testing equipment. What we propose to do is allocate the existing building strictly for machining and do all of our assembly and testing of the equipment that we manufacture in the new building. So, the flow of working and people needs to be maintained, really, at two places, as a functional layout of the interior. MR. CARR-Okay, so, f10wing,..working..bui1ding.. MR. NACE-Well, we might be able to make it work. The other factor there is, in order to minimize the impact and keep the buildings looking similar, okay, we can, if we have it the way it is shown, now, we can simply extend the front of the existing building across and make it look as if it were designed and meant to be one building, and I think, aesthetically, it would be a lot more pleasing to the neighborhood. If we rotate it and move it back in order, simply, to try 24 to meet the present zoning setbacks, it's going to look like just that, three separate buildings that were stacked in a sort of random fashion. Also, if we rotated it for practical reasons, we'd need our loading access and overhead doors on the wrong side of the building. So, to get a truck load into the building, it would be a little difficult because of the jog with the existing building it would make. Plus, it would put that face of the building out towards the road which we don't believe is aesthetically pleasing. It would also, probably, put our parking out in front of the building, which, we'd much rather have that tucked off to the side and believe that that would be a nicer looking appearance. MR. SHEA-Tom, I'm not familiar with the interior layout of the building, nor the actual traffic of the flow of the work that you do inside there, but you have to explain to me or convince me a little bit better that you're not able to accomplish those things and interiorize with the building not being turned 90 degrees, as is suggested. MR. NACE-We probably could accomplish it. It would be less efficient, for one and, for two, it would make the building more expensive. What we propose to do, the way it is now, is simply use a common wall and extend our framing, existing building framing, which spans this direction, over to the new building. If we turn it, obviously, we're going to get a more exterior wall to build. It's going to be more expensive. As far as material flow, with the machining operation, we want to be able to separate our materials, handling, so that one portion of this building is kept for the incoming raw materials that we cut up and the sheet goods and pipe and steel stock when we cut and then that material will either go over to machining.. .what have you, up in the front half, or go directly back into the new building for welding up of frames and equipment pieces. Just to get the flow from those two separate operations, into the place where old machinery has been put together and..and it's just, simply, a great deal more efficient and easier if we have two accesses for that. MR. SHEA-Tom, is the 3200 square feet, has that been determined that that's the minimum amount of new construction that you would need? Would it not be possible to reduce the size of the building and minimize the setback relief that you're seeking and still get the economies of construction you're looking for? MR. NACE-We need the length, it's 80 feet, and we need that length in order to assemble some conveyer equipment that we're looking at. We don't have now and we, quite frankly, can't produce that equipment, simply because we don't have the interior space to do it. If we had to do it..be doing it outside. So, the length is, it's not absolutely critical, we might get away wit h 75 feet, instead of 80, 80 is the most desirable. If we had to, we might be able to chop the side of the building off, but, there again, that's creating something that's not 10gLca1, simply to meet the setback requirements. I presume, if D & H ever gives up the right-of-way, we would certainly consider purchasing a piece of it in the back. MR. TURNER-Are you going to maintain the opening in the building that's there now.. . MR. NACE-Here? That will be one of our... MR. TURNER-Is that a service door? MR. NACE-At this point, we're not sure, but it'll probably be just a curtain to help keep dust down from one place to another, to allow easy access back and forth. MR. TURNER-What size would that be, that curtain? MR. NACE-We11, I haven't and that existing door, same size opening. designed it yet, but it will probably be about the same I believe, is 10 feet. So, it will, probably, be the MR. KELLEY-Do you know what the total size of this piece of property is, in terms of acres or whatever? MR. NACE-As shown on the plan? I do know that, somewhere. There's, about, just under an acre. The other factor in turning the building to meet the setback requirements would be that it's going to use up more of the site in the way of traveled way, driveways, and parking. It's going to reduce the green area on site. MR. KELLEY-This dotted line appears to be the gravel area. 25 ---- MR. NACE-That would be the proposed gravel area. MR. KELLEY-Is there an entrance back here? MR. NACE-There's an existing entrance back here. MR. KELLEY-So, you're now, basically, coming in here and you can back a truck up there and unload. MR. NACE-Yes, we can. Our primary loading and unloading area would be.. MR. KELLEY-You're using this now, but, in the future, it will come over this way. MR. NACE-There is a door there. It's presently blocked off with a piece of plywood on the inside and we use it only occasionally when we have a long piece of equipment that we cannot get through this door, that we can't turn. MR. KELLEY-It's going to be, basically, a clear standing type? MR. NACE-Yes, it will. The same with the existing. It's a clear standing. This will be the same thing. MR. KELLEY-That was the original, existing bike shop? MR. NACE-That was the old bike shop. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Any comment on the Staff Report, anybody? MR. KELLEY-I think, I just wanted to get my memory right on how this originally looked. I think there was a house over here, t hat you bought the property and tore the house down. MR. NACE-That' s correct. The old property line was somewhere back in here, I believe and, I'm not sure how long ago, but..purchased this additional lot and the drive was here. There's an old foundation. One of our goals is to kind of keep as much green space in here to maintain good plantings, good landscaping. MR. TURNER-Jeff, when they were here the last time. .got a waiver. .they were in the process of buying...the addition did come up and they... MR. KELLEY-I guess I'm just trying to get all these things in my mind, here. We're talking about a Light Industrial 1 acre zone and, when they started, they didn't have the acre. MR. TURNER-No. MR. KELLEY-And now they do and if we talk about the purpose, in the Ordinance, it says, "To provide opportunities for the expansion of Light Industry without competition from ot her use types". It sounds to me, it does kind of meet their criteria. In other words, they want expansion and..with the purchase of property, it, obviously, looks like it's typical of a lot of businesses. They kind of grow as time goes on. Let me go back to the 2400 square foot buildings. We must have granted a variance for that on the front setbacks? MR. SICARD-Is that you're first building? MR. NACE-The second building. It was constructed, I think, was not with the firm at that time, so I really don't know. it fit in with the zoning that was in effect at that time. in '82 or '83. I I don I t know how 26 -' MR. TURNER-I don't think it was Light Industrial at that time. MR. NACE-It may not have been. I don't know. MR. TURNER-Because I don't remember ever.. MR. KELLEY-I mean, somehow it got built at 21 feet. I think was then versus, I mean, I know what the reasoning is, now, but MR. NACE-There was a Building Permit for that construction. there must have been, it contradicted the current zoning at that that the reasoning I know that. So, time. MR. TURNER-I'm not sure..if they were there in '82 or not, but I don't believe they were. There was..to the south and then there was..o1d house, I'm not sure whether that was there at the time. Then there was Davidson I s old house. It was pretty much residential at the time. MR. NACE-Haanen Packard has been in the building since, I believe, since '81. I know that. MR. TURNER-Any further questions for Mr. Nace? Okay, motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-1990 BAANEN PACKAIm MACHINERY, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant does have a practical difficulty in two areas. One is the triangular shaped property. Because of the shape and required setbacks, it gives him limited area to build in. This small area is a handicap. The other is practical difficulty and that is the manner in which his business functions, t he material fabrication business, and requires a particular flow of materials. The flow would be disrupted by adhering to the Zoning Ordinance. It wouldn't allow him to conduct business efficiently. The applicant has purchased adjoining property to provide parking and green area. To the rear of the property, it is presently a railroad. Should this property become available, the applicant would try to purchase some of this. This is not an unreasonable request. It fits in with t he purpose of the Light Industrial zone. The specific request is for 21 foot setback on the front which would be a relief of 29 feet. Also, a 24 foot setback on the rear, a relief of 6 feet. This appears to be the minimum relief for the relief of the practical difficulty. Public services and facilities will not be adversely effected. Both of these setbacks are more in conformance than preexisting buildings. