Loading...
1993-04-28 - ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28TH. 1993 INDEX Area Variance No. 21-1993 Richard Rourke 1. Sign Variance No. 22-1993 Alex J. Potenza 6. Sign Variance No. 23-1993 J. Baker, Inc. 11- Big & Tall Casual Male Area Variance No. 24-1993 Joseph W. & Mary Carolyn Shay 20. Area Variance No. 26-1993 Tiernan, Bernstein, and Pinchuk 30. Area Variance No. 28-1993 Robert E. & Eileen A. Murphy 48. Area Variance No. 29-1993 Janet Huston Bell 52. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28TH. 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY THOMAS PHILO FRED CARVIN CHRIS THOMAS MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT KARPELES PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1993 TYPE II WR-1A CEA RICHARD ROURKE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE JAY ROAD. GLEN LAKE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH A ONE (1) STORY SEASONAL DWELLING AND REPLACE IT WITH A YEAR ROUND, ONE AND A HALF (1 1/2) STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IS SEEKING TEN (10) FEET RELIEF ON THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK AND FIVE (5) FEET RELIEF ON THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM SECTION 179-16C WHICH REQUIRES A TOTAL OF FIFTY (50) FEET SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A MINIMUM OF TWENTY (20) FEET ON ONE SIDE. APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-NINE AND FIVE TENTHS (29.5) FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION l79-60B (1) (c). WHICH REQUIRES SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET FOR THE SHORE INE SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: MAY 12, 1993 TAX MAP NO. 43-1-15 LOT SIZE: 0.344 ACRES SECTION 179-16C. 179-60B(1)(c} RICHARD ROURKE, PRESENT MR. TURNER-All these approvals tonight that go to the Warren County Planning Board will be contingent on their meeting of May the 12th. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-1993, Richard Rourke, Meeting Date: April 28, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to demolish existing one (1) story seasonal dwelling and replace it with a one and one half (1 1/2) year round single family home on a preexisting nonconforming lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing the sum of thirty-five (35) feet for the side yard setbacks with twenty-five (25) feet on the south side yard and ten (10) feet on the north side yard and is seeking relief of five (5) feet and ten (10) feet respectively from Section 179-16C, which require~ sum of fifty (50) feet for the side yard setback and a minimum of twenty (20) feet on one side. 2. Applicant's parcel has an average width of sixty-seven feet and is seeking relief of eighty-three (83) feet from Section 179-16C which requires one hundred fifty (150) feet for the lot width. 3. Applicant is proposing forty-five and five tenth (45.5) feet for the shoreline setback and is seeking twenty-nine and five tenth (29.5) feet relief from Section 1 79-60B (1) (c), which requires a seventy-five (75) foot shoreline setback. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficul ty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets zoning requirements is that this is a preexisting nonconforming narrow parcel, approximately sixty-seven (67) feet wide, with a stone retaining wall which transects the width of the - 1 - parcel. With those limitations, and under current zoning requirements, a structure cannot be placed on the site without intruding upon the required side yard and shoreline setbacks. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulties and it would appear that no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or the neighborhood as the project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and district which is predominantly single family dwellings on narrow preexisting nonconforming lots. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant is proposing to demolish an existing twelve hundred and thirty (1,230) square foot, one story seasonal camp which he is proposing to replace with a fourteen hundred and forty-two (1,442) square foot, one and a half (1 1/2) story, year round single family dwelling (approximately seventeen [17] percent increase). The proposed project is located at Glen Lake which is a designated Critical Environmental Area. Changing the use of property from seasonal to year round in Critical Environmental Areas, which are waterfront properties. have been associated with the deterioration of the quality of the body of water in question. This is a concern that is related to the density of development around shorelines, and the growing trend towards the change of use from seasonal to year round occupancy." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Rourke? Do you have a drawing for the proposed house, a layout? Elevation, so we can see what it looks like from the front? MR. ROURKE-I've got a layout. From the front? MR. TURNER-On the lakeside, looking at it from the lake. Have you got a floor plan. too? Okay. What did you change? MR. ROURKE-Richard Rourke. This would be the front of it. MR. TURNER-This is the roof line, here? MR. ROURKE-This is the roof line, on the first floor. MR. TURNER-And where are you going to jump up to a story and a half, right here? MR. ROURKE-Twenty feet back. MR. TURNER-Twenty feet, and then you're going up a story, another half story? MR. ROURKE-And then we're coming back 30 feet. See, this was originally 40 feet, this section, and this is 20 feet. MR. PHILO-What's the overhang on that roof? MR. ROURKE-There's no overhang. They didn't want elevations. MR. PHILO-There's no overhang here? MR. ROURKE-No. That's not going to be an overhang. draftsman hook that up before. I had the MR. TURNER-That's the old one. MR. ROURKE-That's the old one. I shortened it down. See, this is your layout. This is your floor plan for, and it's 28 by 50 now. - 2 - MR. TURNER-The old one was? MR. ROURKE-Thirty by sixty. MR. TURNER-Thirty by sixty. MRS. EGGLESTON-So your size has been cut down by how much? MR. TURNER-Ten feet on the length, two feet on the width. MR. ROURKE-And the instead of 30 by 40. top, the second story, That's cut down, too. would be 28 by 30, MR. TURNER-Twenty-eight by thirty, the second story? MR. ROURKE-Yes. That's the back part. MR. TURNER-And the other one was, what? MR. ROURKE-Thirty by forty, and this is the layout of the other. That would be this section here. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ROURKE-I know I've got to get architect's prints, but she said never mind, right now. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're question last night was the elevation. Did he say he couldn't tell us the height, how high it is? MR. ROURKE-The total height? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. ROURKE-Ground level, from the peak of the roof, would be 25 feet. That's the highest one. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. ROURKE-Now the front wouldn't be that high. I'm moving back from the lake. I've got a retaining wall, a six foot retaining wall. MR. CARVIN-How close is the current house to the lake? Do you know? Maybe I've got it. I just wondered how close to the lake it was currently. No, that's not right. MR. ROURKE-I'm pretty sure it's 33 feet now, the old one, and now I'm going back to 45 1/2 feet. MR. CARVIN-So you're actually moving it back about 15 feet. MR. ROURKE-I'm moving back. I'm going back to the retaining wall in the back, just as far as I can. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. PHILO-Is this where this retaining wall sits on here, the one that's there now? Is that right there? MR. ROURKE-It's, like, six foot higher than this. MR. TURNER-He needs a sum of 50 and a minimum of 20. He's got 25 feet on the west side, and he's got 10 feet on the east side. He's all right with the minimum, but he has to have the sum of 50. MR. PHILO-Thank you. MR. TURNER-The old house that you proposed before had a garage. - 3 - MR. ROURKE-Right, on the back of it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ROURKE-The old one, I had the garage attached to it. MR. TURNER-Right. You'd probably want a garage later on anyway. MR. ROURKE-I'd like to, but, if I did, I See, this is another retaining wall, it's would move the septic back even further. I run into. Right over here. there's a It's huge. It's been buried. would move this septic. like three foot high. I It depends on how, what huge rock in this area. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MONICA HAIGHT MRS. HAIGHT-My name is Monica Haight. I'm a resident, next door neighbor. I have no obj ection. I'd be glad to get this house built. My only concern is the runoff. Those are roof slopes. I'm gi ving the 10 foot variance on my side, which leaves 10 foot between their house and the line. Also, the septic system which, what about the elevation of that? Am I going to get, that's higher than I am. That's my only concern, the runoff from the roof, am I going to flood on that side, are the runoff from the septic system. MR. TURNER-I don't think you're going to get flooded. Isn't that typically a sandy cobblestone soil? MRS. HAIGHT-It's pretty wet in there, actually. MR. TURNER-Is it? What happens now with the camp? Does that bother you? Does the old camp bother you now, as far as flooding? MRS. HAIGHT-No. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, would roof ease help that situation? MR. TURNER-Yes. You could put in a storm drain, but I think they can take care of that when they get to site plan. MR. PHILO-You could berm on that side. too. You could put a swale right down through that side, it would eliminate. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. HAIGHT-Well, as long as that's included in whatever the plans are. I mean, I'd have no objections, other than that. MR. PHILO-How does that problem, from your finished elevation, where you're going to have your finished grade from your basement. Is it going to pitch toward hers? MR. ROURKE-No. MR. PHILO-Okay. Could you assure her that you're going to run a swale down there? MR. ROURKE-For grading? MR. PHILO-Yes, for five foot, and then drop it a foot? MR. ROURKE-Actually, the building itself is smaller, width wise. MR. PHILO-She's just worried about the building being close to the 10 foot. - 4 - MRS. HAIGHT-Your roof line is going to be 10 foot closer than it is right now. MR. ROURKE-Yes. MR. TURNER-So. do you have a problem with the water where you are, in the spring? MRS. HAIGHT-No. MR. TURNER-Did you have any problem with water right now, since this last heavy rain? MRS. HAIGHT-Well. I just came up from Florida. I don't really know if there was. I know it's wetter down between our two properties. There is a wet spot that goes down. MR. ROURKE-Yes, but that's from the runoff from down the driveway, from up above. MRS. HAIGHT-Yes, probably. MR. TURNER-Yes. that's from off of the road. MRS. HAIGHT-I just am saying, any more. MR. ROURKE-I can put a drain down in there. MR. PHILO-I can show you how I would do it, if I were you. On this finished elevation, from the center of that down through there. If you drop that one foot, put a swale in there, that gives her a foot. So there is not going to be any, there's going to be protection. The water won't come to her, and it will stay right in the center of that swale, and come right down to the lake, surface water is what she's worried about, and the water off that roof. MR. ROURKE-Right. Water is coming right down that driveway. I can put a drain in there, to drain down to the lake. MR. PHILO-All you'd have to do is swale the property. You understand what I mean, don't you. Dick? MR. ROURKE-Yes. MR. PHILO-And I don't see any problem, if you do that. MR. TURNER-Is the roof going to pitch toward her camp? isn't it? It is, MR. ROURKE-No more than it is right now. MR. TURNER-No more than it is. All right. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any discussion? MR. PHILO-The only thing is if they check that grade, to protect the lady. She's happy to see the camp go. They both work together. I have no objection. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1993 RICHARD ROURKE, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: And grant the applicant relief from Section 179-16C, five feet on the south side yard setback, and 10 feet from the north side yard - 5 - '- setback. In addition, we would grant the applicant relief from Section 179-16C, in the amount of 83 feet of relief, this is in regards to the average lot width, and also we would grant relief from Section 179-60B(1)(c), in the amount of 29.5 feet from the shoreline setback. Applicant has demonstrated an effort to ask for minimum relief in this matter. since they've been before us twice before with much larger projects, and the practical difficulty is this is a preexisting nonconforming lot, with a retaining wall going through a portion of the property. The camp is in disrepair, and in order to preserve the applicant's rights to use the property and keep it in good condition. he would need these variances. I don't believe it would be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, as the building he proposes is in conformance and fits in with the character of the neighborhood. Again, I believe it's minimum relief, and there's no neighborhood opposition, and I don't believe there'd be any effect on public facilities and services. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I do have to read into here, before we vote on my motion, and that was two letters from neighbors. One is from Jean Luresh, "Thank you for your letter of 4/21/93 notifying me of the particulars of my neighbor's request for variance, and of the public hearing to consider the application. In as much as I will be unable to attend the hearing, I am, as the owner of the property contiguous on the south side to that of the petitioner, Rourke, notifying you that I am unopposed to the request for variance, as I understand it. My understanding is that the new building will be five feet closer to me than the present one, that it will be a half a story taller, and that it will be no closer to the water than the present one. I find none of the variances objectionable." And a letter from Donald and Marilyn Higley. "Please be advised that as a neighbor near the Rourke's property on Jay Road, Glen Lake, that we have no objections to this request. We are sure they will adhere and enhance all requirements necessary to improve their property." AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles SIGN VARIANCE NO. 22-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-IA ALEX J. POTENZA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MILLER HILL MALL. ROUTE 9 UPPER GLEN STREET ACROSS FROM RAY SUPPLY APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CHANGE EXISTING TEXT ON FREESTANDING SHOPPING CENTER SIGN TO LIST TENANTS OF CENTER ONLY AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 140-6(3)(d). WHICH PERMITS ONE (1) FREESTANDING SIGN DENOTING THE NAME OF SHOPPING CENTER AND ONE (1) WALL SIGN FOR EACH TENANT IN THE SHOPPING CENTER. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: MAY 12, 1993 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION 140- 6B(3)(d) KEVIN BROE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ALEX POTENZA. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And, once again, for the record, the Zoning Board will give their decision, and any decision we make hinges on approval by the Warren County Planning Board. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 22-1993, Alex J. Potenza, Meeting Date: April 28, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to change the text of an existing freestanding sign in a shopping center from the name of the shopping center to just listing the tenants of the center. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/ AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 140- 6(3)(d), which permits one (1) freestanding sign denoting the name - 6 - of the shopping center and one (1) wall sign for each tenant of said shopping center. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. ARE THERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE LAND OR SIGNS WHICH DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? The special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or signs which do not apply generally to the neighborhood are that the configurations of the buildings and the curvature of the road that the center faces, limits visibility of the tenants wall signs from the south bound land of the facing road. 2. IS REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND OR THE SIGN POSSIBLE IF THE ORDINANCE IS COMPLIED WITH? It would appear that reasonable use (visibility), of the freestanding sign and the tenant's wall signs, is substantially limited to the south bound traffic, because of the configuration of the buildings on the site and the curve of the road. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR PUBLIC FACILITIES? It would appear that there would be no adverse effect on the neighborhood or public facilities as neighborhood is a designated commercial zone and a clearly visible sign would expedite traffic flow by assisting the public in finding the shopping center and it's tenants. 4. ARE THERE ANY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES? It would appear that there would be no feasible alternatives that would not require a variance. 5. IS THE DEGREE OF CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? Al though the degree of change is substantial to the Ordinance, circumstances unique to this shopping center and the limited visibility of its signs, cannot be remedied without a variance. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. BROE-My name is Kevin Broe. MR. TURNER-Do you want to speak further to the application? MR. BROE-One thing I did do is I enclosed pictures with the application. I realized, after I took the pictures, that the sign was so far away you might not be able to see it. I do have a couple of others with the sign a little bit closer, that you could have. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. BROE-This picture was taken one tenth of a mile north of the Plaza entrance. It was taken in front of the Ames Plaza sign, and I also clocked, the legal speed limit for the area, 40 miles an hour, it takes approximately nine seconds from the Ames Plaza, where you're seeing the sign now, to get to the entrance of the Miller Hill Mall Plaza. I, personally, witnessed two separate occasions where someone who ended up coming into the Plaza, one of these people happened to come into my store. By the time they saw the sign, automatically started breaking before they even got into the turn lane that was there. So it does cause a problem. The other thing is, when you're dealing with tourists, sometimes they have a short period of time in our area, a week. maybe ten days, and if they can see your sign from the road, we have more potential to attract that tourist to your location, than if they can't see you at all. MR. TURNER-Which store are you operating? MR. BROE-Mine's the Subway shop. MR. TURNER-Any of the other tenants have a problem with their customers identifying their location? MR. BROE-I believe there's also some letters attached, from people that are in on the sign. MR. TURNER-I've got to tell you something. You can put up all the signs you want in the world. Some people don't see them anyway. MR. BROE-I agree. - 7 - MR. TURNER-I've had people go by my business, we've been there 50 years. I never knew you were there. The sign's right there. Every day. I don't have a problem with it. In the new proposed Sign Ordinance. this will be taken care of, but if we had to rely on the old one, I'd have my concerns about doing it this way. MR. BROE-But going forward, there is something similar to, taking that into consideration? MR. TURNER-Yes, because some of the people sit back quite a ways from the road, like the malls up. the Million Dollar Half Mile. Some of them sit back quite a ways. So we granted some relief up there. MR. BROE-The other customer comments, familiarity with the Plaza, and we talked don't realize, it's They don't realize. thing I had noticed with going just with since I've been in there, is there is Northway Plaza. familiarity with Queensbury to somebody about Miller Hill Mall, and they a misnomer because it's filled with shops. MRS. EGGLESTON-I must admit that it is kind of hard to see. In order to even look the whole project over, I went into Ray Supply, parked up there, because if you just drive up through there, I mean, the traffic's going every which way. You can't really look for signs, unless they jump out at you, and because it is on that little curve. So I think it is a difficult place to see. MR. THOMAS-I agree with Joyce that, because of the way the road curves, it's very difficult to see the businesses in there, and what exactly is in there, and then by the time you find out what it is, you've gone by, either going north or south. MR. TURNER-Yes. If you're familiar with the area, you don't have a problem finding it. but if you're not too familiar with the area, you might get rear ended looking for it. MR. THOMAS-That's right. MR. CARVIN-I don't think there's a problem northbound, because certainly those are pretty wide open. Is the proposed sign going to be in the same frame as the current sign? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-In other words, there's not going to be any expansion or anything? MR. BROE-It's just a face change. No size change. MR. TURNER-Okay. public hearing. No further questions? Okay. I'll open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MIKE ZUMA MR. ZUMA-I'm Mike Zuma. I own the glass shop which is part of the Mall. Your comments, we've been there almost seven years, and I still have people walk in the door and say, how long have you been here? Our biggest problem is people coming from the north, explain where we are. The best reference point is we're right across from Ray Supply. There has been some close calls there because, by the time they do see it, you're already past their driveway. MR. TURNER-Well, that's kind of a treacherous driveway anyway, in a sense. It's not really opened up enough so you can really get a flow of traffic in there. You've got two lanes coming north. You've got one going south. - 8 - -' MR. ZUMA-Right, but the thing is that we're gambling on the sign to give an indication of where we are, coming south. