Loading...
1993-06-23 ,r\ \ r -- ---- OR GINAl QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23RD. 1993 INDEX Area Variance No. 2-1993 William L. Potvin 1. Use Variance No. 27-1993 American Equity Corp. 14. Area Variance No. 34-1993 Area Variance No. 45-1993 Area Variance No. 48-1993 Use Variance No. 49-1993 Area Variance No. 50-1993 Area Variance No. 51-1993 American Equity Corp. 25. John and Beth Woods 36. John Daly, Jr. 38. Howard Carr; Taco Be ll, Corp. 41. John E. DeSantis 47. Joseph Grimaldi 63. 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 SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23RD. 1993 7:30 P.M. OF APPEALS MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY LINDA HAUSER ROBERT KARPELES FRED CARVIN CHRIS THOMAS MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS PHILO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI º~D BtHH:NESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA WILLIAM L. POTVIN OWNER: WILLIAM L. POTVIN MITCHELL POTVIN. WILLIAM J. MATHER MARIGOLD DRIVE (LUZERNE ROAD TO LANE TO MARIGOLD DRIVE) APPLICANT IS PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF SIXTEEN (16) SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON A VACANT LOT. PROPOSED LOT AREA FOR FOURTEEN (14) LOTS IS FROM FIFTY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (.58) ACRE TO NINETY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (.98) ACRE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (.42) ACRE TO TWO HUNDREDTHS (.02) ACRE RESPECTIVELY. FROM SECTION 179- 19C, WHICH REQUIRES ONE (1) ACRE AS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE SR- lA ZONE. PROPOSED LOT WIDTH FOR NINE (9) LOTS IS FROM ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE ( 125) FEET TO ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-NINE AND TWENTY-FIVE HUNDREDTHS (149.25) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET TO SEVENTY-FIVE HUNDREDTHS (.75) FEET RESPECTIVELY. FROM SECTION 179-19C. WHICH REQUIRES ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET FOR THE LOT WIDTH IN THE SR-1A ZONE. TAX MAP NUMBER: 121-1-53.1 SECTION 179-19C LOT SIZE: 44.246 MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. and the applicant is William L. Potvin, and on January 20th, at the request of the applicant's attorney, the matter was tabled for further information, and we have new Staff Input tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-1993, William L. Potvin, Meeting Date: June 23. 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing the construction of sixteen (16) single family dwellings on a proposed sixteen (16) lot subdivision. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing lot areas from fifty-eight hundredths (.58) acre to ninety-eight hundredths (.98) acre for thirteen lots (Lot Numbers: 1-3, 5-13, and 15) and is seeking relief of forty-two hundredths (.42) acre to two hundredths (.02) acre respectively, from Section 179-19C, which requires one ( 1) acre as the minimum lot area in the SR-l Acre zone. 2. Applicant is proposing lot widths from one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet to one hundred and forty-nine and twenty-five hundredths (149.25) feet for seven lots (Lot Numbers 1. 2, and 6-10). and is seeking relief of twenty-five (25) feet to seventy-five hundredths (.75) feet, from Section 179-19C which requires one hundred and fifty (150) feet as the minimum lot width in the SR-IA zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING - 1 - '- REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that although the zone within which the proposed subdivision is located requires one (1) acre for the minimum lot area and one hundred and fifty (150) feet for the minimum lot width, the property is located in an area with several subdivision and a Mobile Home Overlay District whose average lot is nonconforming in the lot area and lot width. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? As the subdivision is proposed for the si te, it would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and other than reconfiguring several lots to bring them into compliance, no other option is available that would not require a variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD OR CONFLICT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF ANY PLAN OR POLICY OF THE TOWN? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to the district or neighborhood as the project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the district and as there are several Planning Board approved subdivisions in the neighborhood and surrounding area whose average lot area and lot width is nonconforming, it would appear that the variance would not conflict with any plan or policy of the Town. 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 except to the degree that the increased density (greater than one (1) family per acre) will place on the demand for energy, traffic. schools, etc. 5. IS THIS REQUEST THE MINIMUM RELIEl' NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? As the pro j ect is proposed. it would appear that the request is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficul ty. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has submi tted new information regarding the number and configuration of the subdivision as requested by the Zoning Board when they tabled the original application (AV 2-1993). The current site plan proposes thirteen (13) nonconforming and three (3) conforming parcels with the ingress and egress at Marigold Drive. After reviewing the current site plan for the sixteen (16) lot subdivision, staff observed that both lot 5 and lot 15 could be reconfigured to comply with the minimum lot area by adjusting lot 4 for lot 5 and lots 14 and 16 for lot 15. This would reduce the number of parcels requiring a variance from the required minimum lot area." MR. CARVIN-Mr. Chairman, before excused from this application, interest. you begin, I would ask to due to a possible conflict be of MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. O'Connor. HR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I'm here representing the applicant, Mr. Potvin. We were here in January, we had a very extensive discussion at that time. I do know that you have a new Board member. I don't know if you want me to go back to the whole scenario, from the early approval of this subdivision, back in the 1980's, this date, and why we are talking about what we are talking about. If you allow me a little discretion, maybe I will. MR. TURNER-Can you do it briefly? MR. O'CONNOR-Probably not. Basically, in the 1980's, when half acre lots were the proper size for lots, this parcel, or this portion of the subdivision, was approved, leaving this area over here as vacant, and leaving this area over here as vacant. So they did show a proposed loop or half moon connection to it. All these lots right along here are 100 foot in width, and approximately 200 feet in depth. They're about 20,000 square feet, and after that time, it was always the plan of the developer to continue the same scheme with the development, the same size lots. but after that time. there was some changing, a change in the zoning, which - 2 - brought about the one acre requirements. Even since that time, though, there have been some other changes. The area immediately to the north of us was approved by a re-zoning by the Town Board for 10,000 square foot lots, with some common area, but the structures and the parcels that would be sold to the individual homeowners would be 10,000 square feet, one fourth of an acre, or less than one fourth of an acre. In this area here, which is along Burch Road, there is a Mobile Home Overlay park, as well as Single Family Residence zones. So people along this area can put in a mobile home, as well as a single family. To create one acre lots in this little piece, simply doesn' t fit the character of the neighborhood or the character that might be possible to be developed in the neighborhood. We've got newspaper advertisements that go back to the time when the original subdivision was proposed, and that the original approvals and everything else was submitted. I think that's the history that I would bring up, to try and bring you up to date with. When we met in January, the Board asked whether or not we could alleviate the possible problems wi th traffic by obtaining a secondary access, if you will, to Luzerne Road. There is a parcel of land here that is owned by David Miner, or maybe David Miner and his wife. It's probably about 15 acres. We took the time to develop some plans for the development of that parcel. and I, at one time, sent copies of those plans to the Chairman, when I was asking for one of the adjournments. I don't know if they're within your file, or they've been distributed to you or not. Basically, we've proposed three different scenarios, none of which Mr. Miner, in final result, was interested in. We suggested a road straight through to the Potvin parcel with a cul-de-sac off it, for development of Mr. Miner's house. right here. We've proposed simply a straight through road with lots fronting on both the new road to be created and on Burch Road, that you did not like. and we proposed a key intersection, and basically Mr. Miner which was certainly within his rights at this time, indicated that he did not wish to become involved in a development and did not wish to trade with us, did not wish to have us construct the road in exchange for maybe some of his land. The construction of a road through his parcel would cost about $80,000. We tried to trade off some of the cost for that with some of the lots that would be created. He simply said, at this point, he didn't have that interest. So we met with the neighbors, or a group representing the neighbors. I think there were three that were present, that were kind enough to meet with me in my office, and I told them point blank, we simply have not been able to obtain an alternative access. which was their main concern when they were here and spoke in January at the public hearing. I said we would try to mitigate their concerns, if we could. and we seemed to reach a consensus, and I'd hate to speak for them, but Mr. Carvin was there. I don't see anybody else that was there. John Sperry was there, and I forget who else was there, Joe Baker. The consensus was that they would be satisfied if we reduce our request from 20 nonconforming lots to 16 nonconforming lots. which is why we redid the map and submitted it to the Board as it's presently configured. They also asked that we straighten out the road so that lots 13 and 12 would perhaps be better shaped. which was a fine suggestion on their part. They also asked that when we reconfigured the map, that we would leave open the possibility that in the future Mr. Miner, or whoever purchases his property, if he develops that property, he would have the ability to connect to us, or the Planning Board would have the ability require a connection through his property out to Luzerne Road. They also asked that we speak directly as to the type of housing that we would put on the lots, if we received the approvals that we are seeking, and what we did is we agreed that we would have the same restrictive covenants that are on the rest of the subdivision on these lots, and I have submitted a copy of that to Staff, and I have submitted a copy to the neighbors. I haven't had any comment back from the neighbors. The only change that was made was that we increased the requirements of square footage from 1250, which is the existing square footage requirement in the existing Subdivision Regulations, to 1500, and that was also a request by the neighbors. So - 3 - -- basically what we have done is try to put together a package which was not objectionable to those that might be most effected by our request before this Board. As to Staff's comments, and the reconfiguring of the two lots, which would make, perhaps, some of the other lots conforming, we have no objection to that, and I guess Leon Steves, who's with me from Van Dusen and Steves. sat here and did that, and as I look at, we probably could make lot 14, 15, and 16 conforming, and lot 4 a little smaller, and lot 5 a conforming lot, as far as being one acre. So, of the 16 lots we are creating, we are creating only 11 lots of less than an acre, but some of those lots, of the 16, the frontage is less than the required 150 feet. We simply don't have the width to go with the actual frontage. As to the lots that we're creating, again, the three that back on to the existing housing within our own subdivision will all be, then, one acre lots. The smaller lots, which actually back on to the property that is along Burch Road, I would note that the existing housing on Burch Road are on very deep lots. Most of that housing is way up towards the front of Burch Road. There's probably 300, maybe you've got a tax map here. MR. TURNER-Yes, we've got it. MRS. EGGLESTON-On our map that was given. we don't have the depth marked on here. What are the depth of those lots that? How much? MR. O'CONNOR-Two hundred. MRS. EGGLESTON-Two hundred. MR. KARPELES-Where's Burch Road? MR. O'CONNOR-Burch Road is to the east of the subdivision. It's over by where the main box is, or the title box is, on that side. One other thing which I would mention, and it's not a part of the application, but I will mention it. We had offered, and still do offer, the other, I think we've got a total on the tax map of 39 acres. In this area here, you're dealing with approximately 15, maybe 16 acres. The balance of that land is some 20 acres. We offered it to the neighborhood, in whatever form they wanted it. as forever wild land. It wasn't part of the application. It wasn't part of our request for consent. I told them as soon as they told me how they wanted it done, we would do it, wherever we stood with the application. It's not really buildable land, but it would be nice open space. It would be green space. I had suggested, that maybe we would whack it up in accordance with the existing building lot lines, and then that, apparently. raised a little issue as to who gets what. Probabl y what we're going to end up doing is offering it to the Town. If the Town doesn't want it, let it go for taxes, and whoever ends up with it. unless the neighborhood were to form a formal homeowners association or some entity that we could pass it on to. I mention that because it was part of our discussion. It wasn't part of our offer, or a condition or requirement of our offer. Any questions that you have? MISS HAUSER-Where is that land located, that you're talking about? MR. O'CONNOR-The additional land? MISS HAUSER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Right here. It doesn't adjoin us directly, or else we'd probably be talking about cluster zoning. MR. MARTIN-Mike, where is that? MR. O'CONNOR-The additional land on the west side of the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Over here? - 4 - ',-- MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. John Clendon Brook runs through that. MR. MARTIN-How much of it would you be offering? MR. O'CONNOR-The whole piece. I don't think there are, there are probably maybe one or two building sites on it. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes, because of the Brook? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. KARPELES-Did you say you were going to try and connect into Luzerne Road, and you couldn't do it? This road is going to just end here, now that you've got? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. KARPELES-And what is the significance of that line that's across there? MR. O'CONNOR-The line across there is what we would actually construct to. We would construct the hard surface road to meet the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations for T intersections. This would not be actually constructed at this time. It would be there for proposed future roads. Even our subdivision. if you look at it, the old way of approving subdivisions in the Town always used to have you connect to adjoining parcels, so that you would be able to build through roads when you were done. This actual plan, when it was proposed. had a road going right through here, continuing over to, I think this is Sherman Avenue, but when the Town re-zoned this parcel here, they didn't require any through connection. and they discontinued it, and I don't know if the neighborhood wants to have that much of, they have the enjoyment of being kind of isolated when you get into the back of the subdivision, and I think with that comes some privacy. MR. KARPELES-Now these lots actually adjoin these lots here? Is that right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This is our piece right in here. MR. KARPELES-Okay. So they back right up to this? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. and I counted in here, I think there are seven mobile homes in exi stence there. I have nothing furthe r. Mr. Turner. MR. TURNER-All right. I think you did address the question of that lot number 11, in respect to the roadway? You were talking to Mr. Karpeles in reference to that? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TURNER-All right. What happens to the guy with the end lot? Are you going to leave him cut off with just that little front lot line there? MR. O'CONNOR-He would have, well, when we sold that, he would have that as his frontage, which is the required 40 feet frontage on a Town road. It would give him a non exclusive temporary easement over the balance of the land. until it was dedicated for road purposes. So, if he wanted to, he could actually build his house facing out, with a driveway into the area that's not going to be constructed, and treat it like a private roadway, until it is constructed. That was done up on Helen Drive, a piece that adjoined the City watershed. They made the ears, if you will, available to connect into the watershed, if they ever did anything with the watershed, and the people built their houses so their - 5 - '-- driveways go out onto those dead ends. MR. TURNER-Yes. public hearing. Any further questions? Okay. Let me open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRED CARVIN MR. CARVIN-I had a couple of comments. I'm not really speaking in opposi tion. By name is Fred Carvin, and I was part of the delegation. I guess for lack of a better term, that met with Mr. O'Connor at some point in the very near past. He has addressed most of the issues that were raised in the January meeting. I guess to summarize, in summary, there were four or five major areas of concern, the first being the traffic. In other words, as originally proposed. I believe this was going to be a 20 lot, or 20 house development. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARVIN-With one, basically, access the one access down Laurel Lane, and I think that that was the predominant stumbling block for this particular application, as far as the neighborhood was concerned. They have made an effort to try to eliminate that, and were they successful or not, obviously they were not successful at this point. By adding the second road, and reducing the number from 20 down to 16, that sort of was a middle of the road compromise. They would be, under normal circumstances, allowed 12. So the neighborhood felt we went up four, they came down four, and left the option open to connect that road down to Luzerne Road at some point in the future. He did address, one of the other concerns was houses, what types of houses were going in there, and again, I think that to be very fair. in that the deeds will have restrictive covenants, no more restrictive than the that ones we currently have. Again, with the actual house size being reduced to 1500 square feet. The road, I guess if you take a look at that overlay. there isn't too much you Q.ä!l do there. Personally, I think I would like to see that road completed. I don't know, Mr. O'Connor has indicated that they're going to leave that vacant at this point. It raises the question of, if at some point that Miner lot should open up, who would be responsible for the cost of the completion there? If the Board. in it's decision, would address that particular concern, I think we would certainly appreciate it. One of the other areas was the beautification of the area. Again, I think in our conversation the other night there, Mr. O'Connor did indicate that they would probably try to leave trees as a buffer between the Birch Road development and the back of the easements. MR. O'CONNOR-If I were the one building the houses there, I certainly would try to keep whatever screening I could, to make natural fence. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And the other was the lots at the western portion. This is the eastern portion of the lot, and we did have a discussion as to what would happen to that land. If this Board does move on this application, I certainly would hope that they would address the issue of that east/west subdivision. That this variance be granted only for this eastern section. Anything that this Board can do to prevent any development of that western section would truly be appreciated. That is a wetland. There is an accessibility problem. I don't think that anybody could, without a great deal of difficulty, develop that land, but I think the more we can scalp out what can and can't be done in that westerly section, I think, would solve a lot of problems in the future. MR. MARTIN-Is there any easements that you're aware of, Fred to the property along the Brook, along Laurel Lane, or Bellows Circle? Is - 6 - "- "- there any? MR. O'CONNOR-Into that section? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not aware of any easements. MR. MARTIN-Do you know of any, Mike? MR. CARVIN-I think just the configuration. You can only come off Luzerne Road. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. 0' CONNOR-We ll, except, are you saying, are there any vacant lots that potentially could be? MR. MARTIN-Or that, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-There are, I think there. in this development. there are a couple of people who bought more than one lot, with just one house. Where their lot is situated on those lots. I don't think we know. I know that Bill Baker bought three lots, and he backs right on that. That is a wetland. I was involved with the extension of that wetland, if you wi ll, out to We st Mountain Road. recently. with a subdivision for Michael Vasiliou. DEC came along and flagged it. They said it is a protected wetland. I don't really see anybody being able to build out there. MR. CARVIN-I think that emphasizes my point, that I would just like to get it in writing in as many places that that section is going to stay forever wild. With Mr. Vasiliou putting his six or seven lot development in, I believe that does butt up against there. Well, in other words, he's coming in off West Mountain . right? Does he but up against? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. he does. MR. CARVIN-Because there is a development that is pushing in from West Mountain Road. MR. TURNER-Right now. Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but that lot, that development. has gotten its final approval. MR. CARVIN-I'm not arguing that. MR. O'CONNOR-And those lots, in fact, the lots that adjoin this particular property have a very strict cutting requirement, or restrictions along the back portions of those lots. MR. MARTIN-They have, I think, at least a 25 foot no cut zone, or conservation easement. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it's wider than that, because the full distance of the connection between this parcel, is they cannot cut any tree in excess of two inches at breast height, with 20 percent width at breast height. So there's no possibility that you're going to be able to build out from that development into that parcel. MR. CARVIN-Again, I think it just emphasizes my point, that if there's no access off that road, and if the lot was sold, that I think it's going to cause more conflict in the neighborhood than it's going to be worth. So, again, I think that if this Board could address that issue, or if the Town. I don't know if the Town can. - 7 - '- \- MR. MARTIN-What could be done is the Board, if they do choose to approve, could put in their recommendation for the Town to consider taking that in lieu of the recreation fee, if it were offered. MRS. EGGLESTON-What's the size of that parcel, Leon? marked on the map. It's not LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-To the west? MRS. EGGLESTON-No, that little road thing there, the little section that they're reserving, that you have highlighted in ye llow. What's the size of that? MR. STEVES-I would guess that it would be about 30 acres. I didn't come prepared tonight to answer that question. I can get that information to Jim tomorrow. MR. TURNER-What's the size of it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-It's 152 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-It's 50 feet by 140 feet. MR. STEVES-You're talking about the wetland area? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. little. I'm talking about this right here. This MR. TURNER-He said it was 40. MRS. EGGLESTON-He said it was. MR. STEVES-It's 50 by 150. MRS. EGGLESTON-Fifty by one fifty. Okay. The next time you do one of these, will you put all these little figures around the site? MR. STEVES-Yes. to approve that. Well, we don't want to presume that you're going We came prepared tonight to make changes. MR. TURNER-While you're on the subject, Fred, Mike, what's the consideration of running that road back? MR. O'CONNOR-I would be happy, and I would ask you to make your approval to stipulate that we will construct that road to the property line, if the Planning Board and the Highway Department allow us to. There's a problem there with our dedication. I don't want to have to come back two months from now and say, the Planning Board won't accept that because it's a straight dead end. My impression is that the Planning Board won't allow us to dedicate to a dead end line without a turn around area at the end of it, they can't plow it. MR. TURNER-No, I know it. MR. O'CONNOR-And then it becomes that 150 feet from a Town road. So until Miner makes his move, we're a little bit handicapped. MR. MARTIN-I can tell you right now, it would be Staff's recommendation to pave to the property line. MR. O'CONNOR-How are you going to plow it? MR. MARTIN-I don't know that it would necessarily need to be plowed. depending on where that driveway cut was. - 8 - ~ MR. TURNER-Well, I think you'd have to leave a buffer to pile that snow up. You just can't push it on somebody else's property. MR. O'CONNOR-All I ask is that, don't condition your approval on something that I can't have control over. I will do it if the Planning Board and the Highway Department allow me to. I don't know what else I can offer, and you can make a recommendation to the Planning Board, and to. MR. MARTIN-I just don't want to get into a nebulous area where Mr. Miner or somebody who owns that property in the future is willing to run a road up to their property line, but then you have this 40 or 50 foot strip in there that. MR. O'CONNOR-We will do it, but we're here to get a variance so that I can go to the Planning Board and get a subdivision. I don't want to get the variance with something I can't work with the Planning Board, and I think that's in the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, whether or not they will allow that. I'll do it if they allow us to, and we will actually construct it to the property line, if they allow us to. I would be glad to have it not in the developer's name, as far as title goes. and to sell those side lots with non exclusive easements and tell people they've got to construct their own private driveway over that, some time period until Miner develops, maybe makes those two lots a little less salable. So, for all practical purposes, I'd be happy to, but I'm telling you that I don't have any final authority to say that it will be done. Maybe I could touch on a couple of other points. On the land on the west side that we are saying that we will pass on to whoever wants to take title to it, again, I'm going to ask you to condition your approval, if you were to approve that land at all, saying that you recommend, or I would agree that no further variances would be applied for that land. MR. TURNER-No further development? Is that nailing you down pretty tight? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don't know what you're going to do, 15 years from now, or 20 years from now. I'll offer a deed to the Town of Queensbury, if you want to recommend it. MR. TURNER-They probably won't take it. MR. O'CONNOR-We offered it, in Herald Square III, which is across the road. We offered 20 acres of land along John Clendon Brook, and you have to go through a process with the Zoning Administrator, with the Recreation Commissioner, and the Town Board, and between the three of them, they didn't want it. I don't think they had the same neighborhood on that as they will have with this application. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And that may make a difference. MR. MARTIN-In my view, as Zoning Administrator, I think that land has a great deal of value as recreation, even if it's not active recreation but more passive in nature. I'd like to see that. MR. CARVIN-Well, it is a very active area. There is, apparently, quite a fishing stream down through there. MR. MARTIN-I mean, even if it's not something, you can't necessarily build a ball field on, I'd still like to. MR. CARVIN-There are paths and nature walks and things like that down through there. MR. MARTIN-That's what I mean. MR. O'CONNOR-We'd be happy to stipulate that we will give a deed to - 9 - the Town of that property, if the Town will accept it. Again. I'm asking you, don't condition your approval on something I don't have control over. I don't have control over the Board saying, yes. they will accept it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think I've covered pretty much the whole ball of wax here. I've got just a clarification of the east/west situation. the covenants should be part of the motion, that I think something should be indicated in the motion to covenants, the little spur road here. if there's something that can be, maybe make a suggestion to the Planning Board that this be the section for approval. I know one of the neighbors had indicated that he'd like to try to preserve as much of the natural area there. If we could have some kind of assurance. a no cut zone, or an easement. MR. O'CONNOR-I truthfully don't know the trees that are on the lots myself. I don't know where they're situated. I can't tell you that. The lots are going to be 200 feet deep. They would have the benefit of blocking out maybe some of the housing on Burch Road that's not as substantial as their housing, and I think that they would intentionally try to leave as much trees as they could. That's part of the reason that we're saying that this is not an area for estate housing. or estate lots of one acre per building, because of what exists over there. So there is going to be probably even more than just leaving what's there. There's going to be some actual affirmative action to put in some additional screening. MR. CARVIN-The other thing I had was, the first available opportunity that that road be extended through Miner's, so that if that lot, apparently held by Mr. Miner, should come in for re- zoning, that that be part of the consideration. I don't have a problem with the lot sizes. I think with reconfiguration, that they're going to get done. I think most of the lots are probably larger than some of the existing lots there. MR. TURNER-Yes, they are. MR. CARVIN-The balance of the land, as I said. the biggest problem I have is that western section. If we could get that nailed down as tight as we could, that that, I just hate to see, in five year or ten years, with a change, somebody come in and all of a sudden, whack out another eight or ten houses in there. MR. TURNER-Yes. Land they don't make any more of. MR. CARVIN-No. MR. TURNER-And if it's, so they can develop it, they'll be back in. MR. CARVIN-So that is a very nice stream down through there. As I said, anything the Board can do to try to keep it that way certainly is appreciated. I think that's all of my comments. MRS. EGGLESTON-How many acres are in that section? MR. TURNER-On the west side. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Approximately 20 acres, maybe 22. The tax map shows a total of 39 acres, and we're developing approximately 15, 22, 24. The tax map may not be exactly correct. I've seen the figures. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard on this application? Okay. Public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 10 - MR. TURNER-Any discussion? MRS. EGGLESTON-We had so much neighborhood opposition before, I think that they've kind of come to terms with that. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Through working with the applicant, and I'll give the applicant credit for trying to appease the neighbors. MR. TURNER-Any discussion as to that road cut? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think that if we were to approve this, we should put right in the motion that that 50 by 150 foot, and I'd like someone, if we approve it, to give the Town a map. so marked, by Van Dusen and Steves, that that is 50 by 150. I don't want somebody just to say it is. I'd like them to give one marked 50 by 150, the correct dimensions for future use. MR. STEVES-Consider it done. MRS. EGGLESTON-That we should put in there that that is reserved for future egress and ingress, if and when a road is built through here, and that they have to complete that, if this road comes through. MR. MARTIN-Joyce, we could have that on a new site plan. We'd have to have a new one anyhow, with the proposed lot adjustments that you're making tonight. MR. TURNER-Yes. He'll have to submit a new one. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'd like it to come from here. Then we won't have an O'Toole's again, if we could, get my point? MR. O'CONNOR-Can I submit this as, what you're considering right now, that's where the red lines are, and we will do a new map, which will actually show what's on there, but that's what you can have for your record right now, so there isn't any confusion. This is the Staff recommendation, or reconfiguration those two lots, those three lots, and this here. MR. TURNER-We can address it in the motion, but, you know, you're going to have to have a new map anyway. MR. MARTIN-If you do ask for a new map. I'd like a date that it has to be submitted by, in your motion. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-How much time would you need for new maps, Leon? MRS. EGGLESTON-Thirty days? Well, when will it go to planning? MR. TURNER-Before you go to site plan, if we give it to you. MR. MARTIN-You probably, are you trying to hit the 30th now, with the Sketch Plan? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We may be at Preliminary. I've got to go back and look. MR. MARTIN-That's right. MR. TURNER-June the 30th? Before June the 30th? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. - 11 - MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I'm thinking about, do you think that would handle the situation here, if we put in there that that was reserved for? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And then we have to talk about this over here, this 20, the other section. that'd be the western section, approximately 29 acres. MR. TURNER-Right. recreation area? .Recommend that they deed it to the Town for MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, not prohibiting them anything, which was Mr. Carvin's concerns, don't know, is there anything we could do? breaking it up or that they try to, I MISS HAUSER-Wasn't it suggested that they try to get this paved to here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. We're talking about over on this section, where the wetlands are, back of the already division there. MR. STEVES-Joyce, the area to the west of the subdivision. of Clendon Brook, is Phase I. It's exactly 29.175 acres. The area of the subdivision that we're considering tonight would be 15.071 acres. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Right. MR. KARPELES-Is there anything that would lead you to believe you're ever going to be able to complete that road through there, to Luzerne Road? I mean, that's a screwball looking thing there, and that might be there forever. MR. O'CONNOR-It will be there forever, unchanged. until somebody comes in and tries to develop the Miner property, and then the ne ighbors can get invo 1 ved in it and say, hey, you've got a connection. Make the developer connect. MR. KARPELES-Isn't there some way you can make something that looks a little bit better than that, and still leave it so that if they did that, you'd be able to connect through, I mean, by rounding it off? MR. O'CONNOR-I doubt that the Town is going to accept it for that long a run, on a dead end. They're going to make us end the dedication where we've shown the line, at least that's my experience. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. 0' CONNOR-They certainly wouldn't accept a cul-de-sac that adjoined the adjacent property. MR. TURNER-No. They won't accept that. Paul doesn't like them. MR. O'CONNOR-There's a possibility, maybe, of a T intersection at the very end, which would put 25 feet on each side, and offer the Town a temporary turn around area, and that might. I would work with whatever the Planning Board says that they will do. MR. TURNER-Well. you know you've got to address the issue of the snow removal, the snow that's going to impact that area, if we get - 12 - snow like we did last winter. Where are you going to push it? You can't push it on lot 12, and you can't push it on lot 11. You can push it on the T, but that's as far as you can go. MR. O'CONNOR-On that T intersection, that's why they have the end to the T. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. but I'm saying, you don't show it now. but I mean, I think you really ought to address that. MR. STEVES-That's why we're trying to address with this, with that parcel being left in consideration for future, would be the area that snow would be pushed. MR. TURNER-That's fine with me, but you've got to put it some place. MR. STEVES-I hear you. MR. TURNER-Yes. gets it down. We're going to have a motion, as soon as Joyce MRS. EGGLESTON-Mike, towards Burch Road. their concerns were a buffer. Is there a way you could leave a row of trees? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know what's on site, to be honest with you. The lots on Burch Road are about 300 feet deep themselves. My impression is that they are heavily treed in back of there. MRS. EGGLESTON-They are. There are trees there. MR. O'CONNOR-You're actually talking about us, and our marketability for the lots that we're going to create, for people within the subdivision aren't going to see, will see Burch Road, regardless of what you do. So I understand what they're saying. I think the market will dictate, we'll preserve what we can preserve. but I'd hate to tie up land too much and unnecessarily. MR. STEVES-I have been out there. Joyce. and there's a lot of trees there, unfortunately. there's not a lot of brush. There's just a lot of trees. Brush would be more of a buffer. MR. TURNER-Yes, not much undergrowth. MR. O'CONNOR-You did put in there. though. that you're approving it subject to we incorporating the restrictions and covenants that we've offered for the record? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1993 WILLIAM L. POTVIN, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Granting the applicant relief from Section 179-19C, which requires one acre as minimum lot area in the SR-IA zone, and relief from Section 179-19C. which requires 150 foot minimum lot width in the SR-IA zone. This variance will apply to Lots Number One through Thirteen, per VanDusen and Steves proposed subdivision map, known as Clendon Brook Phase II, dated May 26, 1993. All other lots in the subdivision will meet the one acre requirement. This variance is given with the stipulation that the 50 by 150 foot strip between Lots 11 & 12 will be reserved for future ingress and egress. if and when a road is constructed from Luzerne Road through the Miner property. This variance is also given with the further stipulation that approximately 29.17 acres on the western side of the subdivision, bordering the Clendon Brook. be offered to the Town of Queensbury for a recreation area. The applicant will also provide the Building Department with a new map, with the 50 by 150 foot strip clearly marked and also showing the alterations to Lots 4 & - 13 - 5, and 14. 15 & 16. The applicant has submitted a declaration of restrictive covenants, which will become a part of the deeds in the subdivision. I don't believe that this would be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties by the granting of the variances, and I don't believe it will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant has demonstrated great effort to meet with the neighbors, and has addressed the concerns of the neighbors. I don't believe this variance to be in opposi tion to the wishes of the Town of Queensbury. The subdivision is located in an area where there are several subdivisions, and will fit into the character of the neighborhood. This seems to be the minimum variance necessary in order to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. When the applicant goes before the Planning Board, if there are any major changes to the proposed Van Dusen and Steves May 26, 1993 proposal, they will come back to this Board, they will be required to come back to the Zoning Board to address the changes. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ~BSTAINED: Mr. Carvin ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. O'CONNOR-I'd like, if Recreation Commissioner, this land, pursuant to neighbors. Thank you. you would, to have you do a letter to the strongly recommending that they accept the input that you've had from the MR. TURNER-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 27-1993 TYPE I LI-IA AMERICAN EQUITY CORP. AS GENERAL PARTNER FOR ACG QUEENSBURY ASSOCIATES, L. P. OWNER: EARLTOWN CORPORATION APPROX. 30 ACRES OF LAND EAST OF QUAKER RIDGE BLVD. AND NORTH OF QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE PERMITTED USES IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: MAY 12. 1993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 110-1-2.61 LOT SIZE: 37.55 ACRES SECTION 179-2GD SEQRA TO PLANNING BOARD: APRIL 29, 1993 LEAD AGENCY PLANNING BOARD TO ADDRESS APPLICATION: MAY 20, 1993 - JUNE 10. 1993 MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MISS HAUSER-Mr. Chairman, I'd like to be excused from the next two applications, for a possible conflict. . MR. TURNER-Okay. Fine. I'll make a motion. Before we proceed with the application, MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE SEQRA REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser ABSENT: Mr. Philo - 14 - '-- MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 27-1993, American Equity Corp., Meeting Date: April 27, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing a retail development consisting of a mul ti- function department store and a smaller retail store on a thirty-seven and fifty-five hundredths (37.55) acre vacant lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Proposed project site is located in two (2) zones: Highway Commercial 1 Acre and Light Industrial 1 Acre. Applicant is proposing a retail use for the entire parcel and is seeking relief from Section 179-26D, Permitted Uses, for that part of the parcel which is zoned Light Industrial 1 Acre. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? It would appear that reasonable return of the land is not possible as zoned, because applicant claims that after a number of years of marketing said parcel, applicant has not been able to sell the property despite property's location, service road and easement and site utilities. 2. ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS LOT UNIQUE AND NOT DUE TO THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE ORDINANCE? The applicant believes that the parcel is unique due to the fact that the five hundred (500) foot Highway Commercial Zone which is located at the front of the property was originally established as a commercial zone along Quaker Road, but unrelated to use, and in the applicant's case. insufficient for the development of an approximately thirty (30) acre parcel. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? It would appear that the proposed project would not adversely effect the neighborhood as it is consistent with the Town's plan for this neighborhood, in addition to being a less intrusive use of the parcel than the permitted uses in the Light Industrial Zone. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The parcel in question is a thirty-seven and fifty-five hundredths (37.55) acres, consisting of approximately eleven (11) acres in the Highway Commercial Zone and twenty-six and fifty-five hundredths (26.55) acres in the Light Industrial Zone. Applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into three lots: the largest of which will be approximately thirty-one and forty-three hundredths (31.43) acres and is the proposed site for the retail development, a four and sixty-two hundredths (4.62) acre lot, which is the north west section of the parcel, and a one and five tenths (1.5) acre lot at the southeast corner of the parcel. Applicant's argument as to being deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property in question is documented by his unsuccessful attempt to market the property over a period of years and that the alleged hardship relating to the property is related to the "arbitrary" designation of the five hundred (500) foot swathe of the Highway Commercial zone not being related to actual use and in the case of his property, not sufficient for the commercial development of a greater than thirty (30) acre parcel. (See the attached letter from the applicant regarding the hardship issue.)" MRS. EGGLESTON-And there's a letter from the applicant regarding the hardship issue. MR. TURNER-I think you addressed it in what she read. MR. SCHACHNER-It was summarized in the attachment. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Which letter are you referring to? This was with the original. MR. MARTIN-April 1st? MR. TURNER-I think it's summarized right here, what she read. MR. SCHACHNER-I have a feeling that the Staff was referring to the attachment. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. That's what I was referring to. - 15 - \- MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Mr. Schachner. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you, Mr. Turner. For your records, I'm Mark Schachner from Miller, Mannix and Pratt, the attorney for American Equity Corporation. the applicant. With me is Jim Weller, who is the engineering consultant as well. I think the application pretty much speaks for itself. It is for a use variance. It's a rather unusual situation, in our opinion, for two reasons. One is that we are not seeking a variance for the entire parcel, because a substantial portion of the property is zoned to allow the use that we've prQposed. However, a portion of the property is zoned for Light Industrial use, that being what I refer to as the rear portion of the parcel, meaning furthest from Quaker Road. Basically, the front is zoned Highway Commercial. The rear is zoned Light Industrial. The zoning boundary line. or the classification line, cuts through about the nearest 1/3 of the property, nearest to Quaker Road. So it's the rear portion, which is Light Industrial. for which we seek the variance, to allow the retail commercial development, and as our application indicates, we think clearly that the Master Plan envisions commercial development in this area. It appears that the zoning classification boundaries were merely established by measuring 500 feet or so back off of Quaker Road. Obviously the property lines don't correspond to that. The owner of the property, the Earl town Corporation, did market it for many years, unsuccessfully, with the current zoning. We represent the applicant that proposes a substantial commercial retail development. We obviously need a use variance to accomplish that. The only other thing, another thing we think is somewhat unusual about it is, many, if not most, use variance applications seek permission from you, as the Zoning Board of Appeals, to do something more intensive on the property than the underlying zoning. In this case, the underlying zoning is industrial. What we seek is, at least in the minds of some, actually less intensive, in that it's commercial, not industrial. It's not a manufacturing or processing facility, which will have, with any intended potential problems that some manufacturing facilities would have. It's strictly a retail commercial development, and we think we've pretty handily established granting of a use variance. MR. TURNER-Okay. Is that your comment? All right. Any questions of Mr. Schachner? MR. THOMAS-I've got a few. Dix Avenue has just changed from Light Industrial to Commercial, from a zoning change by the Town Board. Why didn't you jump in on the bandwagon on that one, and get it changed? MR. SCHACHNER-I assume you're referring, when you say Dix Avenue, you mean the specific parcel on the corner of Quaker and Dix? MR. THOMAS-Yes, out by Livingston Furniture there. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Well, basically, that's a different project with a different applicant. and a different project team. I can't really specifically speak to why they chose to go for the re- zoning, as opposed to a variance. What I will say is that in my personal philosophy, a variance is more appropriate, because I don't see the need to change the underlying zoning, and by seeking a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, as you know, you have the ability to very closely look at the proposed use, much more closely than the Town Board does in re-zoning. When they re-zone. for example, if we got re-zoning of this property to retail. highway commercial, plaza commercial, whatever, a whole laundry list of possible uses could go in on that property. Now .that may be fine, but the fact is that there's less control, from the Town's perspective, if you go the re-zoning route, as opposed to going the variance route, and I can't speak to the other applicant's philosophy. Perhaps the other applicant wants to have the - 16 - flexibility on his piece of property to have a different set of proposed uses, but we're seeking a very specific proposed use authorization, and we believe that the best means of getting that use is a use variance. MR. THOMAS-You said this is going to be a commercial development. Can you tell us who's going to go in there? MR. SCHACHNER-The preferred tenant is K-Mart. That's also true of the other application you mentioned, and nobody seems to know which one K-Mart will pick. MRS. EGGLESTON-But there won't be two, that's for sure. MR. SCHACHNER-I would certainly indicate that as far as I know, there is no chance of there being two K-Marts, but there is certainly a very good chance of it being a K-Mart and something else. In fact, I think my own position, and I think Mr. Martin would agree with this, is that it's substantially likely that there would be two commercial developments in this general area. MR. MARTIN-Yes. that's correct. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I would agree with that. MR. THOMAS-This one and a half acre out parcel, what's that, just a green space? MR. SCHACHNER-Probably not, actually. We're not applying for anything right now on the one and a half acre out parcel, but over the long haul, it's probably going to be another retail commercial type establishment, possibly a fastfood establishment, something like that. I say it's going to be. Obviously, we would need to apply, if we're going to do something, but right now, there's not a specific plan for that, and we're not applying for anything there. The out parcel also, by the way, is not part of the land for which we seek the variance, because it's located already wholly within the Highway Commercial zone. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Schachner, if I might ask a couple of questions, the retail square footage here, the 191,000 square foot configuration of the building, is that, if K-Mart were to come in, would that be what they're requesting? MR. SCHACHNER-That definitely, that request is strictly from K- Mart. As far as is it cast in stone, with precision, I think it's no secret that during the site plan review process, the Planning Board sometimes gets involved in some molding and shaping, things like that, but the amount of square footage and the precise configuration came straight from K-Mart. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I'm assuming that, on your map here, where you have your dividing line between the Light Industrial and the Commercial, that that extends through this particular portion does it? In other words, it basically goes through the parking lot? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. CARVIN-In other words, I can just draw, basically, a straight line across? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Maybe it didn't show up well on you~ map. I can show you on my map. MR. CARVIN-It ends at Quaker Boulevard. MR. SCHACHNER-Quaker/Ridge Boulevard? - 17 - MR. CARVIN-Quaker/Ridge Boulevard, and that's why I wanted to make sure where the zone is. In other words, I'm under the assumption that you're not looking to change anything on this side. MR. SCHACHNER-By this side, you mean the northwest? MR. CARVIN-Well, I can show you. In other words, this triangular piece to the west, I am assuming, is not part of your application. MR. SCHACHNER-You're correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, your zoning line comes over to here. MR. CARVIN-Your line stops here, and I just wanted to make sure that that did indeed continue straight across. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand. Yes, it does. The zoning line, and I'm not sure why the map was drawn that way, but your correct that it does go straight across. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, have you explored the possibility of moving this to there, in other words, what kind of ramifications, because we are dealing with a hypothetical business, could we indeed move that to the front portion, into the Highway Commercial. You wouldn't need an application. MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, you would need an application, with all due respect, and the reason is because even if we were to, the answer is, Number One, yes, we've explored it. The tenant absolutely will not compromise. MR. CARVIN-Well, you don't have a tenant. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, we have a preferred tenant, and the tenant won't do it, if it's split lot like that, but from your perspective, as a Zoning Board of Appeals, much more importantly, wi th all due respect. it's not the case that if that were to happen, if the building were in the front, we wouldn't need a variance, because we would still need the rest of it as parking, and if the parking is for a commercial use, you have to look at the entire parcel, and label that use, and what type of use it is. It would still be a commercial use. It would still need the exact same variance that we seek. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you have explored this and that's not a viable alternative at this point? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. HR. SCHACHNER-I have one minor comment I'd like to mention, and that's strictly as a matter of housekeeping. If I'm not mistaken, Mrs. Eggleston read Attachment A from her regional application. We supplemented that with a revised Attachment A on April 13th. The revision was very minor, but I guess I just wanted to make sure that is part of your record. I'm led to believe it is. I know ~ have copies of it. I know that it was submitted with the appropriate number of copies. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, that's my mistake, I must say, because I went from my old application. MR. SCHACHNER-That's no problem. I just wanted to make sure, as long as it's in your records somewhere. It's really only two sentences in Number 14, the last two sentences in Number 14. See, this says, as a result of the unusual bisection of the site? - 18 - HR. TURNER-Yes. HR. SCHACHNER-That sentence is now changed however, this width is clearly insufficient development of the approximately 30 acre parcel, ends, but we took out bisection of the site. to say just that, for a commercial which is how that MRS. EGGLESTON-Can I have a copy of that for the file, because I don't see one in this file. MR. SCHACHNER-At least one member has it. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think I had it. It came with our minutes, but I don't see one in the file. MR. CARVIN-This I got with the original application. MRS. EGGLESTON-You did? HR. CARVIN-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what I read, from the original application. MR. CARVIN-Unless, maybe there was an attachment. MRS. EGGLESTON-Maybe. MR. SCHACHNER-If one member has it, I know I'm comfortable that the Board has it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is this the one, Fred? HR. CARVIN-Yes, that's the one. HRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. So, I'll put that one in the file. HR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any Correspondence of any nature? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? MR. CARVIN-I guess the use, I guess that's been for sale for quite a ,,¡hile, and it is wi thin the intent of the Town to, I would assume, develop that Quaker Road Corridor. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think that whoever goes in there with that. the way it's zoned, they're going to have a problem of half of it one way and half another, so it's not an unreasonable request. MR. TURNER-Well, and I think originally, before '88, I think that parcel was still zoned Light Industrial, and it didn't get changed, and it didn't get changed for the reason of its closeness to the airport. They thought maybe industrial development would go there, and they'd utilize the airport to bring in people and whatever, but that never came about. I closed the public hearing. Do you want to make a comment? I'll open it up again. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED CLAUDE CHARLEBOIS - 19 - MR. CHARLEBOIS-My name is Claude Charlebois, and I believe at the last meeting. at the SEQRA Review, you went through the SEQRA with no wetlands or no water on this particular piece of property. I would like to have something explained to me. What does wetland mean? MR. TURNER-What does wetland DEC. That means vegetation. It could be vegetation water, there, whatever, alders. mean? It means usually flagged by It doesn't necessarily mean water. whatever grows there, whatever grows MR. CHARLEBOIS-So. has anyone checked this out? MR. TURNER-I assume they have. MR. CARVIN-Well, this was part of the SEQRA. I know in the minutes. there. that I guess the Army Corp of Engineers has been. I don't know if they've been invited or what the situation is, to come up and look at that. MR. CHARLEBOIS-I believe at the last meeting that there was no water on the site, and I happened just to go through there to see if there was any rock on that site, since I have rock on mY site. I thought I'd try to walk the piece of property across the street, and I was walking in water up to my knees. and this part that you approved last week. MR. TURNER-Are you on the eastern parcel or the western parcel? MR. CHARLEBOIS-I'm behind Livingstons. MR. TURNER-You're behind Livingstons. MR. CHARLEBOIS-Yes. MR. TURNER-You walked your property. MR. CHARLEBOIS-I walked both pieces. MR. TURNER-Both pieces. Did you walk the western part? MR. CHARLEBOIS-On my piece. there's rock. was water. On their piece. there MR. TURNER-There's water on the west, on the east? MR. CHARLEBOIS-There's water on this parcel that I'm showing you, that piece where the site is going to be. HR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CHARLEBOIS-I have pictures that I've taken and shown to Jim Martin. MR. TURNER-It wasn't flagged. Was there any little flags on it? MR. CHARLEBOIS-No. MR. TURNER-Any vegetation or any tree? MR. CHARLEBOIS-No, there wasn't. MR. TURNER-It's not a wetlands. They'd flag it if it was. MR. CHARLEBOIS-No. I guess what I'm speaking about is at the meeting last week, I heard there was no water at all on this site. If you go back to the minutes, and check. MRS. EGGLESTON-You must have been at the Planning Board, not before this Board. - 20 - MR. CHARLEBOIS-The SEQRA Review. Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's why we're not familiar with what you're referring to. MR. CHARLEBOIS-I have water on my parcel across the street which has gone into the Corp of Engineer's approval. I was just wondering if this piece of property was going before the Corp of Engineers for approval also. being that there's water on the property? MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, isn't this part of the Earltown? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, there are designated wetlands on Earl town property. MR. TURNER-Yes. There is, but they're farther to the west. MRS. EGGLESTON-They're down towards Albany Engineering. MR. CHARLEBOIS-I just showed Mr. Turner, it was not on the record, from last map that was presented to this Board. MR. TURNER-Jim, can you give us any input, because obviously we weren't there. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that there's any DEC jurisdictional wetlands on this site. The wetlands maps we have indicate that I think Wetland HFA, or 8, as they identify them, is in close proximi ty, but does not cross on to this property. Now we. as Staff, have been out to see the site, and there appear to be some areas where there's cattails and things like that growing. MR. TURNER-Yes. there is, on the west side of the road. MR. MARTIN-Right, and they have yet to go through their subdivision process, during which time a surveyor and engineer will look at this site, and they'll be required to put their stamp on that, as a licensed engineer, and I don't think they're going to put a stamp on there without showing wetlands. if there are. The other thing is, I'm inquiring, just for our general knowledge as a Department, as to what the Wetland Regulations are. I've heard that they've changed in recent years, and that anything under 12 acres in size, which is the DEC threshold for jurisdiction, is an Army Corp of Engineer issue. So we're trying to get a hold of the Regional Office in Troy, talk to that person and see where this stands, how they proceed with these types of things, and if they'll come up and look, whatever, but I view this as a site plan or subdivision concern, and it will certainly be looked into, and as I said, the Town requires a licensed engineer or surveyor to do the subdivision map, and they'd be required to show a wet area, even if it was an acre in size. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-If they don't do that, they'd be threatened with loss of license. MR. TURNER-Does that answer your question? MR. CHARLEBOIS-Yes. I believe that the engineer that was here last time, the other Board, mentioned that he worked on the project and there was no water on it. I just wanted to correct that, for this Board to know that there is water. I, personally, have seen it myself. MR. TURNER-I know there's water there. myself. We all have. Yes. I drove down there - 21 - MR. CHARLEBOIS-I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak, before I close the public hearing for the last time? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion? Is there anything you want to talk about? What was the purchase price of the property. originally, and what's the offering price now? MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know the answer to those things. because the purchase price, originally, by Earltown Corporation, although we do have an Earltown representative here. If he knows, obviously, you can ask him. Basically, this was part of, as was mentioned earlier, this property is part of the extremely much substantially larger holdings of the Earltown Corporation. This is just one 32, 33 acre portion of that. As I understand it. Earltown acquired the property in different configurations and different chunks. So there is no, as I understand it, there's not a meaningful way of knowing what the original purchase price was, but as we've indicated, and I think is common knowledge, there have been two pro j ects that have been proposed, and in fact approved over the years, that this property was either involved with or in immediate proximity to. One was the Earltown Planned Unit Development, and the other one was the commercial subdivision of seven or eight lots. I've got the subdivision map, if you wish to see it, of seven or eight or so lots right along the Quaker Road, and. again, this property has been actively marketed for both avenues, for potential uses, in keeping with the zoning. In addition, we had the same understanding that you had, Mr. Turner, about the notion that there might be industrial uses there, because of the proximity to the airport and the industrial park, as Mr. Carvin mentioned, and it's just, none of it panned out. There's not been activity whatsoever, and this is for many years. This is not just a situation where you have a realtor trying for six months to market something. I think the whole community knows. this is year after year. MR. TURNER-We're well aware of that. but you don't have any figures at all? MR. SCHACHNER-No. because my understanding is the way it was acquired is not the way that we're proposing it now. MRS. EGGLESTON-What does that sentence mean? what you just said? Would you explain MR. SCHACHNER-My understanding is that. we're seeking approval on a 33, lets call it, acre parcel, but Earltown didn't acquire this as a 33 acre parcel. So I don't have any way of knowing, as I understand it, I have know way of knowing what the purchase price by Earltown would have been for this parcel. MR. TURNER-Did they buy this parcel from Sullivan's? MR. SCHACHNER-That's my belief, I think from an estate. it might have been the Sullivan Estate. MR. TURNER-Yes. So they bought this chunk as one piece of property. So what did they pay for that piece of property? MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know, and I'm not sure they bought, I don't believe they did buy this as one chunk. I think they bought more than this, as one chunk. HR. TURNER-They bought that with another piece. you're saying. as a combination? Is that what MR. SCHACHNER-Well, first of all, we're only on a portion of the - 22 - -- entire parcel. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. MR. SCHACHNER-If you're asking how much was paid for the entire parcel. I have no idea. We don't have an option on the entire parcel, and we don't know what the purchase price was. MRS. EGGLESTON-But has this particular parcel that you're going to build on. has that piece been advertised for sale, just the section that your applicant is proposing to build on? HR. SCHACHNER-The answer is yes, and my understanding is very actively by the Earltown Corporation. MRS. EGGLESTON-And for how much was that? MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know the answer to that, now Don Ayles from the Earltown Corporation is here. If he knows I hope he'll step up and tell us. DON AYLES MR. AYLES-I don't have the answer to that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We don't the exact figures, and this is, by the way, over a period of many years. MR. TURNER-All right. Earltown bought it, when? MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know that. MR. TURNER-How long ago did Earltown buy the? MR. AYLES-It got acquired from 1982 on, in various sections. I have no idea, the parcels, as to how they were acquired, right now. MR. CARVIN-I think we should look at a larger issue here, that is, is this the area that we want to have a commercial development growing, and I think they've got a point, and I can't say whether it was arbi trarily done or not. I mean, the 500 foot Highway Commercial, at least on the surface, appears arbitrary, and I'm not quite sure what kind of strip mall you could put in there, but I think that they have some credence, that it would certainly make the lot salable. MR. TURNER-Well, the issue of the Highway Commercial, that was programmed like that because it was thought that Quaker Road was going to develop in that fashion, and we weren't looking at any big development, like they're proposing here now, and the same on the other side of the street, and at the time we did the Ordinance over, that's the way everything seemed to be going. Then they developed Earltown, they started to develop it, they started to pick up land, then they made a proposal for a development, and that's where we are, and it is developing commercially. It's going to be commercial. Light Industrial, forget it. It's not going to happen there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think the use variance, we have like four things, criteria, that need to be addressed, Number Four is that the alleged hardship has not been self-created. I don't believe it has. It's the double zoning on this lot really, that's my opinion, the split zoning. Number Three is that the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and I don't believe it will. It's commercial with a lot of businesses in the area. That's my opinion on that. Number Two, the alleged hardship relating to the property is unique, which it is, with this double, with the split zoning on it, it's unique to the portion of the district or neighborhood, and Number One is, under applicable zoning regulations, the applicant is deprived of - 23 - - all economic use or benefit from the property in question, which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence. That's the issue we have to clarify, that if we're all comfortable with. MR. SCHACHNER-And if I could just add one, I forget which one of you, but one of you asked about what is thi s spec i f ic parce I marketed at, and my understanding is marketed very actively, and one of the marketing pitches was the existence of the service road at Quaker Ridge Boulevard, both of which were already put in. which made it somewhat. we thought, or not we, but the owner thought, made it very attractive for proposed commercial or industrial uses, and again, my understanding is it was actively marketed, and this was for a period of literally over five years. with no takers. As I understand it, it was marketed from time to time with prices, and from time to time without prices. I think they went out and solicited people and said, is this a great location for a business. wouldn't you like to come here, then we'll talk money, and my impression is, the overall comprehensive plan for this area, including the Planned Unit Development, those seven or eight smaller commercial lots right along Quaker Road, and the industrial park idea, all excellent, well intentioned ideas. but it just didn't pan out. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, does that satisfy your economic? MR. TURNER-It satisfies me, because they have tried, just living here, they've tried to do something with it, and they haven't been able to do anything with it. MR. SCHACHNER-It's sort of high profile property, and as I said, I think the whole community knows. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-And this is limited use. retail, not everything else, just retail. it. This is only limited to That's the nice part of MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Number Sixteen on the application states, what are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services. The applicant has repl ied, the variance wi II not have any effect whatsoever on facilities and services, and as soon as anybody mentions Quaker Road, all you hear about is traffic. What about ingress and egress out of here, remembering that Niagara Mohawk is opening their new Northeast Region right across the street with about 500 employees that will be flying out of there every night. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but we interpret that to re fer more to the utilities, sewer. water, as well as police. fire protection, and all that. municipal services, and I would stand by our statement that it will not have any negative effect on municipal services. In terms of traffic, I mean. I don't know if, typically, I don't you all would get into this in as much detail as the Planning Board. There's a very sophisticated technical traffic study that's already been submitted. and the Planning Board is going to, like it or not, get involved in it in a thorough detailed fashion in the site plan review stage. MRS. EGGLESTON-But his question is legitimate. I think roads are a part of service. You might not, but I think roads are a part of service. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don't have a problem with the question. Well, I was just saying, when we answered the question. we didn't think of that particular aspect. but short answer is, we attended a meeting last week with the State DOT. as well as the Warren County DPW, and we were informed by Roger Gebo and the Department - 24 - -- of Public Works, that the final, or maybe not final, but the next widening of Quaker Road, to five full lanes, is going to take place within the next three years. and our traffic study indicates that the traffic will function appropriately. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are there any plans for lights? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Right there. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. There's a signal at our main, I'm sorry. I thought I mentioned that earlier, -but I may not have. Yes. ~here are five traffic mitigation measures that we've proposed that so far seem to be acceptable to the Planning Board, although, again, we're still just getting into it with the Planning Board, and the main one, of course, is a proposed traffic signal, which should show up on the map you have in front of you, and that's at the intersection of Quaker and Quaker Ridge Boulevard. Our traffic study and our traffic consultant also proposed a specific right turn only lane and left turn only lane as well, to make both the ingress and egress areas work. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Thank you, Mark. MR. TURNER-What's the proposal for the future roadway to Queensbury Avenue? Where does that stand, if this goes? MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not sure. MR. TURNER-That's certainly going to impact that little two lane road. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, if it goes through. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MQïlPN TO_~:pPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 27-i~~L-AMEJ.~._IC~1I~Q.º1_'!'...Y CORf_,,- AS GENERAL PARTNER FOR ACG QUEENSBURY ASSOCIATES. L.P., Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: This will grant the applicant relief from Section 179-26D, Permitted Uses. The proposed project site is located in two zones, which results in specified practical difficulty to the applicant. The applicant has indicated that a reasonable return of the land is not possible as zoned. The property has been on the market for a number of years, and different projects have been unsuccessfully completed on the proposed location. The lot is unique with the split zoning, and is not a self-created hardship. I don't believe the variance would be detrimental to other properties in the neighborhood, since the project fits into the class of businesses already located wi thin the area. I don't believe there'd be an adverse effect on services and facilities, and there appears to be no neighborhood oPPosition to this project. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser ABSENT: Mr. Philo NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-IA HC-1A AMERICAN - 25 - ( EQUITY CORP. AS GENERAL PARTNER FOR ACG QUEENSBURY ASSOC.. L.P. OWNER: EARLTOWN CORP. APPROX. 30 ACRES OF LAND EAST OF QUAKER RIDGE BLVD. AND NORTH OF QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON AN APPROXIMATELY THIRTY ACRE LOT OF A PROPOSED THREE LOT SUBDIVISION. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWENTY-SEVEN (27) PERCENT PERMEABILITY AND IS SEEKING THREE (3) PERCENT RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-26C AND SECTION 179-23C. BOTH OF WHICH REQUIRE THIRTY (30) PERCENT PERMEABILITY IN THE LI-IA AND HC- lA ZONES RESPECTIVELY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: MAY 12, 1993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 110-1-2.G1 LOT SIZE: 37.55 ACRES SECTION 179-23(C) SECTION 179-26(C) SEQRA TO PLANNING BOARD: APRIL 29, 1993 LEAD AGENCY PLANNING BOARD TO ADDRESS APPLICATION: MAY 20. 1993 - JUNE 10. 1993 MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-1993, American Equity Corp as General Partner for ACG Queensbury Assoc., L.P., Meeting Date: June 23, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a retail development on an approximately thirty plus (30+) acre lot of a proposed three (3) lot subdivision. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing twenty-seven (27) percent for permeability and is seeking (3) percent relief from Section 179-23C, which requires thirty (30) percent permeability in both the HC-1A zone and the LI-1A zone (see attached letter from Miller, Mannix and Pratt regarding the proposed permeability and attendant relief being sought). REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty rests with the size of the proposed project in addition to the greater than required number of parking space s reque sted, re sul ts in the pe rmeabi 1 i ty of the development site to be less than required. 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 practical difficulty and other than reducing the proposed number of parking spaces to the level where the permeability standard is met, 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 as the degree o,f variance from the requirement is moderate and would not have a detrimental effect on neighboring properties. 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: Rist-Frost's analysis (see attached letter - May 10, 1993), of the permeable area of the proposed development site, is in conflict wi th the figures submitted by the applicant, and in a letter from Miller, Mannix and Pratt (see attached letter, June 2, 1993), addressing this issue, the applicant is proposing up to three (3) percent relief from the permeability requirements in order to respond to the Rist-Frost findings. Additionally, Rist-Frost mentions that with a reduction of the proposed size of the parking spaces, that the permeable requirements could be met. Staff notes that the applicant is proposing fourteen hundred and eight (1,408) parking spaces, which is two hundred and sixty-five more spaces than is required by the Off Street Parking Schedule, Section 179-66C, (1,143 required), and staff is recommending that part of the request for extra parking spaces be dedicated to meeting the permeability requirements which would eliminate the need for an Area Variance." MRS. EGGLESTON-And a letter from Rist-Frost, dated May 10th, 1993, - 26 - "As requested, Rist-Frost Associates has evaluated the plot plan dated March 30th, 1993 with respect to area data furnished by the applicant in the Area Variance application and the LEAF. The area of the parcel includes an out parcel of 1.5 acres, and a residual parcel of 31.43 plus or minus acres, shown with retail development. No development proposal is shown for the out parcel. Therefore, the Area Variance sought applies only to the 31.43 plus or minus acre area proposed for development. Area measurements were made by planimeter to estimate proposed permeable and impervious areas shown on the plot plan. Of the 31.43 plus or minus acres proposed for development. it is found that approximately 27.3% (8.58 Ac) is permeable area. remaining after development. Based on the above, area figures given on the application form should be revised. The Item 7 and Item 17 lot size for which the variance is sought should be 31.43 plus or minus acres. The permeable area reflected in Item 13 and Item 17 should be 27.3%, or 8.58 acres as appropriate. LEAF Part One data was also reviewed. The description of the action on page 2 should indicate 228,604 square feet of retail space on 31.43 plus or minus acres of land. In addition, the following corrections are noted: A. Site Description, 2. Total acreage of project area .31!.!1..:tl-=. acres APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY PROPOSED Meadow or Brush (Non-Agricultural) Roads, building and other paved surfaces 31. 43 Ac 8.58 Ac _.._~_.,_. Ac_ f...~.' 85Äç B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). b. Project acreage to be developed: initially, 31.43 acres ultimately. 31.4J. acres c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: acres. o f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing _~_ proposed 1408. 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs and ground covers) will be removed from site? 22.85 acres. It is noteworthy that the plot plan layout appears to be based on 10 foot wide parking spaces. The use of 9 foot wide parking spaces (179-7) would permit increasing permeable areas. A reduction of parking space width to 9 feet would result in 22± acres of non- permeable area. A 30% minimum permeable area in accordance with zoning could then be met with a 31.72± acre lot size. Additional permeable areas could possibly be obtained by reducing the outparcel size. This might eliminate the need for an Area Variance. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. Thomas M. Yarmowich, P.E., Managing Project Engineer" And then another letter dated June 2nd, Miller, Mannix and Pratt. "A minor discrepancy has arisen as to the exact amount of permeability area variance which we seek for the above project. While our engineering consultant indicates that we only need a variance of approximately 1.1 percent in permeability, the Town's Engineer feels that the actual variance would be approximately 2.7 percent. Therefore, in order to make the most appropriate request that will avoid any potential confusion in the future, please consider our request as one for up to, but not exceeding, three percent from the permeability standard." - 27 - MR. TURNER-Okay. Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you. This, obviously, is our Area Variance request. It is for a permeability variance, and I guess I want to see if I can put it in context a little bit. The jumping off point is, it's an Area Variance. It's not a Use Variance. An Area Variance, of course. the standard is less difficult to meet than a use variance, and especially so with the revisions of the Town Law that went into effect last July. Now the weighing that the ZBA has to do in deciding whether to grant or deny an area variance is, in essence, balancing benefit to the applicant against detriment to the community, and al so making sure that we are asking for, or seeking, the minimum variance necessary within the context of the proposed project. We discussed this in great detail, frankly, in more detail than I expected, at the County Planning Board level, because some of the County Planning Board members were inclined to sort of start off with the position that, look, we're so close to 30 percent, why don't we just make some minor adjustments and make the 30 percent, and that's what started off, there was some comments along those lines. We talked to them, this is the County Planning Board now, at some length, and ultimately, to my surprise, we had a unanimous recommendation for approval. The basis for our position was, essentially, that it's a very, obviously the amount of variance we seek is very minimal. We actually still believe what we really need is a variance of only 1.1%. Our Engineering Consultant, Mr. Weller, got a different one, and your Engineering Consul tant, being Tom Yarmowich of Rist-Frost, actually don't, their numbers don't agree, but we certainly don't want to make any fuss about that. We'll use Tom Yarmowich's numbers and say three percent. We're only seeking a three percent variance in permeability. It's absolutely true that our plan includes more parking than the minimum required number of parking spaces under the Town Ordinance. It's equally true, as Staff accurately points out, that the parking spaces themselves are slightly larger than the minimum required size under the Town Ordinance, but our posi tion is that those two numbers in the Town Ordinance, the minimum number of parking spaces and the minimum parking space size, are just that. They're minimums. That doesn't mean that that's the only number that's appropriate for each and every development, and it's our position that, for a development of this magnitude, the additional parking is definitely warranted. We feel fairly strongly that the additional parking is warranted, and that it helps make a better site plan, a better flow of traffic through the site. In addition, or similarly, we feel that the size of the parking spaces, at the size that we're proposing, is also warranted, because we've got a project of a fairly large magnitude. The variance is really minimal, and we feel that there's no detriment to the community, for, I guess, three principle reasons, or maybe I'll quote two reasons. The main purpose, as we understand it, of the permeabi 1 i ty requirement, is to make sure that there's sufficient area, that's permeable, for groundwater recharge and things like that, in your average situation where, more often than not, you have on-site water supply, a well or whatever, and you have on- si te sewage di sposal, on- si te septic system or whatever, and you also mayor may not have any degree of sophistication to your stormwater management plan. This project has the benefits of pumping in to existing municipal utility networks, sewer and water, and also has a stormwater management plan that the Town Engineer has already reviewed in concept, and in concept approved, and you have that letter from Rist-Frost also, as I understand. I know it was read at the Planning Board meeting, and I think this Board has recognized in the past, as recently as in the Wal-Mart application, that those are some of the important factors to weigh, when you consider granting a permeability variance, and that perhaps you should not be as willing to grant the permeability variance if you don't have a project with a good stormwater management, if you don't have a project that's hooked in to municipal sewer and water. You should, perhaps, look more carefully before granting a permeability variance in that context. In our context, we have those three bene fits. We are seeking a - 28 - very minimal variance, even at the three percent, and we feel that we meet the burden for an area variance. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions? MR. KARPELES-Yes. How many parking spaces? MR. SCHACHNER-I can tell you how many we have, and how many are required, if either of those were your questions. MR. KARPELES-That's exactly what we were going to ask. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's not my question. MR. SCHACHNER-That's not your question? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. My understanding is that 1,143 are required, and that 1.408 are what we're providing. MR. TURNER-Are proposed. Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-My question is, how many would you have to eliminate to meet the permeability? MR. KARPELES-That's what my question was, too. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don't think I, I don't know the answer to that. We, at one point, we were running through how many we have to change the size of, and as I recall the number, it wasn't 100. The number was 30. 40 type number. not 100. as I recall. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's not anything you can live with? MR. SCHACHNER-You know, when you say, can we live with it, I'm going to be candid with you, just as we were with the County Planning Board. I'm not going to sit here and say that if you deny the permeability variance. that this applicant is going to fold its tent. and this pro ject won't come to Queensbury. but what I am going to say is that this is an area variance. The standard is very, very different than a use variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-We realize that. We read that paper every time we come to the meeting, and we know what the requirements are, and I know you're probably thinking, there doesn't have to be a practical difficulty, and I agree with you. You're weighing it against. MR. SCHACHNER-The benefit to the applicant, and detriment to the community. MRS. EGGLESTON-Absolutely, and minimum relief. and certainly three percent is minimum relief, but no relief is better. So, I'm asking you, what is the great need for? MR. SCHACHNER-Well. that I can address. The great need is that the traffic projections from the preferred tenant indicate that we need in excess of 1400 parking spaces. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Their experience in the retail commercial business indicates a strong preference for having the parking spaces wider than the minimal nine foot width. That experience, as I understand it, is not based on some sophisticated empirical study. It's based on people walking in to the store and complaining that, my car door banged his car door because the parking spaces are too narrow. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think you keep addressing the preferred client. I mean, at this point, you do not have a client. I mean. you do - 29 - not have an actual contract. Just hypothetically, lets just say that K-Mart goes across the street. Now your preferred client is no longer a preferred client, and we've granted an area variance. I would just as soon see a contract. in other words, that I know that K-Mart is going in this spot, and that this is their requirements, because I am not in favor of just granting a variance at this point, not knowing who's going to go in there, because somebody else may come in, if K-Mart doesn't, and may only live with 1.000, in other words, and Joyce's point is well taken, that at that point, we have met all the criteria. So, I mean. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess my response to that is, I don't think it's appropriate, and I think. in fact, it's probably unlawful. to grant or deny a variance based on. specifically, who the applicant is. In fact, I will submit to you that it is unlawful to do that. So I'm not going to sit here and say that the reason you should grant this variance is because K-Mart is our preferred tenant. I did use the preferred tenant. and I'll back away from that and apologize. Whoever we develop this project for. I mean. maybe this project won't go forward at all. Maybe the other project won't go forward at all. Maybe we're all wasting our time here, but the point I'm making is, we have a real application that's here for your review, and it's not called K-Mart. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-It's a retail commercial development of a certain size and a certain magnitude. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then you can't tell me that if a tenant moves in there, that they couldn't live with the 30 percent, is what I'm saying. MR. SCHACHNER-And I'm being candid with you. and I'll telling you, no, I can't tell you that they can't live with it. What I'm telling you is that there's a strong preference not to. and lets contrast this with the Wal-Mart situation. The Wal-Mart situation. I've been through these 42 pages of minutes of the hearing you conducted for Wal-Mart, and here's my understanding of what happened in the Wal-Mart situation. Wal-Mart came in looking for only 13.9 percent permeability, seeking a 16.1 percent variance. In your efforts to grant the minimum relief possible, and I commend those efforts, it's my understanding that you granted a variance of 15 percent. half of the permeability. and frankly the argument that was made. as I read it in the minutes. was essentially identical to our position, that their development, of their magnitude. needed a certain number of parking spaces, and they needed them to be a certain width, and therefore, they felt that they couldn't cut back. Now we could be asking for 15 percent also, but we're not. We're asking for a tiny, three percent variance. and I'm not going to agree that, if it's K-Mart it's okay, but if it's not K-Mart, then it's not okay, because I think that's illegal. MR. CARVIN-Well. I think that there's a couple of distinctions there. In the Wal-Mart, we had an existing parking lot. Here, this is all new construction. There we had a known entity. Here, we have an unknown entity. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't agree. That's not a valid position. That's not a legal position. MR. CARVIN-The other thing, too, is that, has there been any thought about picking up just a portion of this other lot to meet your permeability requirements? MR. SCHACHNER-Meaning the land that we don't have under option? MR. CARVIN-Sure. Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Only to the extent that, anybody could try to pick up - 30 - additional acreage. That's not what's been offered. That's not what's been accepted. That's not what the contract was for. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying that this is not two different owners, is that correct, at this point? MR. SCHACHNER-Owners, correct. That's correct. MR. CARVIN-So I mean, it's not like you have a guy over here that might say no. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, but they're marketing that parcel, and it's a little over five acres. They're marketing that as a separate parcel. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I realize that you're only asking for three percent. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I want to make sure that I'm responding to your question. If I'm not, you're talking about the triangular piece of property? MR. CARVIN-Yes, in other words, this section here. MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I thought. That's being marketed as it's own parcel of five plus acres, and the owner is actively marketing that parcel as well. We have an option on this 32.43 acres with the outparcel. So you're certainly correct that it's the same owner, but I don't think it's as easy as saying, well, can we have a little sliver of that so that we'll meet our permeability requirement. That other lot in our subdivision, so to speak, which we are, I mean. not just f igurati vel y speaking. There is an application before the Planning Board for that subdivision. That other lot is being actively marketed as an excess of five acre lot. MR. KARPELES-I have trouble coming to grips with the fact that you don't know how many spaces you have to give up to meet the permeability requirement. You keep saying three percent. but three percent of the parking spaces? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Three percent is the amount of the permeability variance. MR. KARPELES-I mean. it might be so insignificant that you wouldn't even have to put in a variance. MR. SCHACHNER-We definitely don't meet, we don't meet the 30 percent permeability. MR. KARPELES-Yes, I know, but how many do you have to give up in order to meet. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't remember exact numbers. MR. KARPELES-I mean, you keep talking about putting it in context so we understand it. I don't understand it. MR. SCHACHNER-The order of magnitude that I recall when this exercise was, as I said, I think I answered that question to the best of my knowledge. The order of magnitude that I recall was it was not 100's. It was 40, 50, but it wasn't five or six. I mean, if it were five or six, we'd be wasting your time and vice versa. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you have a surplus of 265. So if you were to give up, say, 30 or 40, you'd still have an overabundance. MR. SCHACHNER-When you say, overabundance, you mean in excess of the minimum required by the Town? - 31 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-That's absolutely true, and we're putting our cards on the table. We're saying, we don't believe that the Town minimum, it's appropriate in many instances. We don't believe it's appropriate in this instance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And again, I'm going to keep harping on the tiny amount of relief we seek, and the fact that your responsibility is to measure benefit to the applicant versus detriment to the community. I reviewed these Wal-Mart minutes, and it seemed to me that your concerns were, what's the reason for the permeability requirement, and it seemed to me that you found, in that situation, that the highest municipal utilities and the acceptable stormwater management obviated any problems granting a permeability variance, so long as it was a reasonable request of an appropriate magnitude, and in that case, and your distinction is well taken. There is a distinction. based on, a substantial portion is paved, but the bottom line is that you didn't have to grant the whole 15 percent in that case. either. You could have cut them back in parking, just as could cut us back in parking. We're submitting that it's not appropriate, and frankly they made the same argument. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, you seem to have the facts on Wal-Mart, and I wasn't here for that meeting. MR. SCHACHNER-I noticed that fact. MRS. EGGLESTON-So let me ask you, did they wind up with just the required amount? Did they need the permeability to meet the required amount, under zoning, or did they wind up with an excess of 200 and some parking spots? MR. SCHACHNER-Substantial excess, hundreds in excess. yes. MR. TURNER-I was going to say, I think they needed the permeability because they split the lot. They split the lot. Ames is owned by National Realty & Development Corporation, and Wal-Mart wanted to own their own piece. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the Staff Comments. it was the same situation. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, it's not exactly the same. Fred had a very good point, in that that's already an established parking lot, so to speak, and yours is not. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're starting from fresh. You're going to build, so it's not exactly the same. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I already said that was a good point. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-In answer to your question, it was the same situation, in terms of excess parking spaces, only much more so in percent. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-In terms of percent overage, if you want those exact numbers. I think I can find them. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. You answered my question. If you say it was substantially more. I just wondered if the variance just, they needed the permeability to meet the. - 32 - MR. TURNER-Well, they had a stormwater management plan. too. MR. SCHACHNER-As do we. MR. TURNER-As do you, but let me say this. their soil up there is all sand. They have 30 feet of sand. So the drainage there was excellent. I don't know what yours is, but obviously yours is probably wet. to some extent. You might even hit some ledge. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but I mean, our storm. I'm not sure why it matters what the soil type is, if the stormwater management plan does the job, and Rist-Frost has conceptually approved it. MR. TURNER-And I think the motion read that they had to tie in to the public sewer. That was part of the condition of the permeability. MR. SCHACHNER-That's exactly correct, and in fact, and in deference to Mrs. Eggleston. she obviously wasn't present. so she wasn't participating, but you in particular, Mr. Turner, as well as some of the other Board members felt that that was very significant, and we agree. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I, myself. personally. don't have a problem with three percent permeability. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with it. MRS. EGGLESTON-But I still like to ask all these questions so that we have covered our bases. That's part of our job, to ask all these questions, but for myself, personally. I really don't have a problem with that. I hate squeezing in. myself, speaking for myself, I hate squeezing into a little spot with your new car, and you come out and you've got dingies allover it, or you buy a big package and you try and put it in your car, and somebody is so close to you, you can't open your door, or whatever. I. personally, don't have a problem with three percent, but I like to explore all these possibilities and see if you can't possibly come up with a solution and maybe not need that relief. MR. SCHACHNER-That's a fair question. it. There's no question about MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've got one or two. applicant own that? The out parcel. does the MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. THOMAS-The applicant does not own the one and a half acre out parcel? MR. SCHACHNER-Nor does the applicant own, the applicant doesn't own any property in the Town of Queensbury. The applicant has an option on the 32. MR. THOMAS-I'm going to rephrase the question. Equity doesn't own that, right? This American MR. SCHACHNER-Doesn't own anything. MR. THOMAS-Earltown does. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do they have an option on, is what we're trying to get out of you, on the out parcel? - 33 - MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that your question, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Is there any reason that you can't get the permeabili ty by whacking off part of the one and a half acres, since it sits in the HC-l acre zone? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It would render the out parcel useless for it's envisioned as its intended use. MR. THOMAS-Because it is, it's supposedly, all you need is one acre in that zone, and you've got one and a half acres. I'm not saying take the whole half acre out, but whatever you need to get the 30 percent. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand what you're saying. My understanding is that would, I don't want to say nullify, because that's too strong a word. but that would make it a lot more difficult to retain the flexibility for a series of proposed uses that are envisioned on the out parcel. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-The only other point that, if I could, that comes to mind is, and the Staff can correct me if I'm wrong on the factual portion of this, but it's my understanding that other zones in which this type of development would be allowed, such as Plaza Commercial, only have a 20 percent permeability requirement. MR. TURNER-That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And, again, keep in mind that we have. as we went through a few minutes ago, when we were talking about our use variance. we have a part that's in Highway Commercial and part of it that's in Light Industrial. We didn't get re-zoned. We sought a variance, but if this were in Plaza Commercial zone, in which this use would be allowed, we'd be seven to nine percent ove~ the permeability requirement. MR. TURNER-Yes. I don't have a problem with it. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. the public hearing. I'll now open PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-I'd rather see the bigger parking spaces. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, that's what I said for my own personal. MR. CARVIN-I agree with the parking spaces, but lets just, hypothetically, say that the tenant doesn't require 191,000 square feet. Lets say that they only need 180,000 square foot building, or that they don't need this 37,000. What I'm saying is. MR. TURNER-We're going to give them, if we're going to give them the variance, we're going to it on what's proposed. They change it, they've got to come back. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. If somebody comes in with a different plan that doesn't have this square footage, this variance doesn't - 34 - apply. MR. TURNER-It doesn't apply. MR. CARVIN-Then it seems like a duplication of effort. I mean, if it's changed by one iota, they come right back. MR. TURNER-Not, one iota, but I mean, a major change like we just said. a material change. HR. SCHACHNER-From our perspective, Mr. Carvin, and I represent Zoni~g Boards elsewhere, and I've wrestled with this issue also, but lt seems to us that you have. all you can do is deal with the application that's before you. That's what's applied for. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I agree with you. minimum. It's not a big deal. I think the three percent is a MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I was just saying, if this doesn't pan out, if your what if comes to pass, then the variance doesn't do anybody any good. MR. TURNER-Yes. Everything's hypothetical, at this point. See, your parking spaces, under the Ordinance. are now 180 square feet, which is 9 by 20. They're going to increase the size, 10 by 20. MR. KARPELES-I agree with increasing the size, but I think that if all they have to give up is 10 or 20 spaces. MR. TURNER-They're talking 30 or 40. I think. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but out of 1.000, that's not a very big percentage. I mean, how many times is there going to be 1,000 cars up there, other than Christmas and Easter. MR. TURNER-I'm saying the same thing, but that was my comment, in relation to the Mall. HR. CARVIN-Ninety percent of the time, you're going to have a vacant lot there. MR. SCHACHNER-Not a full lot. MR. CARVIN-Well, not a full lot. MR. SCHACHNER-It won't be vacant. MR. TURNER-Okay. Move it. t10TI-º_N._'l'.º__~~J~JtOVJL,ð.R~l!3ARJ;A~ÇL_NO_,,-_.~4...19~.~ __PtMERICAN EQUITY CORP. A~GENERA~ PARTNER rOR ACG QUEENSBURY.ASSOC., L.P., Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: This will grant three percent relief from Section 179-23 C of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. which requires 30 percent permeability in both the Highway Commercial One Acre zone and the Light Industrial One Acre zone. I don't believe this variance would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community, and as a matter of fact, would be a benefit, in that the applicant would be able to provide more ample parking space and larger parking spaces for the consumer. I believe this request to be a minimum request and a reasonable request. It would not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. and there seems to be no neighborhood opposition to this request. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner - 35 - -----~--- NOES: Hr. Karpeles, Hr. Carvin ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-It's denied. No ma j ori ty. You've got to have four. We've got a seven member Board. We need four. MR. SCHACHNER-I find it very difficult when a Board doesn't have a majority. Certainly no fault of the members present. MR. TURNER-Well, one had to abstain. another member's ill. MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine, too. In some instances, we might request a reconsideration, to have all members present. I don't know how the Board would feel about that. We just find it frustrating. representing applicants, to not have four votes, in either direction. If four people vote no. then we know we don't have it. I f four people vote yes, we know we have it. Here. we have a non-majority situation, which as Mr. Turner points out, is not a variance. Does the Board have a policy in a non-majority situation? I know a long time ago, some times there were reconsiderations made when more members are present. Is there a recent policy about that? MR. TURNER-No. There's enough of us here, I think, to decide it, and I think the two negative votes would still be negative, and this one's abstained. I don't know how the one member that isn't here would vote. So I think it's cast in concrete. as far as I'm concerned. That's the vote. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1993 TYPE II RR-3A JOHN AND BETH WOODS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TWO (2) STORY DECK ON THE WEST SIDE OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWENTY (20) FEET FOR THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TEN (10) FEET FROM SECTION 179-15C. WHICH REQUIRES THIRTY (30) FEET FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN THE RR-3A ZONE. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: JUNE 9. ~993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 27- 1-9 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY 200 FT. SECTION 179-15 JOHN WOODS. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 45-1993, John and Beth Woods, Meeting Date: June 23, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a two (2) story deck on the west side of an existing single family dwelling. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is proposing twenty (20) feet for the north side yard setback and is seeking ten (10) feet relief from Section 179-15C, which requires thirty (30) feet for the side yard setback in the RR-3A zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that the existing dwelling is nonconforming in its' side yard setbacks and the proposed expansion also intrudes into the north side yard setback but to a lesser degree (20 ft. in contrast to 14.56 ft.. of the existing setback). 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and it appears that there is no other option available which would require - 36 - no variance, as the proposed placement of the two (2) story deck is the only practical site for the expansion. 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 as proposed two story deck faces the rear of the applicant's property. and is consistent with the character of a residential 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: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-Mr. Wood, how long have you owned the house? MR. WOOD-Just under two years. MR. TURNER-Two years? How old is the house? MR. WOOD-Approximately 13 years old. MR. TURNER-Thirteen years. Okay. Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Woods? It looks pretty clear cut. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DOROTHY BURNHAM MRS. BURNHAM-I have a question. I'd like to see what is being proposed. I'm Dorothy Burnham, Boulderwood Drive. MR. TURNER-Sure. He has the drawing right there. MR. WOODS-The whole project encompasses the dormer and the deck. We're getting a variance for the deck. MRS. BURNHAM-I was just curious as to why this variance required, just looking at the house. it looked as though you had room enough. Apparently, the house is already too close to the? MR. TURNER-Yes. it is. MRS. BURNHAM-Okay. That's all. I have no objections. MR. TURNER-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE ~REA Vl\-.RIl\N.'C.J: }Jº_.!_45-1_~93."'ºIi~L ðNlt_BETf{ W.oOlt~., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: That we grant 10 feet of relief from Section 1 79-15C, which requires a 30 foot side yard setback in an RR-3A zone. I think the applicant has demonstrated that the practical difficulty rests with the fact that the existing dwelling is nonconforming in its side yard setback. and that by adding this deck. he actually will be intruding into the north side setback to a lesser degree. I also feel that this is the minimum relief being requested. That there does not appear to be any neighborhood opposition, and it would not be detrimental to any of the other properties in the district, and there does not appear to be any effect on public services or facilities. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner - 37 - NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE JOHN DALY. JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ILLINOIS AVENUE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE A MOBILE HOME ON A VACANT LOT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SIX THOUSAND (6,000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE LOT AREA AND IS SEEKING FOUR THOUSAND ( 4 . 000 ) SQUARE FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-18C, WHICH REQUIRES TEN THOUSAND (10.000) SQUARE FEET AS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE MR-5A ZONE. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWENTY-THREE (23) FEET FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF SEVEN (7) FEET FROM SECTION 179-18C. WHICH REQUIRES (30) FEET FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE MR-5A ZONE. TAX MAP NUMBER: 127-3-8 LOT SIZE: G0 FT. BY 100 FT. SECTION 179-18C JOHN DALY, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-1993, John Daly, Jr., Meeting Date: June 23. 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to place a mobile home on a vacant lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/ AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing six thousand (6,000) square feet as the lot area and is seeking four thousand (4,000) square feet relief from Section 179-18C, which requires ten thousand (10,000) square feet as the minimum lot area in the MR-5 zone. 2. Applicant is proposing sixty (60) feet for the lot width and is seeking twenty (20) feet from Section 179-18C which requires eighty (80) feet as the minimum lot width in the MR- 5 zone. 3. Applicant is also proposing twenty-three (23) feet for the front yard setback and is seeking seven (7) feet relief from Section 179- 18C, which requires thirty (30) feet for the front yard setback in the MR- 5 zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. A. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that although the proposed project is located in a Mobile Home Overlay District, applicant's proposed parcel and lot width is nonconforming for the required minimum lot area and width for the zone, but is similar in lot area and lot width to many parcels in the Overlay Zone. B. Size and placement of the mobile home does not allow for compliance with the required front yard setback. 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 practical difficulty and as project is proposed, there is no other option for placement of the mobile home which would not require a variance for the front or rear yard setback. 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 as lot area and width is consistent with existing properties in the Overlay District. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: According to the Town of Queensbury Code. the purpose of the Mobile Home Overlay District is to provide alternative housing types and affordable housing to families of moderate means, but the Ordinance does not address the issue of siting a mobile home in a zone which requires a minimum lot size which might be considered in conflict with the goals of affordable housing, as stated in the Town of Queensburv Planninq Department. 1989 PP. 52." MR. TURNER-Does anyone have a question? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've got one. Is this a preexisting nonconforming lot? - 38 - MR. DALY-This is a, it's zoned trailer. mean. I don't know what you MR. THOMAS-Was that lot in existence before the Zoning Ordinance? It came in. what, in 1978? MR. TURNER-When did you buy this lot? MR. DALY-I bought this lot two years ago, but it's been in the family for years. It's been that way forever. MR. MARTIN-To our knowledge, Chris, it is. MR. THOMAS-It is? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-To answer your question, yes. It is preexisting, but it wasn't conforming to the existing zoning at that time either. It's 6,000, and it's been in a zone that required 10,000 for several different zoning maps, because I looked that up, to see if it could be grandfathered. MR. TURNER-Minimum lot area is 10.000 square feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but it's been a 6,000 square foot lot since whenever. way before zoning came in. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. but generally the criteria for grandfathering is to be able to prove that the lot, when it existed, it conformed with the existing zoning at the time. Before zoning. I don't know, but according to the three zoning maps we have, from 1962 to now, that area was always the 10.000 square foot requirement. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it was an eXisting lot of record. It wasn't taken like part of another lot, with a new, like, was that one whole section your family? MR. DALY-All the lots in West Glens Falls always have been 60 by 100. I don't know about 10,000 square foot, but they've always been 6.000 square foot. MRS. EGGLESTON-But to answer my question, it's always been a separate lot, deeded lot, by itself. It wasn't taken from another parcel, a part of th~ section taken off. It's a separate deed. It has been that way for how long, to your knowledge? MR. DALY-Many, many years. I don't know. I mean. it's been in the family probably for 12, so it's been at least that long. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. there's. I guess, there? That house on the corner of Illinois and Central, a stockade fence that runs the whole length MR. DALY-In the back. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Did that house, is that part of your family? MR. DALY-That house is my house. That's correct. MR. CARVIN-That is your house currently. So you actually own. what, two or three lots up through there, did you. or? MR. DALY-That's all, six lots together, and my home, now, sits on four, and the back two lots, the trailer. MRS. EGGLESTON-The back two lots. - 39 - MR. DALY-There's two separate deeds. MRS. EGGLESTON-So the back lot's 30 foot wide, each lot? MR. DALY-That's correct, but there's one deed. there are 30 by 100. All the lots in MRS. EGGLESTON-Is this a lot of record that goes way back? It's on the tax maps. It goes way back? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's why I looked to see if it was grandfathered, could be. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Okay. Thank you. So you live in the house in the front. So what are you going to do with the mobile home in the back? MR. DALY-It's for Mike Hoffman. He's right here. He's the acting agent. Right now he has a home. and what he'd like to do is move out of Homestead Village. Basically. his lot rent is a lot higher than it should be. MRS. EGGLESTON-So it would be a rental? MR. DALY-Lot rent, yes. to help pay my taxes, actually. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the applicant? open the public hearing. Okay. I'll PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Is there any stipulation about the oil tank? I mean, has that got to meet safety standards or whatever? MR. TURNER-I'm not sure. I was going to ask Jim the same thing. Any stipulation about the oil tank being outside? MR. MARTIN-If there were. it would be dealt with at the time of the building permit, but not any that I'm aware of. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm just wondering about the amount of relief asked. It doesn't seem like minimum relief, really. I'm thinking back to last week and Mr. Gregory. MR. CARVIN-I think there's a big difference, in that this is a Mobile Home Overlay, and that wasn't. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's true. MR. DALY-Basically, the home exists. MRS. EGGLESTON-What year is the trailer that will be moved out onto there? MICHAEL HOFFMAN MR. HOFFMAN-The trailer's a 1979. MR. CARVIN-Have you owned it. for how long? MR. HOFFMAN-I've owned it for three years. MR. TURNER-Any further comment? Okay. Lets move it. - 40 - MOTION TO APPROY!L_ð.R~A__YAR:J:ANCE._NO._4-ª=t~~~__~ºHN DALY, JR., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: That we grant the applicant, John Daly, Jr., 4,000 square feet of relief from Section 179-18C, which requires 10,000 square foot as the minimum lot area in the MR-5 zone, and that we grant 20 feet of relief from Section 179-18C, which requires 80 feet as the minimum lot width in the MR-5 zone, and that we also grant seven feet of relief from Section 179-18C, which requires 30 feet for the front yard setback in the MR-5 zone. The applicant has a practical difficulty in that the lot is a preexisting and nonconforming lot, and that the size and placement of the mobile home on the lot would require these variances. It would appear that this is the minimum relief requested to alleviate this difficulty. It does not appear that this variance would be detrimental to any other properties in the district or neighborhood, and there does not appear to be any effect on public facilities and services. However, there is a concern regarding the placement of the oil tank on the exterior portion of the mobile home, and that it is left to the Zoning Administrator to make sure that the oil tank is in compliance with all safety and fire codes in the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo USE VARIANCE NO. 49-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-IA HOWARD CARR TACO BELL CORP. OWNER: ESTATE OF SAUL BIRNBAUM AND ESTATE OF BERNARD BIRNBAUM SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF NYS ROUTE 9 AND QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING PLAZA. AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-22D. PLAZA COMMERCIAL 1 ACRE ZONE. PERMITTED USES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: JUNE 9, 1993 LOT SIZE: 13.67 ACRES SECTION 179-22D JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. "Concur with local conditions." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 49-1993. Howard Carr, Taco Bell, Meeting Date: June 23, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a fast food restaurant in an existing shopping plaza. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing to construct a fast food restaurant in an existing shopping plaza and is seeking relief from Section 179-22D, Plaza Commercial 1 Acre zone, Permitted Uses. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. IS REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Applicant believes that reasonable return of the land is not possible as zoned as the shopping plaza in question (Queensbury Plaza) has been almost totally vacant of tenants for a long period of time, during which, management has unsuccessfully advertised for tenants (see attached letter from Lemery and Reid regarding this issue). 2. ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS LOT UNIQUE AND NOT DUE TO THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE ORDINANCE? Applicant believes that the circumstances of this lot is unique as the continuing state of vacancy creates an environment that is not appealing to prospective tenants, and applicant believes that once a number of tenants rent space in the plaza, it will become more leasable. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? It would appear that the variance would not adversely effect the neighborhood character as the shopping plaza is located in the center of the Town's - 41 - commercial district and a number of fast food restaurants are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Although a restaurant is a permitted use in the Plaza Commercial zone, the definition of a fast food restaurant does not qualify it as a permitted use in the PC zone. The applicant's concern is that in attempting to comply wi th the permi tted uses. reasonable use of the land is limited by the exclusion of a type of business which is conventionally found in a highly active commercial district such as the intersection of Aviation and Quaker Road, where the proposed project is to be located." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper. I'm with Lemery & Reid of Glens Falls, and with me is Dave Barlow, the engineer from Clough Harbor, and Howard Carr. who is the Receiver, is here as well. I just want to point out that the application went in in the name of Taco Bell, which is our first prospective fast food use. if this is approved, but we don't want the Board to think that it's limited to that. We're hoping that there might be a number of fast food restaurants that might locate in the existing Plaza, plus what was already approved. To begin with, I really don't have a lot to add to the letter, but I just want to point out that a lot of people in Town have made a real issue lately that the Plaza's been empty. We came in about a year and a half ago to get the site plan approved for to expand to cover the other side. That was something that was originally approved. and then it lapsed. We've got significant rental space available. plus the ability to construct some more space on the site. Howard Carr has been very vigorously marketing this. At this point, it's been very difficult to lease this, even though people are certainly re locating, or locating in Queensbury, go ing to the Mall. Thi s Board's been dealing with all these K-Mart proposals for commercial construction on the other side of Town. This is really the central hub of the commercial district, and we think it's unfortunate, and we're basically asking this Board for some help to lease this out. We've got lease proposals. We don't have anything signed, but we've got lease proposals. certainly from Taco Bell. There's some other people that we've been talking with, and we're hoping that this Board will see fit and appropriate that a use is granted, a use variance to allow fast food, and I just want to point out that. originally. Kentucky Fried Chicken was in this site, and part of the plan is to take down that old building, it's a real eyesore. I have an affidavit from Howard Carr to submit to this Board, in terms of the requirement of a use variance for financial hardship. which includes a financial statement, which is actual projections for 1993 which shows a sizeable down grade loss of a number of hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'd asked that that be kept confidential, just because some of the numbers here are not numbers that Howard would like other developers, other competitors in Town to see what it's costing him. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Beyond that, I'd just like to say that Howard's here to answer any specific questions about the Plaza. and any site considerations for site plan. etc. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Carr, how much leverage do you have now, as far as renting the whole place? It seems to me, the last time you were here, you said you had some tenants that were interested in coming into there and nothing came to fruition. What happened? HOWARD CARR MR. CARR-Well, that's not exactly correct. Howard Carr. We've been successful in getting a lease signed with Olive Garden Restaurant, who has since submitted plans to the Town, and we've got a couple of little issues that we've just got to get - 42 - straiahtened out with sewer and water lines and that stuff. but a buildina permit has been issued. We iust also have a couple of title issues that we have to clean up. this week and next. and that should go forward imminently. We have let the contract out to Jacol Plumbing for the sewer connection, which probably will start either late this week or early next week. We'll work on that. We also have some water connection work to do, to abandon one line and connect on to another line. That's moving forward. We've been successful in relocating a local business. Instant Replay Sports is going into the center. and we're moving forward now with others. Our problem. really, is that there are physical limitations of the building\ okay. in that the supermarket is only 33.800 square feet. A typica~ supermarket today 1S somewhere in the neighborhood of between 50 and 75,000 square feet. We just can put the addition out into Quaker Road. So we're just trying to find alternative uses for that building, and some of the other spaces, but we are moving forward, as far as that avenue is concerned. MR. TURNER-Is the Olive Garden Restaurant going in the Boardman's building, with the expansion on the side that we permitted? MR. CARR-Yes. six thousand feet. MR. TURNER-Is allowed. MR. CARR-Yes. The Olive Garden, that's the restaurant section of it, and then the kitchen portion of the Olive Garden operation goes into the old Boardman building. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KARPELES-Where is that? MR. TURNER-It's right on the end. MR. CARR-You don't see the, this is a piece that comes in here like this, and that's the kitchen area. MR. KARPELES-And this is the restaurant, out there? MR. CARR-That's the seating area, the dining room. MR. KARPELES-I see. MR. TURNER-But your proposal for Taco Bell is where you've got it indicated on this map. is that right? MR. LAPPER-Everyone' s looking, mostly. at that small map. We provided these two conceptual drawings. Taco Bell wasn't willing to spend money to actually design the site at this point, because it's not a permitted use. They do in line stores, and it's possible that they would locate an in line. meaning part of the existing plaza. I think their preference is to have a store out front like that, but that's something that, if that's what the lease, we could negotiate. MR. MARTIN-I think it's worth mentioning, too. Jon, that even the stand alone store doesn't result in a physical expansion of a building closer to Route 9. They would shorten the size of the existing building, as approved by the Planning Board. to accommodate, what you see there is a drive through lane and all that. MR. LAPPER-We'd have to come back to the Planning Board for a drive through or anything like that. The Planning Board would have to look at it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually. you're looking for a blanket to allow any - 43 - fast food restaurants that come along into your, in the plaza. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MARTIN-In all honesty, as a Planner, I think this is a quirk in the Ordinance. I think this is absolutely crazy that you don't allow fast food restaurants in Plaza Commercial. It doesn't make any sense. MR. LAPPER-Basically, a lot of commercial enterprises want to be located where the competition is, and a lot of the retail stores have now moved away, but there are all these fast food stores, and we've been approached by other fast food restaurants that want to locate there, and that's sort of a limitation of the area. MR. TURNER-The previous history of the place has caused a lot of problems that exist there today. MR. LAPPER-In terms of development, and new development. MR. TURNER-Yes. As the people that were there continue with the lease. It was my understanding, one of them couldn't get one. MR. LAPPER-The supermarket. MR. TURNER-No, somebody else that moved out. question. I asked them the MR. CARR-Recent? MR. TURNER-I don't know. not real recent. MR. CARR-Over the last three years. MR. TURNER-Yes, a couple, three years. MR. CARR-Well, I've been there since April of '89. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-April 1 of '89 I took over. It's four years now. MR. TURNER-Yes. it doesn't take long. MR. CARR-Was there anyone who wanted to stay that left? Not to my knowledge. As a matter of fact, a couple of them paid termination fees in order to leave. So they wanted out. We had a situation with the Country Miss store where the Company, the entire division of the Company was shut down, so that ended. Kids Port operation was a division that was owned by Van Hughes and Charles, as a result of an acquisition. and that division no longer exists either anywhere in the Country. They shut down 88 stores. Other than that. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think in all fairness, what happened between the brothers, though, created the major problems to begin with, and it's going to take a while to build it back again. MR. LAPPER-That's absolutely true, and when we were here last time we talked in great detail about that. What's happened, unfortunately, since then is that it's been a good year and a half of vigorous marketing, and we're still not coming up with anything. and I think part of that is the configuration of what's there, the back of the stores are facing Quaker Road. MR. TURNER-Well, you've hit the period of time when the economy is on a down slide. That doesn't help either. So that's indicative of what's happening allover. It's not just there. MR. CARVIN-Is there a permeability problem here. if they put it out - 44 - here? MR. LAPPER-We're all set, in terms of site plan. The site plan was approved. MRS. EGGLESTON-The permeability, you meet all the permeability requirements? MR. MARTIN-If they wanted to go in as a stand alone store, or not a stand alone store, but a regular store in the Plaza, providing they have a variance, they could go right through the building permit. If they do the stand alone with the drive through. then they've got to come back for site plan. MR. LAPPER-Not necessarily the permeability. MR. MARTIN-No. Yes. I think that's right. As we talked, it would actually be an increase in permeable area, if you were to do the drive through configuration. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, any fast foods that. say there were to be more than one, none of them really would effect. there'd be no cuts from Quaker Road, even though there might be, it's going to be. go in the Plaza, and then find your fast food. MR. LAPPER-That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We wouldn't be allowed any cuts. that. DOT wouldn't allow MR. MARTIN-Yes. They're not proposing any changes to their approved ingress and egress. MR. CARVIN-In other words, access to the Taco Bell, if it's freestanding, will be off Route 9. through the main entrance there? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. MARTIN-I think the Board will see, you'll notice that'll take more shape as the Olive Garden goes in. Part of that's going to be built with the Olive Garden Restaurant. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, once you get busy in there. that light definitely has to be changed in front of the premises, because you could take a nap waiting for it to change from red to green. Coming down Glen, if you want to turn left and go in there, you sit there forever. Frankly, I go down to Glenwood and cut back up by the bank, and go to the bank, where I'd rather go through your Plaza, but it's too long to get through the light. but if you have a lot of customers in there, or businesses, that's going to be very irritable. MR. CARR-Well, that'll cycle off when there's more traffic. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Okay. MR. TURNER-Any questions? MR. CARVIN-Are we going to grant a variance on both proposals, or just leave it open? MR. TURNER-I think they want a blank ticket to. MR. LAPPER-We're not looking for either proposal. MR. TURNER-They just want to address the one issue, whether you can have a fast food restaurant within the Plaza, is that correct? - 45 - MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-By doing that. we're just doing it for this project, not every? MR. TURNER-That's all. Not everyone, just this one. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-No further questions? MR. THOMAS-Wait a minute. Say that one more time. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I'm confused. MR. MARTIN-You're doing it for this site, for this Plaza. MR. TURNER-For the site. That's it. MR. THOMAS-So any fast food could go in there at any point in time. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. They want a blanket variance that would allow any fast food in there, not just Taco Bell. MR. CARVIN-In any number. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPPER-We feel that's a viable use of that site, if there were two or three fast food restaurants. MR. TURNER-You had Kentucky Fried Chicken in there before. So there you are. MR. LAPPER-It's a big plaza, and a few fast food restaurants is not going to make a difference. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further comment, questions. discussion? MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess the worst scenario would be, you could have 16 fast food outlets in there, right? I mean. conceivably. you could. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. ~OTIOH TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 49-1993 HOWARD CARR TACO BELL CORP., Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: This will grant relief from Section 179-22D, Permitted Uses, in a Plaza Commercial One Acre Zone, and this will allow the applicant to lease to fast food restaurants within the Plaza. The applicant has demonstrated, through financial records presented, that a reasonable return on the Plaza is not. at this point in time, anticipated because of the lack of tenants, and it is felt with the fast food restaurants being allowed. it would be a draw to other tenants. I don't believe it would be detrimental to the neighborhood, as there are several other fast food operations within the immediate vicinity. There would be no adverse effect on services or facilities, and there's no neighborhood opposition to - 46 - the project. We have reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form attached and there appears to be no negative impact. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Egglestòn, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA JOHN E. DESANTIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER PEGGY ANN & LADY SLIPPER APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE ON HIS PROPERTY AND IS PROPOSING BETWEEN THREE (3) FEET AND FIVE (5) FEET FOR THE SECOND FRONT YARD SETBACK AND IS SEEKING BETWEEN FIFTEEN AND SEVENTEEN FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-74A(3), WHICH STATES THAT NO FENCE OVER FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE ERECTED WITHIN TWENTY ( 20 ) FEET OF ANY FRONT YARD PROPERTY LINE. APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING SIX (6) FEET FOR THE HEIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY THIRTY (30) FEET OF FENCE IN THE SECOND FRONT YARD AND FIVE (5) FEET FOR THE HEIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY SEVENTY-ONE (71) FEET OF FENCE IN THE SECOND FRONT YARD AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE (1) FOOT AND TWO (2) FEET RESPECTIVELY. FROM SECTION 179-79B(2). WHICH STATES THAT NO FENCE OVER FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE ERECTED IN ANY FRONT OR SIDE YARD. TAX MAP NUMBER: 90-7-21 LOT SIZE: 24.000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-74A(3). 179-74B(2) JOHN DESANTIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Note from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-1993, John E. DeSantis, Meeting Date: June 23. 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a fence in the front and rear yard of his property and is subject to Section 179-30.1, Lots Bounded by Two Roads. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing three (3) feet for the second front yard setback (facing Lady Slipper Drive) of a fence ninety (90) feet long, and is seeking seventeen (17) feet relief from Section 179-74A(3), which states that no fence over three (3) feet in height shall be erected wi thin twenty (20) feet of any front yard property line. 2. Applicant is proposing five (5) feet for the height of a fence ninety (90) feet long, (facing Lady Slipper Drive. second front yard) and is seeking relief of two (2) feet of height for said fence from Section 179-74B (2), which states that no fence over three (3) feet in he ight shall be erected or maintained in any front or side yard. 3. Applicant is proposing three (3) feet for the front yard setback of proposed fence (near north property line), and is seeking seventeen (17) feet relief from Section 179- 74A(3), which states that no fence over three (3) feet in height shall be erected within twenty (20) feet of any front yard property line. 4. Applicant is proposing six (6) feet for the height of a fence (near north property line). and is seeking relief of three (3) feet for thirty-seven (37) feet of said fence from Section 179- 74B(2), which states that no fence over three (3) feet in height shall be erected or maintained in any front or side yard. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that the applicant's parcel is bounded by two (2) roads, and as such is considered to have two (2) front yards which requires compliance with the front yard setback for fences. Additionally, the rear of the second front yard is the recreation area for applicant's family and the si te of the proposed fence. 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 specific practical difficulty and no other - 47 - option is available as applicant believes that the permitted height of a fence for the front yard is not sufficient for safety, and the required setback of the fence from the front property line would substantially reduce the recreation area for his family. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood as part of the fence in the second front yard will be facing a road and the part of the fence located in the second front yard near the northern property line, would ordinarily be considered to be in the rear yard, where fences of up to six (6) feet are permitted. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: 'Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-How long have you owned the house, Mr. DeSantis? MR. DESANTIS-Three and half years. MR. TURNER-You don't think a four foot fence in the front yard is high enough? I know that the Ordinance says three feet, but this was supposed to have been changed a long time ago to go to four feet, because four feet is more of a standard fence, because it goes four feet around pools and stuff. MR. DESANTIS-I feel five feet is necessary, both for privacy and for safety. MR. TURNER-What kind of safety are you going to get from the fence and that particular little street, where the fence is way back? You're way back from the corner. You've only got local traffic. MR. DESANTIS-It's traffic coming from behind the lot, along the road, going toward Peggy Ann Road. MR. TURNER-Yes, but it's just local traffic. MR. DESANTIS-Well, if I had a site map of the total. MR. TURNER-I know. I've been up there. I looked at it. MR. DESANTIS-The road's curved there, and ours is on the blind side of it. So. as our kids walk toward the road now. traffic doesn't see them. MR. TURNER-How old are the children? MR. DESANTIS-A three year old, and a six year old. MR. KARPELES-Part of this fence is already up, isn't it? MR. DESANTIS-The part that is not in the Town of Queensbury. MR. KARPELES-You don't need a variance for that? MR. DESANTIS-No, I don't. MR. KARPELES-It's just this part along Lady Slipper, and in front? MR. DESANTIS-Correct. and along the back line there. faces Peggy Ann Road. The house MRS. EGGLESTON-Are there children in the house across from you, on the other corner of Lady Slipper and? MR. DESANTIS-No, there are not. MRS. EGGLESTON-They're really, they have no back yard, and the - 48 - thing that I kind of looked at was there are not many fences, not really, not for a neighborhood of that size, and I think it would be kind of unsightly if they needed fencing the same as what you're requesting. along Lady Slipper Drive, and it really would take away from the character of the neighborhood, and make it look really. MR. DESANTIS-With the application, there's 15 signatures from my closest neighbors, including those people on the corner, eight houses in, two people behind me, and two out on Peggy Ann Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-But do you agree it would not look good, it would be like a tunnel down Lady Slipper Drive with these fences? MR. DESANTIS-No, I don't, because 100 percent of the fence that is there will be in what we have left wooded, in the wooded area, and it's not very. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's no woods on Lady Slipper Drive. MR. DESANTIS-We did not clear our entire lot, is what I'm saying. MR. CARVIN-Yes. According to your plot plan. here. it looks like there's some trees and bushes and shrubs down Lady Slipper, and that doesn't act as a barrier for the kids? MR. DESANTIS-No. MR. CARVIN-And you don't think a four foot fence would? MRS. EGGLESTON-I noticed, also, your house is back pretty far from the road. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DESANTIS-From Peggy Ann Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-And also from Lady Slipper. MR. DESANTIS-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, it is back pretty far. MR. CARVIN-And you're going to come down, what, 90 feet on Lady Slipper? MR. DESANTIS-I'm coming from the back corner down 90 feet, yes. The houses along, there are four or five houses along Lady Slipper, excluding the one on the corner that have. MR. CARVIN-Will that fence also be stockade? MR. DESANTIS-That fence is going to be. MRS. EGGLESTON-Not out along the road they don't have fence. MR. DESANTIS-No. Space board fencing. MR. CARVIN-It won't be chain link or stockade fencing? How about the one right behind the house there, the 21 foot of fence? Is that, again stockade? MR. DESANTIS-That's also picket. MR. TURNER-I have a real problem with the closeness to the road and the height of the fence. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, three feet from the road. MR. TURNER-It's too close. - 49 - MR. CARVIN-I notice, I drove along there, and I agree with you, Joyce. There was a number of kids playing in the front yards there, and they all, I could just see, conceivably, a parade of folks coming in and saying, gee. we want fences all along Lady Slipper. Is this a planned development? In other words, are there restrictive covenants in this? Okay. I see shaking your head. MR. DESANTIS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. JOHN GORALSKI MR. GORALSKI-It was a subdivision back in the sixties I believe it was, the early seventies. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do the restrictive covenants prevent fences along Lady Slipper'? MR. DESANTIS-There are very few people in our development that would have their back yard gone, because on the corner, their back yard. road frontage. That's what my back yard happens to be. MR. TURNER-I know, but you're three foot from the road. You've got 121 feet. MR. DESANTIS-Three feet behind the property line. MR. TURNER-Right, but you're going to have 119 feet of back yard le ft. if you only go three feet. I f you go back 20, then you're down to 109. That's a pretty good size back yard. MR. DESANTIS-Their swing set is in that corner now. You're getting into moving the swing set 20 feet inside the fence. Again, this does not block the sight of traffic. MR. CARVIN-A five foot fence. that's going to look like a fortress right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. DESANTIS-That's why I was specifically putting up space for it, as opposed to stockade. MRS. EGGLESTON-It looked like stockade, though. board? Is it a space MR. DESANTIS-The back was stockade. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's already put uP. that's there. Okay. I thought I saw the stockade. So what is this type you're going to put up? MR. DESANTIS-It's on the other side of the yard, our other property, it's picket fence. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. There's spaces between the, okay. MR. DESANTIS-I know as a kid, I could climb a three foot or a four foot picket fence. but by the time my three year old, I'm not worried about my six year old. By the time my three year old is old enough to scale a five foot fence, hopefully, he'll understand what it's for. The kids across the street are all playing and stuff like that, and we're on the blind side. MR. KARPELES-But you're not going to have any gate there anyway, are you? I mean, what's to prevent them from walking around it? MR. TURNER-They're going to walk right around it. You're not bringing the fence up and terminating it and putting a gate in it - 50 - any place. MR. DESANTIS-No, I am not. MRS. EGGLESTON-Couldn't you accomplish, really. the same thing by just fencing in the back, keeping the back, and then, so that they couldn't come out into the front there where you worry about the? MR. DESANTIS-It's cutting off a big part of the area that we use. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, for my own personal thoughts. I think it would be way out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. That's my own personal opinion. MR. TURNER-Yes. We'd open an awful Pandora's Box, I'll tell you, by doing this. MR. DESANTIS-Again. there are very few. the person behind me is on a corner lot. His fence is already up. He's got a chain link fence around his pool. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it's not out near the road, sir. MR. DESANTIS-It is not, but again, how can you open up a can of worms in this neighborhood, when basically I'm just about the only corner lot left? MRS. EGGLESTON-But you knew that when you bought that. Did you not know when you bought that? I mean, you bought the house. MR. TURNER-Three and a half years ago. MR. DESANTIS-No, but I see other fences in the neighborhood that are right up to the road also like that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, and I beg to differ with you. There was some going down Lady Slipper, where the two houses. their back yards were connected with fence to shut that off. When you go around the corner from you. there was on piece of fence there, but it was far back from the road. It was not really too close to the road, and it had been there. MR. DESANTIS-What I'm saying is it's within. that's within the, I don't need the variance for that part. What I'm saying is if you go up Peggy Ann Road. down toward Glens Falls. there's a fence on the corner of Peggy Ann and Briggs that's right out on the property line. His is a fortress. He got the variance for it. MR. TURNER-No, he didn't get a variance for it. That's a doctor that put it up, and they didn't pursue it, I don't think. MRS. EGGLESTON-Last we heard, that was in the courts. MR. TURNER-But he put it up, without permission. MRS. EGGLESTON-He did not get a variance. MR. DESANTIS-I'm trying to go through the proper. my fence is off the main road. It's not blocking the setback. It's half the size he has. It's a see through fence. It's set back of f Peggy Ann Road at least 85 feet. It's in the woods. It's not blocking any site that's already there. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the applicant? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN GORALSKI - 51 - MR. GORALSKI-My name is John Goralski. I live at 26 Lady Slipper Drive, right up the street from the DeSantis'. First let me cover a couple of things that you folks have talked about, but first of all, as far as coming in and asking for a fence, that's not going to happen. I mean, the DeSantis' went to everyone on the street and talked about what they were doing and where they were putting the fence, and nobody has a problem with it. Nobody else lives on the corner. The Esmonds, right across the street. live on the corner. They have a 14 year old daughter. and they just put in a new lawn. spent a lot of money on their property. They don't intend to put a fence up. As far as changing the character of the neighborhood is concerned, you've got signatures from almost everyone on the street that they are not concerned about changing the character of the neighborhood. It's not going to change the character of the neighborhood. The fence will be, I'm sure you all went out to look at it. you'll see that there was a string line set up where the fence is going to be. The fence is not going to be right out on Lady Slipper Drive. It's going to be set in to those trees along the road. So although it may be three feet from the property line, it's probably 15 to 18 feet from the actual roadway. Regarding the children playing in the neighborhood. that's right, there are a ton of children in that neighborhood. That's why most of the people who bought houses there bought their houses, but John is right. That is a blind curve. If you come out of there, even if you're only going about 15 miles an hour, if there's a kid coming running through there, you're not going to see him when you come out. It's just a blind curve. Back in 1972 when the subdivision was approved. the radiuses for turns and that type of thing weren't as great a consideration as they are now. As some of you know, I'm familiar with zoning laws and everything, and there are a couple of criteria you have to look at, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. As I said, everyone in the neighborhood feels that this will not be an undesirable change. If everyone in the neighborhood feels it's not going to be an undesirable change, I think you've got to consider that as a determination that it will not be an undesirable change. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved from some other method. Aside from putting a fence there, I don't think you can achieve it any other way. Besides the DeSantis' kids, there are other kids that play in their yard, play on their swing set, and there is a danger that they're going to run out on the road. MR. DESANTIS-The end of the fence comes close enough to the driveway where. MR. GORALSKI-Where the road is straight. If a kid went around the fence, the road is straight at that point where the driveway is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I'm a little unclear about where your blind corner is. I mean. I drove out in there. MR. GORALSKI-The way the road comes in, there's only about, it's only actually straight to about where the DeSantis' driveway is, and then the mailboxes are on the other side of the street. Then the road starts curving around. It's got a very odd curve to it. As a matter of fact, if you looked at the. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you still could see down it. MR. GORALSKI-No, you can't, as you come around. if you're coming out towards Peggy Ann Road, there are trees all along that edge, right up to the road basically, and during the summer, when the foliage is out, you cannot see until you I re straight. You saw where they put the drywells in, the County put the drywells in? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-That's on a curve right there. It curves back. - 52 - MR. DESANTIS-If one of my kids was on the corner of my lot, on Lady Slipper Drive. the back corner of my lot. you wouldn't see them until you were at the edge of my line. MR. GORALSKI-One of the other things you're supposed to look at is whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical. environmental condi tions of the neighborhood. Once again, it is the consensus of everyone who lives in that neighborhood that you will not have an adverse effect on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. I don't know how strong ly I can say this. It's kind of funny. If people were against this fence, you'd have the whole neighborhood here, but s~nce nobody's against it, everyone feels, we don't have to go out because nobody's against it. This was explained to them, how high it would be, and how close to the road it was be, and everybody knows. I mean, I was out on the road tonight with my daughter, speaking to people, telling them I was going to come here, and they all said, it's no big deal. It's fine with us, because my wife sometimes baby-sits for their kids, also. MR. TURNER-Yes. but you're talking about just this one particular piece of property. We're talking about the whole Town. MR. GORALSKI-No. On this variance we're talking about this particular piece of property. MR. TURNER-I know. Well, we're talking about, as the Fence Ordinance applies to everybody, not just him, everybody. MR. GORALSKI-You're absolutely right. and what the Board has to do is look at each individual application and the uniqueness of that application. MRS. EGGLESTON-But, John, you know. we're also to look ahead a little bit. You're saying the people across the street have a 15 year old daughter. Maybe somebody else will own that place in a year, with little kids, and then what? Another fence, and just because all these people said. yes. I don't care about the fence. doesn't mean they're not going to ask for one, does not mean they're not going to ask for one. in fact, maybe their motive is, if he gets one, we'll have one. MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. Those people don't live on a corner, only one of them does, the Esmonds. Everybody else has a different situation. They either don't live on a corner, or, in the case of the Esmonds, they're on the outside of the curve. They don't have any trees in their yard. They don't have a blind curve as you're coming out. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. another part of our consideration is, is there another al ternati ve? He does have. He could fence in his back yard. Conceivably, he could fence in his back yard. There is another alternative. You're quoting here what we have to consider. You're overlooking this little part about another alternative, and also, yes, another criteria is minimum relief. MR. GORALSKI-Right. As far as minimum relief is concerned. the intent of the Ordinance, I believe. when they decided that they were going to maintain that a corner lot would have two front yards, was to protect the site distances on a corner, so that you wouldn't have a fence right up to the corner, and you wouldn't have a fence blocking site distances. and that's not what you have here. I mean. you're probably 100 feet from the corner. So as far as minimum relief is concerned, in the context of meeting the intent of the Ordinance, the way that the DeSantis' are proposing to build their fence. they do meet the intent of the Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I think he's going for a five fence, too. MR. TURNER-Yes. He's asking for a five foot fence. - 53 - MR. CARVIN-Which is not a minimum. MR. TURNER-John, let me say this. He's asking for a fence along that edge of the road, and he's leaving it open ended by the driveway, all right. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Now, if you want to keep your kids inside of the fence, you enclose it with a fence, and a gate. MR. GORALSKI-The point is not to keep the kids within the fence. It's to keep them from going out onto the road and flying from part of the curb. MR. TURNER-They could run out on the road any place there. MR. GORALSKI-But when you get to the end of where the fence is going to be. where the driveway is, by that time the road is straight, and a car will see a child walking out onto the road. Back where the curve is, where the fence is going to be, you can't see a kid when he comes out of the trees onto the road. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it's conceivable that this fence. You wouldn't even see them. right in back of it, and when that car got in front. a child could dart from They could be standing almost to it, dart right MR. DESANTIS-By the time a car comes around that corner. it's not that the kids will dart into the road, it's whether the car's going to see him or not. That's the point. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, and he's not going to see him until he gets up past the fence. MR. CARVIN-They're apt not to see them þ~cau!?~ º_t the fence. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that not right? He will not be able to see them because the fence is there? MR. DESANTIS-No. because there's probably 30 feet between the edge of where we left the area wooded. the fence will come to the end of the wooded area. We have bushes there, and then driveway. So there's probably 30 feet there. MR. TURNER-Mr. DeSantis. you're saying to us you want to preserve your back, your yard. You're saying to us you don't want to move your fence back, because you want to preserve that back yard. MR. DESANTIS-By moving it back. I'm cutting off probably 2.000 square feet of my yard. That's where my kids play. MR. TURNER-I know. but you bought the house on the corner. MR. DESANTIS-I realize that. MR. TURNER-You're saying to us that you want it your way. You're saying to us you don't have enough an alternative, but you do. That's what you're saying. You say you want the fence out three feet from the property line, even though the road might be 15 or 18 teet from there. That's still the property line. and probably the Town owns 50 foot of road in there, and the road's probably 20 foot wide right now, if it's that wide. So if the day comes and they ever want to widen it, and they do widen it, then the fence is closer to the road yet. Your real motive is to preserve the back yard in a sense. MR. DESANTIS-As much as possible. MR. TURNER-Right. but that's not a criteria for a variance. That's what I'm saying. MR. GORALSKI-Don't you think that in the case of any corner lot, it - 54 - is unique as it relates to front yards and the fence requirements? MR. TURNER-No, not at all. Anybody else puts a fence up, whether it's on a corner lot or not, it's got to be 20 feet back from the front property lot. if it's right on a straight away. MR. GORALSKI-I realize that. What I'm saying is. when the fence, the fence regulations, when you read them, they basically. and not onl y the fence regulations, but you get into the definition of front yard and side yard and that type of thing. They basically appl y to your conventional lot that is not on a corner, where things get questioned when you get to a corner lot. MR. TURNER-Yes, but this is not a high traffic area. The only high traffic you've got is Peggy Ann Road. anybody going in there is just local traffic. They already know the kids are there. There's nothing to prevent a kid from darting out in the road. You could put up a whatever. It's just something that, God forbid, I hope never happens, but it does, unfortunately, sometimes. They'll just dart right out in the road, for some unknown reason. They could be standing in the driveway and dart out in the road, and the car could be 10 feet from them, and never even see the car. MR. GORALSKI-You're absolutely right, but in this case. there are some circumstances that make this lot different from other lots, and therefore give you reason to allow the fence. MR. KARPELES-Well. what's unique about this lot. over any other corner lot? MR. GORALSKI-Well, first of all, any corner lot is unique, I think. as it relates to the way the Ordinance is written regarding front yards, okay, but this particular lot, as a corner lot, I think is unique, first of all because of the curve in the road, which that curve would not be allowed today, by current subdivision standards. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but the curve you're saying is blocking visibility. right? MR. GORALSKI-Right, as you drive out towards Peggy Ann Road. MR. KARPELES-But as Joyce pointed out, the fence is going to block visibility, after you get beyond the curve. MR. GORALSKI-It's not going to block visibility any more than the trees do, because the fence is in the trees. The fence isn't out beyond the trees. The fence isn't closer to the road than the trees are. The fence is actually back in the trees. MRS. EGGLESTON-You know, John, I was going to say, we talk about corner lots. and you talk about a pool, okay, definitely can't go here. The septic system is here. It can't go here. My cellar entrance is there. or it's got to be 10 feet away from the house, etc.. etc., etc. In this particular case. this gentleman has another alternative. There is nothing blocking him from keeping these children in the back yard, other than personal reasons of wanting to have what I see are flowers and that type of thing. which is, that's good to do, because it keeps your place nice, but put your flowers in the front yard. and your garden in the front yard. and let your kids have the back yard. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if he has to have a 20 foot setback. It just says, no fence ~ three feet. MR. TURNER-He has to have 20 foot. MR. GORALSKI-If it was only three feet. it could be right on the property line. Is that correct, Jim? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Not in the front yard. - 55 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Not in the front yard. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-There's a setback of 20 feet from the front yard. MR. GORALSKI-Not if it's under three feet. MR. CARVIN-Not if it's three feet or under. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-But a three foot, that's beside the point, because a three foot fence isn't going to do any good. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. MISS HAUSER-And you were saying that maybe they were going to pass an Ordinance for a four foot fence. MR. TURNER-They've been talking. they talked about it when John was here. and they haven't done anything about it, and it was our suggestion, many years ago, to have it changed because it was the standard fence, pools and so forth. MISS HAUSER-And that would be a four foot fence on the property line? MR. TURNER-Yes. MISS HAUSER-So what's wrong with a four foot fence on the property line, or three feet? MR. GORALSKI-Well, three foot, the kids are going to climb over. MISS HAUSER-No. I'm not saying three foot fence. I'm saying a three foot relief from that front yard setback, having a four foot fence. MR. GORALSKI-Having a four foot fence. instead of a five foot fence? MISS HAUSER-Yes. MR. DESANTIS-You're giving me four feet instead of five feet? MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you doing that, even though the Ordinance says three feet. Jim? MR. MARTIN-No, I'm not. what's written. I'm a Zoning Administrator. I go by MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MISS HAUSER-If I had a three and a half year old child, I'd be fencing in that other section. That doesn't make sense to me. MR. TURNER-That's what I said. It doesn't make sense to me, either. I'd close it in if I was concerned about the kids running out into the road. MR. GORALSKI-Well, he'd need a variance to close it in, too. MR. TURNER-No. If he moves the fence back. I'm not against a four foot fence. I'm against a fence being right up against the property line. I don't care what kind of fence it is. chain link, stockade, picket fence, whatever. MR. DESANTIS-It will eventually be closed in. Finances willing, it will eventually be closed in. That's as much as we can do this year. Right now. - 5G - MR. GORALSKI-That doesn't say that at all. MR. TURNER-Yes, it does. MR. GORALSKI-No. don't grant it. It says that is a consideration. I can read it to you if you want. It doesn't say MR. TURNER-That's fine, but that's one of the conditions. that's part of it. You didn't read all of it. MR. GORALSKI-I can read that part to you. What it says is, if it's a self-imposed hardship, you should consider it, but it does not mean that you should necessarily deny the variance because of that, and in this case, as in many cases, you're well aware that most people are not experts in the Zoning Ordinance, and don't realize the nuances of the Zoning Ordinance. So if you say it's a self- imposed hardship, yes, he bought the lot the corner, but, no, he didn't know that he wouldn't be able to put a fence there. MISS HAUSER-Did he buy it as a vacant lot and have a house constructed? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. he did. MISS HAUSER-Because part of the problem is that the house, the part of the house that faces Peggy Ann Road, as opposed to Lady Slipper. MR. GORALSKI-Well. no because then he'd want to put his fence on Peggy Ann Road, and you'd tell him he needed a variance for that. MRS. EGGLESTON-May I say that Section C of the new Town Law that you're quoting from. Mr. Goralski, says, the Board of Appeals, in the granting of area variances, shall grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary, and adequate, and at the same time, preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood. Now, that would mean, by allowing the fence, we would be obligated to allow other fences, and in the end. the end result could be a change of the character of your neighborhood, with the all of these separate li ttle barricades, and also it says. the neighborhood, and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. I'm not convinced that the fence is not going to hide, from the driver, a child who might dart into the road. a six foot fence, where he might otherwise see it. were that fence not there. Now, granted. there might be a tree there, whatever, but still. you could get a glimpse of this fleeting thing, where a six foot fence, you are not going to be able to do that. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. It's a five foot fence. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, five foot, then. MR. DESANTIS-And if the fence is there. the kids are on the inside of the fence. that's the whole thing. MRS. EGGLESTON-But they can go around the end and down the driveway. You're not completely closing that in. MR. DESANTIS-Financial, what we're able to do this year is put the fence in the woods. We want to keep the kids from walking through the woods into the road. That's the main purpose of what we're doing. MRS. EGGLESTON-But they still can go down your driveway into the road, right? MR. DESANTIS-Yes, I suppose they could, and I could probably finish that back to the house, right now. If I had to, I could do that, but when you get to the end of the woods, the kids, if they're going to walk toward the road, can see a car, and the car can see the kid. because that's where the road straightens out. - 58 - MR. TURNER-You know, if you returned that fence to the house, and the kid was standing out in the driveway, and for some reason. there happened to be a young child across the road. and he hollered to him, and for some reason that kid darted out in that road. and that kid was behind that fence. and there was a car 10 or 20 feet from that fence. and he was going maybe 30 miles an hour, lets say. he could very well hit that kid when he darted out in the road. and the fence is still there. So the fence is going to block the guy coming down Lady Slipper Lane towards Peggy Ann, coming out, going to block him from seeing that kid dart out in the road. Granted, I don't want to see any kid get hurt, but that can happen. MR. GORALSKI-Right now. you have. I don't know, 150 feet of space that if there's a potential that a kid's going to run out in the road. If you put up a fence, and you have the driveway where a kid's going to run out into the road. As a driver, you are more aware of the driveway, and the potential for somebody to come out of the driveway then you are for somebody to come out of the woods. MRS. EGGLESTON-But the trees that are there now does not completely block the view. You can still see somewhat down that side, where a fence, looking at it from an angle, even if they were slats in it, you wouldn't be able to really see as well. I don't know. MR. GORALSKI-As I said. I think that there is no detriment to this neighborhood by allowing them to install this fence, and there is a benefit to the applicant. Therefore, when you're weighing the two, you should vote in favor of the variance, because there is detriment to the neighborhood. MRS. EGGLESTON-I just told you what I felt the detriment was, in my opinion. In my opinion, that's the detriment. MR. TURNER-John, you were here. Why did we put the fence back 20 feet? MR. GORALSKI-Well, as I said. I believe the reason the fence was put back 20 feet was so that, well, a fence above three feet, back 20 feet was so that you could have visibility from the road, but wi th the trees that they have on that, and the curve that they have. there is no visibility in that area. The fence is not going to cut down on visibility. What it's going to do is keep the kids from coming out through the trees. If the kids run out along the driveway, that's true, that could happen. MR. DESANTIS-But I have a stake 20 feet off the property line, and there's 20 feet of woods that these kids can play in. and they will play there. MR. TURNER-Yes. but you want to preserve your yard. We're trying to, we've got a balancing act here. You have an alternative, but you don't want that alternative. You want to push the fence out as far as you can get, so you can get as much back yard as you can get, but you bought the lot on the corner. MR. GORALSKI-What he's saying is, if he puts the fence back 20 feet from the road, 20 feet from the property line. you're going to have 20 feet of trees, that's where the kids play. That's where all the kids in the neighborhood play. They like playing in the trees there. So if you put the fence back 20 feet, you still have the problem of the blind curve, and kids coming out from the woods. If you put the fence up closer, now maybe not three feet, maybe five feet, maybe something like that. the kids, if they come out in the road. are going to come at the driveway which, first of all, is on a straight of way. and second of all, is where the driver would be more likely to anticipate a child coming out onto the road from the driveway, not from the woods. MR. TURNER-We could argue all night. - 59 - r MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, we could. MR. GORALSKI-Well, let me just say one thing about that, okay. We've argued about this for about half an hour. You argued about a subdivision for two hours. You argued about K-Mart or Wal-Mart or whatever the heck it was, for an hour, and this is just as important to the DeSantis' as either one of those applications were to those applicants. MRS. EGGLESTON-And I think we take it very seriously, John. It just seems we seem to be at logger heads at what, and at what we feel and what you feel. and you know yourself that if you go to somebody and say, your neighbors especially, do you mind if I put a fence up, lots of times people will not say no. because they don't want to irritate their neighbors. You know that. You were in this business long enough. So just because all of these people said yes, does not mean they agree. MR. GORALSKI-You're right, but I'm here today. everyone of those people. I've talked to MRS. EGGLESTON-Why didn't they all come? MR. GORALSKI-I told you that from the beginning. You know why they didn't all come, because when your in favor of something, you've got to, gee, I'm going to be there until 11:42 at night. It's just a fence. it's no big deal. When you're opposed to something, sure. you go out, and you raise heck about it. MRS. EGGLESTON-See. lots of times. they really don't. you go to them and you say. do you object. and really they think, well, gee, I guess not. I mean, you catch them at an off minute, but then when this fence is up there, and they come by it. they'll think, did I really agree to that? MR. GORALSKI-I don't think so. I think you're being completely unfair to these people to say that that's true. Now, the other thing I want to say is. sure, John and Mary may have gone to everyone, and they didn't want to say to them, yes. put the fence up. because they didn't want to say, we don't like your fence. but I'm not John and Mary. I'm the guy on the street, and I talked to everybody, and you know as well as I do, if they didn't want the fence to be up, when you're talking behind their backs, you'd say, yes. well I signed the thing just to get them out of my hair. but they didn't say that. They said to me, no, the fence is fine. We have no problem with it. So, once again, there is no detriment to this neighborhood by putting that fence up. MR. THOMAS-I think the detriment to the neighborhood is. I think they should have the fence. MR. TURNER-Well. nobody's denying them the fence. It's only where they want to put it. MR. THOMAS-Well, I think they should be able to put it where they want it there, three to five feet back from the property line. because it's in the trees. It's not going to be seen that well. You could even condition it to put bushes in front of it or something. MISS HAUSER-I agree with Chris. MR. DESANTIS-Again, if you set it back 20 feet, and there's 20 feet by 90 feet where the kids will play, and getting into coming around a blind corner and stuff like that. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's three feet from the road, Chris. MR. THOMAS-Yes, three feet from the property line, but with that curve on there, that is real funny curve coming around there. and - 60 - '" as they're coming towards that intersection. they're going to be slowing down more. If a kid came out of that driveway, they're almost to a stop at that point, because of the stop sign there. Whereas, 90 feet back up, they're still going probably 20 miles an hour. or 25 miles an hour. So, if a kid did come running out on that back property line, they're going to run in front of a 20 mile an hour car, whereas, coming right out of the drive~ay, it's maybe a 5 mile an hour car, but I think it would be a deterrent to stop a kid from running out there, if he hits that fence once or twice, maybe he'll learn. MR. KARPELES-I pretty much agree with you people. I'm not convinced that the fence isn't going to do more narm than good. If I thought that it had a possibility of saving some kid's life. I would vote for it. but I think it's. you haven't convinced me that it's really going to be beneficial. I think it's going to be a hinderance, rather than an improvement. MR. CARVIN-I think that we could take a look at a couple of items. Certainly, nobody on this Board is hoping ill of any child. I personally feel that a three foot fence down through there would probably be more than adequate to prevent a child from darting. I think that there has to be some parental responsibility in teaching the child what the fence is for. I don't care, you could put a 500 foot fence there, and if that child wants to go over it, they're going to go over it. So I don't think the height of the fence is necessarily the deterrent. I think understanding what the fence is for, it's your responsibility to teach the children. I think that the three foot fence would more than likely serve the purpose. I don't have a major problem coming down. I don't think it's a high traffic area. I do have a problem with the four and the five foot lengths, and if the applicant is going to hold his ground to the five foot. then I'd have to say, no. I think that that's a maximum relief, and this Board is obligated to grant minimum relief. The other thing. too. is that I would hope over time. I mean, what we are looking at today, and two years or four years or five years from now is going to be moot, because hopefully at that point the kids aren't going to be irresponsible enough to be darting in and out here, and if we allow. I think. a five foot or something that is significantly different from what the variance says, that we're going to have to live with that for the for the next 10 or 15 years, even though the situation has been resolved in three or four. So. unless the applicant can live within the guidelines, I don't have a problem with the three foot. He'd be entitled to a three foot right on the property line. as far as my interpretation is concerned. MR. GORALSKI-As far as the three foot fence goes. as Ted said, they've been talking about changing it. You can't buy a three foot fence. You can buy a four foot fence. That is the standard height they come. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the standard. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know how John and Mary feel about this. but would you consider a four foot fence in that location, considering that's what a standard fence size is? MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with a four foot fence. I have a problem with the setback. He's asking 17 feet. I say that's too close. Even though he's 18 feet though he's 15 feet from the road. That's a 50 foot wide dedicated road. subdivision. I think. move it back. I don't have a problem with the height, as long as it's four foot. MISS HAUSER-And move it back 20 feet, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. The argument is to preserve the back yard. and it might be a legitimate argument, but still and all. if you want to put a fence up, that's asking maximum relief. You can put up all - 61 - the fences you want, if a kid, like I said, stands on the other side of the street and calls a little kid across the road or something, and the car is there, they have no fear, and they don't think. and they're just gone, and it's too late. MR. CARVIN-I think that, because this is, theoretically, a low traffic area. on Lady Slipper, it's not one of the major arterials, Joyce has suggested moving it back 10 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-A four foot high feet. back 10 feet. MR. CARVIN-We could also condition it that we give it a three year thing. In other words, of course, that's a lot of expense. It's probably not worth it. MR. DESANTIS-Well. if you're going four feet, if you're going ten feet back, and giving me four feet, what's the difference between four and five, at that point, four foot and five foot fence? MR. GORALSKI-It'll be back in the woods. fence. You won't know the difference. You'll never see the MR. TURNER-I don't think you need a five foot fence. don't. I really MR. CARVIN-I really don't. MR. TURNER-You could put a six foot fence there. just like Mr. Carvin says, and if they want to go over it, when they get a little bigger, they're going over it. When they get six or seven, they'll go right over the top of the fence. MR. CARVIN-That's my point. After your kids learn the responsibility of not, they understand that they can't run out in there, then you're stuck with a fence, and it has changed the character of the neighborhood, and somebody else comes in. When I was over there, earlier this evening, there was a whole bunch of kids playing right on the front yard. and again, I'm not saying that they will or won't, but they would have a perfectly legitimate argument to come in here and say, look, I want a five foot fence, and they're not even on a corner lot, because they guy right up there. We're not arguing the corner lot. We're talking Lady Slipper. We have said nothing about Peggy Ann Road. MR. GORALSKI-Because he's not putting a fence on Peggy Ann Road. MR. CARVIN-Well, he is. He's putting a little one. I mean, if you really want to get technically, he's putting a little one there, but really we're not looking at this as a corner lot. I mean. we're looking at right down Lady Slipper. The same as the guy up the road from him could look at it. I mean. that's been the bone of contention. I mean, nobody is arguing the little 21 foot, you know, connecting from the house there. I mean, I don't think anybody's got a problem with that. I certainly don't. That's Lady Slipper is the one that's the bone of contention. MR. GORALSKI-The 21 feet is along the back property line. MR. CARVIN-No. right here. This is the front. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right on the front, on Peggy Ann, this little 21.84 feet right here. MR. GORALSKI-That's not the one he needs the variance for. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know it. but we're just saying. MR. GORALSKI-He needs the variance for this 21 feet here, and for this 90. So what are you saying about this here? - 62 - --' MR. DESANTIS-I don't need a variance for the 21 foot section. MR. TURNER-No, but you're only putting up a three and a half foot high fence. MR. GORALSKI-That's his front yard. MR. CARVIN-It still has nothing to do with the corner lot. If the fence was done here, that would make the corner lot argument a lot more val id. What I'm saying is that the guy could put a fence right up here. What's to say that the guy that owns this lot here says, welli gee whiz, I want to put a five foot fence right there, and then. iRe Joyce says. we've got a corridor right down through there. I mean, he could put a three foot, and nobody would have an argument. MR. GORALSKI-I believe there's a difference. in that, first of all, this one is back in the woods. All I can say is. you're right. He can come in and ask. That's right. Everyone has the right to come in and ask for a variance. My point is, I think that the uniqueness of this lot. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and again, I don't think we're arguing. I mean. I'm just saying, we can't see a five foot fence here, is what we're saying. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. I think. again, he's asking maximum relief on the setback. maximum relief on the height. t1:Q'r-IOB ,TQ__PENX_l\.RE:1\__ Jll\.RIAJfÇE__NQ. 50__19~ 3 __ .JºÐN _ E . D!]~^N~Iª, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant is requesting 17 feet relief from Section 179-74A(3). which states that no fence over three feet in height shall be erected within 20 feet of any front yard property line. The applicant is also requesting two feet of relief in height from Section 179-74B(2), which states that no fence over three feet in height shall be erected, and the applicant is also requesting 17 feet of relief from Section 179-74A(3), which again states that no fence over three feet in height shall be erected within 20 feet of any front yard property line, and the applicant is requesting three feet of relief for 37 feet of a said fence, from Section 179- 74B(2). which states that no fence over three feet shall be erected or maintained in any front or side yard. I think the applicant is requesting maximum relief from these Sections, in a situation where minimum relief, or strict application of the zoning as approved would more than likely be adequate. That by granting this variance, it would be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. There would be other alternatives that the applicant could explore to correct this practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner NOES: Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A CEA JOSEPH GRIMALDI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE KNOLLS ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A VACANT LOT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SEVENTY-THREE HUNDREDTHS (.73) ACRE FOR THE LOT AREA AND IS SEEKING TWO AND TWENTY-SEVEN HUNDREDTHS (2.27) ACRE RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-15C. WHICH REQUIRES THREE (3) ACRES AS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE RR-3A ZONE. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NUMBER: 26-3-4 LOT SIZE: 32.000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-15C STAFF INPUT - 63 - Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-1993, Joseph Grimaldi, Meeting Date: June 23, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a single family dwelling on a vacant lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing seventy-three hundredths (.73) acre for the lot area and is seeking two and twenty-seven hundredths (2.27) acre relief from Section 179-15C, which requires three (3) acres as the minimum lot area in the RR-3A zone. 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 zoning requirements is that this lot is preexisting and nonconforming in its lot area. and except for the fact that it is located in a Critical Environmental Area (Lake George CEA). the lot would qualify to be .. grandfathered" (Section 179-76E). 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and it appears 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? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, as the project is located in a Planning Board approved subdivision (Ridge Knolls, 1974) and is consistent with the average lot size in said subdivision. 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: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-This is typical of the same one we had for Mr. Murphy, right next to him. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. MR. TURNER-The same thing. The only reason it's here is because he's in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. KARPELES-Can you explain that to me? What does that mean? That means that you can't be grandfathered if you're in a Critical Environmental Area? MR. TURNER-No. MR. MARTIN-Or in the APA. MR. TURNER-Or in the APA. MR. MARTIN-What it essentially means is every nonconforming lot north of the blue line in this Town will come before this Board. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-It's pretty clear cut. Lets move the application. MOTION TO AP,fROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1993 JOSEPH GRIMALDI. Introduced by Linda Hauser who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: In which the applicant is proposing to construct a single family dwelling on a nonconforming, preexisting vacant lot. Approval of this variance would grant the applicant relief from Section 179- 15C, which requires three acres as the minimum lot area in a Rural - 64 - --- -----.~--~._.. .--.--- - Residential Three Acre Zone, and by granting this variance, we'll be granting 2.27 acres relief. The practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements on the lot is that this is a preexisting nonconforming lot in an approved subdivision, and this is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. There's no other option which would require no variance. In granting this variance, there would not be an adverse effect on other properties in the district or neighborhood. and there would appear to be no adverse effects on public facilities or services if this variance were granted. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. MARTIN-I don't know if you've ever done this in the past, but I'm asking anyhow. For example, hypothetically, sayan entity in the Town wanted to place one of those. like the time and temperature sign, with the individual bulbs to form the lettering. Is that a problem for the Sign Ordinance? Does that require a variance? It's not flashing. It is illuminated, though it's not moving lettering. from what I understand. In this particular case. they program it in, and the message stays on for the entire day. MRS. EGGLESTON-What changes the minutes. Jim? MR. MARTIN-No. It's not a time and temperature. It's like that. It's not a time and temperature sign. but it is like that. I wanted to get some sort of reading from you on that. If you think that would be a variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-What kind of a sign is it? You're saying it's not a time and temperature. MR. MARTIN-It's a message board. similar to like what's in front of the Civic Center, but not that movement. It's that same style. In other words. individual lights make up the message. the lettering. MR. KARPELES-What are you asking? MR. MARTIN-Is that a, I know that no flashing or intermittent illumination or anything like that is allowed. That's disallowed. I think this is a border line case. and I just want to make sure, because the position that's being called for, it's going to be a very high profile sign in Town, and I don't want to have the public come back and say. well, how did he ever get that. There's a special section on illumination. MRS. EGGLESTON-It won't be a flashing sign? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just illuminated, with writing going across. MR. CARVIN-I've got to believe, it says here all illuminated signs shall employ only light emitting a light of constant intensity, and no sign shall be illuminated by or contain flashing, intermittent, sequence. or moving lights. MR. MARTIN-It's not going to do that. temperature sign. It's not a time and MR. CARVIN-I've got to believe that they have moving lights. because they're changing the sign all the time. - G5 - -~----~.. -"----. ------- MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So it's moving. MR. MARTIN-My understanding. though, was it's a case that they want to put a message up, like a date and time for an event. They're going to type it in in the morning. it's going to come on and stay on, until they reprogram it. That's how it was described to me. So, it's not gOing to be, like. moving. MRS. EGGLESTON-So it's intermittent. It might be steady? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it might move. MR. MARTIN-What concerns me is I think that's the way they intend to use it, but I think the capability. the sign does have the capability. That's why I'm in a quandary. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think if you allow that type of billboard, you're going to allow others. MR. MARTIN-So it would be the interpretation of the Board that in a situation like that. it would be a sign that should come for a variance? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-All right. Something like this. I don't like to stand alone on this. If it's a black and white interpretation. that's no problem. MRS. EGGLESTON-I have a question for you. I got two phone calls. Can you have two chickens and a duck in your yard fenced in? Some lady called me tonight from Hudson Boulevard, and they stink and they make noise. Are you allowed to have them? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-If you're a farm. with acres. MR. MARTIN-If they have agricultural uses allowed in their zone. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. You know. going out Sherman Avenue, and there's Howard Street? Okay. Directly across from Howard Street, they've cleared in back and they're moving used mobile homes in there, that they're renting. People have asked me how they can do that when, that's not even in the Overlay Zone. MR. MARTIN-What is it? MRS. EGGLESTON-You go out Sherman Avenue to Howard Street, right directly across from Howard Street. you'll see a road built out in back of the house that's there. and they've moved in two mobile homes that are rentals. and they're like this to each other. One's right up to the other. They're not on an acre, but that's not the Overlay Zone anyway, is it? MR. MARTIN-No. I don't believe so. They're very limited as to, there's only five of them. Okay. I'll get on it tomorrow. Joyce. MRS. EGGLESTON-What about the chickens? Then they've got to call up? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. Call us. we answer those questions. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. - 66 - On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner, Chairman - G7 - - -- ~- ..",..Ir-' --