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARlANŒ NO. 50-1990 T"!PE II HC-lA WALTER OOHBEK OWNER: SAME AS ABIONE MEADmiBmoK ROAD TO ADD A BOt\T STORAGE BTOJILDING 100FT. B'E 15FT.. IN THE REAR OF THE P ROPE RT'E. JŒQlIIES'rING RELIEF FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK EQTOJIJŒKENTS.. (WARREN 001llNT'E PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.. 59-2-14 TAX MAP NO.. 59-1-8..21 Lor SIZE: 1..3 ACRES SEcæION 4.020-K JOHN R. WINN, ESQ., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARR-Before he starts, Ted, could you go over the history of what happened in September? MR. TURNER-In September, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a rear yard setback variance for the proposed building. At that time it was determined that a side yard setback variance was also required. MR. CARR-What is the variance requested? MR. TURNER-A side yard setback. The Zoning Administrator has determined that no other variances, beyond these two, will be necessary. MR. CARR-Karla? MS. CORPUS-Ten feet. 27 -- MR. CARR-Ten feet? MS. CORPUS-He needs 50. He's got 40. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. WINN-I think the section of the Ordinance that there has to be a 20 foot side setback to accommodate the 50 foot minimum. MR. CARR-Okay, you've got 20 on each side. MR. WINN-There's 20 on each side, but in the front portion of the property, there's over 100 feet from the northern line down to the fill line. This particular area, here, is the Healy residence, across the street is residential. It's not our desire to put a building any closer to the west entrance of the property. Although, the property to the north is, in fact, zoned Highway Commercial, as well. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you're restricted, by variance, not to put it there. MR. WINN-Well, the original application directed that the 50 foot buffer zone be maintained. In fact, it's shown on the map there is a..that now exists, it was marked the 50 foot line. There is, in fact, room, beyond that 50 feet where an additional bui lding could constructed. We realize that, even though this is a Highway Commercial Use, it is, in fact, a Highway Commercial zone, it's used residentially. It's not our desire to put a building in because it would interfere with the residential use that. .property has to be used residentially. That's Why we would like to move it back because of the required distance between the...and access to the storage building, it is necessary to make it 20 feet from the back line. This area to the north is, in fact, completely undeveloped. There's brush over-growth and swamps and mosquito infested. At the time of last September, When the rear yard setback was granted, these original four buildings were setback 20 feet from the rear setback at the time. Our desire was to maintain a consistent setback of 20 feet. The building could be used moved five feet to the east which would make it somewhat skew and would also bring us closer to the residential uses..and we want to keep it back..from the residential properties. This property here is Quaker Ford, Which is owned by Mr. Dombek as well. You can see that, in that general neighborhood, there has not been, What you would say is complete conformity, with the side yard setback to begin with. The Queensbury Town pumping station has a generator located seven and a half feet from the property line. The Healy house, Which is located, has it's garage, approximately, 10 feet from the property line. MR. CARR-Maybe you could tell me or maybe anybody can tell me. wasn't done back in September? How come this MR. TURNER-There was a question of. .and then there was a question of this here and they've got a DEC permit...wetland. MR. CARR-But, I mean, When he's not equally 50. Was that brought up at the time? MRS. COLLARD-I really felt that was an oversight on my part, for not picking up on that. MR. KELLEY-Because..talking about the 75 feet from the stream, right? MRS. COLLARD-Yes, the shoreline definition states MR. KELLEY-We said that..because of the stream? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY- J .boats going down there? MRS. COLLARD-That was not my decision. go into it. That was another, well, we won't even MR. WINN-The shoreline we talked about's navigable. This particular stream has a culvert over it so that only small boats can go down through it. pœLIC HEARlNG OPENED ED OUDEIŒRK 28 -- -' MR. OUDEKERK-My name's Ed Oudekerk of 88 Meadowbrook Road, neighbor. I'm opposed to this variance.. water. The more blacktop, the more roofs, the worse we get. I agree that the back part of that. .property is over-growth. The only reason for it is, of what Mr. Dombek has done around it by filling it and no place for the water. .now more buildings, more blacktop isn't going to help us a bit. I can..my lawn all the time...but it's getting harder all the time. The worst when you agreed to have that setback by the last meeting and I can see no reason why it should be changed..Mr. Dombek knew, when he built the building, what the rules were and what he could do with it and I don't think he should go any further with it. Thank you. MR. SHEA-I have a question. You say the water problems. Specifically, What kind of water problems have you experienced since the construction on Mr. Dombek's property. MR. OUDEKERK-Back when I lived there, When we farmed that, we used to plow, there was a 12 acre farm there. We would plow that and plant it and we run trucks and tractors..I can't get my lawn mower back there now, in the middle of June. TOM RUSSELL MR. RUSSELL-My name is Tom Russell. I live at 65 Meadowbrook Road, directly across. My main concern is traf fic. Since they've widened Quaker Road, they now have tarred Meadowbrook. They have fixed the Cronin Bridge. The traffic has really commenced. The other thing is, if you're going to have a boat and a car pulling a trailer, of course, in there, you're going to have to have wider turns. As it is, they go on my lawn now. I've seen numerous accidents. The activity that is over there. I've seen domestic quarrels. I've seen the police there. I I ve seen people climb over the fence 11, 12 0'c10ck and night and I think that itls just too much and that's my objection. P1JlBLIC BEARING CLOSED OORRESP<oIIDENŒ Letter from Beverly LaF1ure: Again, I have no objections to the building, but nothing is done about the mess of signs put on the intersection. Encourage them along the Girls Scouts and Regency Park, to put up a sign similar to the one at Cronin and Bay. STAFF INPtDT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MRS. GOETZ-Read previous motion of September 20th, 1989 (attached) MR. TURNER-Okay, Mr. Winn, you indicate, on the map, on the north side, there's not going to doors, anyway. That I s going to be your grass area, the sout h side? MR. WINN-That's right. MR. TURNER-Is that going to be blacktop, to the rear, between the two buildings? MR. WINN-Between the two buildings, it's going to be gravel, blacktop. The plan complies with the permeability requirements of the Ordinance. The total number of square feet..wu1d be slightly under 11,000 and 1.3 acres, I think, under the Ordinance,; .per house. So, it's not an intensive use of this property. One thing I would like to point out, last time I was here, in September, there was a question of whether or not a reasonable return could be had from the property, as it is. ..financial statement, I think it shows, ignoring depreciation, there's actually no return on the property at this time. The investment I s slightly over $28,000. I would like to be able to have some return on the investment. MR. SICARD-Traffic wise, though, Mr. Winn, will that be norma1...for the winter, and then..? MR. WINN-We propose 10 units in that building, so that, we don't think the traffic would be excessive. The gentleman that's talking about people in and out, I've been to that particular unit, probably more times that lid like to, but I've seen minimal traffic going in and out. Most of the rentals are monthly. People may go once or twice a month to go in and get something out. I don It know about people climbing in, but I know the property is fenced to keep people out. 29 '---' MR. SICARD-But,..status of break-in's,..robberies, and this kind of thing? MR. WINN-I recall, several years ago, there was a vehicle parked on the property and it's tires were removed and a window was vandalized, but, since that time, there's been no vehicles that have been kept there overnight. The office section of the property has never been broken into, to my knowledge. MR. KELLEY-If you read the minutes of the last meeting, there's some good comments in there from Mr. O'Connor, I believe, Mr. Healy's attorney at the time. He addresses the MR. TURNER-Page 5. MR. KELLEY-Oh, Page 5? