1995-06-28 ,- \~FMLE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 1995 INDEX AlMas Variance NOR 12 1995 Dorothy Hodgkins 1 " Area Variance No. 29-1995 F:c:ob i r\ Bushey' 20. Area Variance No. 27-1995 "Jil1iam ~<ei:::: 26. U:se Vaì'iance No. :,:;:0",1995· Community Workshop F~ e:3 (J U. r ('; e :::~ C~ 0 "j" I:) .. -:;: :::: ~ ":',\.9n \iaì" i,3ncc~ NCi. :2':5"1995 Taco Bell Corporation '::.1 . THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. MONTHS MINUTES (IF ¡'1I NI.JTE::' . REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID /' t' , ... ~ - QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 2e, 1 '0195 :7: 00 P. t1 . ~1Eiv¡BER~; PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY POBERT KAF~PELES l)¡::¡V I D IvIENTEF~ WILLIAM GF~EEN THOiv¡{~S FOF-'(D MEMBERS ABSENT At'\ THONY MARESCO PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1995 TYPE II WR-IA DOROTHY HODGKINS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE TO REPLACE A NONCONFORMING, PRE- EXISTING HOUSE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW HOUSE UTILIZING AND EXPANDING ON THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-60. NEW STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE ANY CLOSER TO THE SHORELINE THAN THE HOUSE BEING REPLACED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 3/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION 179-60 WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-This is actual a table from March, I believe. ~1R. F\EHI"1-"Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think we've read Mr. Rehm's letter into the record. I'm assuming that everybody's had a chance to reView their notes and records and minutes and so forth. The public heEHing on thif3 is (:::losecl, at this point. This is ne~..¡ co'''ì''esponcJence. vJe can ì"ead t.hat into the recoì"d, or v~e can hal,/e Mr. Rehm, maybe give us a little, if you have any questions on his, on the change here, I'll leave it to the Board's pleasure. Does anybody have any questlons on the proposed changes? Perhaps, MrK Rehm, maybe you would, now we have gone over a lot of this material. MR. THOMAS-I'll read the tabling motion. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Why don't you read the tabling motion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. "The Queensbury Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and resolved the following: Meeting Date: May 24, 1995 Variance File # 12- 1995 for an Area Variance, tabled, MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1995 _ DOROTHY HODGKINS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled until no later than the last meeting of the month of July, and we'll make every effort, unless other complications arise, to schedule it in June. This will allow the applicant the opportunity t.o present and review the developed feasible alternatives which were referred to in the tabling motion of i'1arch 22, 1995. - 1 - Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin ¡".wE '3 : ¡-'-lONE ADSEHT: l'1r. Mare:::-3co, l'1r. j'1enter, l'1r. ~(arpeles II MR. CARVIN-I'm going to let you review the proposed changes. MR. REHM-I will do that, Mr. Carvin. I would like to say a couple of words, preliminarily though, if I might. As you know, a substantially modified plan was submitted to the Board which was not the subject of the public hearing that was held in March, and I would simply suggest that perhaps it might be wise to open the public hearing for a short time, in order to solicit any comments that might be germane to the new plan, which I think is a substantial improvement over the old plan. Also, this matter was originally tabled, as you know, to give Mrs. Hodgkins an opportunity to obtain counsel and I really have not, this is really the first opportunity I've had to meet with this Board. This is a long and relatively difficult matter. As you know, a variance was granted in 1994 t.o construct a new residence, to construct an addition to a residence on this property, and a few days after the variance was granted, Mr. Hodgkins passed away. The construction, nevertheless, continued, was started, frankly, after his death, and continued, and substantially all of the existing dwelling was removed. The presentation to this Board, at the time that that variance was being heard, was that the project was an addition to an existing dwelling. The dwelling had been there for in excess of 50 years and was very small, did not meet the Codes, was in very poor condition, probably not safe, and as the contractor got into the project, it was determined that the best thing to do with the building was to substantially demolish it. The matter did, however, come to the attention of the Building Department, and Mr. Martin and I think Dave Hatin got involved, and there was question as to whether or not there was compliance, and at that time, most of the demolition had taken place, and some of the excavation had taken place, but the building had not really been substantially commenced. The discussion was held, and it was the determination, I believe, of the Town, through its Zoning Off ice'(, that the appl ica nt was in compl ia nce a nd that as long as some portion of the foundation existed, the variance was valid and the project continued with the knowledge of the Town of Queensbury and based upon the representations of the Town's Zoning Officer. As the days progressed, footings and foundations were installed and excavation was out there (lost word), and at a point when there was about $20,000 invested in the project, again, the Hodgkins were contacted by the Town and advised that there may, indeed, not be compliance, and the 1'easoning was because the building was substantially commenced, and I say this unequivocally, because I've been involved in a number of these transactions. While the rule of the Town of Queensbury prior to that time was that if you left any portion of the building, whether it was part of the foundation, part of a wall, and I can, I won't bore you with this, but I can give you a number of cases where that has happened. The matter was still considered to be an addition to a building, and if a variance was granted based upon it being an addition to the building, that complied with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance which has not been changed. I say all that for the record, and I say it as kind of, you know, I've appeared before this Board many times, and I know what a difficult job you have and I know how you hate to sit here until all hours of the morning, and so I try to hurry these things along. Nevertheless, I hope that you can understand my position, that as counsel for Mrs. Hodgkins,it's very important that we make a good record tonight. So, in any event, the project was stopped by agreement between the Town of Queensbury and counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Hodgkins, with the reservation where the Town - 2 - '-~ would reserve their rights and the applicant would reserve her rights, but it was voluntarily stopped. It was not necessary to have a Work Order. There was no skirmish at the property or anything like that. Then a new application was submitted, and that application was heard in March, I believe, and even prior to that, there was a meeting with the Board and they were discussions as to how the law really should be interpreted, and in any event, the public hearing was held in March, and I got involved in this transaction shortly after it was tabled, since it was felt by the Hodgkins that they probably should have some counsel. We looked very closely at the project. We looked very closely at the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, and there were several alternatives at that point. Alternative Number One would be to go back to the prior variance that currently exists, that allows for the construction of a house within 25 feet of the lake, and continue the construction and fight it out at that point. There really is, that's to be avoided if at all possible. The second alternative was to proceed with the plan that was the subject of the March hearing, and we know that the Board had some concerns about that plan, and because of that, and because of those expressed concerns, we felt that the best thing to do was take a completely fresh look at this project and see if we can't come up with something that is less than what the Hodgkins and it is more palatable, as far as the Board is concerned, and yet allows you to discharge you responsibilities, and so that's what was done, and the new plan was submitted, and shortly after the submission of that plan, I submitted to the Town a copy of my letter of March 22nd, which pretty much indicated what we were trying to accomplish at that time, and that was, and I'll just very briefly say, to provide reasonable living space for the Hodgkins, on t.hat particular lot, given the constraints imposed by the Zoning Ordinance on that lot, and also imposed by the improvements that are there. To conform to the contours of the land. As you know, it's a piece of land that's reasonably level and then drops off (lost words). To avoid the removal of a minimum of trees and other vegetation, there are a number of, and 1 use this word from my Park Agency experience, significant trees on the lot. Those are trees with a diameter at four feet, or whatever it is, in excess of 14 inches. Previously we had submitted to you a map showing the location of those trees, to avoid any substantial additional visual impact from the neighbor's property, and to locate the new home further back from the lake than originally proposed and to utilize the existing foundation, which$20,000 is invested of. Now, if I could, I would like to show you a survey, prepared by Coulter & McCormack, of the parcel. This actually exists in the file. On this survey, yOU see the location of the original house and the location of the house that was proposed. There's also the garage, which is a two story garage, and I have added to this an area in yellow, which is the allowed building area on this lot. This is almost a half acre lot. This is the allowed building area on this lot, if all of the Town of Queensbury Zoning setbacks are complied with, and I have also cross hatched the crescent shaped area, which is a further reduction of that, because of the setbacks from the septic system. There's a 20 foot setback from the leachfield, and so out of nearly a half acre lot, there's something between four and five hundred square feet of usable land on this lot, if there's compliance with all of the zoning setbacks. As you know, the location of the house is generally in the location of the existing house, the house tr'iat ç!..id exist, and has been extended further to the nort.h and further back from the lake. Now I'll give you a copy of, this is a copy of just a schematic map showing the location, or the proposed location, of the house shown in the revised plan. At the closest point to the lake, the