Loading...
1994-11-30 -- FilE COpy ORIG' :JAl -- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 30, 1994 INDEX Area Variance No. 43-1994 William A. & Dale Smith 1. Sign Variance No. 55-1994 (Cont'd on Pg. 27) Pete)" La i nes Glens Falls Queen Diner 3. Area Variance No. 65-1994 Maureen M. Lynch 3. Notice of Appeal No. 7-94 John A. Brock Mooring Post Marina 16. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~ ~ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 30, 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY ANTHONY MARESCO DAVID MENTER ROBERT KARPELES FRED CARVIN MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE ZBA-LEMERY & REID, JON LAPPER STENOGRAPHER-SUSAN DAVIDSEN MR. TURNER-I'm going to rearrange the agenda a little bit because of the issue of the Mooring Post Marina, which is up front, and we'll start with Area Variance No. 43-1994. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1994 TYPE II SR-1A WILLIAM A. & DALE SMITH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD, APPROX. 500 FT. PAST CLENDON BROOK ROAD ON WEST SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING FIFTY (50) FEET FROM A STREAM. SECTION 179-60 REQUIRES A SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FOOT SETBACK FROM ANY SHORELINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/10/94 TAX MAP NO. 123-1- 34.2 LOT SIZE: 1.95 ACRES SECTION 179-60 DALE SMITH, PRESENT MR. TURNER-We'll just read the tabling resolution. MR. THOMAS-"That the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1994 WILLIAM A. & DALE SMITH, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Until no later than the month of December meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We have to have the information from the County as to that piece of property and the subdivision, the filing of that subdivision. Duly adopted this 24th day of August, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE" Signed by Theodore Turner MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Smith. Do you want to bring us up to date on what you've tried to accomplish here? MR. SMITH-Okay. I've been working with the County, because the County agreed to deed back some property in the front, out by the road, but they don't seem to be moving on this very quickly, and Fred Austin said he can't give us a time when it's going to be, when this is going to be completed, and I would like to get going with the house, since I've already sold myoId house, and we're - 1 - -./ --- living in a motel at the time. I'd like to get going on the house, and that's why I'm here asking for the variance. We meet all the setbacks. Also, I would like to point out that, the way this is worded here, it sounds like we want to build a house 50 feet from a stream. The actual stream is, like, 350 feet in the back. This is just a marshy area in the middle of the property, and it's not actually a shoreline of a stream. MR. TURNER-Is it flagged, the wetlands? t-1f':¡. SMI TH-Yes . MR. TURNER-It's flagged wetlands. So you can't build on it. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, they mentioned that last time. MR. MARTIN-We have, since, cleared up the issue with the subdivision. It has been properly filed with the County, and all that. The mylar's been signed and all that. So that's, that first condition of the tabling has been satisfied. MR. CARVIN-I don't have a problem with it. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with it. You've got, what, 66 feet there, to the road. MS. CIPPERLY-This was an approved variance. That's why he had to come back. Then it lapsed. t-1R. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So we can make the same motion? MR. TURNER-Yes, it's the same number, the same request. MR. SMITH-The only thing is the size of the house was wrong on that first variance. I applied for a 26 by 56, and somehow it got put into the variance as a 20 by 50. MR. CARVIN-I've got 50 by 28, yes. MR. SMITH-The originðl application was for 26 by 56. MR. CARVIN-Is it necessary to put it in there at all? MR. TURNER-No. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that the size of the house matters. It's the relief requested. MR. TURNER-Just the setback. Yes. Okay. Does anybody have a problem with it? He answered one request, and he's waiting on the other one, here, from the County. Okay. Since it's been a while, I'll just open the public hearing briefly. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1994 SMITH, Introduced by F)-ed Carvin who moved seconded by Theodore Turner: WILLIAM A. & DALE for its adoption, The applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence on a conformIng lot. He is seeking a twenty-five foot relief from the required seventy-five foot rear yard setback as stated in Section 179-60, Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations which states that the minimum setback for all principal buildings shall - 2 - "-- ~ be seventy-five feet. There have been no objections to this application and there appears to be no affect by passing this variance on any public facilities and services. This is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 30th day of November, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. I~enter, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford SIGN VARIANCE NO. 55-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-IA PETER LAINES GLENS FALLS QUEEN DINER OWNER: GIBRALTAR MANAGEMENT CO. INC. UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A ROOF SIGN MEASURING IN SIZE (6) SQUARE FEET, IN ADDITION TO EXISTING SIGNAGE. SECTION 140-6 ALLOWS ONE WALL SIGN AND ONE FREESTANDING SIGN, SO APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 10/12/94 TAX MAP NO. 71-1-3 SECTION 140-6 MR. TURNER-Anyone here representing the application? Did he provide you with any additional information from National Realty? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I did get verification from Gibraltar Management that it was fine as proposed, but then the letters are in the folder. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll put this at the end for now, until, maybe the applicant will show up. So, we'll take the next order of busi ness. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1994 TYPE II SR-1A MAUREEN M. LYNCH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD, NEXT TO AND BEHIND CRISLIP'S BED 'N BREAKFAST APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A LANDLOCKED PARCEL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-70, WHICH REQUIRES THAT EVERY PRINCIPAL BUILDING BE BUILT UPON A LOT WITH 40 FOOT OF FRONTAGE UPON A PUBLIC STREET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 5/11/94 AS PER PREVIOUS APPLICATION AV 26-1994 FOR ALBANY SAVINGS BANK/C. LYNCH TAX MAP NO. 55-1-7.21, 7.1 LOT SIZES: 1.14 ACRES, 7.21 ACRES SECTION 179-70 CHRISTOPHER LYNCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Read the tabling resolution, too. MR. THOMAS-"A Motion to table Area Variance No. 26-1994 Albany Savings Bank FSB and Christopher P. Lynch, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: At the request of the applicant to provide the Board with further information with respect to the property. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, I~r. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser" Signed Theodore Turner. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-1994, Maureen M. Lynch, Meeting Date: November 30, 1994 "APPLICANT: Maureen Lynch PROJECT LOCATION: Ridge Road, next to and behind Crislip's Bed and Breakfast PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to construct a residence on a landlocked parcel. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: The subject lot meets all Zoning Ordinance criteria except that of road frontage. Section 179-70 requires forty (40) feet of frontage on a public road, to be used as the actual - 3 - -/. -- access to the parcel. If this variance is granted, applicant would utilize a 65-foot deeded right of way through the front lot to access the parcel. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: This variance would allow the applicant to build on the property. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There does not appear to be an alternative that would accomplish the applicant's objectives. The applicant claims to have contacted all adjacent landowners who could possibly sell them road frontage, and met with no success. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL?: This appears to be the minimum relief possible for this situation. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: There would not appear to be any adverse effects on the neighborhood. Since this configuration dictates a common driveway, with the rear parcel utilizing an easement over the front one, there would be no increase in access points from Ridge Road. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: This difficulty was created when, for mortgage purposes, two deeds were filed with the Warren County Tax Map office, but no subdivision approval was sought for that division. A subsequent foreclosure action left Albany Savings Bank on the deed for one parcel and Christopher Lynch on the other deed. An application for a variance was filed jointly in June 1994. It was tabled, then withdrawn by the bank. The bank sold its interest in the front property to a Dr. Garner, who has refused to sell the applicant the required frontage, though there is a deeded right- of-way. The other portion of the property was transferred to Maureen Lynch, the current applicant. PARCEL HISTORY: The parcel is on record as being subdivided in early 1994. No subdivision approval was granted for this action. This is an attempt to rectify that situation. A subdivision application will be considered, if the variance is granted. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Lynch, would you care to address anything further, in respect to the application? MR. LYNCH-A few minor clarifications. One, I'd like to put myself in as agent for Maureen Lynch. I'm also General Contractor for building the house. Minor clarifications. We've talked to a number of adjacent landowners, and we haven't been able to come up with a reasonable amount of land. We've not talked to all adjacent landowners. We came up with the idea of a variance, which we're applying for right now. We're pursuing that as opposed to negotiating with everybody (lost word) eight acre parcel of land, and there are a number of adjacent landowners. Two minor, the second minor discrepancy, Dr. Garner, and we have tried to negotiate our ways out of this, he is not, in fact, refused to sell. The thing is, what he is offering, we have just not been able to negotiate successfully, where we can actually afford to buy, and he has made offers on our property which are, at least in our mind, not even close to the value, just (lost word) for Single Family. Other than that, the record is absolutely accurate. MR. TURNER-Mr. Lynch, you haven't signed the form as the Agent for your wife. So I would ask that yOU sign that form. MR. LYNCH-I would like to be substituted as an Agent. MR. TURNER-All right. Well, you've got to sign the form, then. MR. MARTIN-Ted, I have indication from our Special Counsel that that can be put on the record verbally, and that is sufficient. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's not always been the case, though. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm not an attorney. I just pass along the, only because she's here, he says. MR. TURNER-All right. Fine. Okay. anything further? Any questions? Do you have - 4 - ..