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-At the top, he addresses the fact that he needs a 30 foot, combined, side yard setback and he talks about, he thinks..denia1 of the variance, as they've shown it on this particular site. He talks about the 75 feet from the stream, which is the thing that I was questioning about. I guess I'm kind of wondering how we got through it all, since it was brought up and talked about, but not mentioned? ...a lot of information, there. MR. WINN-What was created, last time, was the five foot rear setback, only, variance as to the rear setback. The question being that we have to come back in front of this Board, anyway, with any other variance applications that would be required and, since that time, the question of the stream has been resolved and..DEC Permit, before that and, so, the only thing that relates, now, is whether or not these two combine yards, at this point, would be 20 feet, rather than 50 and we think that it's reasonable, given the fact that the Healy property, itself, in front, is about, t he building is located about 10 feet from the property line and, in fact, we have over 100 feet with no building at all, that's presently being maintained, partially in consideration of the residential use that's there. There's 50 feet of grass that's not required by any ordinance, but that's been set forth, by request, to protect, if you will, the residential the residential use of the property to the north. MR. KELLEY-Because that would be my concern, now. If we protected the residence before, why are we now saying that we're not going to? MR. WINN-We11, the fact residential use of the Healy property ends at the stream. The rear portion has never been used and there's no access to it. It's never been used in the last 15 or 20 years, that I know of. MR. KELLEY-Does that still belong to Mr. Healy? MR. WINN-It belongs to Mr. Healy. MR. KELLEY-Well, it's a piece of a residential piece of property, well, okay. MR. WINN-I suppose, technically, it is, except, you couldn't walk on the property. There are trees that have fallen over. There's rust. There's actually no lawn or no play area at all on it, that's why we feel there'd be, virtually, no intrusion, by having the 20 feet. If, in fact, this building was 10 feet further away, the proposed building that we have would be in compliance because. .20 feet back. MR. TURNER-Jeff, the only problem is, as to the whole thing, somehow, back in '82, this got zoned Highway Commercial. At the time, then, it went from Quaker Road, back 500 feet. They say it's 1,000 feet from Quaker to their business, but it's not. It's about 300 feet. What it did, it encompassed all the residences that were there and had been there for years and years and years and never took into consideration that they were even there and they're still residences. Mr. Healy's house was owned by Allen Oudekerk. It was there, before 1. .way down at the other end of the road and Ed's house was there before A1 and then Ed's father's house, was where Cleveland lives and the Nolan property, that's all residential, now it's Highway Commercial. In order for anybody to build on that back property, they've got to exit out onto Meadowbrook Road. The thing that I'd like to see done is that line, taken and changed. The line goes back of those residences and cut off at Dombek's and keep the residential character there, because Mr. Russell's faced with a situation, there. He's got to look at that stuff everyday of the week, night and day, traffic in and out of there. 30 '-- "-'" MRS. GOETZ-Why would we expand it, then? I mean, listen to the way you're talking. MR. TURNER-I know, but the fact of the matter is, it's Highway Commercial. MRS. GOETZ-But we don't have to expand it beyond what it should be. MR. TURNER-No, but the use there is not the use that could be there,. .be more objectionable than what's there now. MRS. GOETZ-That's true, except MR. TURNER-That's dead storage. MRS. GOETZ-But, When Mr. Healy can't use the back of his property because of the- MR. TURNER-He can't use it.. MRS. GOETZ-You don't think he could use it for anything? MR. TURNER-Mr. Oudekerk just testified, it's all wet back there. MRS. GOETZ-But he said it's wet because of the..of the storage. MR. TURNER-It's wet because of the Quaker Road and the trees are all gone and there's nothing to absorb the moisture. MRS. GOETZ-Right. I mean, I'm sure it's a complexity of issues, but it hasn't been helped by all the..square footage that's on that. MR. TURNER-We haven't helped it by putting a residence in a Highway Commercial zone. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. WINN-That particular water. Further up the been covered by blacktop. roof, square footage has, virtually, no stream, there' ve been innumerable square The Quaker Road was just widened. impact on the feet that has MRS. GOETZ-That's what I said. It's a complexity of issues. MR. WINN-This is the minor one. This property, in fact, is all that's left of what's authorized under the Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-It's a minor one, but if you put a lot of minor ones together, it's makes into a big problem. MR. WINN-aertain1y, the major ones have a major impact on it. It would mean that you'd have no building, maybe, to the south of this property,..entire length of the stream, if you want to follow that through. This particular piece of property is wet because there's a stream that goes through it and that's low land and it's been wet for years. MRS. GOETZ-And it's wetter now than it was, at least according to what Mr. Oudekerk said. MR. WINN-What he's talking about, every additional car that goes through the area is going to increase traffic, but, into the small number of units in the mini storage facility, there's very little traffic that goes in and out, once or twice a month, particularly when you think that, just up the road, you have Regency Park Apartments which has several hundred apartments with cars going in and out everyday, that makes Meadowbrook Road busier, but that shouldn't mean that there should be no further development on this parcel. MR. TURNER-He's here now because they paved the upper end of Meadowbrook Road and now they're all coming up Meadowbrook Road to go to Highland Park. MR. WINN-Trying to the get to the golf course. MR. TURNER-I know, but I can tell you, just down the road, right there, on Sunday, there's nothing but cars. Traffic there, all day long and that's traffic.. been there before. 31 '--- -- MRS. GOETZ-Then why do you put in boat storage that's going to make more traffic? I know I'm in the minority opinion, but I'd like it on record that I feel this way. MR. TURNER-Boat storage is MR. WINN-That's winter storage. MR. TURNER-It's winter storage. MR. WINN-Basica11y, winter storage. MR. TURNER-They're going to bring it there in the fall and take it out in the spring and there's other storage, that goes in and out of there everyday, other than boat storage. MRS. GOETZ-We're always talking about mini-storage, aren't we? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-It's one of our big subjects. MR. KELLEY-What's the proposed future use of this..area. MR. TURNER-He can't use it, Jeff. He can't use it because of. .and the deal with the Beautification Committee and the deal with the Planning Board as far as that side yard setback and the green area. He says he can put another building in there, but MR. KELLEY-But I'm saying, What if you took that building and brought it forward? MR. WINN-We11, then it would, certainly be..to the residential neighbors. MR. TURNER-Back there, he's got a cluster of trees there..grow quick. He's saying he's got..so, he's got 100 feet there. There'd be a 50 foot buffer. That buffer.. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. WINN-At the present time, there's no legal buf fer, that was requested by a Board, I don't remember if it was this Board or the Town Planning Board. MR. TURNER-The Planning Board. MR. WINN-But I would point out that the Healy property is presently on the market for sale. MR. TURNER-It's been for sale for about two years, now. MR. WINN-It's on the market for sale and..that's in that zone. Yet that property was later developed as commercial and.. .no longer in need or feel to be a need to maintain 50 feet from one commercial use to another. MR. TURNER-Well, hopefully, they'll move the line right up to the fence, so it doesn't require..this road any farther than it is right now. AL OUDEKERK MR. OUDEKERK-My name is A1 Oudekerk and I built the Healy residence. .years ago and, at that time, I owned this property. .on now, which, when I sold my house, they didn't want that property and they, that went through two or three.. .and then Mr. Dombek ended up with it. So, that's the reason the garage of the Healy house is 10 feet from the house, because I owned both lots at that time. The other thing is that, the lot where the storage is on is without a lawn and they're back 250 feet, and I think you'll remember, and over in back of my brother's house and we used to play ball out there and everything else and, like my brother said, before we built, there was farm land. .so I mean, any adding of anything to bring more water there, is just going to ruin it and it is a residential, I mean it was built as residential and I'd hate to see it lose that. Thank you. MR. TURNER-I'd like to Commercia1..and remove So, it doesn't violate to the residents. They have Staff and the Advisory Committee look at that Highway it and put it right up against Mr. Dombek's property. anymore residential area down there because it's not fair were there before anybody. 