1990-08-22 -' QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22ND, 1990 INDEX Area Variance No. 60-1990 Christopher & Kathleen Granger 1. Area Variance No. 61-1990 Keith L. Harris 3. Use Variance No. 62-1990 Robert J. Fortini; Robert G. Stoya 11. Area Variance No. 63-1990 Ethel C. O'Rourke 17. Area Variance No. 64-1990 Carl T. Baker; Sandra A. Stoffolano 26. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECORD REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22ND, 1990 7: 30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON JEFFREY KELLEY BRUCE CARR MICHAEL SHEA MEMBERS ABSENT CHARLES SICARD DEPUTY TOWB ATTOlUŒY- KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES: July 25th, 1990: Pag~ 11, top of th~ pag~, third line down, sib in the 23 y~ars sinc~ we' ve b~~n coming up her~; down towards th~ bottom of the same paragraph, wher~ it says, "I don't know, but, nev~rthe1ess, it could have or could have b~~n from some p1ac~ else, or sib inserted; Page 13, Mr. Sh~a is speaking, third line down, "here you say that you were making money because, at the last meeting, here you said you were making money, sib insertion; same paragraph, third line up, b~ing in the situation of a r~asonab1e return; Pag~ 17, Ar~a Varianc~ 54-1990, and it' s th~ first s~ntenc~ in that, second line down, at the very ~nd, talking about m~asur~ments, when measur~d from the eaves, sib ins~rtion; Pag~ 18, top of th~ pag~, Mr. Turn~r is sp~aking, "What's misled", sib "What's misleading"; Page 20, center of th~ page, Mrs. Cavak is sp~aking, third s~ntenc~ down, with th~ instruction of Qu~en Victoria's Grant, sib inserted, not just Que~n' s; Pag~ 24, c~nt~r of th~ pag~, Mr. Turner is sp~aking, it's th~ sam~ Variance, sentence r~ads, "H~ can make it conform to size, or he can move it", "mov~ it" sib insert~d; Pag~ 24, six lin~s up, Mr. K~ll~y is sp~aking, "I think this is kind of like th~ houses", that paragraph, th~ last sent~nce sib "If w~ said mov~ the house, the next guy wouldn't be so apt to make the mistake", If sib insert~d; Page 28, second stat~ment up from the bottom; Mr. Daily is speaking, "We've got to have a total of 50, sib feet, on the side; Page 31, eighth statement down, Mr. Kelley is speaking, th~ very last word, "then you'd have some kind of an outdoor space to put a chair or something on, the word anything sib inserted MOTION TO APPROVE JULY 25TH, 1990 MIlIIIrlES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, s~conded by Michael Shea: Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard HEW BUSIlŒSS: AREA VARIABCE NO. 60-1990 TYPE II SFR-lA CBRISTOPJID. & KATHLEEN GRANGER. OWBER.: SAME AS ABOVE 17 MEADOW DRIVE TO ERECT A RETAINING WALL TO STOP EROS lOB , ABD TO BE USED AS A FOOTING FOR A FUTURE GAJlAGE. REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE 75 F'I'. SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIJDlHEN'I'. TAX MAP NO. 58-2-1.2 Lar SIZE: 0.68 ACRES SECTION 7. 012 A3 KATHLEEN GRANGER, PRESENT MRS. GRANGER-I'm Mrs. Granger and liv~ at 17 Meadow Driv~. 1 -- MR. TURNER-The pond was man-made, right? MRS. GRANGER-Yes, it was. MR. TURNER-You people made the pond? MRS. GRANGER-Yes, as well as my father-in-law. MR. TURNER-After you built the house or before you built it? MRS. GRANGER-Prior. MR. TURNER-Prior to building the house? MRS. GRANGER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-When I was there and spoke to the gentleman, he said that pond had always been there? MR. TURNER-Part of it might have been. MRS. GRANGER-Yes, it was wetland which we expanded to the pond. MR. TURNER-Wet, yes. in there, it always to be a cow pasture like that. What they did is they dredged it out, that is all wet back has been, that used to be the old Hicks Farm and there used and the very back end of it was always wet. It's always been MR. GRANGER-There was a pond started there prior to, even, our purchasing the lot. MR. TURNER-Right. Any questions of Mrs. Granger from anyone on the Board? None? Okay, 1111 open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Any discussion? MR. SHEA-Just a question to Mrs. Granger. In light of the recommendation of a permit with DEC, are you planning on proceeding in that fashion? MRS. GRANGER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Joyce, When we did the site inspections, remember you had that question about un-navigable waters that had come up, recently, with some other application? MRS. EGGLESTON-I think it was on the Dombek. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-And we wondered how that would impact this same type of thing. MRS. COLLARD-I think you I re referring to the definition of shoreline and the definition of shoreline, just to boil it down to a few words, is, if the body of water is navigable by canoe. As I say, I'm really concising that. Why did you ask? MRS. GOETZ-Well, the reason I ask is because we had the question in our mind, or Joyce did, and I agreed with it, is that, Why were we even seeing this? MRS. EGGLESTON-I remember, on Dombek, after we went through a lot of things, I think it was decided we didnlt need the setback from the water, on that property, is that not right? 2 MRS. COLLARD-It's a pond. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, I know. MR. GORALSKI-And you can put a canoe in it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Alright, 11m just trying to get clear what the MRS. GOETZ-To be consistent. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Any trout in it, Dale? MR. GRANGER-Yes, about 50 and growing. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? can do anything. If there's no in order. If you looked at, there's no other place you further discussion on the application, motion's MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1990 CHRISTOPHER & KATHLEEN GRANGER, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: They're asking for a variance from the shoreline setback requirement of 75 feet. The proposed garage will be 50 feet from the water at the closest point. The practical difficulty is, that the lot, really, because of the size of the pond, doesn I t allow the garage to be placed anywhere else on the property. This is a reasonable request. It's not detrimental to the Ordinance and it has no effect on public facilities. The proposed location of the garage is the only feasible location that will give us the minimum relief to alleviate the practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1990 TYPE II RR-3A KEITH L. HARRIS OWNER: KEITH AND PAMELA BARRIS NORTH OF PICKLE HILL ROAD FOR ADDITlœ OF A BEDROOM, BATH, DINING, FAMILY ROOM TO EXISTING HOUSE. REQUESTING RELIEF F:aoM FIIONT SETBACK EQUIJŒMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 26-2-12 Lar SIZE: 143 FT. BY 200 FT. sEcrlœ 4.020 C KEITH HARRIS, PRESENT MR. TURNER-There's a question as to the measurements, Mr. Harris. appears, on the plan, to be 32 feet from the property line and 47 feet Hill Road. The proposed addition, which is shown as 40 by 20, when would appear to be 30 feet from the property line and 48 feet from Road. Could you elaborate on those figures? The house from Pickle scaled out, Pickle Hi 11 MR. HARRIS-I originally measured from the preexisting house, which was 47 feet from the center of the road. MR. TURNER-That's the center of the road? MR. HARRIS-That's the center of Pickle Hill Road and the new, existing addition will be 22 feet from the edge of the road. MR. TURNER-From the property line, or the edge of the road? We have to take it from the property line. Do you know where it is, your property line? MR. HARRIS-From wherever the Town owns. I don't know if it's 25 feet of, it's 47 feet from the center of the road and 22 feet from the black top, but the property line, I couldn't tell you if it's 20 feet or 25. MR. TURNER-Do you have a survey of the property? MR. HARRIS -Do I? 3 -- MR. TURNER- y~ s . MR. HARRIS-No, I don't. MR. CARR-Karla, you don't know what th~ Town right-of-way is through th~r~, do you? MS. CORPUS-Th~y vary. MRS. COLLARD-Most of my conv~rsations with Paul Naylor on this sub j~ct has b~~n 25 f~~t from th~ c~nt~r of th~ road. MR. CARR-On ~ith~r sid~? MRS. COLLARD-So, if you stand in th~ c~nt~r of th~ road and walk 25 f~~t, that's his prop~rty 1in~. MR. CARR-And, if that's 47, th~n w~'v~ got 22 on top of that. MRS. COLLARD-That's what Paul, g~n~ra11y, MR. GORALSKI-I wouldn't us~ that as gosp~l, though. MRS. COLLARD-No, p1~as~ don't us~ that as gosp~l, g~n~ra11y. MR. HARRIS-If it was 25 f~~t from th~ c~nt~r of th~ road, it would b~ 24 f~~t b~caus~ th~ n~w addition is two f~et furth~r back, north, than th~ pr~existing hous~. So, you'd add 27 to th~ 47, it would b~ 29 minus 25, which would l~av~ 24 from the ~dge of the prop~rty line, which is at, now, 50 foot s~tback zoning r~gu1ation . MR. TURNER-The 24 wou1dn' t b~ from th~ prop~rty line, it would b~ from th~ ~dge of th~ black top, right, b~cause you don't know wh~r~ the property line is, you said? MR. HARRIS -No, it would b~ 22 from th~ black top, or, l~t m~ s~~. If it's 22 from the black top, now, it would b~ 49 from th~ c~nt~r of th~ road. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. HARRIS-That do~sn' t come out right. 47 f~~t from th~ c~nt~r of the road. I know that th~ pr~~xisting hous~ is MR. TURNER-That's th~ way your deed probably r~ads, too, doesn't it? MR. HARRIS-No, that's my measurem~nts from th~ c~nt~r of th~ road to my hous~. MR. TURNER-No, but does your deed r~ad that way? MR. HARRIS-My deed doesn't read anything from th~ road. MR. TURNER-It doesn't? MR. HARRIS-That's an old road, which, th~ d~~d r~ads 143 by 200. ~xt~nsive1y r~ad it, with any roads in it. I didn't MR. TURNER-B~caus~ that' s th~ way my d~ed is, from the center of the road and that was a dirt road, years ago. MR. HARRIS-It might read that way. I didn't read th~ d~ed. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, in an ~ffort to mov~ this along, what you could do, sinc~ the only fixed point you have is the front of the hous~, is consid~r th~ distanc~ from the front of the ~xisting house. MR. TURNER-Y~s, right. MR. HARRIS-It should work out 24 f~et from th~ prop~rty line, if it's 25 f~~t from th~ center of th~ road. MR. TURNER-Okay, anyon~ e1s~ have any qu~stions for Mr. Harris? 4 MR. SHEA-I have a comment. I'm a little confused as to what the numbers are and what, realistically, they are. I would recommend that this would probably be a better hearing on the variance if we had exacting numbers and a survey. We've had other people come before the Board with, what I feel, is inadequate and, probably, to some degree, inaccurate information and I think, in your best interest, you can be best served by having some definitive figures and distances and, since it's, we've been three minutes into this discussion and, already, I'm totally confused as to what the real numbers will be or should be or are and I would recommend that this be tabled until such time that we have some exacting numbers that we can all consider. MR. HARRIS-I don't want to interrupt you, but I can guarantee that my preexisting house is 47 feet from the center of the road. Now, if the property line is 25 feet, I'm going two feet back which would leave a setback of 24 feet. It's a Sears tape. I mean, it's from the center of the road. If the property line's 25 feet, that's what the property line is. I couldn't really find out what the exact ownership of the Town of Queensbury was, so I'm leaving it up to the Town of Queensbury. MR. KELLEY-Aren't all our measurements supposed to be from the property line? MR. TURNER-Yes, we've got to have the measurements from your property line. We've got to know where your property line is, so we can offer you, or you offer us what you need for relief. MR. CARR-Ted, my feeling is, it doesn't seem to be a large question or a large request from the applicant. The house is already within, let's say, 22 feet of the property line. The new addition will not be any closer to that setback, will not be any closer to the road. I feel that we can look at this project without the exact footage and come to a conclusion as to whether or not it's a worthwhile project for variance and then couch the resolution in terms that he cannot go any closer than 2 feet further back from the existing house and then that would be an exact enough measurement for the purposes of the resolution, even though it's not a linear foot variance. I think we could still say, we've seen the house, so, if he's saying that he's going to build two feet back from that front line, I think that would be an exact enough measurement. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was thinking along the same lines as Bruce, that the house is already there, so many feet from the road, and he's not, he's building back from the road, further, so I don't know, we could set it just that it can't encroach any closer than the house or the two feet further back from the existing house. MR. TURNER-You, obviously, have got a deed, home, for that property. MR. HARRIS-Yes. I didn't take the time to read it. I just measured from the center of the road. I'm sure it must have been surveyed at one time or another because it came out of my grandfather's farm. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Couldn't you get that survey, then. for another survey? I mean, he wouldn't have to pay MR. TURNER-No, but you have to determine, as long as it identifies, like, my deed says from the center of the road. His deed might very well say from the center of the road. So, you've got to establish where the center of the road is. MR. CARR-Yes, but that could be more of a question for the Town, though, saying how wide a right-of-way do you have. MS. CORPUS-It would have been where the center of the road was at the time the deed was done, that's the problem. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. HARRIS -And the road has been moved, well, it's been moved several times our way, since I've lived there, since they paved it and widened it. MR. KELLEY-I'll add to why I think we need dimensions, okay? His lot is 100 feet deep? MR. TURNER-Yes. 5 MR. KELLEY-Okay, th~n you'v~ got a r~ar s~tback that you could b~ ~ncroaching on, also. Th~r~'s a 30 foot r~ar s~tback. MR. TURNER-Y~s. MRS. COLLARD-H~ owns that land to th~ r~ar. MR. TURNER-H~ owns it. So that, that's a contiguous lot, that mak~s it on~. MRS. EGGLESTON-Th~ whol~ big corn fi~ld in th~ back? MRS. COLLARD-Y~s, h~ owns all that land. MR. TURNER-H~ owns 20 som~ acr~s . Wha tis it 20? MR. HARRIS-Y~s. I plan on subdividing it, if it would mak~ anybody f~~l any b~tt~r. MR. KELLEY-Didn' t w~ get into, though, that h~ could s~l1 this hous~ and this lot and l~av~ th~ r~st b~caus~ w~ talk~d about this wh~n h~ was going to add th~ garag~ to his logging busin~ss, or what~v~r, that this could b~ sold off. Would you consid~r that, th~n, or not? MR. CARR-I think it would hav~ to b~ consid~r~d at th~ tim~ that h~ has to hav~ it subdivid~d, that a whol~ oth~r issu~. I don't think w~ can look at this proj~ct as what might happ~n. I think w~'v~ got to look at as what's th~r~ now. MR. TURNER-No, we'v~ got to look at what's th~r~ now. MR. CARR-And judg~ it on that basis. MR. TURNER-Y~s. MRS. EGGLESTON-W~ll, in th~ past, we'v~ always, lik~ Mik~ said, we'v~ b~~n so strict with p~opl~, in having th~ right dim~nsions and s~nding th~m back and Paul's always t~lling us to stay consist~nt in what w~ do, so, probably, along thos~ lin~s, we probably should b~ consist~nt and say you hav~ to giv~ us th~ corr~ct dim~nsions, ~xact dim~nsions. MR. HARRIS-If I do go to th~ d~~d and th~y say from th~ c~nt~r of th~ road and th~ road's b~~n mov~d s~v~ral tim~s MR. TURNER-W~ll, you bought it from your grandfath~r, W'iat, 3, 4, 5 y~ars ago? How long ago? MR. HARRIS-I bought th~ hous~ from my moth~r. MR. TURNER-From your moth~r, okay. MR. HARRIS -Y~s, that was in '84. MR. TURNER-You must hav~ a surv~y of th~ prop~rty? MR. HARRIS-No, I didn't. MR. TURNER-You didn't hav~ it surv~y~d? MR. HARRIS-No, I did not. What I'm saying, if it was surv~y~d, and, in th~ d~~d, th~ surv~yors put th~ c~nt~r of th~ road, who's to d~t~rmin~ wh~r~ th~ c~nt~r of th~ road is, now. I m~an, mayb~ I can g~t it surv~y~d ~conomically. I hav~n't ch~ck~d into it. I would ask to try to go around it, but MR. CARR-I just can't s~~ that this prop~rty n~~ds to b~ surv~y~d. If h~'s owns prop~rty all th~ way around, that it's not a r~ar s~tback. It's not a sid~ s~tback issu~. All it is is an issu~ of th~ front s~tback and h~' s t~lling us it's not going to b~ any clos~r than th~ ~xisting hous~. I can' t s~~ making him go through th~ ~xp~ns~ and clogging up, qui t~ frankly, our ag~nda, by having him go through and com~ back. I m~an, if h~ was going clos~r to th~ road, y~s, I would agr~~, if h~ was going to bring th~ hous~ forward, clos~r, th~n I could s~~ it, but h~'s not. Th~ hous~ is going to b~ farth~r back than wh~r~ it is now. I just can't s~~ having this go on. MR. TURNER-Mik~, do you still hav~ a conc~rn, as to measur~m~nts? 6 -- MR. SHEA-I think Bruce has certainly raised a valid issue of clogging up the agenda and there certainly is, Mr. Harris is not asking for something that is going to be, probably, difficult for us to do. My only concern is remaining consistent. So, I have to leave it at that. MRS. GOETZ-I agree with Michael, that we cannot, think of the numbers of people that we have said, no, you have to come back with the exact figures and it's just not fair and I think we should protect ourselves, too, because how can you make a motion on something that isn't what it might not be. MR. HARRIS-Maybe we could ask the Town to locate the center of their property line. They've moved their right-of-way and I don't know if they surveyed it when they moved the right-of-way or moved the road, but, or I could, possibly, measure from a survey across the road. MR. CARR-Karla, could you find out what the Town right-of-way is on that road? MS. CORPUS-Well, the problem, again, Bruce, is that the measurements are based on whatever his deed said at the time it was done and his property line has to be based on that information at that time, when that deed was done and that description was made and a professional surveyor would be able to look at all of the factors, the surrounding deeds, taxes rolls, the Town records, in order to determine where the property line is and that would be the most correct way of doing it. MRS. GOETZ-You've had so much activity on that property that it might be to your advantage to have a survey. MR. SHEA-I agree. MR. HARRIS-Yes, I've had some many other legal expenses with the property and the Town that, I guess, I'm just able to handle anything. It's been kind of a bad deal down there and I'm sorry that the Town has to waste all their time and energy on it. I really wish, when I built the garage, that I knew the problem I was going through, because I would have never built it there and I wish, whoever was in charge of the Town, they would have told me. MRS. GOETZ-it would have been nice, but really, honestly, don't you feel that a survey would be a good thing to have done? MR. HARRIS-The survey's going to be done, eventually. maybe I can get it done economically. It's just, like I said, MRS. GOETZ -Right. MR. HARRIS-I'll check into it. I know the property across the road was surveyed. Maybe I can measure from that property. If that would be feasible, at all, if I studied into the legal right-of-way of the Town. MR. TURNER-Do you know if there's any markers in the road, anyplace? MR. HARRIS-I had the property across the road surveyed. MR. TURNER-Alright. Is there a marker in the center of the road? MR. HARRIS-Yes, there is. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. HARRIS-I didn't think to go from there. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. HARRIS-If you want to table it, that's, I wanted to try to build before winter, I don I t know. MR. TURNER-Well, if you can get us the measurements before next meeting, there IS no problem. We'll get you on the agenda. MR. HARRIS-Is that a month from now? MR. TURNER-Yes. 7 MRS. GOETZ-So, are you requesting to have it tabled? MR. HARRIS-I'm not requesting to have it tabled. I would like to put an addition on and keep everybody under feasible terms. MR. GORALSKI-Are you agreeing to have it tabled? MRS. GOETZ-Are you agreeing to have it tabled? MR. HARRIS-I wouldnlt like to have it tabled. MR. TURNER-I think weld like to have the information. MRS. GOETZ-I think we're going to be making a motion to table. MR. SHEA-I think we can act in both your best interest and in the interest of the Zoning Laws and, certainly, in the interest of the neighbors and, God knows, ~'ve had difficulty up there. I think, for whatever the expense is and the time constraint of going through a survey, it really would be in your best interest and we can act best on your behalf with that. MR. HARRIS-I specifically, set it back, the builder that's doing the work, he said, let's put it back a couple of feet, for that reason, plus for aesthetic reasons, the house, When it's done. The main thing that disturbs me is the time. I have two kids and one bathroom and they're seven and eight and the mornings are always late. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, could we get it on the first meeting, next month, instead of waiting for the full month? MR. TURNER-If he gets the information in quick enough, yes. MR. HARRIS-Yes, I'll go to the other property line. I have a couple of surveyors that are working with me. They shouldn't charge over a couple hundred. MR. TURNER-I think it would be in your best interest, so that we know what we Ire dealing with. MR. HARRIS-Okay, thank you. MR. TURNER-Michael, do you want to make a motion to table? MR. SHEA-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I'll second it. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, do you want to hold the public hearing on this. It's been advertised. MR. TURNER-There's nothing to hold it on. I know it's been advertised. We could, I suppose, alright. We'll hold a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DOROTHY BURNHAM MRS. BURNHAM-Dorothy Burnham, Boulderwood Drive. I really am in favor of what Keith is attempting to do, in adding to his house. I think it will be an improvement on this property and to the neighborhood. However, I have a couple of questions. One is, is it appropriate to grant a variance when there are outstanding violations on a property? The other one is, I question, Whether or not he would need a use variance because I recall that, during the last public hearing, a statement was made by Staff, I believe that those properties are joined for zoning purposes and I feel that this addition would represent an expansion of a preexisting, nonconforming use and, particularly since he has an office in his house and I would ask for your comments and, perhaps, consideration of, I feel very strongly that I would like to have him have the addition to this house, but I also know that we have been burned before and I don't feel comfortable in just letting this slide through without bringing these matters to your attention. MRS. GOETZ-What is the status of that lean-to that was put on the garage? 8 -- MR. TURNER-It's still up. MRS. GOETZ-Did h~ hav~ so many days to tak~ it down? MRS. COLLARD-Dav~ Hatin and Mr. Harris hav~ discusse;d it. I would assum~ Dav~' s normal ope;ration is 30 days to tak~ it down. MRS. GOETZ-And w~'r~ still within th~ 30 days? MRS. COLLARD - I don't know. MRS. GOETZ-Could you look into it? MRS. COLLARD - y~ s . MRS. GOETZ-I do think that that is a good point, that, alr~ady, was it last month w~ had th~ r~qu~st to k~~p that addition on the; garag~ and w~ turn~d it down and th~n, that hasn't ~v~n b~~n tak~n away. MRS. BURNHAM-The; pigs ar~ still th~r~. MRS. GOETZ-Pigs? I'm not familiar with the; pig situation. MS. CORPUS-It's on appe;al. MRS. GOETZ-It's on app~al? MS. CORPUS-W~ won and Mr. Harris is appe;aling, but I don't know th~ status. Do you? MRS. COLLARD-No. MR. TURNER-Alright, in r~sp~ct to th~ comm~nt about th~ offic~ b~ing in th~ dw~lling, I don't know, B~tty, how long that offic~ has b~~n th~r~, but, obviously, it's b~~n th~r~ ever sinc~ he;'s b~~n in busin~ss. MRS. BURNHAM-Th~ application stat~d that h~ had an offic~ in his r~sid~nc~ and last month wh~n h~ app~ar~d, h~r~, for th~ sh~d roof addition, th~ comtrent was made; by Staff that those; prop~rtie;s were; join~d for zoning purpos~s and I f~~l strongly that, in that cas~, anoth~r variance; would b~ r~quir~d, if that w~r~ tru~. MRS. COLLARD-W~ll, th~ hom~, I don't know what th~ combining of th~ prop~rti~s would hav~ to do with anything. MRS. BURNHAM-It's an addition to th~ hous~. It's an e;xpansion. MR. TURNER-Y~s, but that's a s~parate d~ed~d lot. Th~y' r~ contiguous lots for zoning purpos~s. MRS. COLLARD-Are you talking about th~ lot b~hind his house? MR. TURNER-Y~s. MRS. BURNHAM-No, I 'm talking about, last month, when h~ cam~ in for a varianc~ for th~ sh~d roof, there; w~r~ many comm~nts mad~, but, among th~m, was on~ that prop~rti~s are joine;d. Th~ lot on which the r~sid~nc~ stands and th~ lot on which th~ garag~ stands wer~ originally two s~parat~ parc~ls and th~y wer~ acquir~d by Mr. Harris at diff~r~nt tim~s and, h~aring that comm~nt last month, that th~ prop~rties wer~ join~d for zoning purpos~s, it occurr~d to m~ that th~y would also b~ join~d for zoning purpos~s for this application. MR. CARR-But the hous~ isn't a nonconforming us~, is it? MRS. BURNHAM-H~ has his busine;ss offic~ in th~ hous~. MR. CARR-W~l1, th~ addition, resid~ntial purpos~s and not you might have a point. though, according to his application, is only for a, if h~ was ~xpanding his busin~ss offic~, th~n 9 - MRS. BURNHAM-W~ll, my point is this, that th~ building p~rmit for th~ garag~ was issu~d for a two car r~sid~ntial garag~ and what you s~~ on th~ application isn't n~c~ssarily what you ~t and I want to mak~ c~rtain that, wh~n this is approv~d and if it is approv~d, that it b~ don~ prop~rly and l~gally so that w~ do not hav~ anymor~ difficulty with that prop~rty. MR. CARR-W~ll, I think that's a Cod~ Enforc~m~nt p~rson. MRS. BURNHAM-W~ll, I would appr~ciat~ your taking it into consid~ration. MRS. COLLARD-Sur~, I'll consid~r it. MRS. BURNHAM-B~caus~, if h~ com~s back n~xt month, h~' s alr~ady lost a month and I r~ally am not oppos~d to his adding to his hom~. I think it's gr~at, but I want to mak~ c~rtain that w~ ar~ also prot~ct~d, l~gally, so that w~ don't hav~ to go through anoth~r six or s~v~n y~ars of l~gal ~xp~ns~s and hassl~ and unpl~asant circtunstanc~s . MR. KELLEY-I gu~ss th~ way I would int~rpr~t what you' r~ saying, th~ littl~ plan that w~ hav~ h~r~ shows a 20 by 40 addition with, I gu~ss it's going to b~, r~sid~ntial us~, okay? MRS. BURNHAM-Right. MR. KELLEY-But i t do~sn' t say that it might b~ 15 f~~t in th~ air and h~ can g~t anoth~r log truck in it. MRS. BURNHAM-Right. MR. KELLEY-Th~r~' s nothing that says you can't put a garage under i t b~caus~ h~ was her~ asking for a garag~. So, \æ don' t r~ally know what this is going to look lik~. MRS. BURNHAM-And th~ oth~r point I would lik~ to mak~ is also, last month, that ar~a wh~r~ th~ addition is going to b~ built was unbuildabl~ last month, for purpos~s of th~ sh~d roof, s~ptic syst~m, slop~, Christmas Tr~es and, as I say, I'm on both sid~s of it. I'd lik~ to s~~ him add to his house, but I want to b~ v~ry c~rtain that it's don~ totally according to law. Thank you. MRS. GOETZ -Could \re hav~ a r~port, at th~ n~xt Zoning M~eting, about the r~moval of that sh~d. MRS. COLLARD-I'll hav~ som~thing for you, Sue. MRS. GOE TZ -Go ad . MR. KELLEY-Is it proper to ask him for a plan of what he propos~s to build? MRS. GOETZ-W~ should. We ask ~verybody ~ls~. MR. KELLEY-I m~an , it can't b~ more than 30 f~~t in th~ air. a maximtun. I m~an, th~r~ is MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-H~ was asking for a garag~, b~fon~, so I'm asstuning h~' s going to put a garag~ und~rn~ath it, but can he put a log truck in it? MRS. EGGLESTON-H~ told us, I think, what, a play room off the bottom? MR. TURNER-Family rOŒll. MRS. EGGLESTON-Family room and a dining room up on top. W~ asked him if h~ still int~nd~d to build a garage and h~ said ~v~ntually. MRS. GOETZ-W~ll, I was conc~rn~d b~caus~, rem~mb~r, h~ made sŒlle comm~nts about, he thought h~ could k~ep that shed if h~ got c~rtain affidavits proving that it was personal v~hicl~s and I just don't think w~'v~ r~solv~d this probl~m. MR. GORALSKI-W~'ll look into it. MRS. GOETZ -And I am conc~rne:d about him coming back for a varianc~ b~for~ that other thing is settled, th~ other problem. 