~ --../ MR. LYNCH-On an overview, we have tried as hard as humanly possible to make our proposal in absolute conformance with everything. We've had control of this parcel since, I believe, 1986 or '87, and of the whole parcel well before that. It's been in my family since, 1 believe, the 60's, early 60's. We've probably had less than totally accurate information from a number of attorneys through the times, but again, as far as we can see, other than the variance that we're looking for any setback requirement of the Town of Queensbury has been met (lost word). The idea of compassion as an umbrella over this entire thing. We do have a mortgage. (lost word) spent substantial dollars to get the mortgage approved, with the interest rates going as they are, it's a very favorable interest rate right now. We've been extremely lucky with the warm weather, as far as pouring cement and putting in the foundation in. Time is very pointedly of the essence, and we're (lost word) variance tonight. We talked to the Planning Board last night and got contingent approval. We have a special meeting planned contingent on the (lost word). MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone have any questions of him at this point? Okay. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any questions? MR. CARVIN-Mr. Lynch, are you familiar with the Area Variance request, 26-1994 that was heard back in May, it looks like on or around May 25th? MR. LYNCH-I've read it and 1 am relatively aware of the what happened there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are you aware of, at least, my concern with regard to this particular situation, as far as the landlocked and the right-of-way issue? MR. LYNCH-Not specifically. There was a lot of discussion behind the scene with Mr. Lebowitz, but. MR. CARVIN-Well, apparently the Bank, just to kind of refresh your memory, and some of the comments that were made back then, Mr. Auffredou had indicated back then that "today we filed a subdivision application, two lot subdivision application, with the Planning Department. We'll move forward with that subject, of course, to tonight's hearing and how it goes, but we intend to go forward with the subdivision application if all goes well." Do you have any knowledge of what happened to that subdivision application, Jim, or was anything ever? MR. MARTIN-It was withdrawn and it basically was dormant since then, and now they are essentially going to be pursuing the same application. They appeared before the Planning Board last night asking if they would give consideration to such a subdivision application, should the variance here be approved tonight. MR. CARVIN-So essentially nothing was done back in May? MR. MARTIN-No. It was not pursued any further and there's been no action taken on it. MR. CARVIN-Except that there are a couple of changes, because back in May, the Bank, according to Mr. Auff)"edou, "the Bank wants very much to be able to sell this property as most banks do when they foreclose", and obviously they've moved ahead and sold that. So it seems to me that they took an issue, back then, that - 5 - ~ '--' was somewhat complicated, and basically made it ~ complicated. All right. Continuing. My position and feeling at that time, and it still is, for the most part, this position, that we are creating a problem with these landlocked parcels, because at the time we were hearing another one, up on Walker Lane, in which a landlocked pa)-cel all of a sudden was being developed according to the Code up there, via a right-of-way, and that caused all sorts of headaches. We have also heard other cases where, one in your particular area, where there was a "bed and breakfast" with a right-of-way to a dock that has caused all sorts of problems. So, I know that you are, at this point, only indicating a single family dwelling, but I believe you could put as many as six or eight houses back there. Is that not correct, Jim? MR. LYNCH-Not without further, if we ever, the proposal right now is for a single family dwelling on eight acres. It is that simple. There's a 65 foot right-of-way, which would be more than adequate ingress and egress for at least two roads. If, in fact, we ever went, I honestly don't know whether we would go three, four, five, or six lots, but obviously at that point in time we'd have to be back here and we'd have to conform to any laws in the Town of Queensbury. MR. CARVIN-But that doesn't still prevent you from applying or subdividing further. MR. LYNCH-To the best of my knowledge, nothing would. sort of Catch-22. We in a MR. CARVIN-You're kind of subdivided already. prevent you from subdividing again? So what's to MR. LYNCH-The thing is we're in a Catch-22. If it's a legal subdivision, it is a legal subdivision, and that's it. If it is not, then I, in fact, still own that property. If it is an illegal subdivision (lost word) foreclosure, Dr. Garner's taking over the property is illegal. MR. CARVIN-I think that those are issues that you may have to pursue at some point. I don't have answers to those, but according to Mr. Auffredou, at that point, back in May, his report to this particular situation, there was no question about it, but I think at that point in time, if an application were to come to you to develop that, I think at that point in time you could say that we've got a right of way, and the Board's concern of access to the back property through their right-of-way can be addressed at that time. Well, here it is a mere five or six months later, and we seem to be having this conversation. MR. LYNCH-You look at it as a continuum of five or six months ago. MR. CARVIN-Well, there's a couple of big change from five or six months ago in that the one piece of property has been sold because this Board, at that time, had requested the lawyer, at that point, to go back and try to reconfigure. We wanted to work with him at that point, and the whole issue is dropped. It looks like the Bank just dealt out a dirty card, sold a piece of property leaving you high and dry. MR. LYNCH-Yes, we had less than, perhaps we had less than accurate advice from counsel at that point. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, because the way that we, right-of-way or variance based on ownership, and I again, that's not the Board's I guess, have addressed some issues is that we grant the think we went into that. problem, of these variance MR. LYNCH-As we speak, to the best of my knowledge, ownership of the two different parcels isn't really contest right now. - 6 - \- '"-"" MR. CARVIN-Well, it could be, especially if you have an argument with the, or a desire to develop further out back. MR. LYNCH-As we sit here right now, we do not have any whatsoever to develop anything other than a very simple square foot house to live in. desi)-e 2,000 MR. CARVIN-Well, Mr. Auffredou, at that point, kind of indicated, "I couldn't agree with you more, but I also think that if it were to come into play, it's possible grounds for denial of the future owner's application". MR. LYNCH-We'd be more than happy to take the variance right now with that in mind. As I say, the only thing we're looking for right now is to try to build a home, put it in. Unfortunately we are, after about three months of delay, in a very time critical situation. We're not looking to develop. We're not looking for anything other than to build a single family home, period. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess another issue that was addressed back then is who actually came up with this compromise? In other words, who developed this particular lots? I know, at that point, Ms. Cipperly, she asked the question, you know, how did the Bank come up with this amount of land and the house, and Mr. Auffredou's response back then was "I think that in all likelihood it represents a compromise between Mr. Lynch and the Bank". MR. LYNCH-Absolutely not. Mr. Auffredou was a substitute attorney. Mr. Sipowitz was the lead attorney on that. I'm looking at the record, he didn't even know how much frontage was on the parcels, about two or three times as much as he put on the record. The original division was made back, I believe, in '85 or '86 when I put the original mortgage. It has to do with the amount of land that the Bank would write a mortgage for the primary house that I built back then, and all they would take is that 2.85, I believe, acres, as collateral or main collateral for that mortgage, but this (lost word) subdivision has been in effect since, I believe, 1987 or as soon as I moved into that house. That is where the subdivision came up. At that point in time, we did file with the County, and again, on my side, I'm sort of thinking my counsel, or main counsel knows what they're doing a lot more than I, and that has been in effect since that period of time, and it was only until we filed our building permit that we came head to head with the Queensbury Zoning Law. So in the last three or four months, we thought we had a done deal. It was filed and the banks had the tax bills, and now what we're trying to do is clear up the paperwork, bring this into conformance with the laws, and like I say, the easiest way to do that was to come up with the variance. Any other aspect of the whole (lost word) and anything else that we know of. MR. CARVIN-What you're saying is that this subdivision was created back in 1987? MR. LYNCH-Yes, sir. MR. CARVIN-That was your understanding, in other words, but there's no documentation to this? MR. LYNCH-Not under Town Law. Again, the intricacy that we were not aware of right then (lost word) County law. The mortgage was filed. The subdivision was put down on the map. The mortgage was written for the specific parcel, or we wouldn't be in the mess right now, and again, with my counsel and the Bank counsel and everybody else involved, all I've been trying to do from Day One is to just to stay legal. I'm a very conservative person. MR. CARVIN-What's the document that was filed in November of '93? - 7 - -- MR. LYNCH-'93, I believe, was the foreclosure proceeding where they chopped off that smaller parcel, and took that back, and after that they sold it and they satisfied any mortgage obligation I had, and then I had the back land free and clear. We had discussions with Bartlett Pontiff back then, their counsel was what we were doing and the sale of land back to Gardners. That was a pristine matter, was this was what you do and then you just go ahead (lost word). We went in for a building permit, obviously, it was not that simple. In talking to everybody in Queensbury and our counsel, it seems that the right way to do this is to come to this meeting and ask for a variance. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess, according to the minutes back in May, Mr. Martin kind of felt that this subdivision was illegal. Do you still feel that this is the situation, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't know if illegal's the right term. I simply don't recognize it as a subdivision. It hasn't gone through the proper approvals here at our Town level and, therefore, a building permit can't be issued for a lot that doesn't exist, and it's unlawful, I guess you could say, or illegal. It hasn't been done legally. MR. CARVIN-Do you know if, in any of your research, whether you came across any indication that anything was on file at the County back in '87? MR. MARTIN-I think what happens is, and I acknowledge that there doesn't appear to be any logic to this process, is the County will accept deeds transferring property, without any subdivision plat filed. Deeds can be drafted and filed and the County will record those deeds, and then those recorded deeds are reflected on the tax map, and when you look at the tax map for this section of the Town, you'll find this lot shown there, although the lot was not created through a subdivision process in the Town. Filing of that deed is not required, or a subdivision through the Town is not required to file that deed. That's my understanding. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The full lot, or just the two lots? MR. MARTIN-The two lots, the creation of this rear lot is shown also on our tax map, much like it is there, but there is no subdivision plat approved by the Planning Board approving that lot. Obviously, because it's not a conforming lot anyhow, that's ~<Jhy we're here. MR. CARVIN-To the best of you knowledge, is it the habit of the Planning Board to create landlocked lots? MR. MARTIN-No, they can't. MR. CARVIN-They can't? MR. MARTIN-The Planning Board seen this proposal, and the create an unlawful lot, or Zoning Code. So that's why, to consideration being given did not do this. They have never Planning Board is not empowered to a lot that does not conform to our you know, a variance is needed prior to this proposal. MR. LYNCH-I don't think I'm Jumping, I believe last night it was my feeling that if we do, you know, it is an unlawful lot. We did not realize it (lost word). If a variance is permitted tonight, it is obviously a legal lot. It was my feeling last night at the Planning Board that, in fact, they actually set up a Special Meeting last night hoping that we will get a variance, that they will look favorably on this. MR. CARVIN-I guess the biggest problem that I have is that back in May these issues were confronted and we asked for the Bank and you to work out a legal resolution, and either you or the Bank - 8 - "----' ----~ decided to drop this issue and make this a self created situation. MR. LYNCH-No. Quite the opposite, no, sir. We sat down, again, this is a highly technical function we're going through right now. Bartlett, Pontiff did represent us at that point in time, albeit in a limited way, but we sat back and we tried to figure out, what is the best way of accomplishing our goals. Obviously, we wanted to go by this plan. I've had it since 1972, and we sat down, with advice of counsel, and they told us that this is legal. There's no exposure on this. What you're doing here is excellent. This is the easiest and best way of doing it. Now, again, that's not part of what's going on. Our intent on this whole thing is to stay as above board as humanly possible. MR. CARVIN-I'm not challenging that particular aspect. I'm just saying that, back in May, that I think all the parties concerned, the Bank, because the Bank had more flexibility, and you, at that point, had more flexibility, and maybe adjusting so that both parties would have some road frontage, but the bank, for whatever reason, apparently decided to grab the money, and leave you holding the bag. MR. LYNCH-That mayor may not be a possibility. granting of the variance is. Again, the MR. CARVIN-What I'm saying is that I think that back in May, had this table come forward, in other words, if everybody had sat down, back then, that I think that that little strip up through the center could have been split in half, and then we would have had access, at least an ownership issue, or that those lines, because if they are just, at this point, lines on a map, because they don't represent anything that, technically, is legal, that they could have been moved much easier, so that the Bank would have had its "pound of flesh", and you would have been left with, you know, whatever is left. MR. LYNCH-I understand. This is why you have the letter of the law and you have the intent of the law. To the best of my understanding, this is why this committee was created, to look at the intent. There is absolutely, as far as we can see, there is absolutely no denigration of the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's where L have a problem with. The problem is when we have these types of situations with these right-of- ways, and as I said, I know of two that L have sat on, and I'm sure that maybe Ted has had others, that these become problems over time. I'm sure that there's a lot of right-of-ways out there that don't cause problems, but my experience is that.we had a situation that we could have cleaned up back in May, that the right-of-way is the problem that L have to a landlocked portion. I can just see bad things coming over time. I mean, that's my feeling on that, and I appreciate your position. I truly do. MR. LYNCH-Personally, I honestly don't believe, I know of a lot of situations where right-of-ways can cause absolute nightmares. This one here, of course, was extremely simple. I think, in the future, there will be a trade of land. There will be something, again, with the 65 foot right-of-way, and actually what's dead land there to the south. I think Dr. Gardner will hopefully come up with a nice compromise, but again, the only thing we're looking for is a single family lot in the middle of eight plus acres. That is simple. There is no (lost word), and again, it's a nice wide right-of-way. You can put two driveways down it very, very easily, and again, there's only a very small shared space there, once you go down to the south. There's no commonality to the parcels or anything. He doesn't see us. In fact, you can't even, from his home, you can't even see us where we turn off. So it should be, you know, when I originally put it together, when I (lost word) put it together, it was designed, - 9 - -- ~ really, as two stand alone parcels that can be easily developed, if, in the future. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but developed over a right-of-way, and that's where the issue. Lets say that at some point in the future, somebody decides to put seven or eight houses back there, and now you've got all sorts of problems because the owner in the front has a problem with having six or eight new families going over his property. MR. LYNCH-I'd like Maureen to answer that also, but again, this is why you have the Zoning Laws. This is why you have the variance committee. This is why you have the Planning Committee. Nobody's going to do anything other than put a simple little one family home in there. Unless everybody sitting here on the Planning Board last night, Mr. Martin, Sue Cipperly, again, there's absolutely no smoke and mirrors here. It's a single family home. ~1t\UREEN LYNCH MRS. LYNCH-Maybe I can put your mind at ease. My understanding, and this is the zoning information given to us by the surveyors, rather recently too, because the question came up. You cannot develop with that parcel, even with that right-of-way granted, as it would stand, because it does not meet the Town requirements for radius turns and for distances, as far as putting in a road goes. So anyone who ever wanted to develop that back lot would have to be back here anyway for more variances. This single variance will not open the door to development. It will allow one house. MR. LYNCH-We've consciously, if you look at the siting of the house that we've put in there, we have consciously put the house in a place where a single family house, it's almost perfect. It's in the middle of a 60, 80 year old apple grove, but the this is what it does is it cuts off the entrance curbing. So there's no way, legally, that we can subdivide that land, as we sit here right now. There's not enough angle of the road that we could consciously move the house. Our intent is a single family house. MR. KARPELES-Where is the house going? MR. LYNCH-The house is going to be going approximately right here, which, again, if you use the right-of-way, will come in here, and you'll need a certain angulation to be able to develop the land, yoU know, the eight acres, and where we're putting the house will not give you enough of a turn radius to allow development, and we've looked at that. The other alternative would be to put it down here, which would allow us to develop lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, seven lots, and, again, I've had this land, controlled this land, ownership of this land, since 1972, since my father passed it on to me. He had it for a lot longer than that. I don't want to develop this land at all. Outside of some misfortune and a lot of other things going on, I'd still be sitting here, and there'd be 13 acres, single family home, period, and other than, like I say, a little bit of misfortune, I don't want to develop this in any way, shape or form. We have wildlife. We have pet skunks and possums that we have there, foxes. So, like I say, we conspicuously put the house right there, and Mr. Martin has some plot plans on the whole thing. This isn't going to be developed. It's not our intent, and like I say, after owning that land for almost a quarter of a century, I don't want a bunch of developments there at all. MR. MARESCO-How big was the house you said, 2,000 square feet? MR. LYNCH-It's 2,000, sir, Colonial, very, very conservative house. Mr. Kurosaka signed off on it a few months ago. It's - 10 - -./ very, very extremely straightforward, very, very conservative house, nice, but extremely conservative. We're going to be doing a lot of the building ourselves, and economizing, but it will be a nice house, totally in keeping with the neighborhood and, again, we've sited it in such a way where, other than the middle of winter, maybe one neighbor could see it, but a lot of privacy, and, again, we've cited it not to disturb anybody. MR. CARVIN-I'm very uncomfortable with it. Again, a lot of things could happen. My feeling on right-of-ways, or on landlocked parcels is, and I guess I'm very disappointed, that a compromise should have been worked out before they sold that other piece of property, and it seems to me that somebody has dumped the eggs, and they want us to pick up the shells, and I think that, certainly, there's been an awful lot of opportunities here to correct the situation. MR. LYNCH-Honestly, we're sitting here, we understand what the situation is. Yes, actually, we do want you to pick up the shells. We don't want you to inconvenience anybody in the Town of Queensbury. We don't want to make any major, we're not in an Environmentally Sensitive area. We're not hurting anybody's view of lakes and streams and things like that. We want to work in conformity with the land in the area. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but one of the criteria· for granting the variance is that this is a self created situation. MR. LYNCH-This is not, in any way, shape or form. MR. CARVIN-It is. I mean, I don't see how you can not say it's a self created situation. MR. LYNCH-Have you ever had your home taken away from you? MR. CARVIN-Well, what I'm saying is, there was an opportunity to correct that. I mean, what I'm saying is that I think that's an illegal subdivision that was brought 'out, back in May, and we asked, at that time, to have this particular situation resolved, and they resolved it by ignoring it. MR. LYNCH-Well, in our mind, we solved it. MR. CARVIN-In this Board member's mind, it's not resolved. It's the same situation, only more complicated now. MR. LYNCH-This is not the function of this Board. We understand we may not have gotten the greatest legal representation in this, but, One, we stand ready to answer any question you have, and put any type of limitations on development, for what we're doing or how we're doing it, or anything, to meet any questions that you have. Again, there's nothing here that's going to hurt Queensbury, that's going to hurt Neighbor Number One, that's going to hurt the environment or any other aspect, and again, we will take this variance, again, we'll take it conditionally. If you have reservations, talk to us about it. We will not develop this. We are not going to screw up now. All we're looking to do is build a single family home as in conformance with any of the laws of Queensbury as humanly possible. MR. CARVIN-I guess I've said !JlL piece. MR. TURNER-Anyone else? MR. THOMAS-Not right now. MR. KARPELES-I really don't see where he's got much alternatives. What other alternative do you have? MR. LYNCH-Pragmatically, honestly, we have none. IrJe don't - 11 - -- -..../ especially want to (lost word). We've looked at it. Financially, to buy another parcel, or if we tried to negotiate, you know, the cost of parcels would prohibit a (lost word) from building a house. It's not like we have five million dollars and we're just going to, I honestly don't believe we have any alternatives right now. MR. KARPELES-So that land is worthless if you aren't able to, is that right? That's another criteria. MR. LYNCH-Again, in the beginning, it's been suggested that there is a function of compassion in the variance committee, and to be quite honest, having invested in a mortgage, we do currently have a mortgage. We're lucky. We've got a commitment, a decent interest rate. Right now, the interest rate would rocket and, again, we'd lose the entire down payment on the thing. We have been buying things from bathroom fixtures to wire to copper and things like that. We've made quite an investment in this, based on counsel's opinion that this was a legal subdivision. So, again, the last two or three months, this place here has become sort of like a second home. Again, all we're trying to do is bailout, do something, again, in conformance with the law, and, you know, build a home. MR. MENTER-My inclination would be to, you know, I think, obviously, there's a problem with the mechanism for this type of transfer. I mean, you know, I'm not sure exactly how that came about, but with the foreclosure, and the County paperwork being fine and going forward. MR. MARTIN-We get notifications from the County Real Property Tax Map Office of when subdivisions occur, parcels are created, and we take those overlays, and we literally, right now, because there's no other better way to do it, we get actual xeroxed copies. We clip those out and tape them on to our tax maps to reflect a subdivision of property. Just recently, I found another one, and I wrote a letter to them saying that the subdivision never went through the Planning Board. We check these. Usually it's not a problem, but occasionally we do get these ones where deeds are filed, and like I say, I can't explain, you know, there seems to be a fault in the process here, where the County, we have this elaborate subdivision process, but the County will, yet, accept recorded deeds without any check or requirement to check for compliance with the local subdivision law. MR. MENTER-It's clearly illegal. I think that I would be inclined, at this point, to grant the variance, myself, because I think that the new neighbor came in with the awareness of the right-of-way. Lack of knowledge of the situation of law is no excuse, but I don't think it was a self created hardship, and I think it's a situation that has to be prevented from happening in the future, but it's one that exists right now, and I don't think that, because the new neighbor was aware of it, I don't think that the dangers are really that great. The location of the house will preclude a lot of potential problems. It's not being put in a corner, and I think, you know, with that knowledge, I'd be inclined to grant it. MR. CARVIN-Well, let me ask you this, Dave. Lets say you own that front lot, and Mr. Lynch decides to put a bed and breakfast out there, and lets just, for argument's sake, say that the zoning, because there's two bed and breakfasts within a mile of that, in fact, there's probably one right next door to Crislips, and lets just say that next year the zoning comes through and changes, that now bed and breakfasts are allowed there, all right, and Mr. Lynch has got a nice beautiful home, and he decides to open up a bed and breakfast, and all of a sudden you've got 13 people a week going across that right-of-way. How would you feel then? - 12 - '- ---...-/ MR. MENTER-Well, I think, you know, zoning creates a lot of issu.es. MR. CARVIN-I think that this is something that we're creating. I mean, this is not a zoning problem. This is a problem that could have been rectified prior to coming to here, that this was a self-created situation, and I think that there were viable alternatives that could have been explored, certainly back in May, that just were dropped, and the Bank came out from underneath, because they sold a piece of property and got the money out of it. MR. TURNER-They dropped the ball and ran with it. MR. CARVIN-What I'm saying is that both parties, at this point, are. I don't know who created this lot, but this is a subdivision, if you want to carry it back, I mean, it's just not an approved subdivision. Whether it's legal or not, I guess, is an argument. MR. MARTIN-That's a question I've had, and I may be off on a tangent. Why would a bank that had a mortgage on an entire piece of property accept a foreclosure that splits the property? I just, I've wondered that from the beginning on this whole pr ocess . MR. LYNCH-The Bank's willing to take a certain amount of property. Originally, we used the portion of property as a down payment on the building mortgage, and they'll only take a certain, different banks, only take a certain amount of land. MR. MARTIN-So the whole 14 acres or whatever, here, did not, was not the security? MR. LYNCH-Only the 2.5. MR. KARPELES-But what can he do to make this a legal subdivision? MR. CARVIN-At this point, nothing, because they sold the piece of property, but what I'm saying, Bob, is that that's not ou)- problem. This should have been addressed back then. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but it wasn't. MR. CARVn\j-That' s not ou)::" f aul t . MR. KARPELE5-So now it becomes our problem. MR. CARVIN-But it's his p)"oblem. They spilled the milk, and they want us to clean it up, and what I'm saying is that you can't. MR. KARPELE5-Yes, but it's not self created. It was created by the Bank. MR. CARVIN-It is self created. MR. MENTER-Fred, what are you hinging that on? I don't have the minutes in front of me. The fact that it's self created is a result of stating that that would be corrected by the applicant back in the spring, right? MR. CARVIN-Well, according to Miss Hauser, back here, "I just want to say something that may help Sue's and Chris' question as to why the property was divided this way. I happen to have been the appraiser that appraised the property, and I had to appraise it on that three acre parcel, and also upon the total acreage which goes along with what Mr. Auffredou is saying is how they came to determine if he was going to retain this parcel or not. So I came up with two different values. So based upon that, they probably went through with the subdivision." 50 I still really - 13 - ~ '-' don't drawn. know when this subdivision or these lines were actually Now I don't know if it was in 1987 or 1982 or 1983. MR. LYNCH-The lines were drawn in 1987. That's when the mortgage went in (lost word) two parcels. MR. CARVIN-But I'm saying that even as late as May, those lines could have been redone. MR. MENTER-Well, it '87, if that's the parcel was what the that little piece. would seem that the Bank drew the lines in piece, if that small piece of the entire lien was on, which was what they repossessed, They foreclosed on that. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but what I'm saying is that we still had flexibility, back here in May, that those lines could have been, they could have applied for a legal, or an approved subdivision, and just reallocated that land. In other words, the Bank could have compromised or should have compromised, which was what we were asking back then. Instead, the Bank, and Mr. Lynch, according to counsel, apparently they just felt, well, fine, but let the Bank sell the property, and we'll come back and we'll get a variance, and I'm saying that it's still the same issue as the right-of-way. If Mr. Lynch decides to parcel off another parcel of that for another mortgage, and he loses that portion, then what happens? Lets just say he's got seven acres and he's building the house and he needs to take another mortgage, so they say, well, fine, you've got seven acres there. We'll mortgage another three, and for unforseen reasons, all of a sudden he loses those three, and the Bank decides to sell that. Now we've got another piece of property out there. MR. LYNCH-The current mortgage is over the entire parcel. That's not going to happen. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying that I've dealt with enough of these right-of-ways to realize that when you're dealing with a right- of-way, you're dealing with a problem, and at that point, I think I stressed back in May, that if there was any compromise toward ownership, where we could get at least some frontage on that public road, I would be much more comfortable. I'd be more comfortable reducing down the 40 foot frontage down to 35 or 40 feet, as long as I knew that there was an ownership issue here, but when you're dealing with a right-of-way, at some point, this thing will come back to haunt you. MR. TURNER-Yes. Yes, you're right. It already has. MR. CARVIN-And it has, at least on two occasions, and most of the Board members have dealt with some of these. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. LYNCH-The (lost word) that could come back from this piece of land is that somebody could come back here and ask for a variance. At that point in time, you could either say yes or no, depending on the laws at that time. If you want to change the Zoning Laws in this community to allow bed and breakfasts or high rise hotels or whatever, you have that option, but every single land owner faces exactly the same exposure on this. When this gentleman bought this parcel, he was subject to the 65 foot right-of-way. He knew that. He was subject to the laws of Queensbury which allowed, with a variance, a single family development on the eight acres. We cannot anticipate any and everything that will with any type of transaction. This is, I think, a lot more simple than you're seeing. MR. THOMAS-I can't see any problem with a single family dwelling being built on that one parcel, and granting him the variance. If it was a development, yes, it would be a big problem, but for - 14 - '-' --,' a single family, I don't see any problem doing that, especially since he's tried and tried to get a piece of land to make it come into conformance, and no one will sell him anything. He's done his best to try and come into conformance, and it just hasn't happened for him. So he's coming to us to grant relief. MR. CARVIN-How do you get over the issue that they could have had the situation resolved back in May with the Bank, in other words, that they were much more flexible back then? MR. THOMAS-The Bank did a quick move on them, I think. MR. TURI\jER--Yes. MR. THOMAS-That's the Ba n k ' s fault. MR. CARVIN-But he was aware of that. MR. KARPELES-He might have been aware, but he didn't have any contì-ol. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. LYNCH-If I was aware, we would not be sitting here tonight. I've had a couple of different banks, a number of separate attorneys, a few real estate agents, tell me exactly different. There's confusion even on the little subtleties of the law here, internally. Again, you cannot conceivably expect the average human being to try (lost word) to understand every single intricacy in this law. After advice of counsel, over a six, seven, eight year period, bank attorneys (lost word), trust me, I didn't do this on purpose. MR. CARVIN-I'm not saying that you did, believe me. MR. LYNCH-So, it is not self created, I didn't get into this by myself. I had a lot of help, but again, I had the best counsel that I could go after, Bartlett, and I'll, supposedly, a reasonable set of attorneys, from Mr. Bartlett (lost word), and I had the best advice possible. I tried to do the right thing. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? Any further comment? MR. MARESCO-I'd be inclined to grant the variance. MR. TURNER-Okay. With that said, a motion's in order. We've talked about it enough. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1994 MAUREEN M. LYNCH, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home on a landlocked parcel and seeks relief from Section 179-70 which requires that every principal building be built upon a lot with forty (40) foot frontage on a public street. This variance would allow use of a right-of-way; the existing parcel which had been illegally subdivided and sold to another party. This would allow the applicant to construct a single family home on this parcel which is unimproved at present. It would not appear to have any affect on the character of the neighborhood as the applicant stated that the house will be located in such a position as to limit the possibility for any further subdivision of the property or development. There appear to be no feasible alternatives. Duly adopted this 30th day of November, 1994, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-I just have a question on the motion about the right- of-way. I think you're treading on dangerous ice when you - 15 - '- mentioned the right-of-way in the motion, is my only feeling there. ~1R. TURNER-Yes. public highway. Just grant him relief from the frontage on the Take the right-of-way right out of there. MR. MENTER-Okay. I mentioned use of the right-of-way. MR. TURNER-Yes. So Just address it on the microphone, because it's on tape. MR. MENTER-Right. Okay. I would amend that. Rather than mentioning or granting use of the right-of-way, I would just grant the variance from frontage on a Town road. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-You might want to get another second on that, Ted, just to make sure. AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles NOES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TURNER-It's approved. OLD BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 7-94 WR-1A JOHN A. BROCK MOORING POST MARINA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BOX 84, CLEVERDALE ROAD APPEAL BY JOHN A. BROCK, MOORING POST MARINA FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1994 STATING THAT SECTION 179-83 DESTRUCTION, SECTION 179-79 NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES, SECTION 179-5 COMPLIANCE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF MOORING POST MARINA, BUILDING PROJECT SHALL REQUIRE APPLICATION FOR AN AREA AND USE VARIANCE. TAX MAP NO. 13-2-21 ADIRONDACK PARK JURISDICTIONAL CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Before we start, we have two additional letters that were, one was faxed today from Frank A. Clemente. They're opposed, and we have another one from Mark R. McCollister, and he's opposed. So we'll add them to the list that's in the file. MS. CIPPERLY-I believe there were some other letters in the file that were received after the 14th. MR. TURNER-After the last meeting. Well, while you're looking for that, I'll go on with some other things we need to do. I just want to make mention that we have a special counsel, Jonathan C. Lapper, to the ZBA, from the office of Lemery & Reid, who represents us on this Appeal, for the record. MR. THOMAS-There's two other letters. MR. TURNER-There's a letter from a Mrs. Sheffield Abbott, who's opposed, and another letter from W.A. Brower. He's also opposed. Okay. The public hearing is closed. There will be no more further public comment unless the Board so decides. Okay. With that said, the Appeal is open for discussion by the Board, and you have the issues that are in front of you, submitted by our special counsel. So lets talk about it. We could, for the record if you want to, just take the memorandum and read it off briefly, is a Use Variance required and cite the Section, and then we'll discuss it. No? Okay. All right. Okay, gentlemen, it's open for discussion. Well, is it an enlargement, on the - 16 - '-- ~ first appeal, on the first plan, Plan A? MR. KARPELES-I think Plan A is an enlargement, but I don't think Plan B is. MR. MARESCO-I think Plan A is an enlargement also, yes. I don't think Plan B is. MR. THOMAS-Plan A is the enlargement. B is the same size, or just a touch smaller, but it's no bigger than the original, Plan B. MR. TURNER-Smaller, yes. Right. Any thoughts, Dave? MR. MENTER-Yes. I don't believe that it does constitute an enlargement, Plan B. I don't think so. To me, it's a continuation, they're maintaining the business. MR. TURNER-Fred? MR. CARVIN-I think it is an enlargement. I think it is an expansion. I think there's been an increase in use out there, over a number of years, and I would definitely think that it was, that a Use Variance is in Ordinance. So I would support Jim's contention that a Use Variance is in order. MR. THOMAS-I would disagree with Fred on that. I think an Area Variance is in order, but I do not think that a Use Variance is in order because there is no increased use in the property. If he maintains the same number of boats on that property, the use is not increased, but because of the buildings and the side line setbacks, I do think an Area Variance is in order. MR. CARVIN-I agree with you on the Area Variance. I don't have a problem with the Area Variance. I agree with Chris on that. MR. KARPELES-I don't think either variance is necessary. MR. THOMAS-I think a Use Variance is, an Area Variance is, because of the side line setbacks, and you also have to remember that there is a, a 50 foot buffer is required when a commercial use is in a residential area. MR. TURNER-I would disagree with you there. Use Variance is not needed, and he puts back then the buffer zone is not required. If brand new, and increases the size of it, story. If the Board says a what he had there, he builds something that's a different MR. THOMAS-He is building something brand new. MR. TURNER-He's building a brand new building, but not the same, with less square footage than he had before. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but not the same configuration. MR. TURNER-No, that's true. MR. KARPELES-I think our primary concern, permeability, setbacks, and area, and he is improving all of those situations. MR. CARVIN-Well, Tony, you're the only one. MR. MARESCO-Well, I don't think he's increasing the size. I don't think a 50 foot buffer, I don't think, is in order, because he's the same amount of square footage, from what I can see. MR. TURNER-It's actually less, by 600 and some odd feet. MR. THOMAS-It's less by about 800. - 17 - -- --' MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, I think it's important for the purpose of discussion to be careful to separate the use criteria from the area criteria. In terms of the appeal, I believe that if, that Mr. Martin is correct, that if either a Use Variance or an Area Variance is required, if this Board determines that either a Use Variance or an Area Variance is required, then Jim was correct to have revoked the building permit, and they're separate issues, for whether or not increase or an expansion of a use, versus a building that would require an Area Variance for these area issues, and it's complicated, and even the case law is complicated, in terms of an expansion of use versus an expansion of area, but we have to be careful to separate it for the purposes of the decision. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MENTER-I think that makes sense. So we're discussing use now. MR. TURNER-Use, yes. Okay. Any further thought? MR. MENTER--Ted? MR. TURNER-Me? A Use Variance is not required on Plan B. A, yes. Plan i"1R. and, KARPELES-Do you want to go through each I think that's what our lawyer is saying. one of these items MR. MENTER-So what we need to do is either reject or uphold Jim's decision? MR. TURNER-That's it. Exactly. MR. MENTER-All right. By that, we could take a poll on the Use Variance, just a poll, on the Use Variance, and then take a poll on the Area Variance, and if it turns out that we feel that one or both of those is needed, then we uphold Jim's decision. Is that 1-ight? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. KARPELES-Now in both cases we're talking about Plan B, is that right? Have we ruled out Plan A? MR. MENTER-That's another issue. MR. LAPPER-Well, that would depend, in part, upon what the applicant is willing to concede, because they did apply with Plan A. What I was saying was that whether the Board considers Plan A or Plan B, is up to the applicant, because the applicant submitted Plan A first, and I understand that the applicant indicated that they would substitute Plan B, but I don't know if that was ever agreed to. MR. TURNER-Mr. Schachner? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, if I could address that. I think that, I don't mean to complicate this, and I certainly don't want to disagree with your special counsel, but even though Mr. Brock and I don't necessarily think that this is the best scenario, I think that as a matter of legal procedure, Jim Martin's decision was based solely on Plan A, and as a result, the way L understand the legal aspects of the procedure that you're dealing with, you have to first make the decision that Mr. Menter described, as to whether Jim Martin's decision to revoke the building permit for Plan A, the original plan, which is the only one he ever issued a building permit for, was right or wrong. If you decide that his decision was correct, which is where I hear you going here, that he was correct, then it seems to me our appeal is denied, and - 18 - '-- ..-' you'll have to do this by motion, but you would be upholding his decision to revoke the building permit and denying our appeal. As a part of that, i n ~ opi nion, you IrJi II have to determi ne whether his decision (lost word) both a Use Variance and an Area Variance. We would request that you be specific, as your special counsel has said, and determine if one was needed, which one was needed, and then we'll deal with that one, but the direct answer to the question is, I think you have to be dealing with Plan A only in discussing the Appeal, because I believe that's the only plan that Jim Martin issued a building permit for, and then revoked a building permit for, and therefore I think that's the only plan on the table, just for the purposes of the Appeal. MR. TURNER-That's correct. You're right. MR. SCHACHNER-As distinguished from the variances, which are strictly Plan B variances. MR. TURNER-Okay. Plan A. MR. CARVIN-I still think Plan A requires a Use and an Area Variance. I think it is an expansion. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I will agree that Plan A requires a Use and an Area Variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. I would agree with that also. MR. MARESCO-I would, too, for Plan A. MR. TURNER-Okay. Is that the extent of the comment? MR. KARPELES-I'm still thinking. I hadn't thought of it this way. I thought we would be just considering Plan B. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, again, I didn't mean to confuse anybody. MR. KARPELES-Well, you confused me before, because when you gave your whole presentation, I thought you were saying that you can either approve Plan A or Plan B. MR. SCHACHNER-That's absolutely true, and I think I've just confused you with my long winded speech. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Let me see if I can unravel that. Jim, I mean, Plan A was the original plan submitted and approved by Jim Martin, and this is a little complicated, so I appreciate your bearing with me. I understood your initial decision to be on our Appeal, relating to Plan A. If you decide, as I hear you deciding, that Plan A requires variances, then I think you're upholding his decision and denying our appeal. The next step will be, does Plan B require variances, and if so, what type. So I'm not suggesting you should forget about Plan B. I'm just trying to do this in a sort of in a compartmentalized fashion, one step at a time. Does that help any? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think we can turn down Plan A and go straight to a Use Variance, with Plan B. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I would just as soon turn down Plan A. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. A motion's in order, if we're all done talking about it. MR. SCHACHNER-Keep in mind, we don't have any variance - 19 - ',-, --' application for Plan A. B. Our variance applications are for Plan MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then the submitted the event, right? So we would determine whether appropriate for Plan B? Use Variance in any the Use Variance is 1'1 I Cf-If'~EL 0' CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, you need to decide the Appeal first. MR. TURNER-Yes. The Appeal's got to be decided first. MR. SCHACHNER-And I agree with that. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, I think the Board should be careful to delineate the reasons for why Plan A would require a Use Variance and an Area Variance, in terms of the issues of expansion for Use and the size for Area. MR. TURt'-lER-Yes. MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 7-94 JOHN A. BROCK POST MARINA, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: MOORING for its A Use and an Area Variance would be required. A Use Variance would be required because the applicant plans on expanding the number of boats within the project thus increasing the traffic. There would also be "growth of activity". An Area Variance would be required for property line setbacks and for a larger square foot building than existed on the property before. Duly adopted this 30 day of November, 1994, by the following vote: MR. KARPELES-Before we vote, can I ask a question? boats do we have under Plan A, and how many do we have B? I've devoted my entire thinking to Plan B, rather A. How many under Plan than Plan MR. THOMAS-Plan A, I think there was 225 boats. MR. SCHACHNER-The difference is the removal of the 76 foot wing, and the number of boats in that wing is 24. MR. KARPELES-Okay. So there are 24 boats difference? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. KARPELES-Okay. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Menter, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOE S : NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TURNER-So the Appeal is denied. MR. SCHACHNER-I assume, now, is the next step is we go to Plan B, and you determine whether a Use Variance is required for Plan B, or an Area Variance, or both, or neither. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, I question. Has Plan A been variance requests? have a question, just a withdrawn, for the sake factual of the MR. SCHACHNER-The only variance applications that have been - 20 - '--- '-"" submitted are for Plan B. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So the Board just made a determination that Plan A requires both a Use and Area Variance, and there are variance applications for Plan B. MR. TURNER-<Yes. MR. MENTER-So if he wanted to go ahead with Plan B, he'd have to come up with applications. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, may I ask a procedural question? MR. TURNER-Sure. MR. Q'CONNOR-I don't think Plan 8 has been submitted to the Building Department for the requirement, with the determination by the Building Department, variances were required. I don't think somebody can, from the street, apply directly to this Board without going through the Building Department and be, in fact, appealing the decision of the Planning Administrator. We've had that determined a couple of times before. MR. SCHACHNER-We're not appealing any determination. Those variance applications were submitted through the Planning and Zoning Staff, on time, pursuant to a deadline set by the Planning and Zoning Staff, has been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Staff, and as ¡ understand it, determined to be complete. They were submitted with a reservation of right, the letter specifically saying. MR. CARVIN-Does Jim feel that a Use Variance is required for Plan B? MR. MARTIN-I would, in review of the plan, again say that a Use and Area Variance is required for Plan B as well. MR. TURNER-For Plan B. MR. MARTIN-For Plan B. MR. CARVIN-And the applicant has submitted? MR. MARTIN-Yes. He has submitted applications for variances. MR. CARVIN-In other words, that is your determination, and Area Variance is required, and the applicant has it, and, therefore, I think that that takes it out of that I think that we have to hear the Use Variance. that a Use submitted our hands, MR. MARTIN-As Zoning Administrator, that would be my determination. That Plan B, meaning the Building B with the wing removed, requires a Use and Area Variance. MR. SCHACHNER-But Mr. Carvin, we submitted those applications, but with a specific assertion in writing, in Mr. Martin's record, that it's our contention that a Use Variance is not required. So it's not out of your hands at all. We have put the issue squarely before you. whether a Use Variance application is required or not. He has determined that it is. We say it's not. It's up to you to make that call, ultimately. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to belabor the point, but it's obvious, I'll apologize in advance. I read the record of our last meeting, and I was entirely boring. I don't mean to be the same this evening, but we have a very technical issue before the Board, and, obviously, there are parties on both sides of the issue that may want to seek a recourse if they're not satisfied - 21 - - with the results that this 80ard gives. One of the problems with that is making sure that everything is followed procedurally in a proper manner. I don't think that the application for a variance is right this evening, if Mr. Martin is just making the determination, which, I understand, is what the record shows, as to Plan 8. Mr. Martin made no determinations with regard to Plan 8. You file a variance application when you are in disagreement with the Zoning Administrator's determination. There's no appeal of that determination. In fact, he just made the determination, or at least on record made the determination now. I don't think the file reflects a determination as to Plan 8. I think that the fatal flaw in going forward directly to a variance application, unless you have a denial of a building permit, as submitted by the building administrator. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you really want to belabor the point, but if you look in your records, about their other variance applications, probably including the ones you reviewed tonight, you're going to find that applications were made through the Planning and Zoning Staff. You're not going to find building permit denials by Mr. Martin. You're going to find the variance applications made through your Zoning Staff, reviewed by your Zoning Staff, deemed complete by your Zoning Staff, and therefore placed on your agenda. It's my understanding that Mr. Martin took the position that the proposed renovation under either plan would require both variances, and the submission was expressly, in writing, made by us, with the specific reservation of right stating that we don't believe that a Use Variance is required for Plan 8. So the issue is squarely before you, and with all due respect, it seems to me that Mr. O'Connor is merely trying to throw another wrinkle in here to delay us again, and I understand he's doing his job, and I'm not criticizing him for that, but I don't think that that's what you need to do. Mr. Martin, you hear him saying his determination is that both variances. You hear us saying, we do not believe that a Use Variance is needed for Plan 8. We also don't believe that an Area Variance is needed, but I think you have to take this a step at a time. So we would respectfully submit that the next issue before you is does Plan 8 require a Use Variance, and we would respectfully submit that the answer is no, but you have to make that decision. MR. MARTIN-I'm almost positive, I'm looking for it now. I thought I wrote a November 4th memo, following up to the November 2nd memo, stating that also Plan B, with the wing removed ì-equi res a. MR. TURNER-Yes, you did. I remember reading it. MR. SCHACHNER-So the issue is really not an issue. MR. O'CONNOR-My point, Mr. Chairman, my point is that a variance application is not an appeal of a determination. We have a completely different procedure within the Ordinance, and as I understand what Mark is saying, is that the first issue is for you to decide whether or not a Use Variance is required. That requires an Appeal, and I'm not trying to delay this. I have a little problem with going forward with the actual variance applications tonight because I think the last few pages of your minutes, it showed that you told the public, despite the letters that went out, that tonight you would be deciding the Appeal only. You would be deciding the date for determining the actual variances, but that is a separate issue. I am going to protect the record, and that's all. They're saying that the first question to the Board at this point is that they want to know whether or not a variance is required. That is different than the variance application that's before you. You either proceed on the variance application, or I think we go some place else. I'm not SUì-e. - 22 - '-- --/ MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, two points. Point Number One is I believe that one element of what Mr. O'Connor said is flatly untrue, factually, and that is that the conclusion of the November 14th meeting, you indicated that tonight you would first decide the Appeal and you would then proceed, if there was a need for variances, to hear the variances. Secondly, again, I think we're trying to cast aspersions on a process that has really been done by the numbers. If you think back on your tenure during your ZBA memberships, I'm sure you can recall instances where an application was before you for a variance, and upon review you said, you know what, it doesn't need a variance, or it doesn't need the same type of variance, or as much of a variance as somebody thought it did. On the flip side, I'm sure you can recall, I have participated in situations where there were applications before you which after review you realized needed other variances or additional variances, or more or different variances than were before you. You clearly have the authority, in reviewing our applications, to say that the Use Variance, or the Area Variance, for that matter, is not necessary. There's no question that you have that authority, and frankly, the "formal Appeal process" that Mr. O'Connor refers to consists of doling out one piece of paper and writing on it, Appeal of Determination. It's form over substance. We've already done that in writing. MR. TURNER-Okay. For everybody's information, this is to the Zoning Board, from Jim Martin, dated November 4, 1994 "I have reviewed the building plans for the Mooring Post Marina as hand delivered earlier today. I note that the narrow extension from the south wall of Building B is no longer included in the project. However, it's my determination for reasons as stated in my November 2nd memo to file, that a Use and Area Variance is required in order for the revised project to proceed." I would say we would move it. MR. CARVIN-I think we've got the Use and Area Variance on the docket. MR. TURNER-I mean, to delay it any further is just ridiculous. We know what we're here for. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Martin has determined that a Use and Area Variance is required for Plan B. We have a Use and Area Variance submitted for plan B, and I think we can proceed, at least with the public hearing aspect. We don't necessarily have to render a decision as to whether to accept or deny those particular aspects. MR. TIJRNER--Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I have a problem with that, only on one element of it. In order to maintain order in your proceeding, and in order to not take a bunch of testimony that's irrelevant, we respectfully submit that you must first make the decision whether a Use Variance required for Plan B. If it's not required, we have a whole bunch of witnesses and a whole bunch of testimony that we don't need to produce, and if you don't want your record cluttered up with a bunch of testimony that you're then going to decide, hopefully, we think, or we hope, that is not necessary. First, lets do this a step at a time. I agree with Mr. O'Connor. In case this goes somewhere else, lets do this a step at a time in an organized, logical fashion. So the next question, it would seem to me, in a logical, organized fashion is, Plan A, forget about. You've made your decision. Plan 8 is what's on the table. It's before the Board. First decide whether we need to have a Use Variance. If we do, lets proceed with that. If we don't, then decide, do we need an Area Variance, etc. If we do, proceed, if we don't, we don't. That's the only way you're going to maintain an orderly proceeding in which the only testimony in your record is that which is relevant to your decision. - 23 - ~ ~ MR. LAPPER-Well, I think this is a unique situation, because you've got Plan A and Plan B, and you had an Appeal only on Plan A, and now you've got variances only on Plan B, and I guess, with one caveat, I agree with Mr. O'Connor, in that, if what Mark is asking for is a determination of whether or not Jim's decision that Plan B requires a Use and an Area Variance is correct, I don't think that that determination is before this Board, which would be an Appeal question, just like Plan A was an Appeal question. However, and I think that it's important, if that's the case, that we don't do something that can be called back procedurally, because there's a procedural mistake, rather than a substantive legal mistake, in terms of a challenge. However, if this Board has, as a matter of precedent, determined on its own whether or not the question was before them by way of Appeal, whether or not something really needs a variance, that would be something that I'm not aware of, and that might give you the authority, if that, as a matter of precedent, has been how you've handled it, to determine whether or not you think a Use or Area Variance is required under Plan B. My gut sense is that what's before you now are the variances for Plan B, but not the decision of whether or not they're required. MR. MENTER-Can you come up with anything? I can't come up with anythi ng. MR. TURNER~-No. MR. MENTER-As far as any precedents that the Board has set. MR. TURNER-Not in reference to that. MR. CARVIN-During the exploration of the actual variances, I mean, maybe as Mr. Schachner says, it gets adjusted up or down, but it's never been higher, to the best of ITlZ knowledge. MR. TURNER-How was this ach/e,-tised? 1'1R . MARTH~--Exactl y as it is on the agenda, Ted. MR. TURNER-Any detail as to squa,"e footage or anything? MR. MARTIN-No, not if you're trying advertisement as opposed to Plan There is a square footage reference agenda of the Area Variance. to say whether Plan B, in one A. I don't think so. No. in the Area advertised in the MR. KARPELES-In order to expedite this thing, how complicated is the Appeal process? Can't you just Appeal Plan B right now? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. MR. KARPELES-Well, why don't you do it? MR. SCHACHNER-I've already said that we've made our submission. MR. KARPELES-Well, do you have to write it out? MR. SCHACHNER-It was already submitted with a letter indicating that we don't believe the variances are necessary. The Appeal is a one page, literally a one sentence process. For example, there was an Appeal previously, about this very project, before Mr. Martin revoked the building permit. His decision to issue the building permit was appealed by one of the opposing neighbors, in a handwritten, this is not a criticism. This is all that's required, a handwritten form, that said Appeal of Determination. That's all that's required, and if that's what your concern is, then I'd say we've already appealed the determination and we'll do so again right now. MR. MENTER-Well, I think the question is, is it a noticeable item - 24 - "--- '-/ on an agenda? item? Is that what's lacking? I mean, is it an agenda MR. TURNER-I think that's the question, the way 1 see it. MR. LAPPER-I recognize that the Board, here, is trying to expedite this so that we can get to a decision, and the fact that it was put on the agenda tonight, when we were just here two weeks ago, rather than wait until next month, is a way to expedite this, and I'm just afraid that if we're not careful, procedurally, we'll create a problem, and without trying to split hairs, as Mr. Schachner said, and I don't mean to be doing that. I think that because of the issue of notice, that it wasn't noticed for the Appeal, I think that the careful, procedural way to approach this is to notice it for the next meeting, and I'm sorry, in terms of dragging everybody out again, but I think that's the correct answer. MR. TURNER-I totally agree with you, because, you know, not in front of us. It's not been advertised that way, should not hear it. If he wants to appeal it, appeal it Then we'll go from there. I agree with you. that's and we first. MR. SCHACHNER-What does the Notice exactly say? I'm sorry. No. I know the answer to that. The Notice talks about the variance applications only for tonight. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MR. SCHACHNER-However, the Notice for November 14th talks about the Appeal, correct? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I can read the agenda as it was printed for November 14th. An "Appeal by John A. Brock, Mooring Post Marina from a decision of the Zoning Administrator dated November 2, 1994 stating that Section 179-83 Destruction, Section 179-79 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Section 179-5 Compliance of the Zoning Ordinance in the matter of Mooring Post Marina, building project shall require application for an Area and a Use Variance." Again, it references the November 2nd memo, and it does in the application for Appeal. It says, under Number Seven, the question is, "Section of the Zoning Ordinance for which you are seeking an interpretation, describe specific request". The answer provided by the applicant is, "Appeal from Zoning Administrator's November 2, 1994 decision to revoke Building Permit Number 94-603 and require Use and Area Variances". MR. CARVIN-I think if we were addressing that, we've already, we've said the issue. We've supported Jim, that we agree that the Use and Area Variance is required, and that's what we've advertised. I don't even know if we have to go back to an appeal. I think we can move forward on the Use and Area. MR. TURNER-Well, it's their position that they want to appeal. Is that correct? Is it your position you want to appeal his decision as a reference to Plan B? MR. SCHACHNER-It's actually our position that we've already done so when we submitted the variance applications, by stating that they were being submitted under protest, because we don't believe that they're necessary. I would submit that that constitutes an appeal of his determination. I understand your concern, and but that's our position. I also would submit that, as a practical matter, the public notice, you know, whoever is concerned about the project has received an abundance of public notice because of the numerous procedures, but it's up to you to decide. I understand what you're deliberating. MR. TURNER-What do you guys feel? - 25 - '- -' MR. KARPELES-I think this is a legal issue, and we've got to abide by what our counsel says, as far as I'm concerned. MR. TURNER-I really think that if he wants to appeal Plan B, he has to submit an appeal, and I don't want to prolong it, but in order to get all the ducks in a row, lets do it the right way. Lets have them submit the Appeal and the Use Variance and the Area Variance, and then if that doesn't fly, then we'll hear it. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could make this easier. Mr. Brock and I have been conferring, and we share everyone's desire for T's to be crossed and I's to be dotted, and if it's your special counsel's determination that he's uncomfortable because he's not certain that we've appropriately preserved or protected the Appeal part of the process, then recognizing that it's inconvenient for everybody, and apologizing to the extent that we've participated in that inconvenience, we would be willing to formalize the process in a fashion that you would be more comfortable with, even if that means we go home and have to reconvene. The only thing we would request, if possible, is to reconvene some time in the relatively near future, within the next week or two, as opposed to a month. MR. TURNER-Yes. We'd have to find out when we can get the room. MS. CIPPERLY-Any legal notice would have to be prepared at least seven days before the hearing. MR. TURNER-Before the hearing, right. MR. CIPPERLY-It has to be advertised at least five days ahead of the meeting. The Appeal hasn't been filed. MR. TURNER-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Rest kidding aside, if literally is a one minutes. assured that will happen tomorrow. Well, all anyone is troubled by that, I mean, it page format. It would take me less than five MR. TURNER-Yes. So I think at this point, until we find out when we can get the room and when we can schedule this, it's in limbo right at this point, but everybody will be notified as to the time, and it will be a Special Meeting. MR. SCHACHNER-Again, my only request would be if it could be in the next week or two. MR. TURNER-We'll expedite it as fast as we can. MR. SCHACHNER-We'd very much appreciate that. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand, and I say thank you, and I'm trying to apologize, but not apologize. This Board is going to make a determination, and I recognize that, and the people I represent recognize that. I want that determination then to be final, procedurally, by this Board. I don't want to have to get involved in a field process based just upon technical procedural requirements and then have to come back and go through this whole same process with you again. I would also urge that the applicant maybe look at other areas of his particular Site Plan that he's submitted, and I'll say this openly. I think there are other areas that he needs Area Variances. He hasn't addressed them. We addressed them in, go back through our minutes. I don't want to have this thing drag out inordinantly. Each party has got to look at the same Ordinance. They've got to look at the same map, and we're not all looking at it from the same direction or from the same point of view. So I don't necessarily apologize for raising a technical point. I apologize for the inconvenience that that causes. - 26 - ''''"--' -----' MR. KARPELES-I just want to be clear in my own mind why we're delaying this. We're delaying this because it wasn't advertised, is that it? MR. TURNER-He wants to appeal. MR. KARPELES-I know he wants to appeal. minutes, he can make the appeal. He can do that in two MR. CARVIN-It has to be advertised. MR. KARPELES-That's what I'm asking. It's because it has to be advertised, is that why we're delaying it? I'1R. TURNER-Yes. MR. MENTER-I think so. MR. KARPELES-Okay. Can you two guys get together, between now and the next time, and make sure we don't have any of this kind of procedural delay, or legal delay, in the future? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Karpeles, I think I've laid out the ground work for all the complaints and all the issues that I will raise, in either my presentation at the last meeting before this Board, or in a letter that I wrote to the Warren County Planning Board, which I copied this Board with, and laid forth all the areas where I thought that they would need some relief. I don't know if they agree with me or don't agree with me, and that's up to them to determine that. I can tell them how to handle their side of the case. MR. TURNER-All right. Then the matter is further adjourned until the Appeal is filed, and all due parties will be notified. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, the only thing r wanted of is that whenever we reconvene, we will now be assuming the paperwork is done properly, we will be for the purposes of deciding whether Plan B needs a application or an Area Variance application, either if it needs either or both, we will be proceeding well. to make sure y"econveni ng, reconvening Use Variance or both, and with them as MR. TURNER-You're correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you very much. (Sign Variance No. 55-1994 Diner, Cont'd) Peter Laines Glens Falls Queen MR. TURNER-We have that one item Generally, it's been the Board's application without the applicant point in time, since they knew the application, that we should hear it that we put to the back. position not to hear the here, but I think, at this circumstances involved in the and get it off the record. MR. MENTER-Is this the first time they were a no show, or the second time? MR. TURNER-This is the first time. He was here the first time, but we didn't hear it because they didn't have permission from Gibraltar realty to place a sign on the building. I"iR. MENTER-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Laines Glens resolution. So we'll Falls Glueen do Sign Variance No. 55-1994 Peter Diner. Okay. Read the tabling MR. THOMAS-Meeting date of October 19, 1994, Sign Variance No. - 27 - ~ 55-1994, tabled "MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 55-1994 PETER LAINES GLENS FALLS QUEEN DINER, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Until the issue that's been brought up by the owner of the property and the tenant has been resolved to their satisfaction. Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE" MR. TURNER-Okay. We have a letter from Gibraltar realty in reference to the signs? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we do. MR. TURNER-That was the information that we requested. MR. THOMAS-We have three letters, one dated November 16, 1994, addressed to Mr. Peter Laines, Queens Falls Diner, Queen Diner, Upper Glen Street, Queensbury, New York, Regarding Sign Variance No. 55-1994 Glens Falls Queen Diner, "Dear Mr. Laines: Reference is made to Paragraph 18 of your lease. By this letter we hereby approve the erection of signs as shown on a sketch prepared by Upstate Signs and Silk Screen." Signed by Lawrence Rosedale for Gibraltar Management Company, Inc. A letter dated October 20th, addressed to Mr. Christian G. Thomas, "Dear Mr. Thomas: I spoke with Sue Cipperly in the Planning Office today. She advised me that the Sign Variance application for the Glens Falls Queen Diner has been tabled. Would you kindly notify me when the matter shall again come before the Board." And that is also signed by Mr. Rosedale. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 55-1994, Peter Laines, Glens Falls Queen Diner, Meeting Date: November 30, 1994 "APPLICANT: Peter Laines, Glens Falls Queen Diner PROJECT LOCATION: Upper Glen Street PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant has installed a second wall sign, six square feet, on the south side of his restaurant. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant has a 70 square foot sign on the east side of the restaurant, 50 feet from the front property line. Section 140-6 would have allowed installation of a sign of up to 100 square feet. It appears there are two businesses on this site. Each would be allowed a freestanding sign. This request is in lieu of a freestanding sign. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant believes that better visibility from Route 9 would be achieved via this sign. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: Apparently, a freestanding sign is not an option, due to contracts regarding signage with other businesses. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: No, in view of the fact that the applicant has not utilized as much square footage in wall signs as he is entitled to, and, is giving up the freestanding sign he is allowed. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: Considering its small size, this sign should not have an adverse effect on the community. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: It appears that this difficulty is due to the physical attributes of the site. PARCEL HISTORY: This parcel, advertised as 71-1-3, has become 71-1-3.1, due to an approved subdivision. Owners are Grossman, Rubin, and Baker, c/o Gibraltar Management Co., according to Assessor's Office. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: MR. Larry Rosedale, of Gibraltar Management Co., has supplied a letter stating that the proposed sign meets with their approval, as agent for the owner. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF review is required." - 28 - -- '--" ' MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KARPELE5-That sign's there, isn't it? MR. TURNER-Yes. Any thoughts? MR. CARVIN-I just have a question. There's two businesses on this site? MR. TURNER-Yes, Ames and. MR. CARVIN-But I thought that was a separate parcel? the same Management Company. but I thought it was parcel? I know it's a separate MR. MARTIN-No, no. MR. CARVIN-Because I thought when we subdivided up through there, I thought that. MR. MARTIN-The Chinese Restaurant there, the Flower Drum Song, is on a separate lot, but these are. MR. TURNER-National Realty, I think, was the other owner. MR. MART IN--Yes . MR. TURNER-That's the one that sold the piece of property here. Have they sold it to Wal-Mart? Is Wal-Mart going to go? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We're in the final review of their building permit application. MR. TURNER-Okay. I guess, my only concern is that, although he didn't utilize this 100 square feet. my other concern is that there's going to be a freestanding sign out there for Ames Plaza, and that's going to conform. and he's going to have a lot of visibility, because there's going to be a lot more traffic there, and there's going to be a lot more people coming there, and I don't see the need for the sign on the side of the building, not with what's coming. I don't think it improves his position at all. MR. MENTER-Also, being on the same parcel, how that now? I mean, it's a shopping center, yet business from the shopping center. do you look at it's a separate MR. TURNER-It's not a business complex. because there's not three busi nesses . MR. MENTER-Right. 50 it's sort of a, floating out there somewhere. It doesn't really fit. MR. MARTIN-If I might, I would suggest that you avoid getting into that mind set of. he didn't use his 100 square feet totally. so, because that can be used time and again, if you set that kind of precedent, but if he has a particular practical or unique situation with the location of this specific building, that's different, but I wouldn't get into the justification under the 100 2;quare feet. MR. TURNER--No, notes to file. to enhance his think he's got got. but I'm just saying, you guys That's just why I address it, position whether it's there plenty of visibility with the raised it in the but it isn't going or not, because I signage that he's MR. CARVIN-Yes. He's out on the road. I mean, it's not like that plaza across the street, that Miller Hill, where they had problems coming down from the north. You go by that all the - 29 - -----~ ---.----~- - -- --./ time, and you can't help but know that that's a diner. MR. TURNER-Yes, and if you didn't look hard, you wouldn't even see a sign up there on the side of the building. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I don't think that sign is very effective. MR. TURNER-No, not very effective at all. MR. MARESCO-You can't even tell what it says until you get really up close to it. I don't think it's, I'm against the sign. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 55-1994 PETER LAINES. GLENS FALLS QUEEN DINER, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: The applicant has one wall sign which identifies the property from the front property line. The installation of the proposed sign will not enhance the restaurant to provide any better visibility than he gets from Route 9; the other wall sign. Is the difficulty self-created? Yes it is self created. This sign would have an adverse effect on the community and on the Ordinance as it pertains to the signs allowed on the building. The sign will be removed within thirty (30) days. Duly adopted this 30th day of November, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Menter, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOE S : I'-.JONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 30 -