32 - MR. BAKER-I'll talk to Lee about it. MR. TURNER-Is Mr. Healy MR. WINN-He couldn't make it. MR. TURNER-I'm just wondering, has he had any offers on the house? MR. WINN-I don't know. MR. TURNER-I know he's had it for sale about a year.. MR. WINN-He just changed realtors MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. MR. OUDEKERK-The mini storage is keeping it from selling. MR. KELLEy-it's kind of strange, though, we must have thought it was alright, before. ..didn't get mentioned in the Variance, but, yet MR. TURNER-The first time around, when it came up, it was Highway Commercial, then, and storage wasn't allowed in Highway Commercial and they pleaded their case and we bought it and I voted for it. So, I really think it's, it's about.. I understand Mr. Dombek has his property rights (TAPE TURNED) be allowed in a Highway Commercial zone. MR. WINN-There was also a finding, at that time that a storage unit would be less commercial, if you will, than a restaurant or business would be and I think that's the correct determination, that there's much less traffic going in that area, being a storage facility, than if it were a Lums or McDonald's or something like that. MR. TURNER-Yes, the use is less intensive. MR. WINN-And there is less traffic and less intensity, given the fact that it's near a residential zone. So, I think you were correct at that. MR. TURNER-Mr. Russell, can I ask you, \\ere you aware that there was Highway Commercial when you bought Mr. Lee's house? MR. RUSSELL-No, I did not. MRS. GOETZ-J.like wetlands across the street. MR. TURNER-No, I mean, you're property. Over on that side. You're not Highway Commercial right across the road. MR. RUSSELL-Right. MR. TURNER-I guess, Wly I voted for it last time was yes to the setback to the west and maybe. .vote for it this time and I explained to Mr. Oudekerk, the other night, how I felt about it and, again, it..to Mr. Winn's remark that that's less of an intense use than could be there. I think..WDuld have a more adverse effect on the neighborhood than what else could be there. MR. KELLEY-I would say there are two questions that I don't know that I'm convinced of. One would be, are we depriving the applicant of reasonable use of the land, and does he have reasonable use of the land, now, that would be question number one and the other part is that, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance. I don't know that that part's so bad, or to property in the District, Wlich is located nearby,J.a conflict. MR. TURNER-With the property in the area, of course, being Highway Commercial, the value might be more, it might be less, but..was in there... MR. KELLEY-Was Mr. Russell's Highway Commercial. MR. TURNER-He's on the other side of the road. I'd say no. MR. KELLEY-Yes, but I think you have to consider that. MRS. GOETZ-But why do we have to keep violating the setback requirements? He has Commercial use of the property. 33 '--' MR. KELLEY-I guess that's my point. MRS. GOETZ-And, it seems that it does impact. I think we consideration that it's adjoining residential property. Would next door to it. I always think that it does come down to that. should take into you want to live MR. TURNER-That was my argument to the last time. MR. WINN-I would just say that the back porch of the property, where it adjoins a non-residential use, that that would be a place to vary from the minimum combined setbacks of 50 feet, but, by the same token, in the front of the property, what's being asked is to keep 100 feet, altogether, free and clear of any buildings whatsoever and, as is shown, it's been set up with a 50 foot grassy area, which is not set forth in the Ordinance anywhere. It's set forth as an accommodation to the residential property so that, out of this entire, the entire front of the property there's only one small building which adjoins the Town of Queensbury Sewage Pumping Station. We haven't mentioned before, but, we certainly don't want a residence by the Queensbury Pumping Station, either, because, as part of the complaints..for residential use. MR. KELLEY-I guess, Ted, maybe, Mr. Winn's argument that, since we made them keep this 100 foot of area vacant, we've denied him reasonable use of this property, so, since we've done that, do we have to concede to give him something back? I mean, if we hadn't imposed these restrictions on him, he could probably bring the building forward and have no problem. He could meet his side yards and probably still meet all his permeability and everything else. Maybe we've created the problem for him. MRS. GOETZ-When did we do that? MR. TURNER-That was the first time around when he came for the, I think it was when he came for the mini storage in the Highway Commercial. MRS. GOETZ-I thought, '89, but I don't think it's the use, it's the relief of the setback. MR. WINN-I think what originally happened is, I think when the matter was originally heard, it was felt that the line between Highway Commercial and Residential was the Healy/Dombek property which..my understanding of it, but, in any event, because the Residential use was there, there was a 50 foot buffer zone that was felt to be necessary. MR. TURNER-We knew that Highway Commercial went down 500 feet..encompass the Healy residence, like you say, to allow for the setback from them, that's why we.. MR. WINN-Substantially more than, is, because there's 100 feet from the front building to the property line, it's substantially more than..there and I think it was t he Town Planning Board previous ly said that they could now, not put a building out in front because of the Residential area. I think that no variance would be required and this bUilding could be built in front, but it just doesn't seem a very practical thing to do. MR. TURNER-Well, I think, putting the building in the front, it would be violating the condition of the approval. MR. WINN-I..could be put more than 50 feet from that north lot. MRS. GOETZ-But, how about the point that, first of all, you come in and ask for, not you, personally, I don't think, we're you involved with it when the new variance was? Okay, the applicant is granted the use variance and it would seem to me that we should just go along with what was granted and stop eating away, always coming back, asking for more and more. MR. WINN-Well, when the Ordinance was change, boat storage was an authorized use in that zone. MRS. GOETZ-Was not? MR. WINN-Is, now. MRS. GOETZ-Is? But there's a constant asking for more, more, more. 34 --.../ MR. WINN-I don't think that's the case. I think that, after the initially buildings were built, it was realized that, with the reduced number of buildings, it was simply not practical, from a financial point of view, because the property makes no money. I don I t think this Board wants..a situation of seeing those storage units taken out and moved to a different location and have a restaurant or any other of the authorized uses put into that Highway Commercial zone. MRS. GOETZ-Why not? MR. WINN-Because the neighbors would be much more upset than they are now. MRS. GOETZ-But you don't know that. MR. WINN-Well, I think if there was a restaurant MRS. GOETZ-Maybe they'd rather have that, now. MR. RUSSELL-Like a McDonald's. MR. WINN-I don't think they would. I don't think they'd be talking about less traffic with a McDonalds than there would be with these storage units. There's very, very little traffic, here. MR. RUSSELL-You don I t live there. I'm sorry. You don't know how much traffic is there. MR. WINN-There's traffic that goes to Regency Park and the Highland Country Club. MRS. GOETZ-It seems like we're repeating ourselves, so, is there a motion? MR. TURNER-Yes. HarION TO APPROVE AREA VAJlIANCE NO. 50-1990 WALTER DOMBEK, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This approval will allow construction of an additional storage facility with a side setback of 20 feet rather than the one stated in the Ordinance of 30 feet. The applicant has demonstrated reasonable return on the property hasn I t been met and that this necessitates construction of this additional storage facility for additional revenues. Due to the fact that permeable areas have been greatly minimized, it would be incumbent on the applicant to provide a grass border on the northern border side of the new storage facility. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr MR. TURNER-I'll vote yes and I'll tell you why. live got to defend myself. For instance, if this failed, for any reason, a boat storage could go in there with no variance. It I S a permitted use. We wouldn't have anything to say about it. I think this is the lesser of the two evils. I know you don't like it. I don't like it either, but it's a quiet use. There's not much noise. It doesn't bother you across the road.. the traf fie. MR. RUSSELL-As long they guarantee they're not going to be working on their boats and all this kind of stuff. MR. TURNER-They're not going to be working on their boats. MR. RUSSELL-As long as it's just storage. MR. TURNER-It's just storage. MR. RUSSELL-Okay. MR. TURNER-We have one more after this. Mr. Eppich would like an extension of a variance. MRS. GOETZ-Which one was he? This is a letter. Letter fran Edward J. Eppich, to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, dated June 24th, 1990 (attached) 35 MOTION TO ItXTEHD AIŒA VARIANCE NO. 73-1989 LOT 30, NOJmBWEST VILLAGE SUBDIVISION FOR A PEJUOD OF ONE D'AR, AS DQUJtSTED BY TœE APPLICANT, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MRS. GOETZ-I want to bring up something, if I might. I'd like to propose that the Zoning Board of Appeals send a letter to every member of the Town Board, urging them to adopt the proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance, because the work was completed and drawn up on May 1st of this year and it doesn't change the intent of the present Sign Ordinance. It just closes a lot of the loop holes and it makes it a lot better for the business people because it will be a lot clearer. Does everyone on the Zoning Board have a copy of the proposal? MRS. COLLARD-That's the Planning Board. MRS. GOETZ-Or whoever, Stuart? MR. BAKER-No, I don't believe so. MRS. GOETZ-Could you ~t those to everybody, because, like the Sign Variance request that we had last week. MR. BAKER-I'll get John on it. MR. GOETZ-One of the loop holes is closed up in the proposals. MS. CORPUS-Sue, I know that we had one meeting with the Town Board and a workshop session to begin all reviews of Zoning and the Sign Ordinance. MRS. GOE TZ - Ye s . MS. CORPUS-And the Clustering..Ordinances. I know it's on there. I'm not sure of the order, though. MRS. GOETZ-What concerned me was, I saw Mr. Borgos last week, and he didn't have knowledge of ever having seen it. MS. CORPUS-Oh, he didn't? MRS. GOETZ-So, I just would like to bring their attention to it, because it's just going to help business people. MS. CORPUS-I didn't realize they didn't have one, because I know that when Lee and I spoke, we spoke in groups of all of these things that had been re-drafted, going to the Town Board and having one series of workshop sessions on everything. MRS. GOETZ-Right, I would like to have the Zoning Board emphasize that we feel it is important. Maybe not everyone agrees. What does everybody think? MR. CARR-I'd like to see it. MRS. GOETZ-So, Stuart, WDuld you ~t it out to them, or have somebody do it? MR. BAKER-I certainly will. MRS. GOETZ-Thanks. MRS. EGGLESTON-We were also going to ask for an updated Zoning map. MR. TURNER-Do we have an updated Zoning map, yet? MR. BAKER-I don't believe so. MRS. GOETZ-How do they do that? Do they have to print a new one every time? I'm just thinking that's expensive. 36 '"'---' MR. BAKER- I think they print new ones, actually. I know we've got new sheets for the Tax maps, full sized Tax map sheets done with the new zoning, but I don't believe we have a new Zoning map, per se, done. I'll talk to John Goralski about it. He's been working with Leon Steves on the Zoning changes. MRS. GOETZ-Because we consult our map, a lot, wen we look at surrounding zones and if it's not up to date. MS. CORPUS-And I know it can't be because we just had three more re-zonings. MRS. GOETZ-Right, yes. MR. TURNER-Before you go, Sue. In the paper the other day, there was a notice of a resolution and an adoption of a resolution pertaining to the Highway Commercial zone up on 149 and Bay, that's changed from RR-3. MR. BAKER-The Williams' property, yes. MR. TURNER-Even though it's Highway Commercial, he has a use that's not permitted the re . MR. BAKER-Right, he's still arguing that it is a permitted use. He claims there's a misunderstanding between himself and Mrs. Collard. MRS. COLLARD-Why don't you come in and talk to me about it during the day. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 37 4a. -, - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -- PlsanniY\g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant. Planner Date: By: Jtln~ 26. 1990 John Goralski Area V..wace U. Variance -X Sip Variance == IDterpretatiOD Other: SubcimåoD: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary, Site PIaD ReYiew - PetitiOD for a CbaDge of ZoDe - Freshwater Wet1aDda Permit Final Applicatioa Number: Si~n Variance No. 45-1990 Applicant'. Name: Aviation Mall/Pvramid Co. of Glens Falls MeeÛD(l Date: June 27. 1990 ............................................................................................ The Sign Ordinance allows plazas to have a free standing sign stating the name of the plaza but not the individual stores. The applicant states that the placement of tenant names on the sign is part of a contractual agreement. Satisfying contractual agreements that are in conflict with the Sign Ordinance is not a responsibility of this Board. It is my opinion that the proposed signage is more in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance than the Readerboard sign was. The size of the plaza, the topography of the lot, and the setback of the building from the road could all be considered special conditions pertaining to this site. JGlpw :0 ~ . - "-- --' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI~nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 27, 1990 By: John Goralski Area VmiaDce X Uøe Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi'riåoD: Sketch, _ PrelimiDary, Site Plan Reftew - - Petition for a ChaDge of ZODe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Final ApplicatiOD. Number: Use Variance No. 46-1990 Applicant'. Name: Glens Falls Lod¡p No. 81 R.P.O E. MeeÛDg Date: June 27. 1990 ..................................................................................,......... I have reviewed this project as it relates to Section 10.040 B of the Zoning Ordinance and have the following comments. I. Although the applicant does have a specified hardship, specifically the lack of storage space, it does not apply to any extraordinary circumstances applying to the property. 2. No evidence has been presented that would indicate that a reasonable return cannot be realized from this prODerty. 3. Not only would this variance not be detrimental to the Ordinance, it would perpetuate the goals of the Ordinance, Because the Zoning Administrator has determined that storage buildings are not allowed in the HC and PC zones property owners are forced to store materials out in the open. A well planned, well designed storage building would be much more beneficial to the health,. safety and welfare of the co~unity. JG/pw .' ~ _.'n__+_ __.._ .. ~ . - .'-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1ann;~g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A~ York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: June 27. 1990 Bessie Callejo x Area VU'imace - U. Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretatioo Other: SubdiWlioa: _Sketch, Prelim' - mary, Site Plan ReYiew - Petition for a ChaDge of ZoDe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Final Applicatioa Number: Area Variance No. 47-1990 AppUcaDt'. Name: Bessie Calle io MeedDg Date: June 27. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is requesting relief from the 100 foot setbacks required in the LC-IO zone. The request is to place a residence 20 feet from the front property line. The property is 130: deep at the point where the applicant wants to place the house. It ,.,ould appear that the property is wider at the northern end. The applicant should identify the reason why the home has to be placed where he has it located on his plan. It should clearly be stated why this is the minimal relief necessary. There are special conditions on the lot since it is a preexisting nonconforming lot. However, it would appear from the plan presented that the house could be placed in another location on the 1.67 acres to minimize the variance required. LAY/pw . . .. .. .- - '- --" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI,.ftfti"8 Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Tt1n~ ') 7 I QQ() By: Stuart G. Baker Area VariaDce -X U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == IDterpretatioD SubdiYisioB: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, Site Plan Reriew - Petition for a CbaDge of Zoae - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: AppUcaticm Number: Use Variance No. 48-1990 AppUcant'. Name: Emmanuel Ja Ma;11~ Meetmg Date: June 27. 1990 .............................................................................................. The applicant is requesting a Use Variance to maintain the 10 ft. by 10 ft. addition to the existing laundromat. The application does not appear to meet any of the criteria listed in Article 10 for the granting of a Use Variance. All of these criteria must be met. The inability of the property to achieve a financial return for pernissible uses in this zone should be shown. SB/pw f ;0. .. VÞiI - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI,.,nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 27, 1990 By: Lee A. York x Area Vari8Dce U. Variance - Sip Vari8Dce == Interpretation Other: Subdirision: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary, Site Plan Re9Ïew - Petition for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppUcatiOD Number: Area Variance No. 49-1990 AppUc:ant'. Name: Haanen Packard Mðchinery MeetiDg Date: June 27, 1990 ............................................................................................ The request is to reduce the Industrial ] Acre zone. The setbacks rear in the Light Industrial zone. The on the front and 24 feet at the rear. minimum yard setbacks in the Light are 50 foot front, and 30 foot side ~nd plan presented shows a 2] foot setback After review of the plan it would appear that the building could be turned on the lot so that a variance was not necessary. There is room on the lot to relocate the parking and the building to be in conformance with the Ordinance. The application states that the special conditions on the lot are the fact that the preexisting buildings do not meet setbacks. Since there is room on the property to place the proposed building this is irrelevant. The applicant current ly has reasonable use of the property. The statement in tbe a?