10 -- MR. GORALSKI-W~'ll ch~ck into that, too. MR. TURNER-Okay, you hav~ a motion, th~r~, to tabl~? MRS. GOETZ-Okay, do you want th~ Staff Input as part of th~ public h~aring? MR. TURNER-You might just as well. STAFF INPUf Not~s from L~~ A. York, S~nior Plann~r (attach~d) MRS. GOETZ-(R~hrring to motion) All I hav~ is, tabl~d to allow th~ applicant to obtain a surv~y of th~ prop~rty. Do ~ want to add th~ part about sp~cific plan, not just th~ outlin~. MR. SHEA-W~ll, h~'s not h~r~ now to h~ar th~ motion. MRS. EGGLESTON-W~ didn't t~ll him that. MRS. GOETZ-W~ didn't t~ll him that, but h~ didn't wait for th~ vot~, but I think that it could b~ a court~sy of th~ Staff to l~t him know. MR. GORALSKI-W~'ll call him. MR. TURNER-Th~y can indicat~d to him what w~ want. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, so would you lik~ to add som~thing to that ~ff~ct? MR. SHEA-No. MRS. GOETZ -You wouldn't? MR. SHEA-No, in fairn~ss to him, h~' s not h~r~. I think if th~ Staff l~t' shim know that it would probably b~ in his b~st int~r~st to bring som~ kind of plan b~caus~ w~ I r~ going to b~ asking qu~stions to that ~ff~ct, it can mov~ along mor~ quickly. Oth~rwis~, it may b~ tabl~d again. MRS. GOE TZ -Oka y . MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1990 KEITH L. BARRIS, Introduc~d by Micha~l Sh~a who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by Susan Go~tz: To allow th~ applicant to obtain a surv~y of th~ prop~rty. Duly adopt~d this 22nd day of August, 1990, by th~ following vote: AYES: Mrs. Go~tz, Mrs. Eggl~ston, Mr. Sh~a, Mr. K~ll~y, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Carr ABSENT: Mr. Sicard USE VARIANCE NO.. 62-1990 nPE: UNLIS'I'ED PC-1A mBERr:J.. FOUINI mBItBr G.. STOYA OWRER.: ALEI PODRZA MILLER. HILL. mUlE 9 BEBlND ElIsrING SHOPPING PLAZA, IT IS A FOUR BAY GARAGE PLAN ASSII'HBLY AND SALE ((Jfl SIGNS AND A1iRING9.. (1i\RREN COœTY PLANNING) TAX HAP NO.. 72-7-2 Lor SIZE: 4.5 AQŒS SECfUII 4.020 .J ALEX POTENZA, OWNER, PRESENT MR. TURNER-My first question would be, the last time, it was us~d as storag~ spac~. How long ago was that? Can you answer that, Mr. Pot~nza? MR. POTENZA-About a year ago. MR. TURNER-About a y~ar ago? MR. POTENZA-Eight months to a y~ar ago. MR. TURNER-And you hav~ not been able to promote it as any us~? 11 MR. POTENZA-Unfortunately, not as retail space, no. MR. TURNER-Alright, any other questions for Mr. Potenza from the Board? MR. CARR-I guess we've got to ask, What means did you use to promote it as a retail space and how long was the promotion made? MR. POTENZA-Well, it's been empty, approximately eight or nine months, now. It has been advertised. My wife is in the real estate business and opportunities have come up through the office that she works out of. It's been known and done. We, honestly, haven't been actively pursuing it on a regular type of a basis. I've had other people look at it, one was a body shop Which was, basically, a little bit in conflict with what I currently have up in the north side of the bUilding, the body and auto shop up there and, under the terms of his lease, ~ couldn't put one in there at that time. I've had other inquiries on it. It seemed that this would be one of the more suitable uses to it and also the fact that they were going to do some repair work to the outside of the building to improve the condition of what's back there right at the present time. I thought that it was a possible alternative to what was being suggested and recommended, at this point, and there's also a very steep incline, as I'm sure you're aware of, to go back there, to use it as retail space, would be extremely difficult. MRS. GOETZ-With this type of business, do you have big trailer trucks that have to get down in there, at all? ROBERT FORTINI MR. FORTINI-No, not big trailer trucks. We do have some supply trucks delivery, but they're basically panel trucks, vans. MR. TURNER-Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. FORTINI-My name's Robert Fortini. I'm one of the partners. This is my partner, Bob Stoya. MRS. GOETZ-Could you describe an illuminated awning to me? MR. FORTINI-Sure. We've signed an agreement with Flex Light awnings, out of Binghamton, New York. We're an authorized dealer Idistributor for them in this area from the Capital District on up into Vermont. These are our product brochures and they better illustrate what it is ~ are, assembling and installing, than words can describe. A couple of examples, in Town, of sane illuminated awnings that have gone up, just recently, is the new Kentucky Fried Chicken and the Empire Vision Center. They're back lit, illuminated awnings. MR. TURNER-How extensive of an assembly deal is it for you on that building? MR. FORTINI-Very little at all. These are manufactured, almost entirely, in Binghamton. MR. TURNER-Manufactured and you just assemble them on site? MR. FORTINI-Yes, most of the assembly, on our end, is simply involving installation, Z Clips attached to the back of the tubular aluminum frame and that type of thing. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Pat, what is it that they're doing that makes a use variance necessary in the Plaza Commercial zone? MRS. COLLARD-Light Manufacturing. MR. TURNER-Light Industrial. MR. CARR-They consider this Light Manufacturing. MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, I've got to get this char in my head. Manufacturing or Light Industrial use, here, by variance, Whole property, or just that building? If we granted a Light it would go with this 12 MR. TURNER-Go with that building. MRS. GOETZ-Which, I think, could b~ a problem, if something ~ls~ under Light Industrial went in? MR. TURNER-You could grant it with the condition that, if th~y move out, that th~ variance ~xpires. MRS. GOETZ-I think we should b~caus~ ther~ ar~ so many things that com~ under Light Industrial. MS. CORPUS-That's definitely a possibility, a tim~ limit, a sp~cific location limit, and a sp~cific, use typ~ limitation on th~ variance, also. MRS. COLLARD-It stays with the applicant only. MR. TURNER-Y~s, th~ varianc~ go~s with th~ applicant, b~caus~ you might v~ry ~ll r~nt it, down th~ road, for som~thing ~ls~. MR. POTENZA-I don't hav~ a probl~m with that. MR. KELLEY-I IV~ got a qu~stion for Pat. An il1uminat~d awning, how do~s that fit into th~ sign Ordinanc~? Do~s th~ whole thing b~com~ a sign? MRS. COLLARD-No, \\,t\'ve b~en allowing awning signs, in other words, the wording has to stay within th~ Sign Ordinance. The whol~ awning, its~lf, is not consid~r~d a si gn. MR. TURNER-Yes, the siz~ of the sign has to stay within, that's super imposed on the awning. MRS. COLLARD-Right. MRS. GOETZ-So, do you have the dimensions of your sign, becaus~ it shouldn't b~ mor~ than 50. MR. CARR-W~ ar~n't talking about their sign. MRS. GOETZ-But you said you wer~ going to put one up. MR. GORALSKI-They don't need a variance for that. MRS. GOETZ-Would it have th~ name of your busin~ss on it? MR. FORTINI-Absolutely. MRS. GOETZ-And that would be within the conforming size? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. COLLARD-They definitely will conform. MRS. GOETZ-It's better to know, now. MRS. COLLARD-They know. MRS. GOETZ-Actually, they're really nic~. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is there a rear access to that property, off from Rout~ 9. MR. FORTINI-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, Montray Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Th~re is one? MR. TURNER-Y~s, there's a little dirt road that used to go down in back th~re, that com~s out, there's a gat~ on it. MR. POTENZA-Then\ is a back, dirt access road off Montray, but that's used, primarily for, lik~, the garbage trucks will com~ in that way, rather than come down the sharp incline. 13 MR. TURNER-Y~s, right, you can't g~t around that building v~ry good, at th~ top. MR. POTENZA-Not v~ry ~asily. I agr~~ with you. MR. TURNER-Now, W:1~n you say, "Plan assembly and sal~ of signs and awnings", wh~n you say "signs", W:1at oth~r signs? MR. FORTINI-W~ll, in addition to specializing in illuminat~d awnings, ~ do assembly oth~r types of signs. Basically, a flex face sign. Our supplier, here, is an inexpensive and quality source for us, for our flex face material. We have computerized sign vinyl cutting equipment that we utilize, to decorate thes~ faces, and we mak~, just about, signs of all types, but thes~, primarily. Contrary to th~ way most sign shops operate, my partn~r is v~ry advers~ to traditional manufacturing methods and so, cons~quently, ~ hav~ tried to way from these type of processes, spray painting, ~lding, the use of toxic chemicals and solvents and the manufacture of signs. We use almost no paint at all. Th~ materials that w~ use ar~ processed away from our site, duronotic, baking finish aluminums, for example, exterior grade vinyls that we purchase from various vendors that we will cut and apply to the signs, but we do not operate as a traditional sign shop. For ~xample, with the need to set up a spray booth for spray painting and so on and so forth. MR. TURNER-Most of your stuff comes in all done up? MR. FORTINI-Yes, W:1erever we. can, ~'ll purchase a product that is manufactured by a national concern. MR. TURNER-When you order their product, do you order it for a specific size sign or do you have to work on it after it comes in? MR. FORTINI-We can produce custom work. There's, in the last 15 years, an inordinate number of th~se typ~ of production facilities that have sprung up in th~ sign industry and we're just tapping these resources, W:1er~as, oth~r p~opl~ who have, maybe, adhered to more trad.itional practices, haven't ev~n thought of these av~nues. An aluminum box, for example, ~ can purchase those as an extrusion from a company named ABC. You want a 4 by 8 aluminum sign with a flexible face, ~ can purchase that entire cabinet, assemble the face with fabric from our supplier, decorate it with the vinyl that we cut with our own computer and, you have a custom sign, no methyl~ne chloride, no paints, no lacquers, anything like that. MRS. EGGLESTON-You don't foresee a stock pile of supplies, do you, in that, th~y would be piled outside? Do you think whatever you have, there would be rOom enough, within th~ building, to contain? MR. FORTINI-Yes, ~'re trying to use, as a sales tool, the fact that you are buying a custom and brand new item and we're not going to be involved in salvage or r~sale of existing signs, so, consequently, there won' t b~ any debris or any piles of old, rusting, rotting, sign carcasses or anything like that, at all. MRS. EGGLESTON-Y~s. MR. TURNER-Okay, anyone else? hearing. None? Okay, gentleman, let me open the public PUBLIC BEARING OPI!ØJIÐ NO <ØtMI!ØT PUBLIC BEARING a.OSED OORRESPœDlIJ!iICIt Warr~n County Planning Board approved STAFF INP11I Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attach~d) MR. TURNER-Do you want a discussion? 