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ZUMA-At least give people a warning where we are, and I think it is necessary. My feeling is, hopefully, it will work, but I think a sign north of this bUilding would be more advantageous, but we're gambling that this may solve it very easily. MR. TURNER-Is this basically more for identification? MR. ZUMA-It's more for identification, so people can find this place. Less of advertising. There's better ways of advertising. This is more for identification and basically for safety. MR. TURNER-What size is the sign on your building? MR. ZUMA-The one on mine is 50 square feet. It's 30 by 20. MR. TURNER-The two gentleman from Subway, what size is yours? MR. BROE-My sign is 46.75 square feet, according to the application. MR. TURNER-Yes. Northway Car Care is, what, about the same thing? MR. ZUMA-Yes, 50. The thing is, the signs are facing southeast. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ZUMA-Going north, your tendency, as you go around the curve, is to look to your left. This is a natural reaction. Well, your eyes will roam more towards, like, Ray Supply and that. MR. TURNER-No way. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, I'd have to go with Ted. MR. TURNER-You better be looking where you're going up there. MR. ZUMA-Exactly, but we don't have a problem, north bound property, but we do have a major problem, and I've seen the people looking for Subway, and one woman the other day ran over the curb because she was that far past the driveway. MR. TURNER-That's what I said, you know, that curb comes right around like that and goes right back like that. Coming from the north, you could go right over it and maybe not even see. MR. ZUMA-We are gambling that this will identify the Mall. MR. POTENZA-Hi. My name is Al Potenza, and I'm one of the owners of the property. I think both of the two tenants that I have have pretty well explained everything. I think that the change is probably going to, it's probably the easiest and the simplest, and probably the spirit of the Code that you do have is the closest to it. They have, the public proposes putting signs at the north end of the property, which would be a lot more expensive, require a lot more variances, and I think that this is probably the easiest and most possible and flexible way of doing it. I think Joyce Eggleston summed it up the best when she said that the southbound traffic has no sight of those stores that are sitting there because of the wall, and because of the angle and because of the curb and because of the way the building is built. Subway is actually tucked in behind it on the corner. So, any consideration that you would give these people I would appreciate, and I'm sure that it would work out best for all concerned. Since I think we're close to having something similar to this. Mr. Turner, you said, down the road. - 9 - MR. TURNER-Yes. The sign committee, I think, identified that there was a problem with some of the smaller plazas, some of the stores getting identified. So I think dealing with that rationale, we came up with that kind of compromise. MR. POTENZA-I can agree, and I can understand where you came from, and anything you can do with this I'd appreciate. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-I won't read Mr. Zuma's letter, because that's the gentleman who just spoke, and he said basically the same thing. We do have one from Northway Car Care, Darren Menzara, "I feel it pertinent that the sign for Miller Hill Mall be refaced because when entering from the north, it is extremely difficult to see. My concern is that customers looking for the sign could cause traffic problems or possibly even an accident. Looking from the south, you cannot even see the sign. I am also concerned that, due to the poor visibility of the sign, that I am losing business." And a letter from, or a fax, Sara Lewis Belcher, "We're writing to provide the Zoning Board of Appeals with our comments to Mr. Potenza's application for a Sign Variance. Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend the public hearing on April 28th, 1993, and request that this letter containing our comments be' read into the record at the hearing. These comments are submitted on behalf of our client, Northway Plaza Associates. In reviewing the description of Mr. Potenza's proposal, as contained in the Notice of Public Hearing, we notice substantial similarity between this proposal and that contained in the application for a Sign Variance recently submitted by Steinbach's for a sign at Northway Plaza. As you are aware, this application was denied. Because of the similarity of these proposals, we have no opposition to Mr. Potenza's application being granted, as long as the Board reconsiders the application concerning Northway Plaza. If the Board will not reconsider the application concerning the sign at Northway Plaza, Northway Plaza Associates opposes the granting of a sign variance to Mr. Potenza. Because the applications are so similar, we believe it is only fair that they both be treated in the same manner and both be either granted or denied. If the Board finds that the two applications should be treated differently, such as one granted and one denied, we believe that specific information differentiating the two applications should be contained in the decision to ensure that past and future applications are aware of the standards the Board requires before granting a variance, and so it appears that all applicants are being treated fairly and equally. We will appreciate this letter being read into the record. Please provide us with a copy of the Board's determination on this matter." MR. TURNER-Any comment on the letter? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I'm trying to think of why we turned Steinbach's down. MR. TURNER-I can tell with many more stores availabili ty to get Ordinance. you in a hurry. That's a shopping center, in it, with a lot more depth, and a lot more in and look and see who's there, and the MR. MARTIN-The other difference was, that was just for one store within the Plaza. MR. TURNER-One store within the Plaza, and the other difference is that this is kind of like a strip mall, right up next to the road. and without some identification, we're going to have some problems on the roadway maybe. - 10 - MR. MARTIN-I think that's the big difference, Ted. They're going to be advertising all the stores in this mall. MR. CARVIN-Yes. They're not expanding an existing sign. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-Say that again, would you, Jim. MR. MARTIN-They're giving placards to each store within this mall, whereas the Northway Plaza application was just for Steinbach. The other stores in the Plaza were not going to be on the mall entrance sign. It was only going to be Steinbach. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think you've explained that and put that in its proper perspective. MR. TURNER-Well, you know, you go down the Lake George Road, if you're going to go in the Northway Plaza, you're going in there. you're going to find Steinbach. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. You've got time to look for Steinbach. MR. TURNER-You've got time to look without somebody maybe rear ending you, coming from the north. So I said, that's the basic difference. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion on this? Are you all satisfied with the comments? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. A motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 22-1993 ALEX J. POTENZA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Grant relief from Section 140-6 (3) (d) , which permits one freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center, and one wall sign for each tenant of said shopping center, to allow the freestanding sign to indicate the names of each of the tenants as long as there's no expansion of the existing sign. There are special circumstances and conditions that apply to this particular property in that the configuration of the building (s) and the curvature of the road limits visibility for south bound traffic to identify the tenants in that particular mall. It would appear that by granting this variance, that it would eliminate this confusion and possibly add to the safe south bound traffic flow. As long as there's no expansion of the existing freestanding sign, it would not appear that there would be any adverse effect on the neighborhood or public facilities, and there does not appear to be any other feasible alternative to this particular situation that would not require a variance. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles SIGN VARIANCE NO. 23-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A J. BAKER. INC. BIG & TALL CASUAL MALE OWNER: LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATES ROUTES 9 AND 149 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SECOND (2ND) WALL SIGN FOR BUSINESS (BIG & TALL). TO BE PLACED ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND - 11 - IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 140-6B(3)(d) THAT PERMITS ONE (1) FREESTANDING SIGN DENOTING THE NAME OF THE SHOPPING AND ONE (1) WALL SIGN FOR EACH TENANT OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: MAY 12. 1993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 36-1-35 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 140-6B(3)(d) JOHN RENZI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And again, subject to approval by the Warren County Planning Board. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 23-1993, J. Baker, Inc./Big & Tall Casual Male, Meeting Date: April 28, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing a second wall sign for an eXisting business in a shopping center. CONFORMANCE WITH SIGN REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing a second wall sign for an existing business located in a shopping center and is seeking relief from Section 140-6B(3)(d), which states that a shopping center shall be permi tted one (1) freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center and one (1) wall sign for each tenant of the shopping center. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. ARE THERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE LAND OR SIGNS WHICH DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? The special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or signs which do not apply generally to the neighborhood is that due to remodeling of the building, the square footage for the applicant's sign is less than the square footage allotted the other tenants in the shopping center which the applicant believes has placed him in a competitive disadvantage. 2. IS THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND OR SIGN POSSIBLE IF THE ORDINANCE IS COMPLIED WITH? It would appear that reasonable use of the sign is not possible if the Ordinance is complied with, due to the restrictions of the remodeling of the front of the building. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR FACILITIES? It would appear that there would be no adverse effects on the neighborhood character or facilities, as the area is all commercial establishments with a variety of signs. 4. ARE THERE ANY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES? Applicant believes that the only feasible alternative to the reduction of square footage of sign space allotted to his business is the proposed sign on the south side of existing bUilding. 5. IS THE DEGREE OF CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? Al though the degree of change is substantial relative to the Ordinance, the circumstances of the remodeling of the building has reduced the square footage of the sign, from forty-five (45) square feet of the applicant's original roof sign to twenty (20) square feet for the current wall sign. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The shopping center within which the applicant is a tenant has four (4) businesses (see attached elevated view of shopping center building). Until recent renovations, each tenant had a roof sign, and the tenant at the north side of the building also had a sign on the building facing Route 149. Additionally, the shopping center was granted a Sign Variance in 1988 (No. 1395), which permitted the listing of the tenants on a freestanding sign located at the front of the property. Proposed freestanding sign is smaller. six and a half (6 ft. 6 in.) wide, rather than the existing freestanding sign which is ten (10) feet wide (see attached drawing of proposed freestanding sign.) Once the renovations are completed, the tenant on the north end of the building will have one (1) wall sign, two by ten (2 x 10) or twenty (20) square feet, and one wall sign on the side of the building facing Route 149 (unknown size). The two businesses in the middle of the building will have one wall sign each; two by fifteen (2 x 15) or thirty (30) square feet and the applicant's business which is located at the south end of the building will have one (1) wall sign, two by ten (2 x 10) or twenty (20) square feet. The applicant believes that the difference between the allotted square footage for signs for the other tenants and the allotted square footage of sign for his business is placing his business in a competitive disadvantage." - 12 - MR. RENZI-Hi. My name's John Renzi. I'm with Graphic Impact Signs. I'm representing my client, J. Baker Incorporated, who does business as Big & Tall Casual Male. I just wanted to be sure, did you all get a copy of the letter from the landowner, which is Lake George Associates? MR. TURNER-Lake George Associates, yes. MR. RENZI-Okay. I just wanted to be sure you got a copy of that. MR. TURNER-Lake George Associates consists of who? MR. RENZI-It's actually. Christopher Adams. who's parent company's name is Gordon Development. out of Albany, New York. I believe when I originally submitted the information on the pylon sign, I had that stated at seven foot four inches wide, is the drawing. I have revised information for you that it's only six foot six inches. I just wanted to see if you had that information there. This is the revised information to that drawing right there. It's actually six foot six inches, not seven foot four inches. I just wanted to be sure you had that for your records. It's actually smaller than originally submitted. You also have a copy of this here, showing the location of the sign in question for the variance. Do you have a copy of that? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. RENZI-Basically, if you refer to this drawing here, the proposed signage on the front of the building are the rectangles that you see in the appropriate areas for a sign for the tenants of the front of the building. The sign has been, we have secured a standard permit for, the two by ten, is actually this right here, at the front of the building, okay. I have photos that show. in reference to the sign that is there now, and the area, that that little facia band, is where that 10 foot sign is going to go. So you can see the sign that we are reducing the store front sign to. because the architecture of the building will not allow us to go any more width wise, because that's aètually protruding at the door entrance. MR. PHILO-Is this the side that the sign is going to go on over here? MR. RENZI-Yes, it is. I have a photo of that, too, showing that. Basically, it would be this end of the building. What we're proposing to do. first of all, you see that the sign on the roof was a three by fifteen sign, and because of the architecture of the building, we have to reduce that sign down to two foot by ten foot. We're reducing that sign, the visibility for that tenant, down to the 20 square feet, which is a less than the other tenants towards the interior of the building, which have 30 square feet. or one third more for square footage. What we're proposing is a sign on the end of the building. and we need to seek relief for that, and the reason is, because there's no publ ic way or a street, and that's what I'm here asking for is relief for that sign. What I'd like to show you is, you have the lot drawing, and see where the posi tioning is, of the pylon sign, how it's at this end of the Plaza, and my client is located at this end of the Plaza. The entrance is here, okay. closest to my tenant. There's also an entrance on Route 149, but the only sign that they would have for people heading in this direction would be the pylon sign, which would be sufficient. but the square footage will be reduced, also, on the pylon sign. We have approval for 60 square feet. MR. TURNER-Why did you reduce it? MR. RENZI-The landlord, Lake George Associates, Christopher Adams. is more concerned about the aesthetic value of his new building and the location as a whole, and therefore if he's more concerned about how it looks, the road signs are going to be sufficient at that - 13 - size. So we're reducing from 60 square feet of signage, which we have approval for, under a standard permit. down to, I believe, it's 42 square feet, for all signs combined. So we are reducing not only the store front sign from three by fifteen down to two by twenty, but also that tenant sign on the freestanding sign that was eighteen inches by ten foot, to eighteen inches by six foot six. So, we're also reducing that sign, and what we were asking for is the sign on the end of the building, and if you see in this photo here, you have a sign from an abutting property, which it is in the way of that corner of the building. MR. PHILO-Is that in the next shopping plaza? MR. RENZI-Yes, it is. I'm sorry I don't have more photos here to hand out. MR. TURNER-Well, we've all looked at it. MR. RENZI-And this is basically what I'm getting at is freestanding sign for the plaza beforehand actually blocks out that front corner of the building, and also there's some directory signs put up by the Town, that also blocks out the pylon sign. MR. TURNER-It did before, even when you had the big sign like it is. MR. RENZI-Yes, but what we're doing now is, the signs are being reduced to the point that my client is concerned about being seen at all, and basically, with the entrance where it is, people need to identify with his establishment, or people are just going to be going by, compared to what they had seen before. MR. TURNER-I've got to tell you, the way the traffic crawls up through there, I don't know how anybody could miss it. It doesn't move very fast. They've got plenty of time to move around. MRS. EGGLESTON-AI though this morning when I went up there and looked, there wasn't hardly a sole up there. MR. TURNER-No, during the week. MR. RENZI-The only other thing that I could add is the tenant towards the interior of the building would have a larger sign compared to this tenant, just the store front would be wider, and, again. they would have a larger sign than this tenant. and my client came to me and said, lets go for a variance for a four by twenty sign. I said, you're not going to get it. I told him right out right. you're not going to get it. MR. TURNER-I've got to say something in reference to what you just said. As far as the signs go, you know, the size of the signs on the building for everybody, you know. I've got to tell you that whether it's competi ti ve or not, that's a choice that's made by whomever. MR. RENZI-I think you might be misinterpreting what I was saying. I'm not saying competitive against someone else in another plaza. What I'm saying is competitive against what they've had before for signage. MR. TURNER-I know. I'm saying, but just because he's got, if he's got a 100 square foot sign, it doesn't mean you've got to have a 200. MR. RENZI-Right. Well, what we had before was 15 square feet on the pylon sign, 45 on the sign on the building. MR. TURNER-They should all be pretty much the same size. We granted a variance for those names on the pylon sign. - 14 - MR. RENZI-Yes, back in 1988. MR. TURNER-That was granted. MR. RENZI-Right. The only other option that I could ask you for would be the possibility, I believe that we could put a standard pylon sign up on this road here? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. RENZI-But that's still not going to help this particular tenant, in regards to that, but I'm going to be up front with you. The landlord doesn't want to have to get to that point, go through that. He's more concerned about the aesthetic balance of the signs on the building. There will be a sign on this end of the building. okay. MR. TURNER-I'm going to ask that question. MR. RENZI-Okay. right here. There is one sign on the end of this building, MRS. EGGLESTON-There was none there the other day. MR. TURNER-There's nothing there now. MR. RENZI-We have a permit. MR. TURNER-You shouldn't have one. I'm going to ask the question of Mr. Martin. MRS. EGGLESTON-There was no signs on the end of the building today. MR. RENZI-No, no. It's not today, because it's under construction. That's what it looks like to me. It's under construction. MR. TURNER-Mr. Martin, this is a shopping plaza? This is a shopping plaza that allows two freestanding signs, and one wall sign, right? They can't have a wall sign on a corner. MR. MARTIN-If they're on a corner, they can. MR. TURNER-No, they can't. Read the Section of the Ordinance, Shopping Center, two freestanding signs and one wall sign on the exterior of the building. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but there's another Section about corner property. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that doesn't apply to that. MR. MARTIN-Why doesn't it? Where does it say that it doesn't? MR. TURNER-Because it doesn't. don't think it applies to us. single business. It has to do with a business. I The Section above applies to a MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. TURNER-It doesn't apply to the shopping center. allow a wall sign on that side of the building. It does not MR. MARTIN-I wasn't drawing that fine of a distinction. I was saying, it's a business. It's in a building, and it's on a corner. So, it's permitted a second sign on that. MR. TURNER-It's a shopping center. according to a shopping center. That's what's allowed, MRS. EGGLESTON-That would make sense, Jim. - 15 - MR. TURNER-He could have two freestanding signs. He could have one on 149 and one on 9, but he can't have the wall sign. In lieu of the freestanding sign, he can't have the wall sign unless he gets a variance. MR. HARTIN-Yes, but the reason for the sign being allowed on a building on a corner is to allow visibility of that business from that street. Just because it's a shopping center shouldn't make any difference. MR. TURNER-Yes, it doe s . MR. MARTIN-Why? MR. TURNER-It's right there. It spells it right out. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I mean as a practical matter. MR. TURNER-It's not practical. You've got to go by what this says. MR. MARTIN-No. It's not spelled out there. I don't think that it is. MR. TURNER-Well, I do. MR. MARTIN-Well. I don't. MR. RENZI-But there was a sign on the end of that building. There was a sign. MR. PHILO-Jim, open that Section up. MR. TURNER-It shouldn't be there. MR. RENZI-Well, there was a sign. MR. MARTIN-You can put up a freestanding. but you can't have the wall sign. because you already had the wall sign on the other side, on the Lake George side, correct? MR. RENZI-Right. MR. TURNER-You put up two wall signs. MR. RENZI-Right. Two separate, fronting two separate roads. MR. TURNER-You can't have it. MR. RENZI-That's what was there. and that's what we've applied for, and we're securing a permit for that. MR. TURNER-That might be, but there might be a difference of opinion. HRS. EGGLESTON-Well, what, are they rebuilding a new sign to put up there, or what, because there was nothing there today. MR. RENZI-The signs have been secured under a standard permit. MRS. EGGLESTON-And what is the sign, just for Big & Tall, or is it the whole Plaza? MR. RENZI-No. It's just for Dunham's Footwear, which is the tenant that has an entrance on that side of the building, and that's their portion of the tenant space. MRS. EGGLESTON-Which Section are you in, Ted. that you're seeing that designation? MR. TURNER-Section 6.103, down at the bottom, a Shopping Center. - 16 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Shopping Center/Business Complex, One freestanding sign 50 square feet. MR. CARVIN-A freestanding sign, yes. I think the question is, can they have a wall sign. MRS. EGGLESTON-One wall sign, yes, they are, but Jim's saying, he's on a corner, he gets another, one on both sides. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's what he's interpreting as the business. MR. TURNER-Yes. but then read the paragraph above it. A business located on a parcel of property shall be granted a permit for two signs. One freestanding double faced, and one attached to the building. MRS. EGGLESTON-A building on a street corner. MR. TURNER-Yes, but then you have to go to Shopping Center. This is Shopping Center. This is single business. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Lets go to the Shopping Center. Does it say anything about a corner? MR. TURNER-He can have a sign, a freestanding sign on 149, and a freestanding sign on Route 9, and one wall sign. MR. CARVIN-And one wall sign. MR. TURNER-That's the way I read it. MR. RENZI-Will you read this Section, please, 140-6-3-C. MR. CARVIN-Yes, that's a business. MR. RENZI-A business located on a parcel of property shall be granted a permit for two signs, one freestanding sign, double faced sign, and one sign attached to a building, wall sign or permitted roof sign. MR. TURNER-That doesn't have anything to do with the Shopping Center. MR. RENZI-Or two signs attached to a building. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-You're classified as a Shopping Center. MRS. EGGLESTON-Sir, wait a minute. Are you under Shopping Center? You have to be under Shopping Center. There are different classifications. There are Business, Shopping Center, etc. There are special rules that apply to a plaza. MR. TURNER-To a Shopping Center versus a single business. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. So, you have to get under the right Section. MR. TURNER-You have to get under Shopping Center. MR. RENZI-Okay. MR. CARVIN-So you can't utilize C in this particular instance. It has to be D. MR. TURNER-Read it right there. MR. RENZI-So you're saying a business wouldn't be one freestanding. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. - 17 - MR. TURNER-It would be one business on a street corner. You're a Shopping Center. MR. CARVIN-It just says one freestanding sign. about wall signs. It says nothing MR. MARTIN-That's the Board's interpretation. That's fine with me. Now I know what to do with these types of things. MR. TURNER-You know, it's pretty pointed. It comes right out and says it, right in Shopping Center. That's where the distinction is, between the single business on the corner versus the shopping center. MR. CARVIN-Otherwise, they would all have it on both sides, wall sides. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's right. MR. CARVIN-You'd be able to hang signs allover the building. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. That was the idea. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's pretty clear. Did you read this? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And you still gave the permit? MR. MARTIN-It's a building. It's a business. It's on a corner. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it says right here. It's pretty clear that you get one freestanding. MR. MARTIN-Yes. My interpretation of it was that's honing it down more for a Shopping Center, but the Letter C, I thought, was a general rule that applies to buildings, with businesses on corner lots, whether within the building there happens to be three or more businesses, and now all of a sudden it's a shopping center. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-It's still a building on a corner. MR. TURNER-Section 6.103, the Sign Ordinance that we're using right now, Paragraph Four, identifies Shopping Center, and tells what they can have for signage. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. TURNER-The other one has to do with the separate but single business on a street corner. MR. MARTIN-See, that's where I, I thought that applied to buildings on corner lots. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-This is even more. Shopping Center, one freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center shall be permitted for each entrance. Each occupant of the shopping center shall be permitted only one wall sign. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. That's why Ted said he could have another freestanding on 149, but no wall signs. No more than one wall sign, which is what the Ordinance reads. MR. TURNER-Whether you're on a corner or not. - 18 - MR. RENZI-Okay. Would you have an objection if we waived the right to have a pylon sign, to have that sign on the end of the building, that one on the other end of the building? MRS. EGGLESTON-You're denying all the other tenants from having a freestanding on 149 as well. MR. RENZI-That is correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. So, you can't speak for all the other tenants. MR. RENZI-I'm speaking for Lake George Associates. If you read the letter. . MR. TURNER-If you want to do that, you'll have to file another application. because I'm not going to entertain it. MRS. EGGLESTON-We could wind up with two freestandings and the wall signs, because the other ones maybe want a freestanding on 149. MR. RENZI-At this point though, what I'm saying is, it's been waived in the past, and I believe that, if I'm not mistaken, back in 1988, when I came in front of the Board, I believe that the reason that we got a sign on the end of that building is because we waived the right on that pylon sign. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if he's actually proved the practical difficulty at this point either. I mean, there's been no impact, as far as, in other words, they've got authorized signage that's a lot different than this last case. I mean, there's not a visibility problem there. I mean, it's not like you're tucked in a corner, and certainly, as Ted has indicated, traffic moving up through there, I mean, there's plenty of opportunity for people to see those three or four shops. MR. RENZI-Okay. How long does a standard permit stand valid. in respect to when it's issued, to the point that it has to be executed? As far as security permit for the 60 square feet on the pylon sign, a year from now, could we come back and change those signs to the 60 square feet on the pylon sign? MR. CARVIN-I would assume. I can't speak for the Board, but, I mean, as long as it's in compliance. MR. TURNER-You've got 60 square feet now, right? MR. RENZI-That's what's there now. We're reducing it to 42. MR. TURNER-You're going to reduce it to 42. MR. RENZI-Right. MR. TURNER-What's the setback on the sign? MR. CARVIN-As long as it's, what, 15 feet. I think? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, 15. MR. TURNER-Fifteen feet? Fifteen feet. He's allowed 50 square feet at 15 feet, and 64 square feet at 25 feet. MR. RENZI-Okay. Again, all I can state is that we are trying to have an aesthetic value, balance to this location. We're trying to do it by reducing some square foot. If you look at the square footage of the signs on the building now, all the building signs will be comparable square footage to what we're proposing. So we are really trying to work with you in this, and basically all I can ask is for you to consider what we've proposed. MR. TURNER-Do you have any comment, Chris? - 19 - MR. THOMAS-No. I read the Ordinance, and it's in black and white what they can and can't have. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's pretty clear. MR. TURNER-Yes. Any further questions of the applicant? Let me open the public hearing. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? All right. Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 23-1993 J. BAKER. INC. BIG & TALL CASUAL MALE, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant has proposed a second wall sign, which is in conflict wi th Section 140-6B (3) (d), which states that a shopping center shall be permitted one freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center. and one wall sign for each tenant of the shopping center. The applicant has not shown that there are special circumstances or conditions that apply which would warrant the granting of this variance, and it is felt that there is a reasonable use of the land or signage, under the current Ordinance. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1993 TYPE I WR-1A CEA JOSEPH W. & MARY CAROLYN SHAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTHEASTERLY SHORELINE PARCEL ON ASSEMBLY POINT WITH FRONTAGE ON HARRIS BAY. LOCATED ON A DIRT DRIVE EXTENSION OF BRAYTON LANE. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SEASONAL CAMP AND REPLACE WITH AN EXPANDED YEAR ROUND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY- TWO HUNDREDTHS (0.42) ACRE FROM REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT AREA OF ONE (1) ACRE AND SIXTY-FOUR (64) FEET RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET AS PER SECTION 179-16C. APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET RELIEF FROM THE REQUIRED SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET SHORELINE SETBACK AS PER SECTION 179-60(B)(1)(c). APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-70 WHICH REQUIRES THAT EVERY PRINCIPLE BUILDING BE BUILT ON A PUBLIC STREET IMPROVED TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: MAY 12. 1993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 6-3-26 LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES SECTION 179-60(B)(1)(c), 179-16C. 179-70 WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-Should we do that first, Ted, rescind the motion? MR. TURNER-Yes. Lets rescind the motion made by Fred last night. MOTION TO RESCIND THE MOTION OF APRIL THE 27TH. 1993 WITH REGARDS TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1993, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Which dealt with the side yard setback being not advertised properly. - 20 - Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles MRS. EGGLESTON-And again, the Warren County Planning Board is meeting tonight, and whatever we do will hinge upon their passing, it getting by their Board. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 24-1993, Joseph & Mary Carolyn Shay, Meeting Date: April 28, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to demolish an existing thirteen hundred (1,300) square foot seasonal dwelling and replace it with a twenty- four hundred (2,400) square foot year round single family dwelling. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Area of proposed project is fifty-eight hundredths (.58) acre and applicant is seeking relief of forty-two (.42) hundredths acre from Section 179- 16C, which requires a minimum lot area of one (1) acre. 2. Applicant is proposing thirty (30) feet as the shoreline setback and is seeking relief of forty-five (45) feet as per Section 179- 60B(1)(c), which requires seventy-five (75) feet setback from the shoreline. 3. Applicant is also seeking relief from Section 179- 70, which requires that every principle building be built on a public street improved to meet the standards of the Town of Queensbury. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements is that the proposed size of the project in conjunction with restrictions of the topography and required distance from distribution mound, limits placement of structure which meets zoning requirements. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific difficulty of the physical limi tations of the parcel in conjunction with proposed size of project and other than down sizing the project, and placing it further from the shoreline, there is no other option available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? Although it would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to the district or the neighborhood as the project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and district, intensification of the use of the property is a continuing concern regarding the deterioration of the water quality of Lake George. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: This parcel is located along the shore of Lake George which is a designated Critical Environmental Area. The parcel is preexisting and nonconforming containing a seasonal one story single family dwelling. The main concern with replacement of a seasonal camp with a year round dwelling is 'that the intensification of the use of the shoreline property has been associated with the deterioration of the Lake's water quality. This is a concern that is worsened by the density of development of the Lake's shoreline and the continuing trend of conversion of seasonal camps to year round dwellings." MR. TURNER-Let me ask just one question before we start with the application. Is the Board satisfied that this application is different enough to hear it, than the last one? - 21 - '- MR. PHILO-The only thing I see is 1. something, five feet? MR. TURNER-No. There was 25, I think, on the other one, and this one was 30. It's five feet. You're right. MR. PHILO-Yes. I don't see any reason why they couldn't go back. MR. TURNER-Well, lets decide if we're going to hear it, first, and then, if we're going to hear it, we'll ask him the questions. What do you think? MR. CARVIN-Well. I mean, from a technical standpoint, they did move it back five feet. So I guess it has been changed, but I think it's a minor change. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's a minor change. MR. THOMAS-It's a change, a minor change. They've angled the house a little. They've changed the shape of the footprint a little, some, moving it back. MR. TURNER-I think, in fairness to the applicant, in order for us to rationalize the application, we should hear the application, and hear him out, and vote as we so see it. MRS. EGGLESTON-I agree with that. MR. PHILO-I'll second that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Rehm? MR. REHM-Thank you, Mr. Turner. I would like to introduce Clark Shaunessy, who is the architect that has prepared the plans that have been submitted to the Board, and he is also responsible for that relatively long letter which you had to read tonight. Next time. if there is a next time, on some other project, I can assure you the letter will be a little bit shorter. Also, Mr. and Mrs. Shay are sitting in the second row there, here from the Syracuse area tonight, and I want you to know that this has been a fairly difficult situation, and I appreciate the cooperation of the Board, and also the cooperation of Mr. Dusek, in hearing this application. A real effort has been made to try to reconfigure this project in a way that it would meet some of the concerns of the Board. It would also give the land owner, who has a very substantial investment in this property, that which we think is reasonable use of the property, and it's also consistent with the neighborhood, and consistent with that entire area of the lake. We think what we're proposing is not something that is unusual or new. We think- it is not only consistent with that which exists. We think it really is consistent with that which this Board has approved on a number of occasions in the past. I know that you've probably seen the revised plans. I would like to take a little time, though, to specifically indicate to you what these plans mean, and if you need another set, we've got a couple of extra sets. Would that be helpful? MR. TURNER-I think we've all got them. MR. PHILO-Is there a full basement under that? CLARK SHAUNESSY MR. SHAUNESSY-No. MR. TURNER-It's partial. MR. SHAUNESSY-We can't have a full basement. MR. TURNER-Can't have it. - 22 - MR. PHILO-Why type of rock is there? MR. REHM-It's ledge. MR. PHILO-I know. What kind, lime rock? MR. REHM-It's basically a mixture of granite, lime, a little bit of everything, mostly granite in that area. MR. TURNER-Adirondack Granite. MR. REHM-In any event, if you look at the plan that Mr. Shaunessy has prepared, you'll see the outline of the existing house, and I think several of you have visited the lot, and you know that there's an existing house that's got about 1300 square feet, that is located, at it's closest point. 13 feet from the lake. That house is currently used by the Shays on a seasonal basis, and is served by a sewage disposal system which is located just at this corner of the house, and that sewage disposal system is probably about 30 feet from the lake, 33 feet from the lake I think, to be exact. So what you have on this lot right now, in the lakeshore, is this existing building which is proposed to be removed, and a sewage disposal system which has been there for probably 30 or more years, and is located very close to the lake. Now, also superimposed on this, is the footprint of the new structure, and so you can see how that relates to the location of the existing structure, it is now setback, and the structure itself, the building itself, is now about 45 feet from the lake. Now I put together a little series of photocopies that I'll hand to you which I think will help you to understand how this has all come about, and I know that maybe some of you already understand it, but it's worth going through. This is four pages of photocopies, and the first page is an exhibit that I showed you last time, which is the location of the houses along the lakeshore in that area. Coulter & McCormack compiled this from the shoreline maps which are available. and actually went out and checked the location of these houses. The house in the middle that I showed you, which is in blue, is the existing Shay house. Now, if you look at the next page, I have outlined the existing Shay house in blue, and I have shown you the location of the proposed house as it was originally proposed, and you'll see that the house with the deck was substantially as close to the lake as the existing house. Now, prior to the hearing on that application, there was a letter received from a neighbor, Mr. Doyle, who said that he thought that that house, the house in that location would interfere with his view. He lives right over here, and the house, in that location, would have been up here, and while Mr. Shaunessy felt that it would not interfere with his view, because he would still have substantially the same view, they are neighbors. and they've been neighbors and friends for many years, the Shays thought it would be wise to move the house back a little bit so we go to the third page, and you'll see the location of the house as it was at the time that the application was heard in February, and there was a site line drawn from the Doyle house, to indicate that his view was not effected. The fourth and last page is documented simply a photocopy of this, which shows that the house is now moved back further, and shows actual dimensions. The house itself, at its closest point to the lake, is 43.8 feet. The deck, at its closest point, which it's been very substantially down sized, if you look at the deck, in Photocopy Number One, and compare it to that, you'll see that it's much, much smaller. This not only improves Mr. Doyle's view considerably. but improves the view to the people on the other side, as they would be looking down into the Bay, toward the Yard Arm Marina. Now, I've also submitted to you engineering plans showing the location of the sewage disposal system, and we talked about that a little bit last time, but I think I should at least mention that to you now. I also want to point out to you that on these engineering plans. the location of the house has hot been changed. This is the old location, but this is the location of the existing sewage disposal system. It's about - 23 - 33 feet from the lake. Right here, you can see. This is the location of the proposed new system, which is a Wisconsin Mound system. We've submitted detailed engineering plans, which I think you probably have in your packages. At least a couple of months ago they were available. The proposal would be to pump the sewage up hill, to this area. This is really the best, I talked to the engineer again. This is really the best area on this lot to dispose of sewage. It's got a good separation from the lake, pretty good soils, although a Mound system is indicated. There's another area up in here that I suppose, the engineer said he doesn't really want to use for sewage disposal because of seasonal pooling of water in that area, and I don't know if there was pooling when you were over there, but there's pooling now anyway. It's nowhere's near as good an area. MR. PHILO-What is the distance f~om the back of that house, or from the house? MR. REHM-The house now? MR. PHILO-To the Mound System. MR. REHM-It's now about 25 feet. MR. PHILO-No, to the new proposed Mound System. MR. REHM-From the back of the new house to this, is about 25 feet. Maybe what the problem is, is I mentioned, this is not the location of the new house that is currently proposed. This whole business has been moved back to here, and you have the current plans in front of you. MR. PHILO-That's 30 feet, right, for the deck. MR. REHM-Thirty feet, yes, that way. MR. PHILO-And you're telling me from here to that Mound system up here? MR. REHM-No. That Mound System is right here. You see this little jog in the line? That jog in the line, so your Mound System is right here. So you can't practically get too much closer to that. MR. PHILO-You can't move that Mound System back? I was up there, and looked at that, 30 feet. MR. REHM-Well, in terms of, I'm not an engineer. MR. PHILO-With proper grading, you're the engineer? MR. REHM-No. The engineer is not here, but this was the preferred location on this lot, for sewage disposal. This also was reviewed by Rist-Frost. I think, and they agreed with that. JOE SHAY MR. SHAY-That's bedrock, too, Walter, for the most part, behind. the proposed Mound System is bedrock until you get behind the garage. MR. REHM-Yes. I would just say, for the record, Mr. Shay was indicating that this is bedrock in here, and then we've got setback problems up here. So, it's really a, plus this is. MR. PHILO-How far down is the bedrock? MR. SHAY-I couldn't answer you, because we've never, it's on the surface. It's all above the surface. How far it goes, I suppose. MR. PHILO-Was there any cover over it, now? - 24 - MR. SHAY-Very little. MR. PHILO-Because I didn't see it. MR. SHAY-That whole strip down through there is granite, not just our property, but that whole. MR. REHM-This is the sort of issue I kind of have to defer to the Town's Engineers and the applicant's engineers, both of whom have reviewed this and have, I believe, been of the opinion that this was a better area. It narrows out up in this area. You have to maintain setbacks for sewage disposal systems. There are further problems with pumping. If there is bedrock in here, and if you're going to winterize the sewage line, you're going to have to blast through the bedrock in order to get the thing down, I suppose, below the frost level, although I'm, again, not an engineer, but it's got to be pumped back up. MR. TURNER-Okay, but just let me, maybe I can help him out a little bit. Tommy, on this one here, see the test holes, Test Hole One is right in, six inches of blacktop soil, six to forty-two inches of red brown and gray, silt and clay. That'll help answer your question. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, to the right, it gives you the, over to the right, it gives you the sites for the Mound. MR. SHAY-I'm Joe Shay. I feel we have a unique pocket, almost, that we've found to put in this septic system, which is, and again, I'm not an engineer, but it's contained by the granite front and back. So I really think it's a unique opportunity to protect the lake, that not many areas are going to have the kind of barrier between the pocket and the shoreline that we have with all the granite that exists on the property. Behind it, which includes the garage, is granite. Then, in back of the garage, is where we develop this, it's a wet water area in the spring and rainy season, so the water table is fairly high. If you went up there now, you'd see. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. We saw it when we were there. MR. SHAY-But that usually will, maybe by summer, start to, it's always wet in there. MR. TURNER-Okay, Mr. Rehm, do you have anything further? MR. REHM-I have a couple of things further. The intent, here, is to locate this house, which is a reasonably sized house. It's not a particularly large house, by the standards that are being built on the lake today, is to locate this house on this lot, in a way that it provides the applicant with a view, and it's a beautiful view of the lake, so that it's far enough back from the lake, so that it is generally in conformance with all of the other houses that are built along the lake shore, in that area, so that it provides an adequate area for sewage disposal, and so that it is a tremendous improvement over that which is there, and it is a tremendous improvement, because you have the new sewage disposal system, and you're removing this old building that is within 13 feet of the lake, and it gives a great benefit to the neighborhood, and I think it's completely wi thin the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance, and as we look at the new standards for variances, which is no longer practical difficulty, as you know, which it is now, the Town Law has been changed so that the standard is, it's a balancing act between weighing the benefit of the application to the landowner, as opposed to the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community and the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-Right. Could I ask one question, Mr. Rehm? The deck, now I know you've made a lot of modifications to the deck. Is it possible to put the deck on the other side of the house? I don't - 25 - " know. I think it's probably better to show you here. MR. SHAUNESSY-It's possible to move the deck around to two different configurations. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well. I'm certainly a long ways from an architect, but looking, if this is going to be the approximate floor plan, and in view of your desire to have a view, it would seem to me that you would pick up, see, my main concern is I want to try to get the house back as far as I can from the lake without upsetting your desire, here, and it looks like you probably would pick up six foot on the eastern side, if you took that whole deck right out and put it right over on the western side. MR. SHAUNESSY-Yes. We would. MR. CARVIN-Okay, which would actually but right up to the living room, and I'm assuming that you've got a, what looks like a window here. MR. SHAUNESSY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And made that into a door out onto the deck, and where you've got the door, make that a window. MR. SHAUNESSY-Right. MR. CARVIN-And you would gain, MR. SHAUNESSY-Five foot, five inches. MR. CARVIN-Away from the lake, so you'd be, probably 40 feet. MR. PHILO-I think that would make everybody happy. MR. CARVIN-You'd be 40 feet from the closest point, and then you'd be. considerably more. You'd probably be almost 40 feet all the way around. and you really wouldn't be any. you'd come into the middle of about where the wall is on the existing house. So, you certainly, I wouldn't have a problem granting a variance from the side yard setback of a few feet. MR. SHAUNESSY-I'd have no trouble moving the deck around. quite flexible. It is MR. CARVIN-I mean, and that way you don't have to back the house up the hill another five or six feet. You've moved it back five feet, which we certainly would appreciate, but by moving that deck, I think you pick up another five or 10 feet. MR. TURNER-I agree. MR. SHAUNESSY-I have no problem with that. MR. PHILO-I think that solved everything. MR. SHAUNESSY-Okay. MR. CARVIN-And that way they could go out in the morning and look at the lake. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anything further? Okay. No further questions, let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 26 - MR. TURNER-Any Correspondence? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Ted, the resolution should contain a contingency that a new plan be submitted to our Department, which depicts that, and accompany any building permit as well. So we don't get conflicting records here. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if we can move on it tonight without that, can we? I mean. because we need to know the specific side yard setback, unless they're going to stay within the 30 feet, which makes an awful weird looking deck. MR. TURNER-No, they're not. They won't be able to. MR. REHM-Well, if we can stay within the required setback, we will. MR. CARVIN-I mean, you can, but it's not going to be a very pretty deck. MR. REHM-I understand that. If not, I suppose it will require coming back, unless you can amend it tonight. I mean, I've done that many times. MR. TURNER-I don't think we should, right at this point. I'd rather see the amended application and see what we've got to, I'd rather grant you what you've got to have exactly. That's our procedure. MR. REHM-But this could be granted tonight with the location of the deck, so long as it doesn't violate the setback. MR. TURNER-That way would be good, yes. MR. CARVIN-The only other question I have is, how are we going to address the relief from the public road? Have we ever addressed that? I don't know if we got that far. MR. REHM-Could I say something on that? nonexisting thing. I don't even think because there's a building there. I think this is a prior a variance is required, MR. TURNER-Yes, but does the Town plow it? Do they plow all the way in? MR. REHM-No, they don't. MR. TURNER-So they don't maintain it. Who maintains the road? MR. REHM-Land owners themselves. MR. TURNER-Okay. Then it's not on a public highway. MR. REHM-It' s not on a public highway, but a building already exists. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but, I mean, you still your relief. MRS. EGGLESTON-You might better have it, Mr. Rehm. MR. REHM-That would be fine, if you could do it. MR. TURNER-We'll do it. If you want to grant them the relief, grant them the relief based on the fact that they don't violate the side yard setback, it would be contingent upon not violating the side yard setback. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I've got no problem with the acreage. MR. TURNER-That a new plan be presented to the Planning Department, indicating the change. - 27 - MR. CARVIN-It might be better for you to do it, Ted. You've had more experience with it. MR. TURNER-Mr. Shaunessy, you've got your ruler there. Can you give me the dimensions that would apply from the shoreline to the building, without the deck. MR. SHAUNESSY-Well. the where you're looking, I have the 45. That doesn't change. Where I have the 43 foot 8, that doesn't change. Then where I have the 30 foot, the 30 foot changes. From the corner where it says 43 ft. 8 in., down the nearest shoreline that now says 30, that would become 40. Over here, where the word "wood" in wood deck, where it says "wood", there's a dimension there of 35 ft. 5 in. That's what it would be 35 ft. 5 in., at that corner. MR. CARVIN-Now, are those steps? MR. SHAUNESSY-Those are steps, right. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but if you take the deck out, the steps would go. What's the width of the steps? You said 5.5? MR. SHAUNESSY-The 35 ft. 5 in. dimension that I have there is from the shoreline to the corner of the house, right through the steps. There's a little arrow there, right in the corner of the house. HR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-See, that's what I thought the 35 ft. 5 in. was, to here. MRS. EGGLESTON-So that's not going to change. That's going to stay the same. MR. CARVIN-Then our variance would have been wrong anyway. MR. SHAUNESSY-Well, the 30 goes up to 35 ft. 5 in. at the narrowest point. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Okay. The 30.0 will go to 40. The 30.3? MR. SHAUNESSY-Essentially goes to 35 ft. 5 in. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thirty five feet five inches, all right. His confusion is with, see the 30.3? MR. SHAUNESSY-Yes, that's to the corner of the deck. MR. CARVIN-That's to the corner of the deck. Okay. So from the corner of the deck to the corner of the house, how far is that? Is that 10 feet or 5 feet? MR. SHAUNESSY-Well, from the corner of the deck to the corner of the house is another 12 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that would make that 42 ft. 5 in., right? MRS. EGGLESTON-Forty-two feet five inches, right? MR. SHAUNESSY-Forty-two feet three inches. MR. CARVIN-forty-two feet three inches, yes. MR. TURNER-He doesn't own that right there. That's a neighbor's wood dock. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that doesn't matter then. We don't have to - 28 - worry about that. Very good. That takes that out, okay. So we actually have 42 feet. How would you propose to make the deck on the other side, in other words, for the side yard, just square it off? MR. SHAUNESSY-It would have to have a truncated side. MR. PHILO-Just a mirror image of what you've got there. MR. CARVIN-No, because he's going to violate the side yard setback. MR. TURNER-He might not. MR. CARVIN-Unless they make the deck right along the side yard setback. MR. SHAUNESSY-The deck will have to have an angled side. MR. CARVIN-In other words, there's no opposition to just running it right along that line, then? MR. SHAUNESSY-No. I think, it'll still leave quite a bit of area. MR. CARVIN-Then you really won't need any side yard setback at all. MR. SHAUNESSY-That's right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So your deck actually would run right along the, like that. So we don't need any side yard setback. MR. TURNER-No. MR. REHM-Just to make it absolutely clear. on this plan. there's the 19 inch side line setback problem, and a 5 inch problem, and we're going to remove those. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. CARVIN-So you will remain within the side yard setback. So the only thing is that we just need relief in the front from the lake. MR. TURNER-From the front. MRS. EGGLESTON-And lot size. MR. TURNER-And lot width. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-And the road. MR. TURNER-Frontage on a Town road. Okay. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. CAROLYN SHAY, Introduced by Theodore adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: 24-1993 Turner JOSEPH W. who moved & MARY for its Grant the applicant relief from the shoreline setback of the required 75 feet, a relief of 32.7 feet. I would grant relief from the lot width of .42 acre, and I would grant relief for frontage on a Town road. The difficulty with the application, the applicant's proposal, is the irregular shaped lot, preexisting nonconforming lot. The applicant has physical constraints on the property due to ledge rock, and the need to put in a new septic system further enhances the environmental concerns. The applicant's structure which now exists on the property is in much needed repair and it is not practical to rebuild the existing structure. In conversations with the applicant at the site, the applicant indicated that the existing garage that's on the property will be removed after final construction, and the shed also. This variance will not create an - 29 - undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, but will further the character of the neighborhood. There is no neighborhood opposition. This is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The applicant's architect will submit a new plan. designating the changes addressed at this hearing by May 10th, 1993. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1993 TYPE II HC-1A PC-1A TIERNAN. BERNSTEIN AND PINCHUK OWNER: 73 QUAKER ROAD ASSOC.. L. P. APPICANT - O'TOOLE RESTAURANT - IS SEEKING FORTY-FIVE (45) FOOT RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-28 WHICH REQUIRES SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET SETBACK IN THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE FOR AN EXISTING DECK ATTACHED TO A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS STRUCTURE (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: MAY 12. 1993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 104-1-4.4. 4.32 LOT SIZE: 6.91 ACRES SECTION 179-28 STEVE HAWKINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRE~ENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And again, the Warren County Planning Board is having their hearing tonight, and we don't have the results, but whatever we do will hinge on their passing it on their Board. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-1993, Tiernan, Bernstein and Pinchuk 0' Toole's Restaurant, Meeting Date: April 28, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant has expanded an existing commercial structure with an unenclosed deck to the north side of the structure. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. The existing deck is set back thirty (30) feet from the property line and applicant is seeking relief of forty-five (45) feet from Section 179-28C, which requires all structures within the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone to be set back seventy-five (75) feet from the edge of the road right-of-way. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements is that the principal structure is nonconforming in its setback from the road and the existing expansion further intrudes on the required setback from the road right-of-way. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty and there is no other option available that would require no variance as there is no other practical place to site the deck. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? The purpose of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone and it's attendant seventy-five (75) foot setback is to allow widening of the Town's major arterials for future growth and also to maintain the rural character of these roadways, therefore, to the degree that the setback is encroached upon by the expansion, diminishes the intent of the Overlay Zone. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: In February 1990, appl icant was granted an Area Variance (Number 17 -1990), for a proposed fifty (50) foot setback for a Road. The required setback is seventy-five feet from the road right-of-way. The accompanying si te plan did not depict a patio or deck on the side of the - 30 - structure facing Quaker Road. In September 1990, applicant's site plan (No. 68-80) was approved for the Plaza. Accompanying site plan depicted a twenty by forty (20 x 40) foot patio attached to said structure and facing Quaker Road. In August 1991, the approved site plan (Number 68-80) was amended to accommodate proposed changes to internal islands and curbing. In April 1992, applicant was issued a building permit for a patio/deck. which was based on the approved plat that accompanied the site plan review application. Applicant built a deck, which is subject to setback requirements of the principal building, and did so without seeking a variance for the nonconforming setback from the road right-of- way. .. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. HAWKINS-Hi. I'm Steve Hawkins. I'm the owner of 0' Toole's Glens Falls/Queensbury. I'm not quite sure why we're going through this tonight. I guess, just let me give you a little history. I'm the sub-tenant of the property. I lease from O'Toole's, which sits in Buffalo. They lease from the owner, which is Tiernan, Bernstein, and Pinchuk in New York. I became a tenant in 1991, I guess, and from the day I started talking with everybody, it was always a deck, in the lease, the plans, the drawings that I ever saw, and initially, because the funds ran out, we didn't do it when we first opened up in August of 1991. When it came time last spring. to do it, we went to the Town, and said, what do we need to do this, this was like February or so, and all be approved in the site plan, and basically in March, April, they issued the bUilding permit, and I guess I completed the deck around April or May. It wasn't until a few months ago. I guess, we ran into problems, and the variances weren't issued properly or whatever, but basically I'm here to try to make it right. I've spent several funds into putting on the deck. I think it's a very attractive deck. I don't think it has any negative effects on Quaker Road. I certainly want to keep it there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me just explain one thing. When they applied for the variance for the bank, they had a 51 foot setback from the building, which is on the west side. That didn't indicate any deck at all. That's why there was never a variance given for it. MR. HAWKINS-What's the date on that? MR. TURNER-January 1990. They submitted another plan to the Planning Board in June of 1990 showing the deck. That's where they clashed. MR. HAWKINS-I became involved around June of 1990, I guess. Every one I saw did have a deck on it, and my lease had a deck on it. MR. TURNER-We've got two different sets of plans. Board had one and we got one. Totally different. The Planning MR. HAWKINS-Well, there were changes. MR. TURNER-But any setback has to come here. They might have drawn a line in there, and you could have had a patio, and that would have been fine, and the minute you have to put the railing and the rest of the stuff up, then it becomes part of the structure. Then it requires setback relief. MR. HAWKINS-Well, like I say, we thought we had it, and then when I went to get the building permit. this is essentially my plan. MR. TURNER-Let me just say to you, Mr. Hawkins, I question, the minute I saw that deck there, I questioned it a long time ago, when I first saw it going up, because I knew we didn't grant a variance for it. MR. HAWKINS-Okay. How did I get a zoning permit and spend all this - 31 - money? I did everything by the book. MR. TURNER-Somebody goofed. MR. HAWKINS-Okay. It wasn't me. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying it's you. MR. HAWKINS-Obviously, a lot of parties were involved, and my landlord is not here tonight, but there's a lot of stories. MR. PHILO-You're the owner of the building, sir? MR. HAWKINS-No. I'm the owner of the business. The owner of the building is in New York. MR. CARVIN-I'm going to ask a hypothetical. If you were to lose the deck, and I'm not saying that you are. don't misconstrue me, how would your business be affected by that? MR. HAWKINS-Well, obviously, negatively, but. MR. CARVIN-Would you have a feel for numbers? MR. HAWKINS-Twenty percent. Worse than that. $20,000 invested in the deck and the furniture. I've got nearly MR. PHILO-Did you pay for it yourself? MR. HAWKINS-I paid for it, yes. and I don't own it either. The landlord, essentially, owns it. MR. CARVIN-I'm trying to approach this kind of on a reverse. In other words, because if you were to come to us, in other words, lets say that everything had gone "according to file" then you would have to tell us why you wanted the relief, and so we're kind of approaching this horse from the other end. Now, you've had the deck, however it got built. MR. MARTIN-There's another fine point that I think needs to be made. Clearly, it was not shown on the plan that was before the Zoning Board. In that six month period, it was explained to me, because I talked to the owners, they were soliciting O'Toole's at the time they were before you people, but nothing was firm yet or signed up. They had 0' Toole's signed on that spring, after you gave your variance approval, in early 1990, and the owners of the Plaza had been to several O'Toole's Restaurants and saw, well, a lot of them had decks on them, and they're very popular, and very successful, so lets add a deck onto our Plaza now, since O'Toole's, now, is a tenant, and they went their designers, or their engineers or architects and said, put a deck on, or a patio, and that's what was shown. That's why it's on the site plan that came before the Planning Board in the middle of 1990, and I was on the Board at the time. We never saw any plan that the Zoning Board approved. We just saw the plan that was in our packets, or with our application, and that was assumed to be the one that you approved. MR. TURNER-I've got to tell you something. Those guys came to us a couple of different times, and they knew they had to have a setback from the road, for anything they did, because they were granted relief on that building on the end for 51 feet from 75 feet. Their argument is ludicrous. MR. MARTIN-The other fine point to be made, from the standpoint of what actually happened with the patio is, the patio was shown, and patio, in my definition, is an at grade slab, like a sidewalk, and therefore would not, as Ted said, fall under your review, because it's not a part of the building, but as soon as the structure was put up, in the form of a deck, and decks are part of the structure and fall under the setback requirement. Part of the reason why a - 32 - ~' deck was built is because he serves alcohol out here, and a confined area is a requirement of that alcohol, or the liquor license. So, that is part of the reason why it went from a patio to a deck. MR. PHILO-It should have been brought back. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's why it's here now. I mean, at least it's here now, but it should have been brought back earlier. MR. PHILO-I believe it's come on an awful hardship for this man. Those guys knew what they were doing. MR. TURNER-They knew exactly what they were doing, Tommy. Tiernan, Bernstein. and Pinchuk knew exactly what they were doing. They submitted an application that was false. MR. PHILO-They tell me a 50 foot setback, brother, that includes that patio. MR. TURNER-They got a variance for that. No, it doesn't include the patio. They got a variance for the 51 foot setback from Quaker Road to the building. Then what they did, six months later after they signed this gentleman up, they give another plan to the Planning Department showing the patio and then he had to conform. because he served drinks out there. MR. MARTIN-In dimensional numbers, what is essentially is asked here for is, the bank I believe is granted a relief of nine feet. It's a 41 feet, or I'm sorry, well, it's a 41 feet from the property line. The patio would be 11 feet more at 30. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-We're dealing with human lives sitting here. though. MR. TURNER-Sitting out there. That's the problem I have with it. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's absolutely no protection, if a car went crazy on Quaker Road, or came down out of the Country Club Road. I think that. in our papers it tells us we have to look out for the safety and welfare of people. I think that comes into play here. In fact, I hear a lot of people say, how could you ever let that go there. That's the comments that I've heard, because of the jeopardy of a car coming along and sweeping through. It happens, it just happens. It just happened. You hear of these things. They just happen. MR. TURNER-It's kind of just kitty corner of the Country Club Road, and somebody coming down the Country Club Road could come across that road, and come smack right into that deck. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It's just too close to a super highway. MR. HAWKINS-You go to the bank, too, I mean those things can happen anywhere. MR. TURNER-I agree with you. MRS. EGGLESTON-But that's a different type of a highway. There's a lot of traffic on there, and they go like the devil, too. MR. TURNER-That went from two lane to four lane. MR. PHILO-You see how close you are to that water line? going to happen if they have to take that water line up? going to take part of your deck out. What's They're MR. HAWKINS-I don't know where the lines run. - 33 - MR. PHILO-Do you see where the fire hydrant is there? MR. HAWKINS-Yes. MR. PHILO-That's on an off set, isn't it? MR. HAWKINS-I think it goes underneath, though. but I'm not sure. I don't think Bernstein intentionally deceived anybody. MR. TURNER-I've got to tell you they did. because they were here a couple of different times, and they knew. MR. HAWKINS-I know they were here a lot of times. They had a lot of problems. MR. TURNER-I know, but they knew they got relief from that setback right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-They knew they could only go 50 feet from the Quaker Road. MR. HAWKINS-Yes, on the building, but. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what? MR. TURNER-Well, when the patio becomes part of the structure, then that counts. MR. HAWKINS-Even this one, which is probably dated late June, so's the bank, has the patio landscaped and that, and I don't know what the definition is between a patio and a deck, a patio has wood on it, but if I'd have gone concrete, I'm not sure it would have been any different. MR. CARVIN-Is there a curb out in front there? MRS. EGGLESTON-I do not believe there is. MR. TURNER-There's just a guardrail. MRS. EGGLESTON-There isn't even that, is there? MR. TURNER-There isn't much of anything. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. There's nothing, because I looked today. Just a grassy knoll that goes from the road, goes right down to the patio. Do you know where the water lines are, through there, Jim? MR. MARTIN-It appears that it runs right under the deck. MR. TURNER-Under the deck. MRS. EGGLESTON-It runs under the deck? MR. TURNER-Yes, but that's no problem. MR. PHILO-When they tear that off, they tear the deck off. MR. TURNER-No. They'll just tear the deck off, or punch a hole in it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you know you were putting that over the Town water lines, one of the main lines of Quaker Road, the Town water line? You didn't know that? MR. HAWKINS-I did not. MR. TURNER-They never told you or gave you any indication, they were just interested in getting you in there and getting your money. - 34 - MR. HAWKINS-They had nothing to do with me putting the deck on. It was provided for in the lease. MR. MARTIN-I do have to say, in fairness. an issue like that, this site plan was seen by Tom Yarmowich, and the patio is shown over the water line. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but I mean. they came to us. initially, for the two setbacks for the bank and the building on the end. MR. MARTIN-No. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the water line. MR. HAWKINS-I wouldn't say they encouraged me or forced me to put the deck on. MR. PHILO-What happens if they have a break in that water line and they have to take that deck off, because that's real wet there, brother. They had pumps pumping. when they put that water line in. MR. HAWKINS-We didn't have any problems this spring. MR. THOMAS-It seems to me that the owners there. Tiernan, Bernstein, and Pinchuk, slide one in on us, or on the Town. MR. TURNER-They did. MR. THOMAS-I was just thinking that maybe from now on, anything that's approved like this, should have the Chairman's signature on it. So that when it goes to the next Board, they know nothing's changed. MR. PHILO-And the print marked. MR. TURNER-Well, it was six months. It was January to June. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but in this case here, Mr. Hawkins has already put the money into it. He's already got, but it's just a safety thing there, too. If there was something they could do to deflect a car flying through there somehow, with guardrails or something, fender posts. MR. TURNER-Would you be agreeable to putting up some barriers? MR. THOMAS-Some kind of barrier or something. MR. TURNER-In front of it. around the back of it. to kind of keep it isolated from the roadway? MR. HAWKINS-I guess, I know on one side we've got Northway Floors. They have a planter unit, I guess, which is some type of a barrier. I believe the telephone pole there, I think there's some natural barriers. I don't know what effect they have. MR. CARVIN-I'm under the impression that there was, too. I looked at it, but I'll be dipped if I couldn't. MR. HAWKINS-I mean, I've sat on the deck sometimes, myself, not that I was concerned, but to see what kind of barriers there are. MR. PHILO-That comes right down to lawn, because I ran the tape out, and I had the transit set right on that corner, and I walked right up through there. MR. CARVIN-Well, you've got to remember. I think utilization, you're probably lucky if you're starting to, I don't know, is it opened now? MR. HAWKINS-Well, we'd like to have it open, if the weather cooperated. - 35 - MRS. EGGLESTON-How long did you operate without it, before you put it on? MR. HAWKINS-Well, we opened up at the end of August, 1991, and basically summer was over, and we just opened it up last summer. MRS. EGGLESTON-So you operated a year without it? MR. HAWKINS-Well. really not a summer. We've operated every summer with it. MRS. EGGLESTON-And did you have a reasonable return on your business without that patio? MR. HAWKINS-We weren't open. We opened up the first of September. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm not talking about with the patio. MR. CARVIN-I know there were people out there last fall, for example. When was the patio fully functional, I guess? MR. HAWKINS-Last May. MR. TURNER-Previous to the patio, her question is, did you realize a reasonable return on your business? MR. HAWKINS-It's hard to compare. MR. TURNER-You were there such a short term. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you realize a reasonable return on your business before the patio was added, is the question? MR. HAWKINS-It's hard to answer that question. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you know if you're making money or if you're not making money. MR. HAWKINS-But you don't make your business on two months open. At this point in time. MRS. EGGLESTON-So you're saying it hasn't been open that much, even since you added it on? MR. HAWKINS-Well, I was going to say. the deck, May through September, last year, and now it's open, but partially open, due to the weather. MR. CARVIN-I guess, is the activity out there almost constant all day long, or do you think that there's more evening or more lunch time? MR. HAWKINS-It's steady. Again, depending on the weather, it's very much popular for lunch. On a nice evening, it's terrific, in spite of Quaker Road being there. MR. CARVIN-Well, when I went down through there, it was quite late, and there was people out. So, there was not much traffic, so. MR. PHILO-Teddy, can I make one suggestion on this? Can we say that we know that we know they gave us a joshing on this. Can we say, in the event that this man goes out of O'Toole's, or whenever that business changes, that porch comes off, and never goes back on? MR. TURNER-Yes. we can do that. We can. I think we can condition it. MR. CARVIN-If you grant a variance, and another business goes in there. - 36 - "-- MR. TURNER-They can't use it. MR. CARVIN-They'd have to tear it off? MR. PHILO-Yes. MR. HAWKINS-Yes. Even though I put the deck in and paid for it, they own it. I cannot take it with me. MR. CARVIN-No, but what I'm saying is, lets say that you sold the business, and it's no longer O'Toole's, but XYZ. MR. PHILO-That deck would come off. HRS. EGGLESTON-I don't know. telling the owner. I think you'd have a hard time MR. HAWKINS-It would make it difficult for me to sell it, too. MR. MARTIN-Variances always run with the property. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, I think if we grant a variance, that deck is there. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you can condition a variance, as long as it's. MR. PHILO-Can't you condition a variance? MR. TURNER-Yes. You can, and if they don't like the condition, they can go to court about it. MR. MARTIN-I think a reasonable way to approach this is like Fred started initially, with a hypothetical. If this was before you, as a blank situation, the deck is not there, how would you view it? MR. CARVIN-Yes. Give me your argument why you would want to put the deck. I mean, that's basically the way I was going to approach it. MR. MARTIN-I do think there is a practical difficulty, I mean, given the location of this restaurant in this plaza, where else would you put a deck on that restaurant? MR. PHILO-Well, they should have sent the whole thing back, 50 foot from that deck. MRS. EGGLESTON-Every restaurant doesn't have a deck. MR. TURNER-Maybe ini tiall y if they'd have come in and done it right, it would have never gotten there, and we wouldn't be sitting here tonight talking about it. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's why I'm throwing it back on his shoulders to tell us the practical difficulty. Why should we grant a deck there? MR. PHILO-As far as I can see, there's no practical difficulty. MR. HAWKINS-Well, when you go back as to why I put it in in the first place, I guess it's a nice touch, in terms of this community. There are very limited decks anywhere in the area. If you go down to Albany, there are some nice decks sitting right on the road, closer than Quaker Road. There are lots of nice decks in other areas. We thought this would be a nice added feature. We did it first class. Looking for the business increment, probably 10, 20 percent, looking at the lunch business, dinner business, putting a bar out there for happy hour, promotions, stuff like that, and that's basica~ly how we looked at it, and certainly adding to the beauty of the plaza, and Quaker Road. - 37 - MR. TURNER-What's the construction? You've got a concrete slab. How deep is the slab? Four inches, three and a half? MR. HAWKINS-It's a slab there, crushed stone, and all cedar deck. MR. TURNER-Footing under the outside of the deck? MR. CARVIN-Is there a fence? MR. TURNER-Yes. There has to be. MR. CARVIN-Is it a fairly high fence, is it? MR. TURNER-It has to be, in order for him to serve liquor out there. MR. CARVIN-And I know it's all shrubs and all that sort of stuff. As I said, I don't have a real, I don't know how I would have voted if it had come as a peer play. MR. TURNER-It would have never gotten there, I can tell you right now, because we had a struggle granting them the relief for the bank, just because of the way it was laid out. MR. CARVIN-I think Joyce has got some valid points, as far as the safety feature, and I suspect that, even if you could install some kind of blockers, or whatever. I mean, I think it's a rare occurrence. MR. TURNER-I would make a suggestion that he would install some highway guardposts, away from the deck, within his property line. MR. CARVIN-Because I think that is a major concern, and I think you also have to understand, if they expand Quaker Road, and I think that's one of the reasons why we wanted the 75 foot setback, is there is the possibility that Quaker Road expands, and guess what, I mean, if they expand, that deck is going to have to go, and I think they we could condition it, you know, if we're going to condition it, in any event, that it's subject, it loses out if a road is expanded. MR. PHILO-And they're talking about that, with that 4,000 cars per hour. MR. CARVIN-Well, I mean. if they put those shopping centers down there, and they're going to get traffic down there. I mean, there's a likelihood. MR. TURNER-Chris, do you feel comfortable if we make him put some barriers? MR. THOMAS-Yes, if there's some kind of like double rail or something like that, something to deflect. MR. PHILO-Well, from everything I've went and looked, and I've tried, that was one of the first things, the man before Jimmy, really, Bob, really put up a thing, and I went over and I didn't believe it. I set my transit up and went down there myself and measured that. Everything that Joyce said is right. If I was the superintendent, I've been in the business, and they asked me, there was a 50 foot setback on there, I'd be setting that back 50 foot, and whoever went in there and put that deck on, the contractor that did it. didn't look at the setback laws either. It just seemed like they went and did everything the way they wanted to do it, and I think this Town has been damn good, because I went through that building, there were some violations that could be corrected. MR. TURNER-Is O'Toole's franchised? MR. HAWKINS-Franchised, yes. - 38 - MR. TURNER-And who promoted the deck? Did the people that sold you the franchise promote the deck to you? MR. HAWKINS-They helped me with the layouts and design of it, but I wouldn't say they pushed me. MR. TURNER-They didn't push you to put it out there? MR. HAWKINS-Not really. MR. TURNER-Did the owners push you to put it out there? MR. HAWKINS-Not really. I was paying for it. Nobody was going to force me to do it. MR. TURNER-I know, but I mean. MR. CARVIN-Yes, as I said, I just think you have to be fully aware that you are sitting over a water main, and if the Town comes down through there. I mean. MR. PHILO-And they tear that deck off, what's going to happen then? MRS. EGGLESTON-Why would we do that, then? We're talking about, it's a hazard to people. There's a water line under the deck, a Town water line. They're talking of widening Quaker Road. Why on earth would we give a variance for it? MR. TURNER-I don't think you'll see them widen Quaker Road for qui te a while, but that's neither here nor there, but it is a possibility. MR. CARVIN-He still has a risk of losing the deck if one of these calamities should happen. MR. PHILO-If they go in there, and I'm saying, we're creating a problem for ourselves. If that deck is on there, and our Water Department breaks a line there, we have to go in and maintain it. We take that deck off there, with that water table, you know what's going to run down on both sides. MR. MARTIN-The water line runs, in many cases throughout the Town, and even through this plaza, under the macadam and everything. MRS. EGGLESTON-Not only that, this gentleman's going to be suing the Town of Queensbury tor taking his, destroying his deck. MR. PHILO-That's what I'm saying, the liability. MR. CARVIN-That's why I'm saying that I think that should be, I mean, assuming that we're going to allow the deck to stay. I mean, you've got two choices here. You can either have him tear it off, or you can let him keep it, with the understanding that, there are some calamities here that could happen, and if they happen, I mean, there's very little restitution that he's going to have, is my feeling. Now, I mean, we're always trying to promote business in the Town of Queensbury, and I hate to see business in residential areas, and this is a business, and I've never been out on the O'Toole's deck. I'll tell you that right up front. but I think it is a rarity, and I think it is something nice that this, if I was a restaurant owner, that I would probably try to have an outdoor facility. It's not used full time. So we do have "limited" exposure from that aspect. I think it does add to business. I mean, I don't have any figures or facts to back that up, but I think that Mr. Hawkins has to be aware that you're sitting on a volcano. or the San Andres Fault. It it goes off, it goes off. MR. PHILO-Once that deck is taken off there, it's never going to be put back on. - 39 - MR. TURNER-Let me ask Mr. Hawkins, I don't see a doorway cut there, but was there a doorway cut in there after the fact, or was there a doorway cut there when the building was built? MR. HAWKINS-The building? Two doors were always there. We built the deck around the doors. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I'm saying to you, the doors were there when you moved in? That's what you're telling me? MR. HAWKINS-The doors were part of the standard. the original design of the restaurant, for an exit, an emergency exit, exit only. It's still exit only. MR. TURNER-Are there panic bars on the doors? MR. HAWKINS-The gate's a one way gate. You can only exit. MR. PHILO-Jim, if we put we a restriction on that the time this restaurant stops, or any time that has to have maintenance or anything, off it goes. there, it stays off there. Can we do that? deck, and say, at deck goes off, it Once it goes off MR. TURNER-Yes, you can do that. You can condition it. MR. MARTIN-You can condition it pretty much how you want. MR. PHILO-And if the water line breaks, or any liability from the Town, has to go in there and work, and that deck comes off, it never comes back on, and we're not liable for it. MR. MARTIN-The Town has got right-of-way to its water lines. I mean, no matter what happens. MR. TURNER-Whether the deck is there or not. MR. MARTIN-We have easements over our water lines. That's not an issue. MR. PHILO-Yes, but say the bank caves in, or something, and that deck comes off, us working on that water line, the liability, is what I'm saying. MR.. TURNER-The deck is 40 foot long. It's 40 feet of concrete, 20 feet wide. MR. PHILO-That doesn't mean anything. That slab could slide right off there in that wet water, when they start digging in there. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but more than likely. what I think they would do, rather than dig up the deck, they'd come back and cut the main off, back of the deck on each side. and go around the deck, and tie it back in. That's what they'd do. MR. PHILO-They'll do what? MR. TURNER-They'll cut the water main off outside of the deck on each side and then go around the outside of the deck with the water line, rather than. MR. PHILO-An eighteen inch water line? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-At the taxpayers expense? MR. TURNER-They might. Don't you kid yourself. MR. CARVIN-First of all, the main's got to break. - 40 - MR. TURNER-It's got to break, first. MRS. EGGLESTON-How many times have you seen Quaker Road dug up along the sides? MR. PHILO-I'm just saying, I don't want to see the Town get into any liabilities over this thing. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, we've got a problem. I mean, we've got to, we either move left or right. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. I'll open the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets move the application. Fred? MR. CARVIN-Well, my feeling is that the deck is there. It hasn't posed a problem so far. I mean, it's only been there about a year. I think it's not a full time use. I mean, certainly, if you want. you can probably condition this thing to death. I mean, if you wanted to condition it, you could say, it can't be open before May 15th, and it's got to be closed by September 15th. MR. TURNER-No. I don't think we have to do that. MR. CARVIN-If you're afraid about putting people out there. I think that it should be protected. I think that that is something that should be seriously looked at, and certainly the provisos, that it is sitting on a water main, and that if Quaker Road is expanded. that the deck certainly would have to probably come off. So I guess, if you want to look at it, so I guess if you want to look at it, I'm giving it kind of a, instead of setting a time frame on pulling this thing, it's kind of open-ended, in the event that something like this happens. I mean, if the water main breaks and they have to take the deck off, then that terminates it. MR. HAWKINS-I think, doesn't that appear to be like a double penalty? I would say, if that happens, and I guess it should be an economic decision, whether or not it makes sense to put it back together. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think, then it would probably start the whole process. In other words, once the deck's gone, then the variance ends at that point. So then if you feel that it is causing you economic damage, then you can reapply for a variance. and let the Board, at that time, determine whether it's a problem or not, the way it should have been done originally. I hate seeing things built first and then telling people to tear them down. I mean, it happens a lot in the Town. MR. TURNER-You think this is bad, they tore a house down in Skinnyatlas that was over $300,000, tore it right down to the ground. It cost the Town $37,000 to tear it down, and the guy was a lawyer and he represented the Planning and Zoning Board. MR. CARVIN-I saw a hotel, a million dollar hotel, torn down. MR. TURNER-What does that tell you? MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, I guess I would be in favor of probably passing it with conditions. MR. TURNER-Okay, but what I would like to see done, if O'Toole's goes out of there, the deck is no more a viable part of that. MR. PHILO-Once that restaurant goes out of there, any part of that, - 41 - '-- the setback goes back to 50 feet. MR. CARVIN-Well, I mean, I think you can condition it, Ted. I just don't know if it would hold water. MR. TURNER-Yes. It'll hold. Let them try it. MR. CARVIN-I'm not opposed to that condition. I just think that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, only speaking for myself, I really would be opposed to it. I don't think Mr. Hawkins has shown any economic hardship, with or without the deck. I think the business would survive without it, and I think, too, you're going to be hardpressed if more people along Quaker Road come and they want to build over the water line, what are you going to say? I just don't think, I think we're setting bad habits here. I'm sorry it happened. I think if he had come forth to begin with we never would have given it that close to Quaker Road. I don't think it would have happened. It's just too close, and I don't know why we should do it now. He hasn't shown a hardship. I'm sorry the money, but when things happen, before you' re given permission, then. MR. HAWKINS-Thirty thousand dollars is a lot of money to me. That's a hardship. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm sorry, but to me, I think there's other things to be considered in that. I'm just one vote. That's my opinion. MR. TURNER-Chris? MR. THOMAS-Well, it seems to me, like I said before, that Tiernan, Bernstein, and Pinchuk not only slid it to the Town, but slid it to Mr. Hawkins also, and he did spend $30,000 with the assumption that that deck could go on there, from Planning Board approval. I wouldn't be against any kind of. MR. TURNER-Highway barriers. MR. THOMAS-That, and conditions of the variance. but I'd like to see some kind of barrier in there to protect that deck from any car that would come careening down Quaker Road, or come off Country Club Road there, because I don't think that rail would hold it. MR. CARVIN-No. I mean, it's a long shot, but it could happen, and certainly an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. MR. PHILO-Well, they had one go over and a guy drowned right in the ditch, almost drown there in the ditch there, this spring, right? MR. TURNER-Well, just let me say that, as long as we're all talking about it, if we're going to approve it, I agree with Chris, that the owner would have to put up a barrier that meets highway standards, to protect the deck, and if O'Toole's Restaurant should go out of that part of the Plaza, the deck will come off the building. MR. PHILO-The minute it does. Do you own the business? MR. TURNER-He owns the franchise. MR. PHILO-You don't own the building? MR. HAWKINS-I can change the name, too. Restaurant. I could call it Hawkins MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HAWKINS-No. I don't own the building. - 42 - MR. TURNER-The developers own the building. MR. PHILO-This guy's the one that's going to lose the money. MR. TURNER-He's going to lose. MR. PHILO-Once he's, out of the building, it's all done. MRS. EGGLESTON-What size is the deck? MR. TURNER-Forty by twenty. MR. PHILO-Even if they sell O'Toole's. MRS. EGGLESTON-A forty by twenty deck, $30,000? MR. HAWKINS-Including furniture. MRS. EGGLESTON-Which includes what? MR. HAWKINS-The patio, the bar unit out there, chillers, coolers, tables, umbrellas, that's all cedar. MRS. EGGLESTON-You leave all the bar stuff right outside at all times? MR. HAWKINS-The bar is permanent. It sits there. We take everything indoors in the winter, all the equipment inside. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's still a lot of money. MR. HAWKINS-Well, I think the deck itself costs the most, including the electrical, fancy lights, and the landscaping. MR. PHILO-You've done a pretty good job, I've been a contractor. I can't see $12,000 there, and if it is, you got robbed. MR. TURNER-I would say that if they have to have access to that water line, and that deck is destroyed, the deck does not come back. MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's what I'm saying, and then at that time, he'd have to come back for a new variance. MR. PHILO-The whole Town has fought with this guy for this building from scratch, either promising he's going to pay this, or do this, and the guy hasn't met anything, and he screwed a lot of contractors around. That's the truth, and he's done a hell of a job on this Town. MR. TURNER-Who built the deck, Brantwood? MRS. EGGLESTON-Who did? MR. TURNER-Brantwood, Brantwood Construction. They are a tenant in the old Finch Pruyn building, which these people own. They're an equity partner. MR. PHILO-If they don't agree with this, I say tear it off and go to court. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets move it. MR. HAWKINS-Could I ask a question? building permit? How could I have gotten a MR. TURNER-You shouldn't have gotten one. MR. HAWKINS-How did I get it? - 43 - - MR. TURNER-Because they presented a different plan to the Planning Board then they presented to us, and nobody ever, somebody didn't check it. MR. PHILO-In the wee hours of the night, somebody was a li ttle crooked, to be honest with you. MR. MARTIN-Quite frankly, they looked at the site plan that the Planning Board approved. It showed a patio there. MR. TURNER-Well, I've got to tell you something. If the Planning Board thought that that was just a concrete patio, that would be fine, but if they thought that that was going to be a patio with a railing around it, then they don't know their Zoning Ordinance. They know there's a 75 foot back in that corridor. MR. MARTIN-We knew there was a variance given, Ted. We never knew, we assumed that the Staff just said, the patio and the bank were in the variance. The Planning Board had, we were given a plan that was assumed this was the plan that was shown, exactly to the Zoning Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-But can I just say one thing? Wouldn't the, our motion, they would have had our motion, which gave the dimensions of how much relief we gave? One's saying yes, one's saying no. MR. MARTIN-Never saw it, Joyce, not at the time. MRS. EGGLESTON-You mean, when we make a motion here, you don't get those? MR. MARTIN-We get the site plan application, and the best it did at the time was refer to a variance file number. MRS. EGGLESTON-And you never checked that what they were doing was in compliance with the variance? MR. MARTIN-It was assumed the Staff did that. MR. PHILO-Wait a minute. I did some checking on this one, brother. As long as it's coming up, I'm going to bring it up. I went down to the Building Department. Dave Hatin never issued a building permit for it. MR. HAWKINS-For what? MR. TURNER-For the deck. MR. PHILO-For that deck. MR. HAWKINS-Wrong. I have the permit on the door. I know that. MR. PHILO-I know, but Pat Crayford, she is not the Building Department, gave you that. MR. TURNER-She was the Zoning Administrator. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. She had the right to do that. MR. PHILO-How does she give a building permit? MR. TURNER-She had the right to give the building permit. She signed the building permit. MR. PHILO-I know she did. I went and checked on it. MR. TURNER-She had the right to do that. MR. PHILO-Dave Hatin says no. - 44 - MR. TURNER-He says no, she shouldn't have signed it, probably. MR. PHILO-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's true. She shouldn't have. MR. MARTIN-Because wasn't she present at your meetings? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, sometimes Pat. Sometimes Lee York. We didn't always have the same one, Jim. To tell you who was there for that, but it's kind of scary to me to think the Planning Board is not checking what we gave. That really doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. MR. MARTIN-It's just assumed that it's right. MR. TURNER-No. You don't assume anything. MR. MARTIN-How does a lay person, sitting on a Planning Board, why would you have suspected it's not? Area Variances were given. MR. PHILO-Well, Pat Crayford was in charge of it, just like you, and you were sitting on this Board, Jimmy, and you see these blueprints. I don't think you'd turn dumb between one avenue and the next. MR. MARTIN-Somebody at the Staff level obviously missed it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-No, but what I'm saying is, you know yourself. in that corridor. is a 75 foot setback. Is that not right? So then when you saw 51 feet on that drawing, and you saw that patio, you should have questioned it right there. That's what I'm saying. MR. MARTIN-The whole Plaza was given an Area Variance. MR. TURNER-No. MR. MARTIN-It was assumed that that patio was part of the variance you gave. MR. TURNER-No, it wasn't. Like I said downstairs, they gave us one map. They gave you another map, six months later. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. TURNER-That's what I'm saying. MR. MARTIN-The Planning Board never laid eyes on that other map. Never was it ever shown to us, because your other map, as a matter of fact, has the bank cockeyed, and the bank also was twisted and turned. and the first time I saw the plat that you approved as a Zoning Board is when I investigated this, in my current position. Up until that time. as a Planning Board member for nearly two years, I never saw that plat. You can read our Staff Notes as a Planning Board that were given to us. The only thing that's ever referenced is an area variance file number. MR. TURNER-But I'm saying, if you look at a map, you know that that's a 75 foot corridor. That's what I'm saying. When you saw 51 foot on it, you should have picked right up on it. MR. MARTIN-And I can guarantee you, I will bet $100 that if you and I look at the Staff Notes for that site plan file, you'll find Staff Notes in there that say, an area variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Planning Board members read that, all these setbacks must be okay then. MR. PHILO-How come when I went down and asked Dave Hatin about it, - 45 - he knew it was wrong? MR. MARTIN-The only unifying link between all these Boards review is the Staff. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And that's why I make an effort to come to the Planning Board and Zoning Board meetings, so there's some consistency, because the other hand doesn't know what the one hand is dOing. MR. TURNER-That's right. That's what I'm saying. MR. PHILO-We're not saying anything about you, Jim. I think you've done a hell of a good job. MR. MARTIN-No. That's what happened in this case, because I remember this. I looked at this. and I was on the Planning Board, and I said, gee, these buildings are awful close to the road. There's a 75 foot highway setback here, but, area variance was given. MR. TURNER-The only thing they didn't do was describe what area variance was given. MR. MARTIN-Right, and if they would have done that. they would have found it even at the Staff level. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-You look at it. building permit. Young Dave Hatin never signed that MR. MARTIN-And the other thing that might have happened, in fairness to the Staff. is they saw the word "patio". and they figured that was an at grade level slab, not subject to setback. and said, well, this isn't an issue. It doesn't need to be part of it. MR. TURNER-That could have been it, but let me say this, when they went out and they inspected the job and they saw the railings going up. then they should have put the red light on it right then and there. MR. HAWKINS-These are the plans that show that, clearly, before we started. MR. TURNER-They should have nailed it, right there. MR. MARTIN-That's where it could have been stopped. MR. HAWKINS-Dave delivered the building permit. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but he didn't sign it. Did he sign it? He didn't sign it, did he? Do you have it with you? MR. MARTIN-I'll tell you what happens, as a matter of fact. What happens with a building permit is it goes through two levels of review. It goes through the Zoning Administrator's review, for compliance with zoning and planning issues. and the Building Department strictly signs off on it from the Building Code requirements. I sign off on every building permit, but only from the standpoint of planning and zoning. I look at the site plan, and then once I approve that, as Zoning Administrator, then it goes on to the Building Department for their technical review, as it relates to the Building Code. Neither one comments on either, because I don't know anything about the Building Code, and they don't know as much as the Zoning Administrator might about planning and zoning issues. - 46 - MR. TURNER-I've got to tell you, the guys pulled the wool over our eyes. They didn't pull the wool over my eyes, but I know they pulled the wool over some other people's eyes, because I saw it the minute you started putting it up, and I questioned why it was going up. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you have a lot of calls to the Town on that? It seems like somebody told me. MR. MARTIN-I wasn't around. That first summer there was a lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I heard there was a lot, and the people, the public, really had a lot of comment about it. MR. TURNER-I questioned Pat on it. I questioned Bob Parisi on it, and Bob Parisi is the only one that started doing anything about it. MR. HAWKINS-Well, I'm sorry I caused so much trouble here. MR. TURNER-It's not you. It's just that. I don't see how it's related to you. MR. MARTIN-The point at which it should have gotten caught is when they saw the building permit, and the plans involved, because it's clearly not a slab patio. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. PHILO-Should have stopped it right there. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1993 TIERNAN. BERNSTEIN. AND PINCHUK, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: O'toole's Restaurant, Steve Hawkins, agent & owner of O'toole's. Grant 45 feet of relief from Section 179-28C, which requires all structures within the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone to be set back 75 feet from the edge of the road right-of-way. That this variance be granted with the following conditions: Number One, a safety barrier be established, utilizing traffic guardrails meeting highway standards for traffic guardrails to protect the deck from arrant automobiles. Number Two, that if for any reason the deck impedes either the Town of Queensbury in the servicing of its water main or public service facilities, or the State of New York with its road systems, along with Warren County, that the deck must be removed and a new application be made at that time. Number Three, that this variance only applies to the current owner/franchisee owner of O'toole's and would end upon the transfer of ownership, resulting in a new application at that time. A practical difficul ty has resulted because of confusion between what was originally approved, and what was subsequently built, resulting in a large financial outlay by the agent, and that by granting this variance, along with its conditions, would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, and that this would be the minimum relief necessary to eliminate or solve this practical difficulty. The traffic standards and proper dimensions for the traffic barriers will be left for review by the Town Zoning Administrator, and that the time frame for the erection of these safety barriers, as soon as possible, within the next 60 days. If compliance with these conditions are not met, the variance is null and void, and the deck must be removed. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin~ Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Eggleston ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles - 47 - '- MRS. EGGLESTON-Providing the Warren County Planning Board. MR. TURNER-Providing the Warren County Planning Board approves it. MR. MARTIN-If Warren County doesn't approve it, it doesn't pass. MR. TURNER-If Warren County turns your application down, it doesn't pass. MR. HAWKINS-When is that? MR. TURNER-May the 12th. AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1993 TYPE I RR-3A CEA ROBERT E. & EILEEN A. MURPHY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE KNOLLS DRIVE INTERSECTING KNOLLS ROAD (SOUTH) WHICH RUNS WEST OF RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING VACANT LOT AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE AND TWENTY- FIVE HUNDREDTHS (1.25) ACRE FROM SECTION 179-15C WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES FOR THE LOT SIZE AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-NINE (29) FEET FROM SECTION 179-15C WHICH REQUIRES TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET FOR THE LOT WIDTH. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NUMBER: 26-3-5 LOT SIZE: 1.75 ACRES SECTION 179-15C ROBERT MURPHY, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And, again, Warren County will be dOing their work, and whatever we do tonight hinges on their approval. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-1993, Robert E. & Eileen A. Murphy, Meeting Date: SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing the construction of a single family dwelling on a preexisting nonconforming lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE I AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is seeking relief of one and twenty-five hundredths (1.25) acre from Section 179-15C which requires a minimum of three (3) acres for the lot size in the Rural Residential 3 Acre zone. 2. Applicant is seeking relief of twenty-nine (29) feet from Section 179-15C which requires two hundred (200) feet for the lot width in the Rural Residential Zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficul ty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets zoning requirements is that this parcel is preexisting and nonconforming in it's lot area and lot width, and in a Critical Environmental Area, which requires compliance with the minimum lot area and lot width of the zone at the time of development. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty and no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant's parcel is part of a preexisting approved subdivision, (Ridge Knolls - 1969), which except for the fact that the parcel is located in a Critical Environmental Area, would be exempted from the Chapter's lot requirements as per Section 179-76." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Murphy. MR. MURPHY-Yes. Robert Murphy. Queensbury, New York. It's all stated right in front of you there. We bought this property in 1986, intending to build there, and other things happened, and we - 48 - couldn't do it. My mother was sick, and we didn't build on the property. We bought another house, but at present, we're trying to make preparations to sell this property, as I lost my job a year ago, and haven't worked since. We need the money, and we have an opportuni ty to sell the property now. I'd like to get the clearance on building, a building permit on this lot. I think it should be grandfathered, because Article 10179-76, I was in compliance before October 1st, '88. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MURPHY-So, all of a sudden I wake up one day and I find out I can't build on my property. MR. TURNER-Well, it's in a Critical Environmental Area. That's why you couldn't. MR. MURPHY-Well, I understand that, and I'm willing to apply to all the standards that Queensbury gives me, as far as setbacks, side setbacks, that doesn't matter. I mean, I'm going to stay within the rules and regulations that are provided by Queensbury, and I think what is built on that property will be an asset to the neighborhood. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with your application, because that particular development up there, since the changing of the Zoning Ordinance, has been granted a lot of variances for various reasons, and this is typical of one of the reasons, right here. Did everybody look at it? MR. PHILO-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. TURNER-All right. Now, before we go any farther, this is a Type I, Critical Environmental Area. It's my feeling, and I talked to Jim. Jim called me on it, and I talked to him, and I told him my thoughts on it. This doesn't have to go to SEQRA Review. It's at our discretion to move this to SEQRA or not to move it to SEQRA. There's no environmental impact. This is a preexisting nonconforming lot, and we've granted variances in that area of that development many times before. So there's nothing here that will satisfy anything that we need to be satisfied with. Everything is taken care of, as far as I'm concerned. No environmental impact at all. MRS. EGGLESTON-I agree with you. MR. PHILO-I agree with Ted 100 percent. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOSEPH GRIMALDI MR. GRIMALDI-I'd just like a few questions. I own the adjoining property. Joseph Grimaldi. I own the adjoining property, and I own a house, which I live in, diagonally across from where they propose to build, and I've got two letters here. Now, I have the same problem he has. I have a nonconforming but grandfathered piece of property, which I bought shortly before he bought his, and I got it, 1988, the same as his, and I asked, can I sell the property, and I was told, yes, you can, because you preexisted the zoning code, but the only thing I saw on this that I just would like to ask some questions on is the 29 feet. I have 20Ø feet. I thought he had 200 feet, too, across his property. - 49 - MR. MURPHY-I think I do have 200 feet. I don't know where that. MR. GRIMALDI-I don't know where that came in, because I thought his property was quite wide, but even so, I would just like to know how that would affect my property. I have 200 feet in width. MR. TURNER-Well, if you don't meet the dimensional requirement, it would affect it, but if you do, then it doesn't. MR. GRIMALDI-It was just a question I wanted to ask. Also, on the services, if you're cutting down on dimensions across the property, would the services be, I'm not talking about public services, because we all have wells and septic systems, and would that be affected on both the properties? MR. TURNER-The service entrance, or, well, there's no water mains up there, like you said, so you're off a well, and you're on a septic. So, you've got to meet the setbacks for the septic system, according to the Code, all right. MR. GRIMALDI-Right. MR. TURNER-And that's it. The well's got to be 100 feet away from the septic system. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is your lot size, sir? MR. MURPHY-Well, I'd say the width is 200.1 feet, and it's an oblong type piece of property. At one point is 441 feet long in depth, and the other side is 300 feet in depth, and then it's on an angle at 260 feet. MR. TURNER-55.9 feet on the? MR. MURPHY-That's the area open to the roadway. MR. TURNER-Yes. It shows on the map I've got 144.99? MR. MURPHY-Yes. MR. TURNER-On the depth of the lot? MR. MURPHY-144.99, plus 55.9. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's not bordering the road, though, Ted. That's the side line, 144, is that right? MR. MURPHY-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-He's got 200 on the road. MRS. EGGLESTON-He's got 200 on the road. MR. MURPHY-It's 55.9 on the road. MR. TURNER-55.9 on the road, right here in the corner, Lot Number Five, right here. MR. CARVIN-I see. Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-We're in a different, we're on the wrong one, then? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-We made a mistake in the calculation of that. MR. TURNER-He's got 55.9, and 144.99. - 50 - MR. MARTIN-Where's that second map? This is where she got confused. She thought the road went like this. and the road really goes there. MRS. EGGLESTON-This says a road. MR. MARTIN-Arlyne thought that the road, because she saw a road here, she thought the road came in like this. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. This is road, Knolls Road. MR. MARTIN-That was, it's a paper road. MR. TURNER-It's a paper road. MR. MARTIN-It was planned to go that way, but actually it goes out here like this. So his lot has frontage here, 55.9, a pipe here and a pipe here. MR. CARVIN-I see. MR. MARTIN-This distance here is 55.9, and then 144.99 from here to here. He's just over 200 feet. I don't think it's a problem. MR. TURNER-There's no problem. MRS. EGGLESTON-So he doesn't need that one for the 200 feet. MR. TURNER-He doesn't need that relief. He only needs the relief from the minimum acreage. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. MR. TURNER-Do you have any further questions? You're satisfied with the answers? MR. GRIMALDI-I just wanted to know why the 29 feet, and how that would split if it was grandfathered, the 29 feet less the 200, and why. MRS. EGGLESTON-He doesn't need it. MR. TURNER-He doesn't need it. That was a paper road on the other map, and that's why. MR. MARTIN-It was confusing, the map. MR. TURNER-See this right here, they've got road marked on there, and they turned the road and went that way. That was a paper road. MR. GRIMALDI-Yes, and I wouldn't be questioning that if it was grandfathered, as long as I knew it didn't affect my parcel adversely, but I didn't think he had that little bit of width. MR. TURNER-Which lot are you on? MR. GRIMALDI-The adjoining, north. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. GRIMALDI-Now I know I have to go for a variance myself on the same thing that he's doing, the nonconforming, ecological lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've had a lot of them in that area. MR. GRIMALDI-I know you have. So, okay. I'm pleased. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you for your comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 51 - MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1993 ROBERT E. & EILEEN A. MURPHY, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Applicant is seeking relief of 1.25 acres from Section 179-15C, which requires a minimum of three acres for the lot size. The difficulty with the property is it's a preexisting subdivision dating back to 1969. Mr. Murphy bought this piece of property in 1986. This particular development has many variances granted on lots of similar nature, and this is the minimum relief to alleviate the practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1993 TYPE II HC-1A JANET HUSTON BELL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD. NEXT TO MEAD'S NURSERY APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND AN EXISTING PROFESSIONAL BUILDING WHICH WILL INCLUDE AN APARTMENT ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE EXPANSION. AND IS SEEKING THIRTY-FIVE (35) FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-28 WHICH REQUIRES A SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ROAD IN THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: MAY 12. 1993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 59-5-12 LOT SIZE: 32.766 SQ. FT. SECTION 179.28 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And as on our other items on the agenda tonight, Warren County has not acted on this yet. So we don't have their input. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-1993, Janet Huston Bell, Meeting date: April 28, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a two thousand, three hundred and thirty- eight (2,338) square foot addition to an existing professional building. which will include an apartment on the second floor of the expansion. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing forty (40) feet for the front yard setback and is seeking relief of thirty-five (35) feet relief from Section 179-28, which requires seventy-five (75) feet setback from a road in the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets zoning regulations is that the existing building is nonconforming in its front yard setback and placement of proposed expansion of said building continues the front yard setback nonconformance, but to a lesser degree. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? Although it would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty, the applicant does not discuss why no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? The purpose of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone and the required seventy-five (75) foot setback is to maintain a rural character to the corridor and or provide for widening of these roads in the future, and to the extent that the setback is infringed upon, diminishes the purpose of this section of the Ordinance. 4. WHAT - 52 - - ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The major constraint on this property regarding the required Travel Corridor setback is that the depth of the parcel is shallow (165 ft. av.). Placement of the existing structure is totally within the setback and therefore any expansion of said bUilding would necessarily continue the nonconformance." MR. TURNER-Mr. Steves. Give us an answer to Question Two, Staff Notes, second paragraph, why no other option is available. MR. STEVES-The office building itself has existed there for many years, and as outlined on the map that you have in front of you, and the graph that we've done here and highlighted, I should say, in colors here, the yellow line is something that was created in 1988, with the Travel Corridor setback of 75 feet, it sits in back of the house that's there. So any expansion that would take place to tie into the existing building is going to be outside of the setback. We have to get relief for anything that we do on that building. It doesn't make sense to put an extension on without making it connect to the building we already have. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why the need for a second apartment? MR. STEVES-I guess a hedge a little bit, to help defray costs, to help defray the cost of the building itself. MR. TURNER-So the apartment will be a rental apartment, right? MR. STEVES-Yes, it will. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are there any, I don't know, because I can't tell from this. Are there plans for more parking spaces. because right now, sometimes you can't find a parking space there, and with a new apartment. MR. STEVES-Yes, there are. In back of the building, we have shown, parking wise. MR. CARVIN-How many acres? MR. STEVES-How many acres on the site? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-It's only 32,766, three quarters of an acre. MR. CARVIN-There's already one apartment there, right? MR. TURNER-Yes, and that's all that's allowed. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's why they're here. MR. TURNER-No. They're here for the setbacks, but they're not here for that one. MR. STEVES-Well, an apartment is permitted, as an accessory use. MR. CARVIN-Only one. MR. TURNER-Only one. Let me read it to you, Accessory Use, apartments over businesses not exceeding 50 percent of use. Number of apartments shall be limited to one for each one acre. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. TURNER-And you don't have an acre. - 53 - MR. STEVES-Now, in discussions we've had. MR. TURNER-It's right here in the book. book, in Highway Commercial. It's right here in the MR. STEVES-It was a part of the application, to make our apartment over there. MR. TURNER-Professional Office and ~ne apartment, but you already have one apartment, in the building. That's all you're allowed. You're not allowed a second one. according to the Ordinance, without a variance. MR. STEVES-That's why we're here, seeking a variance for a second apartment. MR. TURNER-How was it advertised? It was just advertised setback. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It was advertised, applicant is proposing to expand an existing professional building, which will include an apartment on the second floor of the expansion, and is seeking 35 feet relief from Section 179-28, which requires a seventy-five (75) foot setback from the road in a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. MR. CARVIN-It just says proposed addition on the application. MRS. EGGLESTON-Wasn't that the notice? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I don't see anywhere in here where it says on the application apartment. It just says expansion. MR. PHILO-I don't, either. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It's in there. Right there. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's present use, professional offices in one. That's what is presently in one apartment. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. CARVIN-They've just got proposed addition, and nowhere does the Staff Notes. MR. TURNER-It says, applicant is proposing to expand an existing professional building, which will include an apartment on the second floor of the expansion. So it's advertised. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think it is. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but it was not in the application, that's my point. MR. TURNER-No. I know it. You're right. MR. STEVES-Well, it says for an expansion, as shown on plan. MR. TURNER-Well, it says present use, professional office in one apartment. MR. CARVIN-Okay. On the SEQRA it does. Chiropractic Center with apartment over. It says, expansion of MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. STEVES-But on their Item 15, would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical - 54 - -- difficulty, yes, existing reception area, or office is 40 feet from. setback from Ridge Road, and request is for expansion as shown on plans. So, on the plan, we have shown an existing building, existing apartment. MR. TURNER-I just wanted to make sure it was advertised right, that's all. MR. STEVES-I hear you, and so do I. MR. TURNER-So everybody understands that there's only one apartment allowed for one acre, in the Highway Commercial. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. So he needs two variances. MR. TURNER-Yes. He needs a setback, and the use for the apartment. MR. STEVES-Hitting one at at a time, then, on the setback requirement of 75 feet, that, as I said, is in back of the requested building, and since we want to have an addition to the present building connected to the expansion. we're seeking the relief of approximately 40 feet, about 35 feet, to construct that expansion. MR. TURNER-Are you going to go blacktop from the back, Leon, do you know, where the new parking spaces are? MR. STEVES-I would think so, yes. What we've done the perimeter, the permeability on it. MR. TURNER-Yes. I saw it. MR. CARVIN-Do you have any permeability? MR. TURNER-Yes. He meets it, 54 percent. MR. MARTIN-The section about the apartments? MR. TURNER-It's in Highway Commercial. MRS. EGGLESTON-Number 0, under Permitted Uses. MR. TURNER-Accessory Use. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes, but where does it say that it's one? That's what we're. MRS. EGGLESTON-Number 0, Accessory Uses, Number D. MR. TURNER-Apartments shall be limited to one for each one acre of land, Page 17977. MR. MARTIN-They changed it, Ted. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was going to say. I should be looking in my book. I'm the only the one that's got new pages in here. What is that, 17977? Wait a minute. MR. CARVIN-This is dated 9/25/91. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, there's a new one, 1/25/93. MR. TURNER-Fifty percent of the use. MR. STEVES-That's the way I read it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Apartments over businesses not exceeding 50 percent of use. MR. MARTIN-Yes. See, hers is updated. You haven't been updating - 55 - your book. MR. CARVIN-I truly am sorry. MR. STEVES-Arlyne called me about this, and discussed this. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-So. we're back to the same thing. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is the proposed addition, two story, is that 450. or 1450? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-1450. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, 1450 and 888 is the new? MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So together that, how much? MR. STEVES-I think it was added up to 2300 and something. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, and they currently have about 3,000. MR. STEVES-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, then that's more than a 50 percent expansion. MR. STEVES-No. The 50 percent is in the apartment complex. MR. TURNER-Fifty percent of use of the apartment. MRS. EGGLESTON-Only applies to the. MR. TURNER-Yes, apartment, not the office. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. So you've got to measure the office parts as opposed to the apartment parts? HR. TURNER-Yes. MR. S'rEVES-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anymore questions of Mr. Steves? Okay. open the public hearing. I'll PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARILYN GORMAN MRS. GORMAN-I'm Marilyn Gorman, and I live at 338 Ridge Road, and I have two concerns, one is the additional traffic generated onto Ridge Road right now, and the other thing is, with an apartment, our neighborhood is a single family residential neighborhood. and our neighborhood buts up to this. MR. TURNER-To the Highway Commercial? MRS. GORMAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. GORMAN-I'm on the wrong end, but anyway, here. My only concern is that I would hate to see apartments creeping into this area, because it's residential. The one above there is the first one I've heard of. MR. TURNER-Apartments won't go into the SFR, because that's the most restrictive zone in the Town. I don't think they'd have an - 56 - - argument there, you can get them in, unless the Town changes the zoning. MRS. GORMAN-Well. this is my concern. because all of a sudden, Mead's has expanded, and we have them in our back yard, with no buffer, and we see trucks, and the people, and I'm just very concerned about things creeping in. MR. TURNER-Mead's doesn't provide a 50 foot buffer between that property that would be on the south? MRS. GORMAN-There are no shrubs, evergreens, anything like that. MR. TURNER-Are they planted right up to the fence? MRS. GORMAN-To the fence. as I see them, cut through there, tonight, but as I say, my main an apartment building. say, they're right there. You can but anyway, that's not the issue concern is one, traffic, and, two, MR. STEVES-I don't know if my answers are going to satisfy you or not, but as far as traffic is concerned, I think that one of the things the Code calls for is a parking lot for every 150 square feet of office space, regardless of what the office is. A doctor can only serve so many people. There can only be so many people in his office, and so many people in the waiting room at a time. MRS. GORMAN-But if he's increasing his office area, then he's going to be increasing the number of patients. So therefore there will be more cars. MR. STEVES-Yes. He's going to have more patients, but I don't think he's, have you ever seen the front fill right up? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, I have. parking space. I've gone there and couldn't get a MRS. GORMAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I've got a question for you about that. MR. STEVES-Yes, I've pUlled in there, and, yes, I've backed out of there, and I've pulled in and backed out without any trouble. MR. MARTIN-Well, I've got a question. Was there any thought given to trying to eliminate the parking in the front completely, by expanding the parking down along the north side of the property, and the east side? I'd rather see you, quite frankly, violate the buffer along the south side of the property, and expand the parking lot over, and pull that parking right out in front of the building like that, get rid of all those 10 spaces. MR. STEVES-One of the problems with that is that the existing walkway is on the south end of the building, and if you notice that, if you've been out there, that's why I purposely put in, on the back side of the building there's garages under this building, the level back there is some eight to ten feet lower than the floor leve 1 of that building. It would be almost impossible to ramps servicing that door. It would be almost impossible to do it. So they have to come in from the south end of the building. MR. MARTIN-There's no way you could extend the ramp to the rear of the property, because of the grade, and have the ramp come up from the rear parking? MR. STEVES-You probably know the slope requirements better than I do, but I would think you'd almost be chasing yourself, running out there. That's not a dead issue, I know, because the Planning Board. - 57 - '- ,-"' MR. MARTIN-This is coming back for site plan, too. That's why I. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MARTIN-But what I'm saying is, if a solution requires going into the setback with the buffer area, now is the time, rather than having it as a site plan comment, then you've got to come back for that variance. MR. STEVES-I know, but they pointed out to me earlier, it was advertised. MR. MARTIN-It was advertised for it. Well, better to be tabled now than later. MR. STEVES-It's late enough now. MR. TURNER-I've got to tell you, I was back there several different times, early in the morning, and that place is filled right up with cars. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, it is. MR. TURNER-Well before eight o'clock. MR. PHILO-He's better than Doc Hogan. Hogan runs it at two o'clock in the morning. MR. STEVES-Is that right? Well, I've pulled in there, and I've backed out of there, and I had no problem with room whatsoever, and I purposely pulled up adjacent to another car, so that when I backed up, I would not, I wanted to have that restriction. So I could back up, and back up if I could without pulling into the lane, and I was able to do that. You can do it. You can back up without any getting into any lane, or any trouble with traffic. MR. MARTIN-Even if you could eliminate some spaces along the front, and go along the northern property line there. I mean, that would, I mean, keep spaces to access that ramp, but cut down on some of them. MR. STEVES-I will talk with the doctor about that. Sure. MR. MARTIN-And tear up some of that pavement. MR. STEVES-I've got a valid argument, I think, with the ramp, but the rest of it, you have a valid argument, and maybe we could move some of those. MR. MARTIN-Because you could easily do it, because I see this driveway here along the north edge is all new, right? It's all proposed to be built, most of it. MR. STEVES-The existing one is going right around the back. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but that's coming up. removed. It says, pavement to be MR. STEVES-Everything that's existing is shaded. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-What I was saying to him was he could eliminate a lot of these across the front here. not all of them, and put them in here. MR. TURNER-Next to the Mead fence? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Keeping the handicapped in front. - 58 - MR. MARTIN-And you keep a couple in here, because you've got to access this ramp for the invalids. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-He could remove more than 50 percent of these, and park them in here. MR. TURNER-Most of the people that go there are invalids, when they get out of the car anyway. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets disposition of this one? move the application. What do you think? What's your MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, there's no more of an encroachment than what's there. MR. TURNER-As long as it's a doctor's office, you're going to have traffic. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know. MR. CARVIN-I appreciate this lady's concern about the apartments, but they are allowed the apartments. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's nothing we can do about that. That is the part of the variance. MR. TURNER-Well, see, her zone buts right up against this one, and her concern was the creeping commercialization down Ridge Road, where it is residential. MR. PHILO-She's zoned, though, residential. MR. TURNER-SFR, yes. if they don't change it, if they leave it like it is. MRS. EGGLESTON-If it was past the way it is, how many more parking spaces does that put in the front? MR. STEVES-None. MRS. EGGLESTON-None. Okay. MR. TURNER-What's there is there. MRS. EGGLESTON-The new one's will all be in the back? MR. STEVES-Yes. Now. what Jim has proposed is eliminating some here, and put them on the side. MRS. EGGLESTON-I just wanted to be sure there wasn't anymore, because sometimes I have seen people back out of there, and they do go out into the road. Maybe you made a concerted effort not to, but if you weren't specifically trying to do that. There are times, you can't turn around. They do back out into it, and it's really not a good spot right there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets move the application. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1993 JANET HUSTON BELL, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Grant the applicant relief of 35 feet from the front yard setback, which is from Section 179-28, which requires 75 feet of setback from the road in a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. The depth of the parcel is the constraint on the property, which has a shallow depth - 59 - ---------~-_._--- of 165 feet, on average. Placement of the existing structure is totally within the setback, and, therefore, any expansion of the building would necessarily continue the nonconformance. Duly adopted this 29th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles MR. TURNER-Okay. We've got to. I'll introduce a motion. MOTION TO MAKE THE TOWN BOARD LEAD AGENCY REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENS BURY . CHAPTER 179 THEREOF. ENTITLED ZONING. AND THIS IS IN RESPECT TO SATELLITE DISHES, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles MR. MARTIN-I'd also do a resolution to approve the language as written. MR. TURNER-I don't know as I'll approve it. We want to see the language first. We've got the language, I know that, but I haven't really had a chance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did we just get it? MR. MARTIN-No. You've had it a while. MR. TURNER-We've had it a while. MR. MARTIN-They want to take it up Monday night. MR. TURNER-Would you give me your version of it? Do you know what it is? MRS. EGGLESTON-Or do you have one here? Do you have a copy? MR. TURNER-I didn't bring mine with me. What it says is that if a usable satellite signal cannot be obtained from such rear yard. the antenna may be located on the side yard of the property, subject to the requirements contained in this Chapter. In the event that a usable satellite signal cannot be obtained by locating the antenna on the rear or side yard of the property, such antenna may be placed on the roof of the dwelling. MR. MARTIN-Right up to that point, that's what you've always had. MR. TURNER-That's what we've had. Here's what they're going to add. or on a pole, or similar structure of sufficient size and strength to adequately support the antenna adjacent to or connected to the dwelling structure or front yard of the property. MRS. EGGLESTON-So you can't put them on the roofs? Is that the whole context, you can't put them on the roofs anymore? MR. MARTIN-I still think it reads you can't put them beyond the roof line. - 60 - MR. TURNER-Yes. There's additional. A ground mounted satellite dish/antenna shall not exceed a grade height of 12 feet, except that these provisions shall not apply to antennas mounted on a pole or similar devices. adjacent to or connected to the side of a principle building, structure when these regulations allow such application, and then it goes on, Paragraph K, Roof mounted satellite dish/antenna shall not be mounted on chimneys, towers, or trees. except that the same being mounted on a pole or similar device adjacent to or attached to the side of the principal structure. provided said pole or similar structure is sufficient strength to adequately support the antenna. The antenna shall be placed below the ridge line of the roof. Unless a usable signal is not received, in which case, the antenna may be raised. What does this stem from? MR. MARTIN-There was an applicant that came in who had no other possible way to get a signal or a mounted antenna, other than to put it on a pole up the side of the house, like on the gable side, and our current Ordinance wouldn't allow for that. MR. TURNER-Why didn't he come for a variance? MR. MARTIN-Well, the outfit she was getting the dish from said, well. they can't do that, because federal, FCC law regulating antennas, says that you can do this, and their law's not in compliance, and if pushed. it wouldn't hold up in court. MR. TURNER-Did they show you it? MR. MARTIN~Yes. Paul's got the FCC Regulations, and I think that it was apparently true, because that's what initiated the change, and that's what resulted in that language. MRS. EGGLESTON-But there's so many loopholes in that. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, it's all on the signal basis, usable signal. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. So who's to say. MR. TURNER-Let me say this. Anybody that's ever wanted a satellite dish out of the ordinary, or had a problem with it, has always come here, and has always gotten a variance. MR. MARTIN-Well, then you can make a resolution to that effect, if you don't agree with the changes. I'd just like to see you do something, so the Board has something from you, in a formal manner. MR. TURNER-I would move that the Board not consider, not go along with the recommendation. MR. MARTIN-To accept the changes or enact the changes? MR. TURNER-Or enact the changes, because anybody, I'll say again for the record. Anybody that's come for a variance for a satellite dish has gotten it. Steve Britton came and got a variance, and there's a couple of others. I can't think of them off the top of my head, but MR. MARTIN-That's not an unreasonable position. MR. TURNER-That's my position. I don't know how the rest of you feel, because I can see people coming in and saying, look it, how are you going to enforce it? Are you going to go out, and they've got to direct it at the satellite. You're going to take their word that they can't get it? Let them come for a variance, because that's what we've always done. We've dealt with it that way, and that way it doesn't get out of hand. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't see it as a big problem. We haven't had one since I've been on this Board, in 1988. So, what is the great need - 61 - for this'? MR. TURNER-There is no need. I'd rather have the guy come to us and say to us, we can't rece i ve the signal, we would like a variance. That way there, we take his word for it. and we give him the antenna, and away he goes. You're going to get requests for them, numbers of them, that don't comply, just because they want to pick up more channels or something. MR. PHILO-Who brought this up anyway? MRS. EGGLESTON-I was going to say, there's something here that doesn't make sense. What are we missing? What is the need for this? Because we haven't had a request. MR. MARTIN-She had a yard and a house and everything that was a certain configuration, and she had to run a pole up the side of her house in order to put the antenna on, and there's no combination of that in the Ordinance right now. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just one instance? MR. MARTIN-One instance, right. MRS. EGGLESTON-And they're going to rewrite the Code for? MR. PHILO-Who brought that up, to rewrite? MR. MARTIN-I think it was a Mrs. Sipowicz. was in. MOTION THAT THE TOWN BOARD NOT CONSIDER THE CHANGES AS PROPOSED. WHICH ARE IN REFERENCE TO SATELLITE DISHES. AS CONTAINED IN THE RECOMMENDATION AS LISTED. BECAUSE THIS BOARD HAS NOT HAD ANY REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FOR THE SAME FOR MANY YEARS, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: MR. TURNER-And if an applicant had an application before this Board, I'll speak for myself, it would be approved, if they could clarify that they could not receive a signal from a satellite in the areas listed in the Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm just wondering if you should stick that last part on there, about, they would pass our Board. because the first, if we ever got one, the first one we would get would be some idiot who wanted it in his front yard in the middle of, do you know what I mean, on a corner. MR. TURNER-Strike that part, then. AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles MR. MARTIN-About what we did earlier tonight, it seems to me you gave an interpretation, regarding the Sign Ordinance and corner lots. MR. TURNER-No. We didn't give an interpretation. MRS. EGGLESTON-The book reads that, Jim. MR. TURNER-That's what the book says. MR. MARTIN-Then that's an interpretation. - 62 - MR. TURNER-No, it isn't. That's point blank just what it says. MRS. EGGLESTON-You read that. You read it. Have you got it in front of you? MR. MARTIN-I'm not disagreeing with you. This guy asked for a letter from me, because I told him something else, and he asked me about Dunham's on that end of the building, and they said, can we have a sign on that gable side there, on the 149 side. I said, yes. You're on a corner lot. MR. TURNER-It doesn't read like that. MRS. EGGLESTON-He said they've already ordered it. They've already bought it. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'd ask for an interpretation. I think we should have a formal resolution. as a matter of an interpretation. If that's what you want to do, that's fine, but I've got to have something to cite in this letter, and then I've got something to live by. MR. TURNER-All right. I'll advertise the interpretation? interpretation, won't you? advertising it. make a motion. Have you got to You will have to advertise the I can't interpret it without MR. MARTIN-Never mind. clarification. I'll refer to it as something else, a MR. TURNER-A clarification? I'll give it to you that way. MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's fine. Never mind. MR. TURNER-You want to leave it like it is? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'll refer to it as a clarification. MR. TURNER-All right. Now I've got a question for you. Monday night, when the Town Board met, Mr. Oudekerk and Mrs. Oudekerk, Mr. Rudolph and Mrs. Rudolph came to the Town Board in reference to Bed & Breakfasts, and what was their comment? Were you here? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Their comment was that, well, the one who led the discussion was Carolyn Rudolph. MR. TURNER-Yes. This is in reference to her letter. MR. MARTIN-Right, and they would like to investigate the idea of putting Bed & Breakfast as an allowed use along arterial roads, and also over the Town, and she cited her current situation where she's got a variance that's got a three year life to it, and it has to be revisited, and she's essentially saying, I've got all this money invested into this business, I built up a customer base and all that, and if the variance is then changed, after three years, then I'm left holding the bag, so to speak. So she's the one who led the discussion, and the Board wants to pursue language to that effect, of a proposed change. MR. TURNER-Corinth Road's an arterial. West Mountain Road's an arterial. Ridge Road's an arterial. Bay Road's an arterial. We have one on Bay Road, and we have two on Ridge, and we've got three Bed & Breakfasts in the Town, and for the world of me, I don't see many more coming at all, and I've got to tell you that they're allowed in Land Conservation zone and Rural use zone. They're allowed in RR-3, and RR-5. I think that more than adequately addresses Bed & Breakfast. MRS. EGGLESTON-I can't believè she's out there advocating competition. - 63 - MR. MARTIN-They've got an Association that's very strong. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but if you say he can have a Bed & Breakfast on the Corinth Road, what would stop anybody from putting a Bed & Breakfast right on Main Street in Queensbury? Do you want that there? They wouldn't do any business there. MR. MARTIN-Well, they wanted to limit this to, I guess there's three levels of Bed & Breakfast. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Ranging from the very minor one, which is just a certain number of rooms, I think it's no more than two or four, something like that, and only on weekends, and only serve breakfast. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but that's still a substantial house. MR. MARTIN-And then there's another one that is anytime of the week, and four rooms, and will also maybe offer dinner, and then there's an out right inn that offers, it has a full service restaurant, and many rooms, and all week long. Those are the three grades. and they were talking about only doing this with the minor one, and changing the definition of Bed & Breakfast in the Ordinance also, to reflect this. MR. PHILO-What do you mean by that? MR. MARTIN-Ri'ght now, we have a definition of Bed & Breakfast, which is just, they want to include these three divisions of Bed & Breakfast in the definition. MR. TURNER-No, not for me. A Bed & Breakfast facility which is not a hotel or motel, but rather a dwelling in which overnight accommodations for a maximum stay of one week, and breakfast only is provided or offered for transient guests for compensation. Such use is secondary to the occupancy of the dwelling by a family. So if you do it the other way, you're making a major industry, not a building to be occupied by a family. I don't really see the need for it, because since Crislip's was granted a variance there, the only reason they got a variance was because Bed & Breakfast was never identified in the Zoning Ordinance as being an allowable use in any zone. MR. MARTIN-They had that there since '85, or '84. MR. TURNER-Yes. So then when the Ordinance was changed, we knew there was a need for Bed & Breakfast. So that's where we put them. We put them out in the rural areas, where they belong, and she's just got a condition that she bought that house, and it's a residence, and it was a residence, like I said, it was sold three times as a residence. She got a variance for the Bed & Breakfast, and that's fine. Let her live by the variance. She's not going to get it denied in three years. I don't think. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's what she was saying. MR. TURNER-She's just looking for something that isn't there yet. MR. MARTIN-She's nervous about it not being a final. MR. TURNER-I'm the only one that voted against it, because, I voted against it, and I'll tell you why, because she bought it as a residence. I don't believe her theory that she called here and somebody told her that that was an allowable use there. She identified herself as being a real estate agent. Any smart real estate agent doesn't call the Town Planning Office without coming to it and finding out for sure, doesn't take over the phone for grant it that it's an allowed use. That was a poor move on her part. I don't think it should be done, because we've provided - 64 - '- plenty of. MR. MARTIN-If you have strong feelings on it, you should go talk to the Board in an open forum. MR. TURNER-Then you've got another incident with Juckett. The same thing. He got a variance denied. Now he's going to the Town Board and saying, I want it re-zoned because I can't do that with it, but I haven't seen any For Sale sign up there. MRS. EGGLESTON-They're doing a lot of re-zoning, spot zoning. MR. TURNER-They're doing it whimsically. They're spot zoning the Town because somebody comes in and doesn't like the way we rule on something. They go to the Town Board, and the cry on their shoulders. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think Juckett's got a pretty good argument. I mean, he's caught between a hair dresser and a plumbing supply outfit, and right next to an arterial intersection. I mean, he's not a single family house there either. MR. TURNER-No, but how far up the road are you going with it? MR. MARTIN-Just him. MR. TURNER-That's spot zoning. MR. MARTIN-Not if he's got, like, Highway Commercial next to him, and you make him Highway Commercial. That's not spot zoning. They're not going to do that. MR. TURNER-That's what it says in the letter. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It says in the letter, but I don't think they're going to do anything. MR. TURNER-If you take one piece of property and zone it like that, you're spot zoning. That's illegal. Okay. No further business? MR. MARTIN-The only other thing is the workshop session for Tuesday night has been postponed, until a future date. As soon as I know that, I'll let you know, about the Sign Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. MR. MARTIN-It's been postponed. They shifted the subject matter of the meeting. I guess they're going to talk about something else. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are we going to do any minutes. Ted? Why don't we just do through the end of the year. Those are the ones I've got done, anyway, and then the next time we come, we'll do the rest of them, up to date. CORRECTION OF MINUTES October 21st, 1992: Page 11, motion to approve use variance for John Hughes, "during the time he zoned the property", sIb "purchased the property". last sentence in that paragraph, use variance is necessary sIb and, not or. Page 36, first Mrs. Eggleston from bottom. sIb we can do that, not we can't do that. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21ST. 1992 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner - 65 - NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles October 28th. 1992: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 28TH. 1992 AS SUBMITTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Hrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Hr. Carvin, Hr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles November 17th, 1992: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17TH. 1992 AS PRESENTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Hr. Thomas, Hr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles November 18th, 1992: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18TH. 1992 AS SUBMITTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Thomas, Hr. Philo. Hr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles December 2nd, 1992: NONE December 8th, 1992: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2ND AND DECEMBER 8TH. 1992 AS SUBMITTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Hr. Thomas. Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Philo, Hr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles December 16th. 1992: Page 11, Mr. Turner is absent, sib abstained~ Page 13, MOTION TO APPROVE TO THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16TH. 1992 AS - 66 - '-- CORRECTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles December 17th, 1992: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17TH. 1992 AS SUBMITTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner, Chairman - 67 -