~lication is that "to m.aintain functional use and to be cost effective the addition m.ust be of the size and location shown". This does not address the reasonable use test. Neither does it address what the applicants practical difficulty is. LAY I T)w f ~ ,; " ~ ')II - -/ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1.nniYlg Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 27, 1990 By: John Goralski x Area VmiaDce U., Variance - Sip Variance :=: Interpretation Other: SubcIi'riaion: Sketch, Prelim· - - mary, Site P1an Rmew - Petition far a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater Wet1aDda Permit FÜIal Application Number: Area Variance No. 50-1990 Applicant'. Name: Walter Dombek MeetiDg Date: June 27, 1990 ............................................................................................ In September 1989 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a rear yard setback variance for this proposed building. At that time it was determined that a side yard setback variance is also required. The Zoning Administrator has determined that no other variances, beyond these two, will be necessary. The Board should review the previous approval and decide if the same conditions apply to this application. The previous minutes are attached. JGlpw ". .. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated that she can't see where this size sign is going to make a dih"érence. . MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN V ARlANCE NO. 84-1989 LOG JAM FACTOR Y STORES/REST,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Muller: The facts are that they are looking for three 4 ft. by 6 ft. signs on the front of the building. This is 10% of the permitted signage that they could have based on 12 stores. They could have 12 ft. by 100 ft. square foot wall signs, they have twelve I ft. by 4 ft. signs they are asking for their three 4 ft. by 6 ft. additional this would be a minimum request. The reason they want them on the front of the building is that the store faces north the traffic flowing north cannot see most of the building there is no way of knowing what stores are contained in the shopping center from the south this is the practical diffiGulty. The configuration of this lot allows the present situation of the building. The proposedLog Jam logo will not be included in this approval. There is a stipulation to the variance, they have requested the three 4 ft. by 6 ft. foot wall directory signs this variance is limited to this and will apply even if more stores are added to the shopping center. What names that are listed are up to the owner, but no more size in signs will be allowed. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:None AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-1989 HC-lA WALTER DOMBEK MEADOWBROOK ROAD, OPP QUAKER ROAD TO MEADOWBROOK ROAD, 1,000 PT. PROM QUAKER ROAD INTERSECTION ON LEFT GOING NORTH. TO CONSTRUCT A 15 PT. BY 100 PT. BOAT STORAGE BUILDING WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK. THE BUILDING WILL BE 20 PT. PROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. (W ARRER COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 59-2-13 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-8.21 SECTION 4.020 K LOT SIZE: 300 FT. BY 145 PT. (IRREGULAR) 228 PT. IN REAR JOHN WINN REPRESENTING WALTER DOMBEK , . MRS. GOETZ-Stated this was tabled at a previous meeting due to the fact that the neighbor was not properly notified of the variance request. There was an error on the application as to ownership of Mr. Healy's property. We recommended that this would be referred back to the Warren County Planning Board. ' MR. GORALSKI-8tated that Warren County Planning Board felt they had all the information they needed and the applicant did not reappear. MR. WINN-Stated they did attenp a. meeting on September 13th, 1989 this is when they decided they didn't want to put us on ;theii' agenda. Stated that this is a application for a variance on the setback for the Meadowbrook mini storage. There are presently four buildings there. Noted that the building at the proposed location would be further away from the residences in the area it would be closer to the Quaker Ford property. PUBLIC BBABDfG OPERED MICHAEL O'CONNOR-law firm of Little and O'Connor, representing Bernard and Margaret Healy who own the property immediate adjancet to the premises of Mr. DQmbek, and they do object to the granting of the request for the variance before you. :~E!.ir . use of their property is residential they have now been zoned so their property is now highway commercial. There used to be a 50 foot buffer zone between their property. and this particular property which I think is how the property was developed in the past. There was a 50 foot buffer zone that was left they now want to go into that 50 foot buffer zone based upon the rezoning of the property. The requested variance itself I don't think will allow the construction of the building as they had sighted it on the site which I will explain to you in a moment. The basic problem that the Healy's have is that they used to be able to mow the back of their property before the flU and the development of the Dombek property, now th.at.PlOperty is a wet area and they cannot even mow it because of the development. They wish.. to have no further development on the Dombek property mainly for that reason. The point that I bring to your attention is that there is a request here for a setback variance from the back line; I hear nothing discussed as the practical difficulty at all which I think is one of your basic requirements for an area variance. If you also look at the zoning for a highway commercial one acre zone you will see that the side line setback requirement is a minimum of 20 feet and a sum of 50 feet. If you look at the southerly line of this property you will see that they have built the building within 4 20 feet of that soutrrerly line which would require them to have 30 feet on thEHt'orth line. They propose the building less than 30 feet, in fact they propose a building which is 20 feet on the northerly line. I would want it to be clear, I think it's for a denial of the variance a~ theY'~e shown i~ on this particul~r ~ite. :o~ can't bui~d that building they way that they've sIghted It. THere I8::ÆftR'ther restrIctIon wIthm the Ordmance that says, that there will be a setback for any and all buildings principal and assessory of 75 feet in any stream. You will see that they show a stream which has a partial culvert through their property, this is a stream that runs for the full year. If you take a look at the corner of the building it is less than the required 75 feet from that stream. You will see that they shov a stream which has a partial culvert through their property, this is a stream that runs for the full year. If you take a look at the corner of the building it is less than the required 75 feet from that astream as the stream comes out of the culvert and then runs along the adjoining Healy property. A further question that I would have on the site and I haven't mathematically figured it out because I had sent my mpa on to Brian La Flure, I don not believe that they still after this construction if you consider the hard surface or the parking areas that they are putting in will have the 30% of green space. What they've presented to you is development to the max, in fact probably beyond the max and they've shown no practical difficulty this is a use that was commenced a copule years ago which we persume it was. . . a reasonable return to the applicant tehy simply are coming back and trying ato expand that without any justification. MR. TURNER-On the orginal Ordinance Mike, that was highway commercial 500 feet back from Quaker Road. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know where the original line was to Healy, I think Healy was at the end of the line. MR. TURNER-Further down the road. MR. O'CONNOR-If you go back and look at the 84, 86, and what applications at that time they were making them maintain buffer zones to the Healy property. MR. TURNER-This is the only buffer zone they required right there. MR. O'CONNOR-If you have a buffer zone along the adjoining line, I would submit yo you Mr. Turner, that it would be the full property line not necessarily just where the houses were. I don't claim the right to a buffer zone at this point because the Healy property is entirely within the highway commercial. I do claim a right to a 30 foot side line setback and they are zoning a building 10 feet over that. I also claim a right to a 75 foot setback from the stream as it's shown on their mapping and their building within 30 feet of that. If you want some sections, I think on the. . .schedule itself for highway commercial it picks up the sum that two side yards must be 50 teet and Section 7.071 C that was parking all parking must have a buffer area of 5 feet. The shoreline is Section 7.012, all commercial zones are 75 feet. MR. TURNER-In reference to the original applications I know they got a permit to put the culvert there; it's a D.E.C. permit. MR. O'CONNOR-But, that isn't a culvert to the full width of their property. I think the setback requirements mayor may not be taken care of by the culverting, I don't think that's clear I haven't made my own determination as to whether or not you still have to have a setback even if you culvert. I don't think there is an exemption within the setbacks