addition will be 25 feet. Remember the, and I don't know if you remember, the original variance that was approved was a variance that was approved for a house located 25 feet from the lake. The drawings, there was a measurement error in the drawings, and there was a porch on the front of that which should have been included in the setback, and - 3 - ~- if you included that porch, the actual setback was 17 feet, and not 25 feet. That has all been eliminated, and now the house is set back, the addition is set back, the full 25 feet. Are there any questions about that at this point? I don't know if you've had an opportunity to review the elevations of the house, but it is a different house. It is not as large as the house that was reviewed during the March public hearing, and I'll give you the statistics on that. The original house had living space of 608 square feet. The house that was approved for the first variance had living space of 1,408 square feet. The house that is currently proposed has living space of 1,270 square feet, which is by most definitions a small house, not much different than a condominium size, in terms of square feet. The porch area on the house that was originally approved was 430 square feet. That has been reduced to 294 square feet. The height of the original house was about 20 square feet. The height of the house that was approved, for the first variance, was 24 feet, and the height of this house has been reduced to 21 feet. I also want to say that the modifications to the plan did not occur solely to satisfy the Board and to meet your concerns, but also occurred to try to meet any foreseeable concerns or known concerns of the neighbors. We also looked at the question of other alternatives. There really is not any other viable alternative to build a house on this lot that would not necessitate the removal of a substantial number of important trees, that would make it more visible from the lake, that would not require tremendous excavation because if you've been up there, you know the degree of excavation that has occurred, and while I suppose technically it would be possible to move the house back, when you move it back, you have to raise it, because there is such a sheer drop in the area that has been excavated, and as you raise it, it becomes more visible to the neighbors. It becomes more visible from the road and it becomes more visible from the lake. We think that the plan that has been presented has the, results in the least visual impact, that any plan can reasonably expect to accomplish. I would like, just for a moment, and partially, frankly, for record purposes, to review with you what an applicant must show in order to be entitled to an Area Variance. While there is discretion that's expected of a Board in situations like this, the law is really pretty specific as to when a person is entitled to a variance and when a person is not entitled to a variance, ancl, basically what the law saY~:3, and it's found in the Town Law, is that a Zoning Board of Appeals, and forgive me if you, I know you already know this, but in any event, a Zoning Board of Appeals, on an Area Variance, is; required to weigh (lost word) scales, like you would with justice, to weigh the benefit to the applicant, which, in this case is pretty obvious, against the detriment to the community, and you weigh those things, and in accomplishing that, you look at several different criteria, and the first criteria is, will this project result in an undesirable change, and the key word is "change", in the neighborhood, and if you know, as you do, the neighborhood along Mason Road, you will know that that probably is not true, because that is an B,-sa where substantial improvement has occurred over the last few years. Some of the approvals I've been involved with, some I have not, but that really is the first thing, is this really going to goof up the neighborhood, and the answer to that is, no, and is it going to be a detriment to nearby properties, and again, the answer to that, I respectfully submit, is no. The next question, and this is a difficult question, is there some way to achieve this benefit, that's different and more palatable to the community, or that results in less negative impact then that which we've proposed, and again, I respectfully say, if there is, I don't know it. There's no way we can comply with all of the setback requirements. There really is no benefit in moving the house up the hill. If we move it to the north, probably the neighbors to the north would prefer that that not occur. Again, if we move it up or raise it up or make it smaller in terms of the amount of land that it sits on, but higher, we interfere with the use, and so on. So I think that there really isn't any other reasonable - 4 - ......... alternative that would accomplish this end. The third question is, is the variance substantial? And that, in many cases, is the hardest one for me as a lawyer to get around, because in some cases it is pretty substantial. There's no question about it, but here we have a house that existed on this site within 25 feet of the lake, and what we're doing is we're just asking to replace that house and expand it a little bit to the north, with that same setback. So, as far as setback is concerned, I submit to you it is not substantial. It is about the same as it was before, frankly, with some improvements because the porches have been moved back. So we think it is not a substantial variance. The other one is easy. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood, no probably not. During construction, all of the stormwater management and runoff techniques will be used. When t.he building is completed, stormwater management, as is required by Lake George Park Commission, eaves drains and subsurface disposal with additional stormwater created by this project will be disposed and those regulations will be complied with. I would also say that in excess of 80 percent of the area of this lot will remain open space undeveloped, and then the question lS, was the alleged difficulty self-created, and if you find that it was self- created, that still is not a barr to the relief sought. It is only something to be considered, and in this case, I don't think it was self-created. The house was there to begin with. It's where the house has been, this property has been in the Hodgkins family since '52, well, nearly 50 years. Well, maybe not quite so nearly 50 years, as I think I graduated from high school in '55. It wasn't that long ago. In any event, it is not a self- created hardship. It is simply something that resulted from the contours of the land. The house was built probably well in excess of 50 years ago, and the location was not chosen by the Hodgkins, and it's reasonable for them to continue to reside in that specific location. Many times, when we talk about variances, the so called colloquial standard is you've got to prove hardship. I know that you know that for an Area Variance hardship is not an issue, and the test used to be whether or not there was a practical difficulty, and now the test is the weighing of the equities. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. I would also ask either John Hod9kins or l'1rs. Hodgkins to say an>ttrLÍng that they would like to say, and invite you to ask them any questions that you might want to ask. I would close this fairly long dissertation by saying to you that this is one of those cases where I don't think it's too terribly difficult to figure out what is just. We look at the Zoning Ordinances and we look at laws all day and we have an awful time figuring out what they mean, and we try to read the language in those Ordinances and evaluate it, based upon what's happened over the years, and it's very difficult to arrive at the precise definitions, precise meanings, and so on and so forth. All of that's important, but what is really more important is the realization that we're dealing with people's rights, so called inalienable rights, property rights, and we think that this is a case that, while it has had a long and troubled history, we think that the applicant has made a substantial effort to try to comply, to try to meet your concerns, and we would respectfully request that you approve this variance tonight. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Okay. To summarize, I guess the new proposed plan is, and I'm going, this is the map that l have, that I have been basing a lot of my information on, is that at this point, this yellow area, which is, I guess, to be construed as the porch, is what is being taken off. Is that correct? In other words, this area here is the area that you are proposing, and that is where y()U are getting? ~m. REHt1....Yes. - 5 - MR. CARVIN-And this is the 25 foot distance here, lS that cor ì' ect? JOI-,IN HODGK INS MR. HODGKINS-That's correct. This was the original porch out here, as it matched up with the patio that's existing out there now, and that has been eliminated, and the house will start back, actually the porch will go back into this portion of the house. MR. REHM-Yes. The yellow is the area that's eliminated. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, in other words, the only substantial, if I can use that term, change, in the plan that we looked at back in March is just the removal of this. Is that correct? MR. REHM-F<emoval, and this little addition, to the north. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but that has no bearing on the setback. Is that correct? MR. REHM-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. we're allan the change, in other back? So, I mean, again, I want to make sure that same page here. This is the only substantial words, the physical house is not being moved MR. HODGKINS-No. The physical house is not being moved back. The living area of the house is also being. MR. CAF<VIN-Okay. Well, that's a floor plan. I mean, I want to know if this is the proposed footprint? MR. HODGKINS-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and just for my own information, I'm assuming this red square, what does that represented? MR. HODGKINS-That was something that Sue Cipperly put in, and this was the, if I understand this right, this would be an area that could, is a buildable, that could conform. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that correct, Sue? In other words, that's IrJhat L'\/e been going on, is this assumption that this square area would meet all the required setbacks. MS. CIPPERLY-Then you get into the separation distances between buildings and septic systems. I'1R. CARVH~·-O ka/ , assume, is the 75 but I feet? mean, this line here, I guess I¡.Je can MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. HODGKINS-That's correct. MR. CAF<VIN-Okay. I mean, obviously, no matter how we push shove this, we're going to have some kind of variance here. gues~:; what I¡.Je have to tì"y to do is I¡.Jeigh, as you indicate, we're going to come up with minimum. and So 1 I¡.Jhere MS. CIPPERLY-The actual buildable area came here. MR. HODGKINS-Yes. This is the septic, 20 foot, actually, the septic (lost word). MR. REHM-This is the only area where you could build, if you apply all the setbacks, not including this cross hatch, just this little area, right in here. - 6 - - -' MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. REHM-See, because there's a sewage disposal system in here, which i~3. MR. CARVIN-Well, at this point, it's not hooked up to anything. Is that correct? t-1R. REHI"'1'-I"~0 , this is all hooked up. MÇ CIPPERLYw·Thi.s is the one that would bo used. ,:;) . MR. CARVIN-My understanding was that it was hooked up to the original house. DOROTHY HODGKINS MRS. HODGKINS-And into the gar ago. MR. MENTER-To be reconnected. MR. CARVIt+-To be reconnected. That ~,.¡as our understand.i ng. MRS. HODGKINS-For the original house, but the existing system's in use for the other, through the garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. HODGKINS-And where the foundation lS, we're using the 14 foet of that for porch. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm looking at just footprint. MRS. HODGKINS-Yes. It's the footprint. It's not living space, all of that. MR. HODGKINS-The orange area is t.he footprint. That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In other words, heard back in March, essentially, here. the only change from what we is the removal of this area MRS. HODGKINS-And lowering the house. MR. MENTER-And elevation chango. MR. CARVIN-And an elevation change of, what, approximately two feet? MR. HODGKINS-Three feet. MR. CARVIN-Three feot. MR. REHM-Yes, plus the size of the house is now smaller, too. MRS. HODGKINS-The living aroa is much smaller, because of the porch being used, part of the foundation which was going to be living space is now being used for porch. So there's just a little kitchen on the back here now. MR. REHM-This is tho revised floor fits this. It's really a very small plan. house. 50 you seo that this MRS. HODGKINS-5eo, thore's these being living space, longer. only 15 feet now. Instead which it originally was, of all of it is no MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is it going to be an enclosed porch, is it, or is it going to be an open porch? - 7 - MRS. HODGKINS-An open porch. MfL FORD"'This portion here, marked "1\jeIrJ Deck", from any point along this line, what is the closest point to the shoreline? MR. CARVIN-That's what they're saying is at this point it's 25 fei:-;,t. MR. FORD-They're saying it's 25 here, and that's the closest point is 25? MR. MENTER-It relatively matches the shoreline. MRS. HODGKINS-Yes. It matches the shoreline. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You see, Tom, it kind of jags out here. MR. HODGKINS-That includes the overhang of the house, also. The foundation, as you saw the, 26.5 feet, and this gets out to 28.4. So if you, with the overhang, I counted everything so there wasn't any question. With the overhang, that would be 25 foot. The foundation will measure a little farther. MR. KARPELES-What was the significance of this green area here? MR. CARVIN-That's the septic. MR. HODGKINS-The septic actually goes back. MRS. HODGKINS-You have to be that far from the septic ln order to build. MS. CIPPERLY-The leach field has to be 20 feet from the house. MF~. KARPELES-And why is t.his ¿:nea not usable? ¡VIR. REHM-"-¡'ou've got. to be 10 feet fì"om this house. MR. KARPELES-But if you had the same house, if this were all the 2;ame house. MR. CAF<VIN-It could be connected. MRS. HODGKINS-We'd have to ruin the whole design. would ruin the foundation of the garage. I mea n, .i t. MR. REHM-To answer your question, the answer to that's yes. If it were connected, you wouldn't have to worry about that 10 feet. You'd have to, well, you'd have to come straight down, I guess. MRS. HODGKINS-And it's much closer to the neighbors to the north. MR. REHM-Yes. There's a sewage system over here, too. MR. CARVIN-Well, you could meet a setback on this side. Isn't it 20 feet? So, I mean, it is not inconceivable to have a house in this spot. It would be more minimum relief than, in other words, fine, I mean, you know, so you're four or five feet closer to the lake, but that's a lot more minimum than requesting 50 or 55 feet.. Do you see what our point is? See, we have to grant. minimum. I'm going to address that issue, because it's already been addressed in the minutes. In other words, I'm not. going to open up that can of worms. That's not new territory. We've already gone over that ground. As I said, the thing that this Board has to look at is, and each member has to make their own determination, based upon your able description of what we have to look at, is there enough area to meet or at least grant more minimum relief than what's being necessarily requested at this point. Okay. Now, this is, assuming that these figures are correct, this would appear to be an area that could be used, in - 8 - ...- -' spite of the septic system. there. I realize there's a septic system in MR. REHM-But, I mean, how could you ask a person to forego this investment plus forego the investment, tear out a perfectly good system, septic system, not knowing, you know, whether you can put a, the septlc system must be set back. MR. HODGKINS-One hundred feet. MR. REHM-Yes. It's got to be ln this area, because of the setback requirements. MR. HODGKINS-This area, also, is already nonpermeable, because it's already paved, and you've already taken that land and paved it over, and now you're saying pave over another section of land. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. MENTER-I would say, if you're looking at specific options, that the thing to consider is that this already is a mound system. My comment relative to your map with the colors that we were just looking at is that what you have to consider, if you're looking at that entire area behind the existing house, and actually closer to the road than the septic, which is outlined there, where the current septic system is, what you have to consider is the fact that that whole septic system is there. I mean, did we decide that that is true, that's where it is? Not only the leach fields which are marked there, but back beyond that, . MR. CARVIN-Am I a septic system expert? I don't know if it's there, if it's some place else. I'm assuming that's where they're indicating where it is, and I have no idea the extent. MR. HODGKINS-That cross hatched line the area (lost words). The septic toward the road. there is just, that's just system goes back from it MR. CARVIN-Yes. See, I see a septic tank, or what is being indicated as a septic tank, down here, down in the front corner. Now I don't know if that.'s a draining tank. MS. CIPPERLY-It pumps up to the. MRS. HODGKINS-It pumps up. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but again, you know, this is site plan stuff, in many cases. MR. REHM-If you consider an alternative plan, building attaching to the garage and coming down that way, I would have to say to you that the impact on the views from the road and from the neighbors, is going to be, I believe, substantially increased, plus the site disturbance is going to be greatly, substantially increased, and we don't know what the subsurface conditions are there. We don't know if it's ledge or, so I think, from a planning point of view, plus, trees are going to have to (lost l>JOrd) . MR. CAF<VIN-Well, I went out there tonight, because I was concerned about the trees, and I only saw, really, three trees, one tree of any kind of significant size, in this red square area, and two off on the side, of a smaller, less than six inch diameter, in the red square area. MR. REHM-In the red square area. I agree with you. MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, I don't think trees in the buildable area are, at least upon !IlL.. obse,"vatiof),. l~~> a majo," conce'"n. I think - 9 - that all the trees have been removed, at this point, and there is quite a bit of open space there. MS. CIPPERLY-Those two trees in front of the garage were of great concern to the northerly neighbor. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying, when I went out there, and I've been out there several times, because I'm very concerned about this particular situation, and in this one area, I only observed one tree of, and again, I didn't measure it, but I would estimate somewhere between nine to twelve inches in diameter. MR. REHM-I've got those figures for you. I have those figures, and there are three trees reasonably close to the garage, between the garage and the lake. One has a diameter of 26 inches. One has a diameter of 16 inches, and one 10, but if you continue down, as you would if you were going to have to build, there's another tree that's 28 inches, and another tree that's 12 inches. Those five trees, I think, would be the ones that would have to be removed, if that were the plan, but I know you've seen the letter from the Cushings indicati~g that they don't object to this revised plan. I would bet a fair amount of money that they would object to building in that area, because of the impact on their property, which is, I think, something that needs to be considered, also. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? Okay. Well, I'm going to leave it to the Board's discretion. I mean, there is a revised plan here, as far as opening up the public hearing. Does anybody have any thoughts on that? I mean, have we seen something substantially new here that would warrant additional comments, concerns? Does anybody have any thoughts at all? MR. MENTER-I think L would like to see the public hearing opened. I want to say briefly, but that's difficult, isn't it? MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I don't want to shut off public hearing. MS. CIPPERLY-There is also correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Yes. We'll read the correspondence in. MR. FORD-I would be willing to hear if it is on this new proposal. I don't want to go back into historical perspective on it. We've heard that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to open up the public hearing, hoping that any public comments will be made in reference to just the new plan, and not necessarily dragging out old laundry. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM MEYER MR. MEYER-My name is Jim Meyer. I'm a resident of the Town of Queensbury, and this is just to keep it very brief, in reference to the new proposed building. I mentioned this in a previous meeting. I don't know if you folks remember or not, but you have an opportunity to pick up with a 1200 square foot house on a piece of property on the lake, there's a double lot with an excess of 100 feet of lake frontage, and the most trees of any lot on that point. To do anything more to disturb that lot, other than replace that existing building with now even a smaller still building would be, I think, remiss on your part. It would be a terrible mistake. You have an opportunity to lock that piece of property up substantially as it is for time in memorium, until they request additional variances, which you'd have a chance to look at. Small house. Smaller than most places. Substantially smaller than most places that are on, I've seen houses three times that size on single lots approved by this - 10 - '-" - Board, built and ugly, when it comes right down to it. Take the opportunity, lock it up. It's 1200 square feet. It's tiny. Leave the trees, and the building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. correspondence'? Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. An/ CORRESPONDENCE MR. THOMAS-A letter received June 5, 1995, addressed to James Martin, "Dear Jim: This note is in regard to the revised plan of the Hodgkins property, which is next our property on Mason Road in Cleverdale. When the later Mr. John 'Jack' Hodgkins spoke to me concerning remodeling his old home I told him I had no objections. To say otherwise at this time would be an inconsistency on my part - Therefore, I have no objection to the newly Revised Plans For the Structure. Sincerely, John P. Cushing" And a note to Mrs. Hodgkins from Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Code, "Dear Mrs. Hodgkins: Regarding the issue of groundwater on your property located on Mason Road, Cleverdale, this letter will stand to verify that excavation of your foundation revealed that you do not have a problem with groundwater, should you place a septlc system behind your residence located on Mason Road. I trust this will answer all your concerns. If not, please don't hesitate to contact me. S.incerely, David Hatin, Di1-ector i3uilding and Code" MR. CARVIN-Okay. let~ t.er . I guess I don't understand the nature of that MR. THOMAS-There must have been an issue of groundwater somewhere. Somebody must have said something. MR. CARVIN-Is there an issue of groundwater here, or a placement of a septic system? MRS. HODGKINS-I t.hink we were just trying to get everything ve1- if i.ed . MR. HODGKINS-The system we're looking at, that's up there, is basically substantial. We were tryi.ng to assure that that was basically meeting all the requirements for the Code. That was one of the things that came up, if you have groundwater problems. The system (lost word) is 100 foot back from the lake as it's supposed to be, where most of the other systems that you'll find, heading down toward the lake, my grandfather, when they put it in, they had the system set up to pump it up to the top of the hill, put it into a substantial size system, and we were reviewing every rule so that we wouldn't miss anything when questions were coming about, and one of the questions that came up, is there groundwater. You have to have, I think down to three feet before you hit groundwater, to have a proper septic system. Obviously, it's not a problem up there. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess the t.hing that bothers me is the terminology that Dave uses here, "should you place a septlc system behind your residence located on Mason F<oad", which would indicate that there is not a septic system there. MR. HODGKINS-Well, there is a septic system there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to support or in opposition to this particular none, I will close the public hearing. be heard either in application'? Seeing PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right, gentlemen, any questions of the applicant? Any comments? Some of your thoughts, please. - 11 - MR. THOMAS-Well, since back in. what was it, 1994 we granted a variance to put an addition onto an existing camp, I don't see any problem with the applicant putting up another structure in basically the same area. In fact. it's going to be even farther back from the lake. It would be an improvement to the property. It's going to be a smaller structure than we even granted relief for in 1994. Sit back farther from the lake, like I said, and it would be more aesthetically pleasing, I think, to the area, then the old camp was, and I think, too, that once the addition was put on to the old camp, that I think they would have come to us and asked us for another variance, even if they needed one, to tear down the old part and add on to the new part. So I think there would have been a new building there anyway, one way or the other, and the applicant is moving it back farther from the lake than it is, and I do believe that there is a problem on the property of placing a structure anywhere other than where it is now. because of the terrain of the property, the existing septic system, the trees, the distance to the property lines, and I believe that putting a building where the applicant wants, they have changed it twice for us, to put it where they want is the ideal location for it. MR. GREEN-I think Mr. Rehm's argument, or discussion would have been very appropriate for the first variance, with an existing house. 1'-1Y concern is that., in !J:!..'L. opinion, we don't have an existing house. I'm not a builder of any sorts, but I would like to see it back farther, but I understand the foundation's in there. My biggest concern, right from when I first started reading all this, I did come in the middle of it, but I've been very diligent in trying to get caught up as best I can. I've been out there probably a half a dozen times. My biggest concern is, why, when you decided to take the house down, before you did, come and find out exactly what was going on? You said it was a dangerous, or unsafe, possibly in areas. It may be better off, all the way around, but my concern is just kind of, the going about it the wrong way. MR. REHM-Could I answer that question? I'1R. GREEI"'1'''Yes. MR. REHM-The builder is here. The very clear answer to that question is, that's the way it was done in the Town of Queensbury until the problem with the marina on Cleverdale. That was the understood rule, that if you left any portion of the existing building, that you could tear it down to the, as a matter of fact, in your minutes there was a statement to the effect that Jim said, as long as you leave one cement block, I don't like it, but that's okay. And that was a determination by the Zoning Officer of the Town of Queensbury. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'd like to correct that. I believe Jim was asked if that was his quote, and I don't believe he acknowledged that as a quote. I know it was in the minutes, but, I know in one of the minutes Jim was asked if he had made that comment, and I don't believe that that was his comment. MR. REHM-With all respect, I re-read it tonight. We also have wltnesses here that were at that meeting, but let me just say. assuming that that is his determination, he's the Zoning Officer of the Town of Queensbury. That's a determination that was never appealed, and that's it. That's the law. He made that determination, and we relied on that determination. We believed what the Zoning Officer said, and that made sense because t.hat's the way it's always been done, and is that correct? MR. HODGKINS-Correct. MR. REHM-It's always been done that way, and what is so difficult for us to understand is how an interpretation can be changed Just - 12 - ~ like this, and all of a sudden, not by act of the Town Board or anybody, not by act of the Zoning Officer, but the interpretation has changed. The rules aTe changed, without any knowledge, without any forewarning, and without any legislative action. I understand what Mr. Green is saying, but you really have to look at it in light of what was acceptable here, in the Town of Queensbury, for the last 20 years, since zoning started in the Town of Queensbury. Look at Ted Hans' two houses on Cleverdale, exactly the same thing. The Building Inspectors were there. The Zoning Officers were there. I represented him. These things were done that way. That was the plan, and the Town was happy because they got new construction. I think the Evans house is the same thing. The one that was just on, I can't think, the people from Tucson, Lesser. The same thing. That's within the last year. It's inconceivable to an applicant that something happens like that and the rules change, and it's not fair. I can understand maybe the policy of the Town needs to change, but if it's going to change, it should be done by the elected representatives who come in. MR. GREEN-The Regulation 179-83, I think Jim Martin brought this up in one of the past meetings, right in one of the past minutes, that, as far as L can tell, and I may be out of line, here, but the only time that you can rebuild, by the laws that are on the book, now I'm not saying how they were enforced previously, but as they're written, the only time you can rebuild a nonconforming structure is if it's lost due to fire, hurricane, tornado, other acts beyond the control of man, and that is the regulation that's in the book that I got three months ago, and as I said, I'm not saying how it was enforced before, but that is the regulation as .It. ~3tand~3. MR. REHM-I think the reasoning of the Town at the time, and I think the historic reasoning of the Building Department, was that it really wasn't a total rebuilding as long as you left some portion of the building, and that's just how it was done. MR. GREEN-That's my comment for now. MR. REHM-Thank you. MR. MENTER-I was going to make the point you just made, because I agree wit.h t.he fact that maybe there's some unfairness t.o it, but in !IlL opinion, it's high time that that interpret.ation or use of the zoning changed, and I think that, in a lot of areas, including Cleverdale, has been a real detriment to that area, as well as to the Town in general, and I think the fact that there's a change is more important than, you know, exactly how it's done, not that you don't have to be concerned about how it's done, but I think that that's one of the things that we've had to wrestle with most lately, just to address that, because I agree with you that the way it was done was, it was done extensively. As far as this specific case goes, considering it as a totally new application, I am hard pressed to see a great advantage, given the topography and the other constraints, to another location. I personally think that moving it up off the existing, I don't want to say garage, the building, adding on to that, I think, would increase the effect on that piece of property, on the adjacent pieces of property, and while it may technically conform to the minimum relief that. we're required to give, I think when you consider all the other aspects of t.he building and what is affected by building, in [fli.. vie.,\) it wouldn't be the minimum because I think there's going to be far reaching affects from doing that. So that, to me, I think that this probably, at this point, is the best solution. I don't put a lot of weight in the fact that you've been done wrong, because that's not something that we really should