14 MR. KELLEY-I gu~ss th~ thing I would want to discuss would be how we describ~ this time limitation. In oth~r words, if we were to approv~ it, say it goes with the, as long as th~y're. in this particular busin~ss. MR. CARR-I think th~y said that the variance is granted for this variance and this applicant and even if the applicant's move., then the variance dies. I think, isn't that what you said w~ could do? MRS. GOE TZ -The. owner of the conceivably, sell th~ property. propert y is Mr. Pot~nza, so, I me.an, he. could, So, we can't say, lik~, the owner of the. property. MRS. COLLARD-No, the applicant. MRS. GOETZ-The applicant, alright. MR. KELLEY-I guess I'll just ask anothe.r question, to Mr. Potenza. You said you had this piece of property advertis~d for lease. or for rent? MR. POTENZA-Approximate.ly, an e.ight month period we.'ve been trying to rent it, ye.s. MR. KELLEY-And was that with real estate, or through your own advertising? MR. POTENZA-Well, the. real e.state. broker was my wife, yes, through an agency, yes. MR. FORTINI-We came across the. advertisement in the Post Star, that I s how we came to get here tonight and th~r~ was also a road side sign, adv~rtising the property for lease, that's how I got the. te.lephone number, in the first place and got in contact with Mr. Potenza. MR. CARR-Mr. Fortini, you are.n' t locate.d in another location at this time, are you? MR. FORTINI-Yes, Wß are. MR. CARR-And where would that be? MR. FORTINI-It's right in the City of Glens Falls, on Logan Avenue. MR. CARR-Okay, What's the reason for moving, the expansion? MR. FORTINI-The facility is really inadequate to what we have, in terms of space. We have only an eight foot overhe,ad door and the overhead doors in this building are quite, larger and there is a four bay garage, here, one of which we hope to convert into office space. MRS. GOETZ-Logan, is that off Glen or Ridge? MR. TURNER-No, it's off of Sanford. MR. FORTINI-It's off of Sandford. MR. TURNER-It's the little one way street, right by Sanford Street School. MR. FORTINI-Right behind the Sandford Street School. MRS. GOETZ-Right, Where Seri Graphics is? there sanewhere? Is it that building, one down or in MR. FORTINI-It's the old Community Workshop. Pres~ntly, the building is owned and occupied by Thermal Associat~s. Marty D~vitt is the owner. MR. TURNER-Any other qu~stions from the Board. MR. KELLEY-For Mrs. Potenza. I just want to mak~ sur~ w~ 've got all the info, here, so ~ do this right. LYNN POTENZA MRS. POTENZA-Okay. 15 ----- MR. KELLEY-You had it advertised. MRS. POTENZA-Yes. MR. KELLEY-How did you advertise it, or what did you call it, or did you say three car garage for rent? MRS. POTENZA-Basically, ~ advertised it as storage area. MR. KELLEY-Okay. Alright, What I'm alluding to, or trying to get to is, the uses that are allowed in this Plaza Commercial one acre zone, if you will, they talk about permitted uses as being those under this Type II Site Plan Review, which talk about public parking garage, greenhouse and nurserylday care center. Are you familiar with that list, at all? MRS. POTENZA-Somewhat, but not exactly, Jeff. MR. KELLEY-What kind of people responded to your ad? Would there be anybody that would fit into anyone of these categories? MRS. POTENZA-No, because it's a four bay garage and that's, basically, what it is, so, When we advertised it, ~ advertised it as a four bay garage and, because we were limited because of our other tenant in the upper building, ~ could not put any type of car repair or that type of a business in it. So, it ended up, most people would respond to, gee, this is a great place for storage, and that would be it. MR. CARR-And, even without that, \VOuldn't you have also needed a use variance in that zone, anyway? MR. GORALSKI-For storage. MR. CARR-Because the nonconforming use might have expired. MRS. POTENZA-Right. MR. POTENZA-If I might also add, at that point, ~ brought Mr. Hatin up there to make sure that what we were doing with the building was appropriate, at that particular time, and he was the one that actually informed us that it would trigger a Site Plan Review, at this point, so, what we were looking to put in there, \\SS not going to be part of the Plaza Comme.rcial. It wouldn't fit that particular requirement, so, in my ignorance, as, initially part of it, it was Mr. Hatin that correct us, at that particular point, and that's how we happened to get to the. Board before he even moved in because, if you want my honest opinion, I would have let him move in ahead of time because I would have thought, ~e, that's a great idea. It fits that particular building and it would have been a big improvement to back there.. MRS. GOETZ-Where will they park, behind it? MR. POTENZA-There's ample parking on the side of it. MRS. GOETZ -Right, but I noticed there were. cars parked be.hind there. MR. POTENZA-Right, those cars were, again, a correction by Mr. Hatin, saw me yesterday. I had them up in front. I thought I could sell some carS up there. They will be moved, Mr. Hatin requested they be taken off the road. I parked the.m back there as a temporary until I can get a car hauler up hElre and gElt them out of hElre. The.y'll be moving to Buffalo. MR. TURNER-Any othElr questions? in order. Okay, no furthElr discussion? None. Motion's MR. GORALSKI-ExcUSEl mEl, before you make that motion to approve, you should review the. Short EnvironmElntal Asse.ssment Form. This is an Unlisted action. MR. TURNER-You're. right. MRS. EGGLESTON-You mElan we have to go over it again, like that one we did last week? MR. GORALSKI-You may want to just read through those questions on the back. 16 '--' IK1rION TO APPROVE USE VARIABCE NO. 62-1990 ROBERr.J. ¥ORrINI ROBItRr G. STOYA, Introduc~d by J~ffr~y K~ll~y Who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by Joyc~ Eggl~ston: Th~r~' s a sp~cific hardship with this pi~c~ of property. Th~ topography of th~ land isn't conduciv~ to any us~s allowed und~r Type II Sit~ Plan R~vi~w. Th~ land is l~v~l at th~ str~~t, but drops off rapidly to th~ re.ar. It mak~s it not hasibl~ for retail traffic to g~t to this building. Th~ building that is to b~ us~d as a sign shop is locat~d b~hind an ~xisting Plaza Commercial stor~ syst~m. B~caus~ of thes~ r~asons, th~r~ would b~ a hardship on th~ applicant. T~stimony has b~~n given, . by a licensed real estat~ p~rson, as to the fact that th~ property has been advertised for r~ntal. The only feasible us~ se~m~d to b~ for storage. No on~ app~ar~d s~eking any Typ~ II p~rmitted uS~s. This particular use could help the owner realize a r~asonabl~ financial r~turn on th~ prop~rty. This business would not b~ detrimental to the purposes of th~ Ordinance. It is th~ minimum varianc~ to alleviate the unnec~ssary hardship. This varianc~ will exist wi th this particular business only and stays with the applicant for the duration of this business at this location. Duly adopt~d this 22nd day of August, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mrs. Go~tz, Mrs. Eggl~ston, Mr. Sh~a, Mr. K~lley, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard ARIA VAR.IABŒ NO.. 63-1990 T1PE: UllLISTED SR-1A ErIIELt:. O'1lOUJOCE OVtER: SAKE AS ABOVE FAS'I' SIDE OF VEST lIT.. JIOAD" 0..7 IlILES NORI'B OF IN'lERSEcnœ OF WEST HT.. JIOAD AIm OO:RINTR ROAD VA:RIABŒ IS REQUIIŒD FOR. SUBDIVISIœ OF LAND INTO TWO LOIS; SEEKING RELIEF FROM "I'NO TIMES Till Lor WIDTR JŒQUIREKIINT FOR. FJlOlfTAGI œ AN ARR:RIAL STJŒET.. (VAIUŒN OOUNTY PLANNING) TAX HAP NO.. 125-2-3.1 LOI SIZE: 2.04 ACRES SEcrIœ 4.053 WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MATHIAS-My nam~ is Wilson Mathias. I'm a lawyer. I hav~ offic~s at 525 Bay Road in Qu~ensbury. I repr~sent Eth~l C. O'Rourk~, th~ prop~rty owner and applicant h~r~. I r~alize that, in t~rms of your decision, it do~sn't re.ally matter What Mrs. O'Rourk~'s r~asoning is, Or that we're att~mpting to play on your sympathi~s, but that's what th~ gam~ plan is, is to subdivid~ this property and sell a one acre lot to h~r daughter. It doesn't matter who sh~ sells it to, but that's what the gam~ plan is. Her application in, really, a slightly diff~rent v~rsion, but practically the same form, ~s b~for~ you and the Staff not~s that it was withdrawn, but, actually, it was tabl~d and, if we n~~d to do something, formally, about formally withdrawing that application, ~ will. I think what w~'re doing is ~'r~, this project is going to re.st, or fall, on What w~'r~ pr~s~nting to you tonight and, in t~rms of the prior application, sh~' 11 withdraw it, discontinue it or whatever you want to do wi th that. MR. GORALSKI-W~ hav~ a letter withdrawing it. MRS. 0' RO URKE - I wi thd r~ w . MR. MATHIAS-Alright, I'm sorry. I'm looking at some of th~ notes and I didn't s~~ the subs~qu~nt l~tter. The point, I think, on this, and I understand th~re's a lot of n~ighborhood opposition, and th~r~ was th~ last tim~, but the issue h~r~ is not d~nsity. Th~ d~nsity, in this particular zone, is on~ acr~. Whatev~r th~ mast~r plan, when ~v~rybody d~cid~d what it could b~, th~y could'v~ chos~n thr~e acre.s, they could hav~ chos~n five acr~s, lik~ th~y did up in my ar~a, but th~y chos~ on~ acr~ and what we ar~ proposing is a subdivision that compli~s, in all resp~cts, with d~nsity. The new lot is going to m~et all of th~ dim~nsional r~quir~m~nts, in t~rms of lot lin~ s~tback, yard width, and ar~a. What it lacks is frontag~ on an art~rial street. MR. GORALSKI-Lot width. MR. MATHIAS-Right, ~11, lot width on th~ arterial frontage. Th~ lot width, in th~ back, is more than 150 f~et. MR. GORALSKI-Y~s, th~ av~rag~ lot width must b~ 300 het. Th~ frontag~ can b~ 40 f~~t, but the av~rage lot width has to b~ 300. 17 MR. MATHIAS-Right, but it's got over 40 feet on the main road. It's a flag lot. If you'll take a look at the attached tax map, you'll see that, between, southerly on West Mountain Road, there's another flag lot, well, I see, there's a least one that's dimensions are, I would say, at least, no more one third the size of this. In other words, it's a smaller area and a smaller lot, but, in terms of density, where we're talking about one acre zone, this is going to be a one acre lot and a lot that Mrs. 0' Rourke's home sits on is going to be a one acre lot. The internalization issue, or the frontage requirement, as I understand the Ordinance, wasn't designed as another way of boosting density along arterial roads. We didn't say, or the framers, here, of this particular Ordinance, didn't say, what we're going to do is make it a bigger area, a bigger acreage requirement for lots fronting on arterial roads. They did say, we're going to make a, require a wider frontage, but they didn't say, we're going to make it twice as big, from an area standpoint. The point of that was to limit the number of cars or trucks that were entering these major arterials, so we avoided the problems like Ridge Road, Wlere pe ople are backing out from a subdivision on to a major road. There already is one driveway there, that's not going to go away under this application. If you deny it or not, there's still one driveway. With what we're proposing, there's going to remain one driveway. The access point is going to remain the same, actually, it will be a little bit different and, in fact, \Ie think it's going to be better because we've got a little better site lines, by moving the driveway a little further south. Mrs. 0' Rourke could have, under the current Ordinance, 15 drivers living at her house, coming back and forth, out of the current home, completely in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. What we have done is have, \Ie' re proposing just one access point to that arterial road. There's one right now and I think that's a mitigation of what the requirement was. I think, also, and I know that Mr. Turner and Mrs. Goetz were involved in the lengthy discussions, particularly about this concept of internalization of subdivisions, \lhich is a term that Mr. Carusone coined, as part of the discussions involving, in the master plan and what, at least my understanding, of the intentions for that provision, was not, specifically, to deal with the individual lots that this particular provision might happen, but rather would encourage pe cple who were developing property with more than one or two acres, to not simply sell, cut up the lots fronting on the arterial streets, first, and then build the stuff in the back. The encouragement was, let's use some cul-de-sacs, let's use some innovative planning, in terms of street and lot arrangement. It wasn't designed to say, let's, no one took an inventory of how many lots, fronting on arterial roads, actually met the density requirements, but would be impacted by this particular provision. What are papers state is that, actually, 83 percent of the lots, at least on this side of the road, from the intersection of Corinth Road up to Upper Sherman Avenue, Pitcher Road, are less than two acres. In other words, 83 percent of the lots there, they're not even, they can't even get to this point because they don't meet the density requirements. I think we're saying that that's one of the basis, \Ie feel that our situation, here, is unique. The other thing that I just want to briefly touch on is that, you're going to get some Staff Comments about, have we met the practical difficulties test or not, that's a decision, obviously, you have to make. You made a decision on whether or not the prior applicant met the test for a Use Variance, \lhich is a much more stringent test than what we have to show. Whether he met the dollars and cents required under the law and the case law, is something you have to deal with. I think that the basis of our argument is simply this and Mrs. 0' Rourke is a licensed real estate broker who's got some particular expertise, in terms of the cost of lots, and I'm going to have her put that on the record, but the basic point is, here, that our practical difficulty is that, in order for us to convey or to obtain a home for her daughter, it's going to cost in the neighborhood of, anywhere between $25 to 60,000 to buy a single family residential lot of one acre in this particular neighborhood. What we are attempting to do is get a variance, an Area Variance. What' we're attempting to do is provide, in effect, our own subsidized housing. We don't have government grants. We aren't seeking$750,000, but that's what we're doing, here, that's the intent, that's the economic hardship that we're alleging, here, and you're going to have the similar kind of argument, on a grander scale, I think, in the not to distant future, that's really about it, at this point. lid like to be able to reserve the right to respond to comments that the neighbors may make, but I'd hope, again, that we limit the discussions, here, not to the area situation, because we've got a one acre lot and a one acre zone, that's the intent of this Ordinance. Eighty-three percent of the lots, actually, in fact, are less than, are smaller than Mrs. O'Rourke's lot, in this particular neighborhood, but I would like to put on the record the practical difficulties that we're alleging, in this case, \lhich is the cost of purchasing a one acre lot. 18 MR. TURNER-Okay, l~t's s~~ if w~ hav~ any qu~stions. Any qu~stions of Mr. Mathias? MR. CARR-Well, Wilson, I gu~ss, th~ practical difficulty you' r~ all~ging is not th~ practical difficulty of th~ landown~r, it's of who th~ landown~r wants to s~ll it to. I m~an, if th~ practical difficulty is th~ cost of lots in Qu~~nsbury, that's not a practical difficulty of th~ landown~r, th~ applicant, is