for culvert extremes. MR. MULLER-I guess you could make that argument, but you could make the argument what's in a culvert you don't have a shoreline there. MR. O'CONNOR-You do have a shoreline here. . . Basically the building cannot be sighted as proposed in their application. I also call to the Board's attention the definitions that we're using here. In a highway commercial, boat storage is permitted and I think it was purposely worded in that manner. If this building is going to be the same as an the other buildings that are there, I think it is going. . .problem. Outside storage other than boat storage is permitted only in light industrial. We may be creating a administrative problem for code enforement as to the actual use of the property. The only place general storage is permitted is in light industrial. MR. KELLEY-Before this building ordinance, where did the 500 feet come from? MR. TURNER-Where did it terminate? That's a buffer that Mr. Dombek agreed to maintain between the residential use that was on that side and his piece of property. MR. KELLEY-Because of zoning he had to do that? MR. TURNER-No. I think the 500 feet extends wen beyond Mr. Healy's house. MR. WINN-If my reconection is correct on that, I think there was a thought that even though the Healy property had been highway commercial becuase it was still residential the buffer 5 _.Jne may still exi~, I think it's pretty clear now that there is no particula-.-luffer zone tn\., e, but it's a practical matter it's seems like a good idea as long as the Healy property is being used residentially to maintain that distance. MR. TURNER-At the time it was given Mr. Healy didn't own that property Mr. Fountain owned the property. He was not the owner at the time the variance was granted. MR. WINN-But still it seems like a good idea to keep the building away from the residential property. MR. MULLER-John, is this idea conceived or agreed upon or eventually approved by the Planning Board, as far as the site plan review? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MULLER-So there are some considerations on the record that I'm not aware of that perhaps one of these things· will approve this site plan if Mr. Dombek stays back 50 feet from the residence. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. WINN-I don't that was specifically set forth in that, but that was the understanding anyway. MR. MULLER-I think we need to know that. MR. WINN-Not along the back section of the property; along the front section. I would note that the at the water break the Healy property was developed only back to the water point. That back is completely undeveloped, I think we would be stretching the imagination in calling that a residential use of any kind back there. If anything, undescriptively it's described as undeveloped brush and overgrowth, I don't think there is any real residential consideration. MR. MULLER-How do we get to know what the. . .is required? MR. TURNER~ TheY~uired that buffer zone right there. MR. O'CONNOR-I've got some of the minutes, but there have been at least three variance applications and. two site plan applications for the property. This is the first time that I have been involved; Mr. Healy who know~ is at work or. . .so I don't have his personal knowledge. In September of 1987, apparently Mack Dean was then involve with the application and he was talking about then and saie' if it was in 50 feet of a wetland and within a residential area they would have to go back to the Planning Board. At that time they were talking about a wetland. I haven't seen it as a designated wetland the area that's wet behind the property. At that point, also they made an application to, I think to this Board place the building near Meadowbrook Road and that was denied by this Board, and they were told to use the back part of the property because of the residential use adjoining it. Again, I don't make claim to the right of a buffer zone by ZODin~ Law. I do think though, they are showing you on the plan that they've submitted that theY'rftoing to infringe upon the sideline setback by 50% and that they are going to infringe upon the stream setback (tape turned). MR. WINN-I did bring the income statement for the year ending June 30th, 1989. If you look at that it will show that the property did not make a return. MR. KELLEY-What is the percentage of occupancy of these buildings that already exist? MR. WINN-Presently 100%. MR. MULLER-I'm confused, it's 100% rented, but it doesn't make a reasonable return. MRS. GOETZ-Could you explain that? MR. WINN-If you look you'll see the overhead costs will remain the same, but the rental would increase with the addition of the building. If you take the depreciation the property breaks even, but the cost will not increase with a additional building although the revenue would increase. The investment on the property is approximately$200,000. MR. MULLER-John do you know how many boats will go in there? MR. WINN-Ten. There is a portion along the front portion that is marked. The portion that adjoins the Healy residence will change from 50 foot of grass to 71 feet of grass. MR. MULLER-John, if he gets a variance approval does he have to go for site plan review? 6 ¡vJR. GORALSKI-Yt;,. --" MR. TURNER-Do you know the stream that Mr. O'Connor is talking about that was planned many years ago by Mr. Ouderkerk, and his sons that was never a natural stream. MRS. EGGLESTON-Michael do the Healy's own back where it says undeveloped brush, is that all part of the Healy property? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. If you increase the ability to build on that property you"toing to increase the traffic, your going to increase the hours that they use it. Your only obligation here is we're talking about hourS. . .and abiding by those hours. There is a problem with preexisting residential being in this area that's been zoned commercial trying to get both of them to balance each other needs. This is just an intent to develop this to the maximum even beyond the maximum your talking about your normal setbacks your normal side yard setback is 30 feet, why would you vary that, why would he be allowed the density beyond that? He claims that he is going to need this 30% he meets his 30% if he uses part of the setback for his building. If he doesn't use that setback he doesn't meet the 30%. I'm a little confused to some of the figures that he's given again, I don't think you've seen any practical difficulty or unreasonable use of the property. If it's unreasonable use of the property it's self created. This whole thing began in 1986 this is not that old; we haven't changed the facts or circumstances. When he began it he was allowed this particular amount he's been here for at least three variances application to get what he's gotten. I have eight different applications in the file so what he has is self created it's not created necessarily by the Ordinance, if anything the Ordinance change has made it so that he can do more, but we don't think it's change to the point that he can do what he proposes to do. I grant that it must go on to site plan review because it's an expansion of a commercial use, but I think sometimes the "buck" can stop here. If you do not think that it is reasonable and will have an affect on adjoining properties it's detrimental I just don't see the justification. The side line in the back which is the only thing the application is for or the rear setback in the back is not significant because you do have a commercial use there. He can't show you on that application that he is going to violate the Zoning Ordinance and that's what he has shown you here. MR. WINN-Under the permitted uses in a highway commercial zone you have a daycare center, restaurants, professional offices, greenhouse, nursery, veterinarian clinic, all uses that are permitted in a plaza commercial zone. Mr.it0'Connor's insinuation that this is a particularly offensive use to residential property, I think'Is to the contrary. It was intended to be something that would be mild if you will, than the uses permitted in a highway commercial zone. If you at the idea of 10 boats being 'stored in a building, I don't think that we need to have a special traffic study to count the number of cars that are going to go in and out every year there will be very little impact here. As far as the density of the building on the property the. . .given the size of the lots may appear to be a little more given the fact that the building is separated from one another. I think we have to keep in mind that the front half which is the only half that Healy uses in any fashion,.is probably 100 ft. from the property line to any building. . . MR. EGGLESTON-Are you saying the practical difficulty is your loss of money? MR. WINN-I think the loss -d Jltome is certainly a fact that is involved here, but I think the other factor that is involved is the consideration given to the property across the street and the Healy property right next store is' maintaining what now is almost a 100 ft. of unused space. Certainly 71 ft. of grass is being maintained not because of the Zoning Ordinance requires it in any fashion, but because of the accommodations to the residential use. In p'ar~, ~eople say even though you can put a building along the front we would be not likely to do that because of l:he fact there is a residence there so if you accommodate to the back which adjoins on probably 2,000 cars at Quaker Ford which are on the entire length of the Healy property it " doesn't bother them because they never go out on the back portion. To locate the storage building in the back is not anything that is going to be offensive to them and yet at the same not only maintain, but improve the grass area in the front. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are there any plans for this front comer? MR. WINN-Only to increase the grassed area. There are plans secondarly to replace some trees that were previously planted and died this year. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't mean to prolong our discussion back and forth you've got a long adgenda. A couple points though that I understand a discussion has been had with the Planning Board to put a building in the front and the applicant has been told that no way they've approved that as part of their site plan review. There are setbacks requirements from the stre9J; greater. setbacks requirements would probably permit a building out there so what we're talKing about is just the back parcel and that's the only thing that is before you. I don't know if it's a matter of overhead whether or not Mr. Dombek has any adjoining parcel that he might aJso incorporate into this to put some of his use on that property and still use the same office and same overhead. My understanding is that œ does own adjoining property that might be a suitable alternative 7 ·'" what he propo......... here we heard nothing at all about that. I think then( is also a quesuon that generally comes up when your talking about a variance are there available alternatives the applicant has simply stood here and said that he wants to have a variance. I haven't had an opportunity to go over the income statement again, I think that is self-imposed. I'm not going to prolong my argument, I think the argument is clear there is really no basis on your record to grant the variance requested. MR. TURNER-John is there an alternative? . . be MR. WINN-The Midas Muffler property that adJoins used to owned by Mr. Dombek, but isn't anymore. The Quaker Ford property is technically owned by. . .but that's under a long term lease with an option to buy, I think there are 18 years to run of that. Mr. Dombek has no right to possession of the Quaker Ford property. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KELLEY-Asked if they knew the distance between Building D and E? MR. WINN-Believes it's 25 feet. MR. KELLEY-Feels if the building was faced the way the other ones are they would have the extra 10 feet they need. MR. TURNER-Asked if there was an entrance on both sides of Building E? MR. WINN-Stated on Building D and E there are entrances on both sides? CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. (on file) STAFF IIfPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that he doesn't believe staff stands by the last comment. MR. GORALSKI-Stated he agrees with Mr. O'Connor that they do need a side yard setback if they wish to maintain the 20 feet. MR. TURNER-Stated at the time this variance was granted for what is there now the highway commercial was 500 feet from Quaker Road. Asked Mr. Healy when he bought the property on Meadowbrook Road was it presented to him as residential or commercial? MR. HEALY-Stated as residential. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated the shoreline setbacks he referred to are the same setbacks for streams, lakes, and wetlands. Thinks this is a major consideration here. Feels there has been no steps taken here to protect this stream. MR. WINN-Stated that they are not putting anything into the ground there is no waste that's going in the stream. Stated D.E.C. didn't have a problem with this. MR. TURNER-Asked how far away the building is going to be from the stream? MR. KELLEY-Stated 25 feet. ManON TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-1989 WALDR DOMBEK troduced by er who moved or its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: To approve the relief sought on the rear setback of 5 feet. The practical difficulty is that the building should be in line with the other buildings which are 20 feet from the westerly side this would aneviate any nonconformity in size or setbacks of buildings. This building must conform to an other aspects of the Zoning Ordinance. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1989, by the fonowing vote: A YES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Keney, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz 8 ·~.~) ~. '-~.;--; :.~-- -- - - . =-~ .¿ -.--- ~--.- ,-. ----=-::.- - ~ -::"---..:: ~ ' -;:.--' '. .~~- , -- -- ~ l1JWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Oueensbury, NY 12801·9725 - 518·792·5832 --- ...,..~. j/Qt(. 5 0 -I qc¡ ù )i~~ilWf~ · 1\\J.!3~ .. ~ l: . '1AY :~~(' ~, .ANNI~ON.~' .. ""\I:D6ATMJ:N- May 23. 1990 FJtF copy M. VALTER DClECIC Lake Shore Drive Lake George. New York 12845 HE: Proøosecl Boat Stora_ BuildinGs at Parcel 59-2-14 Dear Mr. Dombeck: The small stream running through the above referenced parcel does not require a shoreline building setback of 75 feet per Section 2.0'20. definition number 263 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. A site visit revealed this stream is of a size that it cannot be navigated by boat. If I can be of further assistance. please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, PATRICIA M. COI.LARD lOlling Adlrlnistrator PMC/jjd "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD Pl.ACE TO UVE" SETTLED 1783 i' " -- TOwn of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, N.Y. l2B04-9725 June 24, 1990 RE: Area Variance No. 73-1989 Arprovod by Zoning Board on June 28, 1989, for Lot 30, Northwest Village Subdivision, Town of Queensbury, N.Y. 'Oue to unanticipated delays in obtaining a Building Permit for construction of a single family residence on the above-named propèrty, and pursuant to Section 10.070 of Town Regulations, I hereby request that the Zoning Board of Appeals will consider granting a one (1) year extension of Area Variance No. 73-1989. The primary reason for the delay in proceeding with this project: 1. The "Double Dome" building package, and necessary Engineer- Approved Construction Drawings required to obtain a Building Permit (said building package was paid for in advance) are not available from Monterey Domes Co., as they have gone into bankruptcy. The property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Edward D. Enright, are attempting, thru legal means, to obtain financial satisfaction from the Trustaes involved; in the moantime, the owners and I are proceeding to locate and Contract with an alternate supplier of similar Dome Home packages, in order to proceed with the construction phase of this project, irregardless of the litigation. espectfully SUb~~ Edward J. EPP~ R.0.4, Box 360, Corinth Road Queensbury, N.Y. 12804-9578 " '" 1 U W 1" VI' llUCCl ~')LJU 1\.l Bay at Haviland Road. Oueensbury. NY 12804-9 725-5' ~ 792·5832 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - Theodcre Turner, Chairman R.D. *1, 139 Meadowbrook Road, Box 409 Queensbury, New York lZ804 Susan Goetz, Secretary 19 Win crest Drive Queensbury, New York 12804 TO: Edward J. Eppich RE: Area Variance No. 73-1989 R.D. 4, Box 360, Corinth Road Edward J. Eppich Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 Northwest Village Subdivision Northwest Road ATTN: Edward J. Eppich DATE:· .".;~w~'JUN 2 8 1989 Meeting Date We have reviewed. the request for: X Area Variance Use Variance Sign Variance Other and have the following recommendations: ~ APPROVED DENIED TABLED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1989, EDWARD J. EPPICH,Introduced by Daniel Griffiri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: This is a variance for an undersized lot and relief of setbacks. They have demonstrated practical difficulty the lot is extremely narrow. Bordering ski trail on the northwest side the lot rises steeply; southeast side of lot it drops off sharply; front side borders on the road. Front setback requirement is 50 feet. They need a 30 foot relief on the front. On the rear setback 30 feet is required, we have 10 feet so we need a 20 foot relief. On the side setback 30 feet is required, we· have 14 feet, we need a 16 foot relief. Most of the lots in this subdivision on the upper level have setback problems due to the size of the lots and the steep land. The proposed site allows for the best use of the buildable area. This geodesic design is the only home that would fit on this lot. There are no alternatives, no adverse effect on the neighborhood. The short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller S1Z/~ ~ Theodore Turner, Chairman Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals ~~~llon 10.070 ExDlr.tl.. .C '.rlanc. Docl,I.. ., Z..lna ...r. oC &0...1,. TT Ised . cc Mr. & Mrs. Edward D. Enr~ght Unlo,o othorv'.. .pocIClo' or o.t..... ., c.. Zo.l.. ...r' or ."..1.. '@c,.lon o. an, r'quo.t tor. v.rlanc. ...11 ..plr. IC the ."llcant t.ll. . un',rt... the prope..' .ctlon or ,r.,ecC. Co o't.l. an, ..c....r' 'ulldlc, por.lt to con.truct an, propo.o' no.. 'ull.lne(') or ch.... an, o.l.tl,_ bulldln,(. , or to coepl, with the condlUo., ot laid .uCllorlutlo. ..\thL- ono (I) ,..r Crea tll. Clllne ..c. oC 'ucll declilo. Cllor..C. APPROVAL OF TinS APPIJCA110N WEANS THAT THE APPIJCANT CAN NOW APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. "HOME OF NA TURAL BEAUTY A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED' 763