consider. We have to weigh things on the way we see them, but in this case, I think that the proposal that you have right now is probably the best answer. - 13 - MR. KARPELES-Well, I very simply, don't feel this is the minimum relief. I feel that that existing building or garage could be added on to and very, very little relief would be necessary, and I think you could get the same square footage that you're getting in the existing house. Your setback would be farther, and I can't believe that it would be more objectionable to the neighbors, because it would be in conformity with the setback of the house;-s to the;- south of that. That's ffi:i.. feeling. MR. FORD-It seems to me, as we look at the history of this application, there've been a number of errors made, and we can't correct all of them here tonight. It would appear to me;- that on a lot of this size, where we're trying to preserve the quality of the lake, that greater effort could have been made for reducing, or increasing the distance between the lake and the structure, and I agree with the statement that this is not minimum relief. MR. CAF<VIN-Well, I've probably wrestled with this more than I've v.,n"estled with any othe)' appli,cat.ion. I can tell you that right up front. I come back to what Mr. Rehm has outlined as our criteria, .in other words, the benefit to the applicant as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community. I think he's indicated that by putting the house here, that there would be no change in the neighborhood or community. While there might be no physical change, I think that, if I can be so bold as to interpret what the intent of the 75 foot setback is, is that, as these particular parcels do turn 'round, because nothing lasts forever, that far greater minds than mine have indicated that moving houses and septic systems back away from the lake is probably of benefit to the community in general, as far as the safety and welfare of the neighborhood, and I think the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved in other feasible methods. I think that the house could be moved up the hill. I've gone out there several times. I've looked at this property. I've tried to visualize the house sitting up in relation to the garage/storage shed. The applicant didn't seem to have a problem putting a two story garage out there, and I don't feel that putting the house back away from the lake is probably going to have that dramatic of an impact. Is the relief substantial? Yes, I think it is. I think the situation being requested is bordering on maximum relief. Will there be an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? I think I've addressed that. I think that the intent, if I can be so bold, is to move houses and septic systems and activity back away from the lake. I think we've seen a gradual deterioration in our lakes, because of over-utilization, and for a number of reasons, and as I said, I think that getting houses back away from the lake is to our. the community's benefit. Is it self-created? I don't think thc,rü 's, at lea~3t in ffi:i.. mi nd, theì"e's much aì"gument that this .i~:; a self-created situation. We seem to be bogged down in the fact that maybe it's a, you know, a brick here or a wall there, but I think that there's other issues with that original variance that were not addressed. I think that there was misinformation as far as the setbacks, even as applied. whether it was closer. So I think, and I hate to use the term "misrepresentation". I think that we are on fairly strong grounds of, that there was some misrepresentation in the original application, and I know Bob was on the Board, and I think Chris was on the Board, and I know I was on the Board. There was no indication of tearing down any of the existing house. It was going to be an addition. So, I think that this Board was left with one impression, and as the situation evolved, something entirely different came about. So I think it was the applicant's decision to tear down the house, and in essence, create this particular situation. I think there's a tenant in some of the Ordinance books that I've read that you can't dump the garbage and then expect to come up with a solution on how to clean it up, and I think that this is basically a situation that has evolved. As far as the minimum variance necessary and adequate to protect the character of the - 14 - -- neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community, I do not feel that this is a minimum variance situation. So, I think that, you know, they made an honest effort to move it back, although I don't see any net change, other than the porch coming off here, from the motion that I made back in March, that this is essentially the same plan, and I don't see any substantial change at all from that meeting to this. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion either to approve, deny, and I hate to use the tEHrn "0'( table". I'm going to say we need a motion either to approve it or deny it. MR. KARPELES-Well, what was your last motion? MR. CARVIN-Well, that was to deny. MR. KARPELES-Well, is t.hat still appropo? MR. CARVIN-As far as L can tell, with very little exception, it is extremely appropo. MR. KARPELES-Well, why don't you just read that. MR. CARVIN-I can read the motion, and not necessarily make it, if anybody is, in other words, this was t.he original motion that I introduced back in March. "The applicant lS proposing to construct a new constructed house of approximately 1400 square feet on a .44 acre parcel in a Waterfront Residential One Acre Zone. The applicant is seeking relief of Section 179-60, which requires a minimum of 75 feet shoreline setback. If we were to grant this variance, we could create an undesirable change in the neighborhood or could possibly have a detriment to the nearby properties. The applicant has not demonstrated that the benefits being sought cannot be achieved by another feasible method. The applicant is seeking approximately 57 and a half feet of relief, which would be substantial, considering that there may be other alternatives whereby the house could be set back closer to compliance. If we were to grant this variance, we, again, could have an adverse impact and effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood and the district, and that t.his request is self-created, in that at this point, we do have a vacant lot with a garage. As I said, I think that there may be other feasible methods t.hat should be sought by the applicant, and obviously this is not a minimum relief, if we were to grant it", and that, essentially, was the motion that I proposed back in March. MR. KARPELES-That sounds good to relief. I think it's no longer 57 Fifty feet nOI;J. me, except for t.he amount of and a half. It's, what is it? MR. REHM-I think it's no longer a vacant lot, either. It's a lot with footings and foundations. MR. CARVIN-Well, the footings and foundations may be a contendable thing. There is no structure there, no house. It lS a vacant lot. I mean, I didn't put the foundations in. I didn't tear the house down. MR. REHM-I understand you didn't do any of that. That's fairly obvious. What I'm saying is, there is a physical structure there, and I just think that perhaps the motion should be accurate, that's all. MR. CARVIN-But I compliance. I think and the only reason you had indicated lS construction, at this don't t.hink that that structure is in when it was removed, it was built illegally, that there hasn't been a Stop Work Order, as that the Hodgkins have agreed to suspend point. MR. REHM-I also think that you should probably amend the motion - 15 - to make the square footage conform to the current plan. MR. CARVIN-This was the motion back in March, and again, I don't have a problem. So we're dropping, it's going to be, what, 50 feet relief, is that what you're seeking? ~1R .H'JOi'1AS--Yes . MR. REHM-The relief is 50 feet. MR. CARVIN-And by the way, this is not a motion that I have made. This is just a reading of the motion that was made. MR. REHM-I'm sorry. went. I thought you were correcting it as you MR. CARVIN-No, no, no. As I said, Bob wanted me to read the motion that I had proposed back in March. This lS not a motion thrown on the table at this point. MR. REHM-My understanding was, I just thought Mr. Karpeles was asking you to correct it. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think what he was saying, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think he says he agrees with the spirit of this particular motion back then, with amendments, and I'm open for amendments, and that's why this is just a point to start arguing, I guess. MR. KARPELES-I think you have t.o change the 50 feet and you have to change the square footage. Other than that, I think that that motion would be fine. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What is the square footage? If you can give me the exact figure? I'm. F-~EHI'1"'1270. MR. KARPELES-Do you want to make that as a motion? MR. CARVIN-If I was to make this as a motion, does anybody have any other corrections or amendments that, or does anybody have a motion to app,"ove? I mean, this is to deny. I am .l.ea\iin~;! .it in your gentlemen's capable hands. MR. THOMAS-Well, it seems if a motion was made to approve, it would be a two to four vote, as l hear it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't know. MR. THOMAS-Well, since the discussion is two to four. MR. MENTER-I think it makes sense to work whatever you want to I¡.Jor k there. MR. KARPELES-Why don't you make it a motion, and I'll second it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1995 DOROTHY HODGKINS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by pobert ~\arpeles: The applicant is proposing to construct a newly constructed house on approximately 1270 square feet on a .44 acre parcel in a Waterfront Residential One Acre Zone. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-60, which requires a minimum of 75 feet shoreline setback. If we were to grant this variance, I believe we would be creating an undesirable change in the neighborhood, or that it could possibly have and be detrimental to the nearby - 16 - -- properties. The applicant has not demonstrated that the benefits being sought cannot be achieved by another feasible method. The applicant is seeking approximately 50 feet of relief from Section 179-60, which would be substantial, considering that t.here may be other alternatives whereby the house could be set back and be closer to compliance. If we were to grant this variance, we could again have an adverse impact and effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood and t.he district, and that this request is self-created, in that at this point we have, in essence, a vacant lot with a garage, and as I have said, I think that t.hcHe may be otlv,::r feasible methocL3 t.hat should and could be sought by the applicant, and this obviously is not the minimum relief necessary to adequately prot.ect and pTeserve the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 1995, by the following vote; MR. THOMAS-I have a couple of questions on the motion. Number One is the undesirable change. You said that it could be moved back farther.. The nevJ building t--Jil_.l f:)e back farther from t!