it? MR. MATHIAS-W~ll, I think that's, again, do ~, hav~ w~ m~t th~ t~st? Did th~y m~~t, th~ on~ b~for~ us, did th~y m~~t a dollar and c~nts t~st? MR. CARR-That's anoth~r issu~ and anoth~r application. MR. MATHIAS-Right. I undHstand. I think this is what w~' r~ all~ging, wheth~r ~, in fact, le.gally, me~t that test ntunber, is the first st~p, is up to you. You make. that decision. MR. CARR-But you're saying that, that is the practical difficulty. MR. MATHIAS-That's right. I think that what we're saying is, this is a landown~r who wants to subdivide. Sh~'s got a two acre lot and wants to make two, on~ acr~ lots which comply with th~ Zoning Ordinanc~, exc~pt for th~ fact that one of the lots will not have th~ r~quisit~ frontage on an art~rial road. If this prop~rty ~re. locate.d not on an arterial road, sh~'d be able to do it. MR. TURNER-Question, Wilson. If my m~mory s~rv~s me. right, Mrs. O'Rourke said she. purchase.d that property in October of '88. Is that correct? MRS. 0' ROURKE-Yes. MR. TURNER-And I think you stated, the last time that, ~r~ you aware. that that was arterial road wh~n you purchase.d the property? MRS. 0' ROURKE-No. I lease.d the property for a ye.ar, before I bought it, and th~ people that I bought it from told me that I could ge.t anoth~r lot out of it, when I bought the prop~rty. Well, I closed on it October 14th, and I unde.rstood, lat~r, that the Zoning Ordinance we.nt into effect October 1st, and that is the re.ason why I bought the land. Now, what I f~el is that, I paid th~ high price. for the. prop~rty because I could ge.t a lot out of it to convey to my daught~r who liv~s with me who has a child. She's a single mother. She is now teaching in th~ area. She. should have her own home. She' s b~en wi th m~ since the chi ld was nin~ days old and sh~' s now eight and I'm 65 and I'd likt> to liv~ alone for a changt> and my husband's 70 and we do hav~ the propt>rty, the. practical caus~ is, I havt> tht> propt>rty. Why should she go down the street and buy anotht>r pi~ce. of property and anotht>r hom~ when ~ have th~ land. I r~ad th~ letter that was se.nt to the. Board by Mr. Gre.~n. They said, l~t he.r go down the road and buy a piec~ of prop~rty and a house. Alright, tht>r~ is on~ for salt>, at $198,000. My daught~r can't afford to go out and buy that kind of property, but I can convey a pi~ce of prop~rty to h~r and my husband, who is a contractor and my boys, tht>y can build a hous~ for h~r, on a one. acr~ lot which is in th~ Zoning Ordinance. It's the hidden clause about double th~ lot width, that's \by ~ agr~~d to a joint, a common drive.way. Now, I have gon~ around. I'm a r~al t>state brok~r. I hav~ be~n sinc~ 1965. I know th~ valu~s of the. land in Queensbury. In fact, tht> adjoining lot, in back of me, G~orge Gor~'s, was$80,000 and that isn't ~wen an acr~. So, why should we. pay th~se high price.s when I have tht> prop~rty. Lots in Queensbury go frOOl anywhere from $25,000 up to$100,000 for an acre, depending on where. it is. Is thert> anything you wanted to ask me? MR. TURNER-Not right now. Anyone ~lse? MR. SHEA-I'd lik~ to make a corr~ction, for the record. It so happ~ns that G~orge Gore's lot is 2.4 acres. MRS. 0' ROURKE-It is? I was looking at the map, then. I apologiz~ for that. Well, Mr. Marciano come over and talks to me all the time and he told me what the price was and, the size of the lots, it didn't look that big, so that's my error. MRS. GOETZ-Now, you're in real estate? MRS. 0' RO URKE - Ye s . 19 '"-', - MRS. GOETZ-So, you must be aware of, it's better to go to the Town and ask the questions about what you can do with the lot, instead of taking, it sounded, to me, like you said the person that sold you the lot told you, thus and so, what you could do with it. MRS. O'ROURKE-Well, I hadn't been living, I'm from Lake George, and I never lived in Queensbury and I wasn't familiar with all the changes that have been going on in Queensbury and I've never sold too much real estate in Queensbury. The only thing I sold in Queensbury was the big trailer park over on the Luzerne Road to Martin Laman, that's the only sale I ever made. I'm familiar with commercial selling. I would like to present this to the Board. I got it from my ne;ighbor across the stree;t. She was unable to come to the meeting. MRS. GOETZ-But be it Queensbury, Lake George; or any other municipality, it see;ms like; it would be a better idea to go to whatever, at the County, and find out what the rules are going to be. MRS. 0' ROURKE-At the time, you could get a subdivision. I just happene;d to close 14 days too late;. MR. CARR-But it was advertised. I mean, the Ordinance wasn't just adopted on Octobe;r 1st and that was it. I mean, it was adve;rtise;d for a long time and, I mean, you were leasing there for a year. It was in the newspapers, public hearings, all that year. MRS. 0' ROURKE-But I had no intentions of buying. It just came up very suddenly. When I rented the property, she said she wasn't going to sell it because I wasn't sure what I wanted to do, we;ther I wanted to go back into the Lake George area or not, but we had started my little granddaughter in kindergarten and then, a week, the woman put it on the market, right away, so I made; her an offer, it was rejected, and she; counter-offered and then gave me thirty days to get out. So, I took the counteroffer. I had no other alternative because we alre;ady had started my little granddaughter in school. I didn't want to pull here out immediately. So, it was within a week that I bought the; property. Fortunately, I was in a position to do it. MR. CARR-You also said that you bought it with the understanding that you thought you could subdivide. MRS. O'ROURKE-That's right. They did tell me that MR. CARR-Who's "they"? MRS. O'ROURKE-Ray Garrafalo, he was the owner of the property. MR. CARR-Okay, did he have any connection with the Town? MRS. O'ROURKE-I have no idea. MR. CARR-Okay, did he have any connection with the zoning? MRS. O'ROURKE-I have no idea. MR. CARR-A lot of people can say what it is, but you should go to the source. MRS. 0' ROURKE-That's true and I was gullible enough to believe him, but I could get a subdivision, before I closed, but I just closed 14 days too late. MR. CARR-But not if you only had a week, because, if you close;d on October 14th, it came in MRS. O'ROURKE-No, it was in September I gave them my offer. MR. CARR-But I think, if you had called the Town, they would have told you, in thirty days, in fourteen days, a new Ordinance is going in and you better check out the provisions. I mean, that's what my point is, that the Ordinance was in place for months, I mean, before it actually took effect. 0' ROURKE-Yes, I have been in real estate a long time, but I've also learned to believe people when the;y tell me something. I don't doubt everybody. MR. CARR-I'm not saying you should have doubted, I'm just saying that MRS. O'ROURKE-Well, you're implying that I should question it. 20 -- MR. CARR-I'm just saying that, as a property buyer, you should have just checked the facts out yourself. As you know, the Ordinance is very complicated at times. MRS. 0' ROURKE-I've learned a lesson. Believe me, I've learned a lesson with the Town of Queensbury. MR. TURNER-Okay, anyone else? MR. MATHIAS -I have one other quick thing. I would like to ask the Staff, here, if Mrs. 0' Rourke applied for a Building Permit for a single family residence on that property? MRS. COLLARD-She could receive a Building Permit. MR. MATHIAS-That's my understanding, too, that's What the law is, too. MR. CARR-She could build another residence on the property? MR. MATHIAS-She could build a house, there. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. MATHIAS-A single family residence, then she just sells the package. What we're, in effect, suggesting, is something that will provide for a, because if you give this variance to us, we then have to go and get a subdivision. We've got to get approval from the Planning Board, because even though it's a two lot thing, at this point, we still need to get their approval. Questions of drainage, septic, those types of issues, could be discussed and dealt with, at that time. In one sense, we can accomplish what we want to do without going through this. MRS. GOETZ-Could you explain that a little further. MRS. COLLARD-You need one acre per dwelling unit and they have two plus acres, two acres, at least, so they could put two houses on that parcel. MRS. GOETZ-With one owner? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. COLLARD-It wouldn't matter Who owns the second house. MRS. GOETZ-It wouldn't? MRS. EGGLESTON-Then Why are they here? MRS. GOETZ-Is this contradictory in the Ordinance? MRS. COLLARD-They're here because they want to subdivide it. They don't want to have two houses on one large, two acre parcel. They want to have one house on one acre parcel and another house on another acre parcel. MRS. EGGLESTON-Change the deeds by deed. MR. TURNER-Right, she's going to change the deed and convey one acre to here daughter and she's going to keep the remaining parcel. MRS. COLLARD-Right, she wants to subdivide it. MR. CARR-So, they could do What they want to do without subdivision approval? MRS. COLLARD - Ye s . MR. CARR-Without anybody's review at all? MR. KELLEY-If we give him the variance. MR. CARR-No, without the variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, without. MR. GORALSKI-The only thing they could not do is have two separate owners. I mean, they could have two people who owned the two acres, but they could not split those two acres into separate parcels. 21 MR. TURNER-That's how she gets around the variance requirement. MR. GORALSKI-Because the way the Zoning Ordinance reads is "dwelling units per acre", it doesn't say anything about dwelling units per lot. MRS. COLLARD-There is a revision proposed, though. Mrs. 0' Rourke, there is a revision proposed. MRS. GOETZ-Revision to the Ordinance? MRS. COLLARD - Ye s . MR. CARR-Because they could be down and apply for a Building Permit tomorrow. MRS. COLLARD - Ye s . MRS. EGGLESTON-Why not go that route, then? MR. MATHIAS-I think that, basically, some problems associated with that. lots that have two houses on them. the reason is, they don't want to, there's I mean, is there a market for houses, for MR. TURNER-Two houses on them, yes. MR. MATHIAS-I suggest that such a market is limited. MRS. GOETZ -Is there a market for two lots with one house behind the other, like that? MR. MATHIAS-Well, there's a house, right down the road, that's like that. MRS. GOETZ-But has it been on the market? MR. MATHIAS-That, Sue, I wouldn't, I don't know. MRS. GOETZ-Well, if you're going to bring up all these examples, I think we should talk about all these examples. MR. MATHIAS-Right, but I'm just saying, there's a similar lot down the road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where down the road, Wï1son? MR. MATHIAS-Well, it's on the, it shows on the Tax Map. MR. CARR-It is. It's down there. It's on the map attached. There's another flag. Joyce, heading down toward the point. MR. TURNER-Okay, Jeff, you or Mike have any questions? MR. KELLEY-We're just talking about another, similar circumstance that I know could come up, similar, almost identical thing. MRS. EGGLESTON-Many. MR. TURNER-Okay, if there's nothing from the Board, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED MRS. BALDWIN MRS. BALDWIN-I'm Mrs. Baldwin. I don't know whether I misunderstood her or not. You said there's one house on one acre, right? MRS. COLLARD - Ye s . MRS. BALDWIN-She has two acres. MRS. COLLARD- Ye s . MRS. BALDWIN-She's about 150 feet from the road. She has a front yard, a house, a pool, and more. Now, that does not leave one whole acre, in the back, for one house. 22 MRS. COLLARD-It's th~ total acr~ag~. MRS. BALDWIN-But you just said one house on one acre. MRS. COLLARD-One dwe lling unit per acre. MRS. BALDWIN-On one acre. MRS. COLLARD-Yes, and sh~ has one dw~lling unit per acr~. MR. CARR-Mrs. Baldwin, I think th~y could put th~m right next door to each oth~r. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARR-I m~an, literally, right n~xt door to ~ach oth~r, as long as th~re's only two hous~s on that two acre lot and it doesn't have to b~ a s~parat~ acre. MRS. COLLARD-That's corr~ct. MR. CARR-It doesn I t have to be on this acr~ one lot and on this acre one lot. It's just, as long as you only have two houses on that two acre parc~l of land. MRS. BALDWIN-Then how about the s~wag~ and all that stuff for the other house? MR. CARR-As long as it meets the codes, no Board would have anything to say about t ha t. MRS. BALDWIN-Well, and the house does not conform with any of the other houses on the road and w~ have been th~re for 37 years, ~ hav~ own~d that and paid taxes on that plac~ and we've put a lot of mon~y into it and that hous~ does not conform with ours. You just go tak~ a look at either one and to have a hous~ behind the back of it is certainly going to tak~ the valu~ from our house and don't tell me it isn't and that's not going to lower our taxes by having that house out in th~ back. I m~an, if we wanted to live at Glen Lake, ~ would have bought up there and had all the houses on top, but not have a house in a back yard, facing our way, that's all I've got to say. JACK LORD MR. LORD-Jack Lord and I live at 363 West Mountain Road and my four acres adjoin Mrs. O'Rourke's. Myself, I'm against it. I don't really like the house in the back. I don't like a flag lot and the flag lot down th~ street is just a vacant lot behind the house. It's for sal~, that's all and it was divid~d before these new Zoning Laws came about. Now, if she says sh~ can build two houses on two acr~s, I can build four houses on min~ and I don I t want this to happen and this is what's going to happen. It's an ar~a that's b~en there for quit~ a while and peopl~ have their land. They have quite a bit of acreage with th~ir houses and it's a very nic~ ar~a and we I d like to k~ep it that way and I'm very sorry about her daughter, but there are other places, in Queensbury, to buy. I'm against it, that's all I can say. MR. TURNER-Who wishes to be heard next? DANIEL GREEN MR. GREEN-My name is Daniel Green and I live south of th~ proposed subdivision and I think you have a lett~r. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GREEN-Will that be read into the record? MR. TURNER-We'll r~ad that, yes. MR. GREEN-Okay, this c~rtain1y throws a new wrinkl~ into the probl~m, here and I agr~~ with Mr. Lord, in that, if all you need is one acre per dwelling, then ~ have a potential, in our neighborhood, for a small city and I really \VOuld not care to see that happen. My neighbor owns eight acres of land on one side and my other neighbor owns three acres of land on the other side and we've all spent a small fortune improving our property, getting it to the point that is, what we feel, an enjoyable neighborhood. A place that we can be proud of and we don't want to see that chang~d or destroyed. Thank you. 23 -- DAVE HUBERT MR. HUBERT-My name. is Dave Hubert and I live about three. houses south of the proposed variance and I, too, wuld like. to express my concern and my opposition to this type of division and it certainly is not in character with our neighborhood, as has been expressed, here, before and I'm not going to insult your intelligence by saying that we can see a hardship, here, with the parties that are asking for the variance. Certainly, ~ all have a right to build' and buy where we choose and because we would like to have our children live with us or next to uS does not create a hardship. I know there are some real complications in this because of, certainly, conflict and maybe a weakness in our laws and I would like to, not only urge the Board to do whatever they can to prevent this, but I would also urge Mrs. O'Rourke to really consider what she's proposing, here. This is a neighborhood that has maintained itself as a one resident per lot dwellings and I think most people bought into it wi th that idea, many of them living with deed covenants that stipulate such. I don't know what your particular covenant stipulates, Mrs. O'Rourke. You're part of the Hudson properties, but I do know that there is a covenant there and it may very ~ll suggest some implications, here. I do know that ours is probably a little different, but we have trÍf:,d to maintain and work with our neighbors. There is a vehicle, . within our particular covenant, to make changes, should the numbers of people desire and I think, certainly, the neighborhood, as a majority, supports the single dwelling per lot and I have not seen any indication that it's changed over the years. So, I would hope that we would continue that. Thank you for hearing me. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard, opposed to the application? None? Okay, do you care to rebut? Do you have anything? MR. MATHIAS-No, not really. I think that the issue, here, is, that the neighbors have brought out, really, is density and I don't think that's what the intent of this provision of the Ordinance was designed to do. I mean I don't think it was, I hope it wasn't a method of disguising a way of, in effect, boosting or boosting down the number of houses permitted wi thin a particular zone. Saying that, yes, ~'re going to zone it one acre, but, in effect, and in all practical matter, zoning it three or four acres is sufficient to get the double width. I don't think that was the intent. Again, and I think the issue, here, is you've got the tax map in front of you. It's true that the adjoining neighbors here's lots are, in fact, a little bit bigger. They're bigger than Mrs. O'Rourke's, but if you go further down the road on that side, you'll find that the lot sizes get smaller and that's just how it was done and, again, I can appreciate their position. I also would simply say, Mrs. O'Rourke is not attempting to sell and get out. She's concerned about values of her property, as well and would hope that what she's done, already, to the property, has increased it's value. MR. cARR-Wilson, can I just ask you, there was something brought up about covenants. Are there any covenants within Mrs. O'Rourke's deed? MR. MATHIAS-To tell you the truth, I don't know. I don't think so. Bruce, I better just say, I don't know. MR. LORD-I'd just ask Mrs. O'Rourke, when this came about, before the last hearing, here, you came up to me, which, I didn't know what was going on until we got the letter, and you said, gee, Jack, ~'re going to build an addition on our house and I said, great, go ahead, that would be beautiful. You were going to build out and I thought that was great. I had no offense. I mean, it wasn't going to offend me. You build as close to me, and you have plenty of room to build, on either side of that house and extend it, but to build another house in the back, I just don't really like it. You did say that you were going to build an extension on your house and then I came here and I found out that you were going to put another house in the back and I didn't care for it. MR. TURNER-Do you care to comment on that, Mrs. 0' Rourke? MRS. O'ROURKE-Yes, I'd like to comment to that. I had mentioned to Mr. Lord that I had thought about putting an addition on the house, but my husband's 70 years old and I'm 65 and I don't, I'm tired of living with my daughter and my granddaughter and that's why we decided that we would rather build her her own home on her own piece of property and we would like to convey her a deed. If we can't get the variance to convey her a deed, then I would just a soon still build her her own home. I think, at our age, ~ have a right to be by ourselves. I don't think this has any issue, here, but it seems as if my opposing neighbors have so much to say, that's my feelings, too. I would like to be able to live alone at this age in life. 24 -- MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to comment before I close the public hearing? None? Okay, it's closed. PVJlBLI C Bll'ARING <LOSED CORRESP(Jf])ØlOt Warren County Planning Board approved Letter from Daniel and Carolyn Green, to Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, dated August 21st, 1990 (attached) Letter from Mr s. Dalia Koumbis, ~sterly neighbor: "My husband and I do not object to Ethel 0' Rourke getting a subdivision of her property in any way." STAFF INPlII1r Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Okay, does the Board want to discuss the application? MR. CARR-Well, I think there is a real problem, here, in granting a variance, even though there seems to be a flaw in the Town Ordinance, that's not something that we can be concern~ with at this time. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-I think there's a real danger with, I think it's Mr. Lord, with four acres ànd other neighbors with eight, that if we grant this variance, they could come back, tomorrow, and subdivide their property, using the same argument, and I don't think that's what was intended when this Ordinance was drafted. MRS. COLLARD-Well, I think it was just overlooked. MR. CARR-Which, the per acre, the house per acre? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes, that's Wiat I'm saying. I'm saying, about this, that area being pockets of subdivisions on West Mountain Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think it could drastically change the character of the neighborhood. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I see a whole bunch of other people out there waiting and Joyce's comment is good, I guess. I would tend to agree, it changes the character of the neighborhood. If it didn't there wouldn't be anybody here. MR. EGGLESTON-No. MR. SHEA-My recommendation to the applicant would be to add on to the property and, aside from that, I have a motion. MR. CARR-Before that, I would just like to say, though, aside from the problems that we could see, in the future, for a precedent being set, here, I als 0 don't think the applicant has demonstrated the practical difficulty with this lot, which would enable a variance to be granted. MRS. EGGLESTON - I agree. MR. TURNER-Alright, Michael, have you got the motion? HOTION TO DENY AREA VABIAHCE NO. 63-1990 ETHEL C. O'ROURKE, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Because no special circunstances apply to this lot that deprive the owner of reasonable use of the land. The applicant hasn't demonstrated a significant economic injury and that necessary lot width for approval of this type of variance, being 300 feet, hasn't been met. If the variance were granted, it would significantly change the nature of the existing neighborhood. 25 -- -- Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1990 T1PE II SFR-lA C'ARL T. BAKER SANDRA A. STOFFOLANO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 20 OWEN AVENUE REQUESTING RELIEF FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT. APPLIC'ART PLANS TO OONSTJWC'l A 750 SQ. FT. ADDITIœ TO THE B.ŒE TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIœAL BEDR<XIf AND INCREASE THE FINAL SQUARE FOCJrAGE TO APPJlQXIMATELY 2,500. AS PAKr OF THE ADDITIœ, THE EXISTING cAR PORT WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A 24 FT. B'W 24 FT. ADDITIœ OONSISTIRC OF A ISARAŒ œ THE GROUND LEVEL WITH BEDm<lfS ABOVE. TAX MAP NO. 81-2-6 Lar SIZE: 0.53± AQŒS SEcnœ 4.020 B CARL BAKER, PRESENT MR. BAKER-I second neighboring owners, the Board. the application, as put. I have discussed, with all our this project. I believe Bob Eddy has submitted a letter to MR. TURNER-We'll read that under Correspondence. MR. BAKER-Okay, and I have packages, or consents, from all our neighboring owners, asking that, or at least stating that they have no objection, and supporting the application . MR. TURNER-Okay, would you give them to Mrs. Goetz. MR. BAKER-As the application states, \Ve' ve been in Queensbury for 10 years and at that property, now, for just about 10 years. We bought the house as a childless couple and, two children later, have outgrown it. We marketed it for, approximately, a little over a year with no success, at all, in selling it. The reasons we found it, too small, apparently, also, made it difficult to market. It has only a single bathroom, no garage, a very small kitchen, no master bedroom and no real dining room. In our travels around Queensbury, also, looking for property to buy, \Ve had trouble finding a neighborhood as nice as ours and a lot as attractive as the one we presently own and it became clear to us, not only was our house not marketable, or, at least, as we lowered the price from, originally, around, $119,000 down to$95,000 and still we're not getting any offers. It's simply that we'd outgrown it, at that point. We also decided we couldn't find a location that was as convenient to the school system, to other facilities in the Town and that offered us as private and as nice a neighborhood as we have now. What we ,like about our neighborhood is its maturity. It's an old neighborhood with a lot of old and substantial trees and it offers us a private lot and nice and substantial neighbors. So, then the idea occurred to us that we just expand where we are and accomplish our needs for space. Ultimately, 15, 16 years from now, ~en the kids are through the school system, hopefully, \Ve'd have a property, also, that would be a little bit more marketable and that is why, in getting involved in our planning and adding on, \Ve then realized we had a setback problem. Apparently, because we're on the corner, \Ve are setback two times from both Owen Avenue and from Lynnfie1d. Our problem is, the way the building was originally constructed on the lot, squaring up with that building and adding on the garage space to our car port that exists now, and the way Lynnfie1d bends back towards our property, I didn't realize it, but our car port was in violation when we had the survey done and the proposed addition will extend out another six feet. MR. TURNER-Question, in the layout, here, on the map, \\hat relationship does the addition have to the floor plan of the present house? MR. BAKER-Okay, Wtere the garage is going is a car port. Just inside that car port is a small kitchen and the dining room is really in that front end of the house. In the back end of the house, ~ere you see the little wing come out, is our bedroom. There's another bedroom and a bath and it is from that bathroom t hat the septic extends out, really, to the north, in the level an~a of our yard, that's out to that side. MR. TURNER-Can you point out the septic on this? MR. BAKER-The bathroom is up here and the septic goes out to in here and I think there's another drywe11 here. We just had that all re-done. 26 - MR. TURNER-These are pit tanks? MR. BAKER-Yes. There's a septic tank and then a drywell and a grease trap. I think there's two drywell's actually. MR. TURNER-Here's the bedroom, here? MR. BAKER-I have detailed building plans, a bedroom, bedroom and then there's a kitchen, here and a little dining area. MR. TURNER-I guess my question is, what relationship does this have to the floor plan of the house? What is this, here? MR. BAKER-This is, currently, a living room, a small living roOOl, here and this would be additional living room space, there. It's a little hard to see the footprint of the house, here, but the darker walls are the added portions of the house. The house really goes, right now, along here, straight, just to here, and straight here. This is the bedroom, here, the bathroom is here. There's another small bedroom, here, and a bedroOOl, here. The north end' of the house is where the two bedrooms are and bathroom. There's a small bedroom, here, als o. This is the living room. There's really no dining roOOl. The kitchen, you enter through our garage to get into the kitchen and then there's a, ~ have a table, here, for a dining room. It's part of a hall that really runs down the house. It was a wonderful house for a young couple starting out, with no children, provided uS plenty of space, but now, with two children, the bedroom's both filled and more strain on one bathroom, it just is not comfortable, anymore, for us. So, our addition adds a room similar to our bedroom, in style, to the front, to become a dining area. It gives uS a little kitchen space to increase our kitchen size to a reasonable size kitchen and then, instead of the open car port that we have, now, with our junk thrown in there, ~'ll have an enclosed garage and, above it, a master bedroom that also adds a bathroom down in this corner, on the upper floor plan. MR. KELLEY-On this plan that we have, it shows a 10 by 23 foot 8 inch addition? MR. BAKER-Ye s. MR. KELLEY-Is that existing or are you going to do that? MR. BAKER-That's part of our over all plan. It just adds a little living room space. MR. KELLEY-But that's not there, now? MR. BAKER-No, that's not there now. No, the house really ends right here, right now. It's here, by here, by here. It's a small house. According to Bob Eddy, when the house was originally built, this wing wasn't on it. It was undersized for the then requirements and, whoever the original owner was, I forget his name, Bob knows him, he had to stick a bedroom on, at the last minute, to meet the minimum size requirements. MR. KELLEY-That's true. It was undersized. MR. BAKER-And the way it's positioned and falls on the lot it's, the other thing that we're trying to accomplish is ~ have some wonderfully large shade trees around the property and we can do this in this way, without, hopefully, without removing any trees. We may lose there's one, right here, at the point where this falls, there's one small birch. We've been told it can be moved, but it may not even have to be moved and we have a large pine that sits, right in here, that won't have to be touched and it'll allow all the present tree protection that exists on the property to stay intact, which is one of the attractiveness, to us, for that lot and that piece of property. MR. KELLEY-I think I know what you're after, is why the 24 by 24 garage and addition behind it can't be pushed back so that they're in line with the existing car port? I think we want to hear testimony about why you couldn't do that. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BAKER-Okay, part of the problem is, again, ~'re trying to preserve the trees that we have on the lot and there's a very nice and wonderful, large shade pine 27 tree that sits back in here and, by leaving this where it is, ~ don't have to touch that pine tree. We don't have to effect it and it'll still be there to protect the privacy of the lot and shield us from our neighbors. If we move this back, as proposed, one of our other problems is, meeting builders and talking with builders, apparently, roof lines and drainage off roofs become important and we can't, at all, expand what is a very, very small living room space. As this is laid out, for floor plan wise, we can add just a little bit of living room space and get an enclosed garage, instead of our open car port that we presently have. MR. SHEA-You're referring to the garage, itself. The 24 by 24 garage. MR. BAKER-If we kick it back, it comes back into what is, potentially, expandable space for, and we can't go forward because of the way the roofs are constructed, apparently. There's no convenient way of moving forward toward the front of the street because of the roof lines on the house. MR. TURNER-The ridge of the roof runs north and south. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. BAKER-Yes, it does. There's drawings here. MR. GORALSKI-I went to see this house when I was trying to buy one. It's small. MR. BAKER-Here's \\hat the side would look like. We had someone else do some drawings that make this look a little nicer and have changed the windows a little bit to make that a little more attractive and de-emphasize the garage doors a little bit, but, basically, it'll look like this, from Lynnfield. MR. CARR-Carl, is that going to be your front entrance, there? MR. BAKER-Yes. This would be entrance and that's really \\hat it is now. Everyone pulls in the driveway and then they walk into our garage and through our kitchen to access our house. What happens, now, is, whereas this is, it doesn't show so ~ll on this, but, as you go into our car port, there's about five steps up to get to our kitchen and that will just do away with that and have a little, normal entrance to the house. MRS. GOETZ-Will it still be your kitchen or will it then be your living room? MR. BAKER-No, the kitchen will end up residing, here, and this is a dining room and there'll be a little anti-chamber, here, and it'll enter into, really, a hall. There's scenes from the other angles. This would be from the front. There's a large, it was interesting going to see our neighbors and then looking back on the property and showing them copies of these and all. There's a very large Oak tree that sits, essentially, right here, a huge Oak tree, and, if you've seen the property, you may recall it and so it really shields this W:1ole part of the building from across the street or from that front end of the street. On the Lynnfield side of us, the neighbors there, Elly Shaw owns the one house and owns her mother's house, now, and they have, on their property, a row of privacy pines that are just wonderful pine trees and we don't even see that house, nor will it look back at ours. So, it fits into the sculpt of the land sort of nicely, in terms of aesthetics, and I think that's vby none of the neighbors had any problems with the idea. MRS. GOETZ-With your going up to the second story, I do think that that is going to be a big change in the looks of the house and that's vby I think you should keep as many trees as you try to. MR. BAKER-Elly Shaw, when I showed her the plans, that was her concern, and, unfortunately, some of our trees are owned by the Town of Queensbury, because of that 25 foot right-of-way, we have a whole series of pine trees on that. MR. TURNER-Only when it comes to cutting them down. MR. BAKER-Okay. So, I couldn't tell her we're going to remove them because I don't own them, but we have no plans to remove them. MR. TURNER-Okay, another questions? None? I'll open the public hearing. 28 -- PUBLIC HEARING OPENJID NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Bob Eddy, Regarding Variance 64-1990: "My neighbors across the street have a real hardship and I rec01IUllend this minimal request for a variance be approved. The home was built before a Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the Town and, possibly, before Lynnfie1d Drive was paved. The house faces Owen Avenue and is parallel to that street. Lynnfie1d is at an oblique angle to Owen Avenue which creates the problem. In addition to the fact that after thought tells that the home should have been built further back on the lot, the present garage must have been in violation of the setbacks When Jim Holton built it. I am, no doubt, more effected by this variance request than any of the other neighbors, as the new construction will be right out of my front picture window. Since I moved here, 25 years ago, the house has undergone two previous major up lifts, with this third improvement adding greatly to its attractiveness. This family has been good neighbors and I believe this is a compliment to the neighborhood, that they are willing to spend this kind of money to stay in the neighborhood. I recommend this variance be approved." STAFF INPUI Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MRS. GOETZ-And there are, I believe, seven, well, I'll give the names of the people that have submitted testimony that they are in favor of this variance application: Neil and Linda Tator, 15 Owen Avenue; Brian and Janice Norman, 19 Owen Avenue; Joel Bobick and Elizabeth Donahue, 22 Owen Avenue; Eleanor Shaw, 4 Lynnfie1d Drive; also, another Eleanor Shaw owning 18 Owen Avenue; Raymond and Evelyn Rose, 5 Lynnfie1d Drive. MR. TURNER-Okay, any further discussion on the application? MR. SHEA-I would just make a comment that I seem to recall a couple of applications that have come before us, before, where we've a corner lot and a situation where the applicant has had some hardship, with regards to, in effect, two side yard setbacks When that is, for all practicality, really not the case, and this seems to fall in that same condition, that's the only comment I would make. MR. TURNER-When was this house built, Carl? MR. BAKER-I think it's about 30 years old. I'm not positive of that. MR. TURNER-'60? MR. KELLEY-It's a little older than that. MR. BAKER-Maybe 40 years. MR. TURNER-That was the old, Finch Pruyn developed a lot of houses up in there, years and years ago. MR. KELLEY-This was before that. MR. TURNER-This was before that, yes. yes, because they did the next street up. MR. KELLEY-At the time that the house was built, the restrictions had a 30 foot setback from both streets, that was in the covenants of the development. MR. TURNER-The development, right. MR. KELLEY-So, as Bob Eddy commented, when the car port was added, or whatever, I don I t know that it was against the Town Ordinance, at the time, but there was something in the deed restrictions, but you have to have the neighborhood enforce it or something. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. Okay, any other comment? None? Motion's in order. 29 - MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1990 CARL-T. BAKER SANDRA A. STOFFOLANO, IntroducE}d by BrucE} Carr who movE}d for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: This would be to grant thf} applicant a 12.5 variance from the front setback requirf}ment on Lynnfield Drive. Thf} practical difficulty has been established by the applicant through the survey of the lot and its abnormal configuration. The variance would not bf} detrimental to the Ordinance, nor will it have an advE}rse effect on public facilities. Strict application of the Ordinance to this applicant would be a practical difficulty for them. Duly adoptE}d this 22nd day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard MR. TURNER-We've got one other thing. August 29th, the Planning Board wants a joint meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Does that fit with everybody's calendar? MR. KELLEY-Do you know what time they're talking about? MR. GORALSKI-7:30. MS. CORPUS-7: 00. MRS. GOETZ-7:00? MS. CORPUS-It's flexible. They mentioned 7:00, yesterday. MR. KELLEY-I've got another meeting at 7:30. MRS. GOETZ-You have another one at 7:30? I think they want to talk about docks, that's probably going to bE} long and drawn out. MR. TURNER-ThE}n I have one othE}r qUE}stion. Will that fit into everybody's, except your's, right? MRS. GOETZ-JE}ffrE}y can't comE}? ArE} you going to tE}ll Charlie? MR. GORALSKI-We will send a memo to E}verybody. MR. TURNER-OnE} other thing, before we go, next month, if Adams Rich gets thE}ir material in to Staff and gets it on the agenda for next month, where do we stand, as far as a quorum goes? MR. TURNER-Sue, you're not going to be here the 19th? MRS. GOETZ-Will it be on the 19th? MR. TURNER-I'm not sure, yet. MRS. GOETZ-I'm not going to be here, the 19th. MR. TURNER-You're not going to be here, what, the 29th? MRS. EGGLESTON-ThE} last meeting. MR. TURNER-The last meeting? MR. GORALSKI-The second meeting. MRS. EGGLESTON-The second meeting. MR. TURNER-The first and second meeting. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, I will not be here. I will be here the 19th. MR. TURNER-The first meeting you'll be here, right? 30 MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-What about Charlie, we don't know? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. GOETZ-I really would like to be here. MR. TURNER-Now, What's the Board's, I don't know what the condition of the MS. CORPUS-Okay, I just talked to Paul and Lee and told them they can get on the agenda. One of the conditions on the re-zoning was that they have to file a declaration of restrictive covenants, that's provided they get all that stuff done, including any modifications to their existing plan required by the conditions on the re-zoning. You'll all be getting this motion, soon, as soon as it's all been checked through by Paul and goes through the channels. It's in the works. They dictated most of it at that Town Board meeting, I guess. So, basically, if they don't get everything in the way it's supposed to be, by the 29th, then, obviously, they won't be on the agenda, but, at this point, they are anticipating they will be able to do Whatever needs to be done. MR. TURNER-I'd like to express one thing, that, if they don't have all their stuff together, they won't be heard. I won't put them on the agenda. They've got to have all their stuff together, so that we can handle it just one time. MS. CORPUS-And it's got to be in compliance with Whatever the conditions are. MR. TURNER-It's gpt to be in compliance. Whatever the terms were that they agreed to the other night, before the To~ Board. MS. CORPUS-What I'll do is, before we have that joint session, on the 29th, I'll see that Darlene gets copies out to everybody, so that at that joint session on the 29th, maybe we can discuss \\hat's in there, because it's gping to come before both the Zoning and Planning Boards. It'll be your first time dealing with a conditional re-zoning. It, basically, limits these Boards as to what they can allow. In either the variance applications or the site plans. MRS. GOETZ-Is this the first conditional re-zoning in this To~? MS. CORPUS-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-And it will specifically say \\hat we can and can't do? MS. CORPUS-It will set limits, yes. MRS. GOETZ-That'll be interesting. How does the agenda look for September? Does it look like two meetings, or one? MR. GORALSKI-Definitely two meetings. MR. TURNER-My only other concern was polling the Board to see Who was gping to be here. I wanted to make sure that we had a quorum, at least, more than a quorum, if possible. MS. CORPUS-Make sure that we have a quorum. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's a possibility I could be here for the second one. MS. CORPUS-And I think it 11 be good for us, when we have the joint sessions, to go over all our motions before then and everything because it's gping to be a tough one. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MRS. CORPUS-So, I mean, how many people would have to be here? MR. GORALSKI-Four. MRS. GOETZ-Just four. MR. TURNER-They Wint to get it on for September, but, like I said, if they don't have all their stuff together. 31 -- MS. CORPUS-I'm sure that they will be calling if they don't. MR. GORALSKI-As far as I know, Mrs. Adams called, today, and said that the application that they submitted last month, I guess it was, is the one they want reviewed. MS. CORPUS-And, I don't know, did Lee explain to her that she will have to compare that to the conditions on that re-zoning? MR. GORALSKI-Well, ~ are going to do that and we will do that before the 29th and let them know, but I guess we have to sit down with the Attorney's Office and determine whether MS. CORPUS-I'll get Paul on that in the next couple of days. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 32 4a ~)ø - --- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI.ftfti~1 Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Au~ust 10, 1990 By: John S. Goralski X Area V...... - u. V......ce - Sip V......ce == Jat..¡a.udaD Subdi'rilica: Sketch, _ PrelimiDary, Site PlaIa ReYiew - == Petitioa for a ChaDøe of Zœe Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit FiDal ~ AppUcadaD Nambel': Area Variance No. 60-1990 AppUcmat'. Nam.. Christopher and Kathleen Gran~er MeetiDø Date: August ZZ, 1990 ............................................................................................ With regard to the requirements for granting a variance (Section 10.040), I have the following comments: Because of the presence of a DEC wetland and the pond, there is no buildable area on this lot within the lot line setback requirements. The Board must determine whether or not the inability to build a garage constitutes the lack of reasonable use of the property. The construction of a retaining wall would be in keeping with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan because it will minimize erosion and possible siltation of the pond and the wetland. The applicant should be advised that a DEC Wetland Permit and a Town of Queensbury Wetlands Permit may be required for any construction within 100 feet of a wetland. JSG/sed ( ~ , . ~ ..-:~~, .,~ !! .---- -"-,-- . ~ .- - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY p¡"nning Department "NOTE TO FILE" Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: August 22. 1990 Lee A. York -1L- Area VuiaDce Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation SubdiYision: _ Sketch, _ Preliminary, Site Plan Reriew - Petition far a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Final Other: AppJicatioD Number: Area Variance No. 61-1990 AppJicant'. Name: Keith 1. Harris Meeting Date: AUI;mst 22. 1990 ............................................................................................ The application is to expand a residence in a RR-3 acre zone. The house has less than the required 50 foot front yard setback. The house appears from the plan to be :32 feet from the property boundary and ±47 feet from Pickle Hill Road. The proposed addition, which is shown as 40' by 20', when scaled out, would appear to be ±30 feet from the property line and ±48 feet from Pickle Hill Road. The Board should get exact figures from the applicant as it is not clearly stated in the application. All of the requirements for granting an area variance must be met for approval. I reviewed the application with regard to Section 10.040: 1) There are special 'c ircumstances which apply to the land or bui ldings which do not apply to others in the area. The applicant states that the structure was built in 1961, prior to zoning in the Town. 2) That the strict application of the dimensional requirement would result in a practical difficulty to the applicant. The applicant would have difficulty addinr on to the rear of the house because of the sewer line indicated on the plan. On either side of the -1- , , ~ t ! house the addition would not meet the setback requirements of the ordinance. 3) The variance would not be materially detrimental to the ordinance. The proposed addition, according to the plan, would not further encroach on the setbacks than the existing structure. Whether the variance is minimal relief is difficult to ascertain. The applicant states he has one bath and one bedroom for a fami ly of four, however, he also states he has an office in the home. The 20' by 40' addit ion is 800 square feet added to a 1,040 square foot dwelling. There are no plans to indicate how the addition would be divided up. There is also no indication why the applicant can not finish off the basement to achieve the added living area. This would require no variances. 4) Public facilities and services would not be adversely affected. LAY/pw .. · - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pJ.nniW\g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: August 22, 1990 John Goralski By: Area VariaDce -y- Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: SubdiYisioa: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, Site Plan ReYiew - - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Appticatioa Number: Use Variance No. 62-1990 Apptic:aDt'8 Name: Robert J. Fortini - Robert G. Stoya MeetiDg Date: August 22, 1990 ............................................................................................ Sign Manufacturing is not an allowable use in the Plaza Commercial Zone. As a manufacturing operation it would be allowable in the Light Industrial or Heavy Industrial Zone. The applicant. states that an unnecessary hardship exists because the existing building cannot be used for retail sales. Although there are many uses listed as Type II site plan review uses, none seem appropriate due to the design, construction and location of the building. If the building is not appropriate for an allowable use, then a reasonable return cannot be realized and a variance is necessary to preserve the property rights of the owner. I do not think that this request would be detrimental to the neighborhood. I would recommend that all signs andlor parts be stored inside the building. JGlpw ( ~ -"" - , . t k - --,.-,..,~-. ,:~,.:...'::~"~-:.-' ï .r,; .. .. ~ ~)ø - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ptSllnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: August 7. 1990 Stuart G. Baker x Area Vuiaace U. Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation SubdØiåoa: Sketch. _ PreümiDary, Site Plan Rmew - - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater Wet.1aDda Permit FiDal Other: AppJicatioa Number: Area Variance No. 63-1990 AppJiamt'. Name: Ethel O'Rourke MeetiDg Date: August 22. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is requesting relief from Section 4.053 of the Ordinance which requires two times the lot width required in the zone for new lots with frontage on arterial streets. The original variance application for this subdivision (Area Variance 25-1989) was withdrawn by the applicant March 22, 1989. Since the last Zoning Board review of' this proposal, two changes have been made to the subdivision layout: I) The proposed frontage for the new lot has been decreased by ±1/2 ft., thus slightly reducing the size of the new lot. 2) The driveway access for the existing house has been relocated so only one roadcut will be used for access to two parcels. I have reviewed the application in accordance with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance and I have the following comments: I) There are no special circumstances applying to this lot that deprive the owner of reasonable use of the land. The character of the neighborhood is single family residential, and strict application of the ordinance would not deprive the owner of the existing residential use on this lot. 2) The applicant must show that strict, interpret at ion of the ordinance to this property would result in a significant economic injury (practical difficulty). The applicant currently resides on the property, and the property is being used as zoned. -1- ----- '> SGB/pw ',-- 3) Although the proposed subdivision layout appears to be in conformance with the purpose of Section 4.053 of the Ordinarice, a specific practical difficulty (as evidenced by significant economic injury to the owner) must be shown before minimal relief can be determined. The Ordinance requires a 300 ft. lot width, and the. applicant is proposing an average lot width of ~~ ft. ~;O 4) The proposed new roadcut would affect a Warren County drainage way from West Mountain. County approval would have to be obtained before any Town approval. -2- ~----~~ " ,... " , ., -, I ¡::{~! ~ ~~ :....;., ,c. II:" \ '..1.J ..', J " ~:... -- .....- ~ -' '.~ .oj.. .. '1 ¡ .". . '1A1"''-.:....Ð,... -:~~~!tt& 'LANN'NG a ZONIN( I')!'ARTMENT ~~. Û7-¡C¡'10 ~; VAR\AICE MO. I . J.:; _ _. 11 0 ~ '. /ì . - )-,~'H-'ACCJ- -D~ cf ~.G.'l-ft:..,.J,/ "r'> /,1 /7· . l' /'/ ' ___ ( j '. ~ c.. 41...l.LcU../L (~ / ~U,.,l- ~~ '.....,... --J:-.j___U"...r''./ -1 II t.'" . " I ~ UU:. ):t~' '-./( " -/ J ) / /.., O();/- ,.-a- / I,' Ll" ..~" . , ' /1. 2./):1:< . ~ f..-.A.. ¿ v . C é~·'L '-.£ 1)1..£- hc-Li.bL.~, fILl: (Ù~jl./ . . /) J,..... Ii /' ^ ' J . " , r. I / ./-I ,- /'----¡4- ~I-----,,-- L.-(.../l-C-,<:" LL.... t.. H /;J.. _i}0 /LL.,](0L ;'''(~~.T:ð _ L/f:...£ ~LlCCli Lt'ïú . J. I -¡--¡ill,/') \ / t'v a-ALa..., ~I.(-ZA_ La- x ~./5 ~'ç t:.. 3 - i' 'Î .'j (J, _./ f /u.. {'1.-iU ë lC¿~û.L .. Lð-t ,ðl cl.:0....u GJJj7U . \.;/~~:~ft .-LJèL- fl fð-' (.~/. )ì.Lt.I-1.. (L Ó.¿ :r.~A.<f-L) (q- -*i..L ~.-/-tL. }CC-ù ~--' RL,.µ ~ () . v , I' . "r ~iJl-- i5f ~L.Lwe_U ~&10 ¿I-tvv ')LLL¡I~-L~, ,1luw:t øf ctfL Æ ~ _~WJ..~ JPdJ~ .Jjs¿ cJuu~ ~ .J:L¿ ~ )U-((fLhU~ '. '-~ ~ ~ ,¡tdfLIL-'Uct (¿,)ccL ~ ~ ~¿ ~~ ~ ~ .fhv CL 1,JU:tdy- _ Wð åCAL 1~ ./"t;; ./l'''~CU-v ./Uu'Ld UL4A-ß-C-~. 0r'¡~ .-iL /?~ ~h1./ ßd ~t1..vuw Cl/!.R-1. ~ ~ ~ð-1v~~('-f'N ~rT &-L<Ct'¡)~,&1) ~ ~ :;LLcl1-1-iA ~of ~)~iL~ßda-~ . . .. , ~ J/~ ~ ~ þ; ~I ~ fhv ..:Jb..J;L 7u.-u-ðU-1./ Rd. ~ j:;w-d tUh.LA/ tru ./Y';1.JYU<.- Æ6--uLci ~~¿L¿¿ Cú}~~ JU-u.M k /J1Uv>U¡-, /h~ ~ ~~. . . (J--Üç ~ ~ -e..It.¿IL"1".:rL?- ~ ./u.t.~~{)-uL ~ , , .. - t l ' /' J. ~', . /7-i, ..:L:;'C¿(~' / u --';J~ " . --"" . Ú. , C l~-1_ ,';'/ -:..1/,' -~,~ ,L{.~ ,.ú GÎ,' ~\". -' ' ,-",'~, ~<--v ~ -'''''- /'--' '-"--~ ì t -t- ...-/- - ,,1 ' .- " J ,,' I . -""-- '-' "'J"\!,~Ì"\. '\:' ~...u /h .M~ j;L.~ . IJ'~ ~:: J>u /~ µ ~ ~t-Æw-£¿.v' I Jl.¿ 'c~~ ~ 'FHdL4A-<J- {L. hL¿L.~"t ~ ,1V a... '1L.h>1.L ---U '-jf..Ju r1- 0- .J1u-d.., d wrtl.. JL è..<J ~ ß£¿ f..~ ~ I --hz..tf./ '''I j.i..[tC/V' M-<.-- ~, 0') - r' ~ ':, ..¡.." ... ' t~ f _ ~~/.j:- {i.AL_~¿¡:-c:C./ -u.--ußt..., ~ ~ ./ ~ /I p~u-x../ ·/~ xJ/~ ..&¡'-' f'~c&v.M tJ:..¡vvt/t.k1f'-f.41 (V¡c-cL ~ N'ôv /Tt; ~t4A~-~ '..¡w ~ UV'J ~~ " -h-:t ft~cL-tt, ~~~dd Á~ ~t-, iD~_- &ud'j¡V~ .....--.----.. ! :) ~ r i ~ I · - --- - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI:lftftinK Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: AU"1l5t 21, 1~9/) By: StUA':'"t: G. P·a'(~r x Ana V.-iaDc:e U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == IDterp-etaticm Other: S~ Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, Site Plan ReYiew - - Petition fer a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppUcatiaD Number: Aren Varia~ce ~o. ~4-J~OO AppUc:aat'. Name: Car~ T. Pq~er anð S"nrlra ^. Stoffc~Ano Meetma Date: .'\uc>u s t ...." ;. L. , 1 a~(' ............................................................................................ The .<1~T')l.{CM'tS 1'.re T'!rc"lc5ir.'" ret:'0'7al of the e~d5ti.n~ car1)ort and renlnce,.,ent ~it~ R 24 ft. by 24 ft. two story ~ara~e Rnd hedroo~ addition. ! '"lave re,¡iewed the apt;>lication accordin~ to the criteria in Article 10 of the Ordinance, and I ~ave th~ followin~ comments: I) The a!>pUcantl3 current 1y have reasonahJ.e use of t'"le pro?erty. Strict aTlplication of the ordinance ~'1Ould not deny t~e~ of this existinp, use. 2) 7he aoo1ication states that no feasible alternatives exist due to the stoT,)e of the nro.,erty and the '.ocation of t~e ¡;eptic c;Y1)ten. The to!)o~rao"y of t'"lfl.t nei~hborhood is n.at, ~.¡i th 0-:;\% slopes. Pract ica 1 di fficulty cannot be sho'~ without the Ro~rd beinp, shown the exact location of th~ sentic syste~ on the property. ~) The exist.in~ carnort currently varies frOM the orrlinance re~uire~ents by 6.?5 ft. '!he .¡ariance reauested is ±12.5 ft. The oro')osed adrlition would a'.,.,ost double the T.'I,oncon=ort"'ance of the "tli.ldin~. Rp.,,;"'rd'.~9s of. t1:1~ location of t'1e se"tic: sy"teM, t'1e J'.ol'1rrl shoulrl reC!uest that the a';)!)licant; subr.\Ït an a""lication that. would decrease the nonconforMity and thus "rovide for a more nininal relief from the reouireMents of the ordinance. SGR/pw . ~-.,.-----