-w lake than the existing building was, and it'll be a new building. It won't be the existing building that's been theTe for over 40 years. Number Two, you stated it was a vacant lot with a garage. There used to be a building on there, for which the Hodgkins did have a variance, to put an addition on to that building. So I can't see wheTe you can say that was a vacant lot, because the existing septic system is there that was installed for the exist.ing building, the building that was there. MR. CAF<VIN-Okay. As far as your second situation, as I said, I think that the variance that was granted, originally, was flawed, for a number of reasons. MR. THOMAS-Well, we can't long gone. Flawed or not, argue U--Iat point .1.t was 9ri:1nted. now, because that's MR. CARVIN-Yes, but what happened, and I believe would happen, if they were to continue to pursue the course that they're on, is that a Stop Work Order would be placed. In other words, that variance is null and void due to a number of irregularities. MR. THOMAS-Well, I don't see how you can grant a variance and then pull it back llke that. MR. CARVIN-You can if there is misrepresentation. ¡VIP. TH()¡VIAS'~Well, was there mi~;3ì"'3presenti.3tion on \/a'r"iance? the f i ì" ~:; t. MR. CAPVIN-Yes, that has n e:3tabllshed" ¡VIP. TI,...¡OMAS,-Ho~,~? MR. REHM-I mean, this is very important. exactly what the misrepresentation was( Would you articulate MR. CARVIN-Well, in the original motion, it indicated 25 feet, okay, and again, I'm coming off the top of my memory from all the minutes, and this is going back over several months, when in reality it was only 19. Even though it was closer, it was misrepresented to 25. So at the very minimum, it should have been 25 and not 19. The original motion indicated an addition, and again, a:3 I said, you can argue what the term "a,ddition" is>, but this Board, if you review the original motion, for those members who were on it, I think we're looking at one set of circumstances and granted a variance under those particular situations. When the original house plan was submitted, it was submitted, I believe, for 22 OT 2300 square feet. So that the - 17 - building permit, I think, might, and again, I'm not a involved with that. was even issued incorrectly, if I lawyer. So I'm not even going to get MR. REHM-That has nothing to do with this. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm bringing original variance, and this is out the misrepresentation the arguments that will be. ()n th",) MR. REHM-We do acknowledge that presented to the Board, that the and that everyone misunderstood. these were the plans that were Board had, that were to scale, MR. CARVIN-I don't know if those were the plans or not. MR. REHM-I'm just telling you that these are the plans. 10 use the I¡~ord "misrepresentation" is a very, very strong term, and unless you're very sure of that, I would suggest that it might not be appropriate, more than, really, two years since the variance was granted, and to make the leap of faith, that there was a misrepresentation, that all along they were going to tear down the building, is simply not true, and I don't see how the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals can do that. MR. CARVIN-Article 179-111, Misrepresentation, "Any permit or approval granted under this Chapter which is based upon or is granted in reliance upon any material misrepresentation or failure to make a material fact or circumstances known by or on behalf of an applicant shall be void. This Section shall not be construed to affect the remedies available to the Town under Sections 179-108 and 179-109 above. MR. REHM-I know that that Section exists, but you don't have any evidence of misrepresentation. You don't know that these people simply didn't just change their mind. We've told you why that building was removed, and we've told you the truth, and you choose not to believe it, which is fine, but you can't accuse my clients of misrepresenting, making misrepresentations to this 1308. '( d .. MR. CAF<VIN-We have a motion, and I'm explaining to Mr. Thomas' benefit my feels on this particular situation. MR. REHM-Mr. Carvin, with all due respect, in light of what you said, I don't think that you can fairly decide the question that's before this Board tonight, and I would ask you to excuse '''/our~:;(:lf . MR. CARVIN-For what reason? MR. REHM-Because, you're accusing my clients. MR. CARVIN-I'm not accusing your client of anything. I'm making an e:{p.l.a nat ion. MR. MENTER-If I might add a point, I think what he is claiming was misrepresented was not the reason for the house being taken down, or the timing. It was some of the initial figures in the original variance that we were presented with, if I'm correct. Is that accurate? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think that Mr. Thomas has indicated that he had a question on the motion, as to why I, I don't know your exact words there, Chris, but I think you asked, you know, that we had granted a variance. ~1F¡. TI..10IvIAS··Yes. MR. CARVIN-And the only thing that hasn't really been done, and that was done by agreement between the Hodgkins and the Town, was - 18 - '- that we have not pulled that variance. Is that correct? MR. THOI" (.iS-Yes. MR. REHM-No. You don't pull the variance. Stop Work Order. The Town can make a MR_ CARVIN-Okay. Well, the only thing that hasn'~ been done, I think, is just the physical issuance of that, I think, if my memory serves correct, that that is sitting on Mr. Martin's desk. MR. REHM-But that variance still, in the face of the Stop Work Order, would be in existence. I mean, really, I mean no ill will to you, but I would ask you to excuse yourself. 1"1R. Cr::\RVII+-Then IrJe may be s¡:)litti n9 hairs ri'sre, but ~'Jhat r'm saying is that I think that my motion, as I read it, that this is a vacant lot, IS a correct interpretation. MR. REHM-Well, I mean, if you look at the tax rolls of Queensbury, it's not correct, because the Town of taxing the foundation. of the To~..¡n Oueensbury '~3 MR. MENTER-Isn't this whole discussion out of order? MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, this is, certainly, if you feel that this Board has made a mista , I mean, you're aware of the procedures, and certainly you have that prerogative, but I am just addressing Mr. Thomas' question on the motion, and I think that, il"¡ !JlL mind, that the second par"t is sat.isfactorily answered, and I don't remember what your first question was. MR. THOMAS-The undesirable change part. i'1R. C{¡RVI¡"'1"WTr'18 ~..¡here posssibl(), for t h t)ac k alrJa y variance, thi.'.It p()r" ::;·etuat.ed in contrary to what undesirable change, I believe I indicated that I think t.hat the intent is to move houses and so from the lake, and I think that by granting this an undesirable change would be at least this particular situation. In other words, the current thinking is. MR. THOMAS-Do you concur that if torn down, t.hat this new building than the applicant proposes to put the old building had would closer to in nOL"¡-::- not b,,?e n the lake MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that that opens up a whole can of arguments. That's not what we're dealing wit.h. MR. THOMAS-Well, we're dealing with undesirable change, and this ,\,S a mor"e desira.ble change, ,¡,n m',/ opinion. That was !JlL que~:3tion on the motion, and I want it on the record that I don't, that even though I'm going to vote no on your motion, that I don't think that this is an undesirable change, and also t.he vacant lot issue, even though I'm going to vote no on the motion, that I do not believe that this is a vacant lot. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions on the motion? Okay. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: i:'iYE:S: 1'1r. Green, 1"1r. ['-:Cord, ¡"Ir. r'::ar¡:::.'ele::c:, ¡"Jr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mr. Maresco MR. CARVIN-It's denied. MR. REHM-Thanks for your attention. - 19 - NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1995 SAME AS ABOVE 615 WEST INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF (20) FOOT SETBACK FROM SETBACK FROM A PRINCIPAL PLANNING) 6/14/95 TAX SECTION 179-67 TYPE II SR-1A ROBIN BUSHEY OWNER: MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ON A CORNER LOT, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-67, WHICH REQUIRES A TWENTY THE REAR LOT LINE AND A TEN (10) FOOT OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. (WARREN COUNTY MAP NO. 88-1-19 LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES ROBIN BUSHEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-1995, Robin Bushey, Meeting Date: June 28, 1995 "Applicant: Robin Bushey Project Location: 615 West Mountain Road Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a swimming pool on a corner lot, considered to have two rear yards. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-67 requires a twenty foot setback from the rear lot line, and a ten (10) foot setback from a principal or accessory structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be able to install a swimming pool. 2. Feasible alternatives: There is no other location on the property where the pool could be installed, due to the location of existing buildings and the septic system. A smaller pool would require less relief, but would still need relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The request is for a great deal of relief in both cases -- distance from the garage and distance from the property line. However, the majority of the pool is eight feet from the deck and 16 feet from the house. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It does not appear that there would be any adverse effect on the neighborhood or community. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The configuration of buildings on the lot occurred before the applicant owned the property. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. SEQR: Type II. No further action" MR. CAF<VIN-Okay. Mr. Bushey, is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. BUSHE:Y-Just that I've been working on the house since I've owned it, to make improvements, and I'd like to continue making improvements to the house, inside and out. This, I believe, would be another improvement. MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant, gentlemen? MR. KARPELES-How long have you owned the house? MR. BUSHEY-I've been there approximately a year and a half. MR. CARVIN-It looks like you've got it already. There's a fence along the back, the whole length? pretty well fenced ln is there? Does that go MR. BUSHEY-Yes, it does. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Fences on the side and fences Okay. I don't have any questions. Any questions, in the front. anybody? MR. FORD-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'd like to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any Correspondence? - 20 - MF:::, TI'10¡Vlr~'3,-"(~t a mi'')eti.n9 of thi'3 ~~a)')'en C()unt''/ Plann,i,ng Board held on the 14th day of June, 1995, the above application for an Area Vari.ance to install a swimming pool in back yard. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Si9ned by C. powel South Also, I have a note from ~)ue Cipperl¡' that ~';a/s, "a Short Ei:)F Form, yes, Chris, it has printing on the back of it, too. The back lists the questions and the Board is supposed to review in making the SEQRA determination. It would be better if these questions were read into the minutes, and Fred is supposed to sign the form on the o)-i,;¡ina.l. application." MR. CARVIN-Okay. We, ln t declaration, haven't we? past, just have read a negative MS. CIPPERLY-Right, but on a Type II application, the Short Form EAF isn't needed. It's on Unlisted ones. MR. THOMAS-And no other correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-The neighbor that's, I guess, directly behind you. Is there a neighbor behind you? MR. BUSHEY-Yes, there lS. MR. CAF<VIN-Okay, and how high l~ the Pl' ope)" t"/ line. nce along t.hat back MR. BUSHEY-There's a six foot fence. MR. CARVIN-There's a SlX foot. Okay. You're awful close there. Are /ou going to put a cement sidewalk or something around it? Don't they put, normally, a three foot, three and a half foot cement sidewalk around those? MF:. BUSI',E'y'- It ' ~~ an above 9)' OC\ nd \:::.O() .1 MR CARVIN··I t ' c' an above 9r 01.) nd? Okay .;::) MR. BUSHEY-And it will be closed in, also, alon9 the fence. MR. FOF<D-Can you explain that a little bit? MR. BUSHEY-Well, I was hoping to put a deck on one end of thee above ground pool, and I will be closing in the pool all the way around, put a two foot walkway around the entire pool and fence tl"le!.t, 1 n al~~:o. MR. KARPELES-Elevated, you're talking about? MR. BUSHEY-Yes. ground pool. So 9round. It will be elevated, because it's an above it will be approximately four feet above the I"iF<. FORD'''O ka y . the PO)' imc3ter , So you're going t.o have a two foot walkway around the top. MR. BUSHEY-That will also en(;l():õ::ed. MR. MENTER-A handrail, you mean? MR. BUSHEY-Yes, a full handrail with, I'm not sure of the plans yot because the further down the road, I do the work as I go. I'm not a rich man by any means. So I do my work as I go, and as I can afford to do it. MR. FORD-When we look the existing fence and at three feet six inches from the property line, does that the fencE', inclucle the - 21 - MR. MENTER-And it's probably not less. MS. CIPPERLY-Because I know at least between two garages, or two, a storage shed and a garage there's supposed to be at least five feet separation, and that's sort of a fire code. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I mean, if you start putting decks up, if you put a three foot deck, I mean, if you go all the way around, you're quite literally six inches off the back of your garage. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. KARPELES-Well, it looks like his best solution would be just to build a deck around, behind the existing deck, and maybe 90 degrees around the pool. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I think t.he walkway part of it might go into more significant relief. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. CAF<VIN-Well, obviously, there's a couple of things we can do here. I mean, we can table this and he can prepare, you know, if you're going to build this. MR. BUSHEY-It could be another year before I build it. MR. CARVIN-Or we can move on this and then when you come to that stage in your construction, you'd have to apply for a variance and v,,¡e cou,ld look tit it at that poi nt, I gu,ess. j"1S. CIPF)ERL Yo-He :',;till couldn't, could put the deck on the south end. No, he because he's got to meet that rear setback. MR. CARVIN-Well, he could put it on t.he south, if he was 20 feet, but he'~;:; not. MR. FORD-My recommendation would be that he take review the plans and see exactly what he wants to and come in to us with that full package. this back and come} up \'\1 1 t h MR. KARPELES-Yes, I think so, too. I think perhaps you could talk to Sue and get some advice on this. MR. FORD-I'm concerned about potential approval of something, and then having something added on. I want him to be fully aware, if he is going to add a walkway that's going to bring him within six inches to a foot of his garage and the existing fence, that that ought to be a part of the original plan. MS. CIPPERLY-If somebody came in and proposed that to me, I'd say that's really doesn't have much of a chance, you know, that you can propose it, but that's really asking for maximum relief and you're up in the air. The impact on the neighbors could be 1. nc '¡- eased. MR. KARPELES-what are you talking about, now? You mean the six inch part of it, or the walkway at all? MS. CIPPERLY-The walkway, on the three foot six. MR. KARPElES-No, ~>I'''lort of there. but if it If hc' just çjidn 't go ol,/er had a 90 degrees that, if it tr¡;EHe. ~~;toPI=' MS. CIPPERlY-That's along with the pool. probably something that could be considered The walkway might be considered. MR. KARPElES-You hear what we're saying. getting some ideas while we're talking, fOl" . I mean, I'm sure you're as to what we're looking - 23 - - distance from that fence to the edge of the walkway or the edge of the pool? MR. BUSHEY-That would be to the edge of the pool. MR. FORD-So, in fact, with that walkway, you"re going to be another two plus feet closer to that fence. t1F:. BUSHEY~m'y'es3 < MR. CARVIN-Is there any problem with that, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-That would be considered a cantilevered portion of a structure, which would have to still be subject to setback. MR. CARVIN-So that's what I'm saying. Are we granting him three feet or are we granting him one foot? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, this lS the first I've heard of the walkway. Putting a deck on the one end would be okay because he's got his whole backyard. That's not subject to the setbacks, but the walkway would present a problem. MR. CARVIN-An additional challenge, yes. MS. CIPPERLY-And it would put people up at a four foot height next to a six foot fence. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I was thinking the same. your next door neighbor out in the back? particular situation? Have you talked to Is he aware of this i'1f-,(. BUSHEY~Yes. with it. He's a friend of mine, and he has no problems MS. CIPPERLY-Except the house lS for sale right now, too. MR. KARPELES-There's house, if I remember quite a distance between that fence and hlS right. About how faT would you say that is? MP. BUSHE'y'··'y' es . le¿tst .. I would approximate 40 feet, 30 to 40 feet, at MS. CIPPERLY-I also asked Dave Hatin, the Building Inspector, if there was a building code reason for the separation distances from structure, and he said, no, it's a Zoning Ordinance consideration, and the one, like the back setback is probably a privacy and noise and that sort of consideration. MR. CARVIN-He was properly notified, I assume. MR. BUSHEY-Let me also add, gentlemen, as I said, it's not written in stone that I am going to put this two foot walkway around it, if that would make a difference. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I have a mixed reaction on it, but I almost think I would be more comfortable seeing, maybe on your house side your deck, if you were to build it, but I think that, would he have to apply for a separate situation here, again, if he comes in? I mean, I don't know how this works? t1S. '-"'IFpC'RI " It I........ ,. "),, C':"I ..~ 'y' ~ ", has not been advertised at that smaller setbac k . MR. MENTER-But it's a structure. varianced, as part of a variance. could not approve. So it would need to be In other words, right now, we MS. CIPPERLY-And I'm not sure what the different treatment of a deck versus a being 10 feet from a structure. different, there may be a swimming pool, as far as - 22 - MR. BUSHEY-Right. MF< " CARVIN-Well, the only real feasible thing, and even that's real good, is to extend the current deck. That, in essence, the thing in two, also, because he's only seven feet from ck, if this scale is correct, seven and a half feet. I I'd, you're going to have a challenge with that deck around not cuts hi 2;: think it. MF<. BUSHEY-Okay. Well, like I said, the deck is not written in stone. It's something I had thought about, and it would be probably a year down the road before I would even come up with doing it, but I want to initially start with the pool. As I said, I make these improvements as I go along, and as I can afford to. MF<. CAF<VIN-Well, let me ask t.his. Does anybody on the Board at this point have a challenge with the three and a half feet from the back, I mean, just the pool? We could probably condition this that no deck should be attached, pending submission of a further variance. MF<. GREEN-I don't have any problem with the pool itself, and I think we should worry about the deck later, if Mr. Bushey decides to build one. MR. THOMA5-I have no problem with it, either. MR. MENTER-No problem. MR. FORD-I have one question. How, and at what point, would you access the pool? MF<. BUSHEY-It would be separately accessed from the back there. As you come out the back there, facing the yard, and then what I'd like to do is put, eventually, like I said, a deck on the end of the pool, to get to the pool. For now, I would have a ladder, right nov-J. I'm. v-Ji 11 FORD-If, a month from now, you were to put in the pool, you get into it and out of it? hOle, MF<. BUSHEY-I would just have pool, just like a regular pool a regular ladde~r, at ladder going t.hi23 poi nt . into the MF<. CARVIN-Okay. So this above ground pool does not have a built in deck structure, ladder platform or anything like t.hat? MF<. BUSHEY-No, just a regular A frame like ladder. fYlr~. CAR'vIN-Okay. lad'/, in the bac k I'm going to open up the public hearing. is waiting feverishly here. This PUBLIC HEARING OPEN P(.iT L.('iNSIt\ICí MF<S. LANSING-My name is Pat Lansing. I live 623 West Mountain Road. I'm next door neighbor to Mr. Bushey, and when I got the note in the mail about the pool, I called, and they told me it was an above ground pool. 50 I had no objections to an above ground pool, but nothing was said about a deck, and I don't know how fa," t.1ìi:Ü, pool is going to be f,"om !1lL line, and when )/ou 90 adding a deck, that brin9s it pret.ty darn close, and pretty darn high. I mean, even if you put up your own fence to get the ¡:-:'1" ivacy issue ,/ou ""13 up that hi.gh off the ground. Do )/ou kno\-J \-Jhat I'm saying? MR. CARVIN-Are you on the north? - 24 - MRS. LANSING-I don't know. ]' " 1 . .' m n(,::<:. door. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, it would be on the north. MR. KARPELES-She's got to be on the north. MR. BUSHEY-The distance between Mr. and Mrs. Lansing will be substantial for the zoning. It's Mrs. Beecher who we're asking relief from. We, as far as that goes, like I just said, there's nothing written in stone that I have to put a deck around this whole pool. I just want the pool, at this point. I think it would be a further improvement to the home and the property, not to mention it would be darn nice at this time of year, as hot as it's been. MRS. LANSING-How far from my property line is that pool going to be? Nobod}/ '2,; m(~'nti.onec! that. MR. KARPELES-This map shows 20 feet. MR. CARVIN-Twenty feet from your property line. MS. CIPPERLY-And again. if he wanted to put a walkway around that end of it, another two feet, then he'd need relief from the setback. So it would be 18 feet from her. MRS. LANSING-As far as an above ground pool, I have no objections to that. It's his property. He should be able to utilize it, but I, it's a small piece of property, and if it's 20 feet from my property, that's one thing, but decks and walkways and things Ii t.hat, you know, it's a lot closer. MR. BUSHEY-Okay. Let me assure Mrs. Lansing right now that the 20 feet will remain 20 feet from her property. I will not put a deck on that end of the pool, or any walkways or anything. I will be putting a six foot fence on t.hat end. I have a fence there now, but it's a wire fence. I'm going to put a stockade fence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. fences, ì" .i.ght'? Check with Sue before you build too many MS. CIPPERLY-That's a rear yard. two rear yards. It doesn't have It's a corner lot, an)/ ';3,¡,de Yi.::\r(;!,~;. so it's got MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any comments, Mrs. Lansing? moving this, then. with anythi nGi? othe'f qu.s':stions, gentlemen? Any other Okay. Thank you. Nobody has a problem just the pool without any decks or PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MS. CIPPERLY-I guess I would ask, if you do a motion, to make it 'v'er y spec i f ,¡, c . MR. CARVIN-Specific. thi,;:;? Okay. Does anyone want to t.ake a shot at ~OTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1995 ROBIN Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, by Fred Carvin: BUSHEY. , seconded In the matter of the applIcatIon of Area Variance No. 29-1995, Robin Bushey, 615 West Mountain Road. after hearing testimony of the applicant and any arguments concerning t.his application, holding a public hearing on today's date, 6/28/95, I find the following: The applicant seeks to install an above ground swimming pool on a corner lot, considered to have two rear yards. The applicant seeks relief from Section 179-67, which requires a 20 foot setback from the rear lot line, and a 10 foot setback - 25 - from any principal or accessory structure. The proposed pool will be approximately 3 ft. 6 in. from the rear line and approximately 3 ft. 6 in. from the garage. I would move to approve this relief on the basis that the benefit to the applicant would be that he would be able to install his pool in this hot summer. There does not seem to be any feasible alternatives, due to the location of the structures and septic system that is already present. It might be considered that the ,-slief is substantial, Judging f)-om the numbe,·s, but thel-e does not seem to be any feasible alternative. It does not seem there would be any adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood, due to the neighbor to the rear is quite some distance back. I'd like to add the following condition, that at this point, no decks or walkways be added without further variance if required. He's seeking 6 ft. 6 in. and 16 ft. 6 in. of relief from Section 179- 67, from both the rear lot line and the garage setback. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin HOE S : j"'lONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1995 TYPE II WR-IA CEA WILLIAM KEIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CLEVERDALE ROAD, SIXTH HOUSE ON RIGHT PAST MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A PRE-EXISTING, NONCONFORMING STORAGE SHED WHICH IS EIGHTY (80) SQUARE FEET IN SIZE AND TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, AND REPLACE IT WITH A ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SQUARE FOOT SHED, TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179-16C, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK OF TWENTY FEET. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 13-3-25 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 179-16C EDWARD P. CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area VarIance No. 27-1995, William Keis, Meeting Date: June 28, 1995 "Applicant: William Keis Project Location: Cleverdale Road Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a pre-existing, nonconforming storage shed which is eighty (SO) square feet in size and two feet from the side property line, and replace lt with a one hundred sixty (160) square foot shed, to be one foot from the property line. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-16C requires a minimum side setback of twenty (20) feet, and a total of fifty (50). Nineteen (19) feet of relief is needed from the twenty (20) foot mlnlmum. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would have increased amount of storage. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not appear to be alternatives that would not require a variance. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? This is almost 100% relief, but very little change from the existing situation. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It does not appear that the shed would affect the property or views, etc. of any surrounding neighbors. The applicant is the owner of the property across Cleverdale Road. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The increase in the nonconformity from 2 feet to 1 foot is a matter of preference for the applicant rather than a physical problem concerning the site. Parcel History: The property size is .43 acres, t.he house was built in 1945, current size is 2600 square feet. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comments. SEQR: Type II. No further action required." i"1FL THOI'1~"iS-""At a meeting of tl'''¡e Warren County Planning Board, - 26 - - held on the 14th day of June, 1995, the above Area Variance to replace and enlarge wood reviewed and the following action was taken. No County Impact" Signed C. Powel South, Vice application for an storage shed. was Recommendation to: C:hai rman. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Carr, is there anything you'd care to add? MR. CARR-I think it's pretty much self-explanatory, and as far as the setback, increasing the setback, part of it is the overhang. Part of it is the fact that the building's longer and it's askew of the property line, so that would put it a little closer. I tried to leave a little leeway in there, also. The existing shed is rotted out, has to be replaced. Other than that, nothing. MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant, gentlemen? MR. KARPELES-How are put a floor in that Because she said that that's what rotted it you going to build that? Are you going to or something, a concrete floor, or what? the water was running through it now, and out. MR. CARR-Right now, I don't know. The initial plan was get something similar to these barn buildings, and they're set on crushed stone, on pressure treated four by fours, or four by Slxes. As far as I know, at this point in time, it's what I proposed to them. I wasn't planning on putting a concrete fou nd.':Ü, 1. on in. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. GREEN-You're going to be taking down the old shed, all together? MR. CARF:...·"y'es" MR. GREEN-Is there any reason little farther, to at least keep there? why you couldn't move it over a that two foot line down through MF;.. C¡:'iRR..,I'",10t a bit of r'f.~a::::;on, a,s far a~:; I'm concerned. l'1rs. Keis wanted to keep as much space between the house and the shed, but I don't think that foot will make all that much difference. MR. FORD-It will be a 10 by 16 foot structure? MR. CARR-As far as I know, at this time, yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm goirlg to tell you, )~ight llP front, when we grant this variance, it's going to have a lot of criteria. So, that way the Town Planning Office knows exactly what should be there, and we don't get surprised with a two story. MR. FORD-How tall? MR. CARR-I think I have that in the application. Maybe I should tell you why I'm being a little bit hesitant. I got the Staff Notes around 11 o'clock, and as I'm heading back up to my little corner of the world up there, I passed Mrs. Keis on Bay Road, and as the break lights came on and the smoke was coming off her car, I knew she wa\lted to talk to me, and it seems that she feels now she'd rather have a single car garage there, instead of the storage shed. So we came down and discussed it with Sue, and rather than table it, we decided, well, go for the storage shed now, and then possibly come back next month and put in for the single car garage. MS. CIPPERLY-It wasn't a sure thing that she wanted a garage. MR. CARR-I've been working under storage shed since last fall. - 27 - MR. GREEN-I'll be perfectly honestly with you, this is my fault, because I saw her this morning and I said, gee, wouldn't it be nice to have a garage here. MS. CIPPERLY-At any rate, I told her it really wasn't possible to change it for tonight's meeting because of the advertising requirements and things like that, and one of the neighbors, in a letter, specifically said they were concerned about it being, whether it was a garage or a shed. So I said, well, if you're not quite sure what you want to do, then why don't you just conti nue wi th your var ia nce tonight, so you'll knolrJ IrJhat that situation is, and if you want to come back next month, you can, or you can have your shed, whichever, since it seemed to be a spur of the moment. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Let me ask, a couple of other questions I was going to ask, Sue, is that, with the new proposals that are being presented, I guess, in July, did you run a test on this? What would be the criteria? Did you run this against the criteria that's being proposed? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I looked up the house itself, and it has, I can't remember what the square footage was, but it has five bedrooms, and it's a sizeable house. I don't know that this additional 80 square feet on a shed, right now, before the Ordinance is changed, is going to make a huge difference. That's another consideration in the garage issue, you know, depending .,n when she brings it in, the Ordinance may have changed by the time she does. Do you know what the square footage of the house is? MR. CARR-I thought someone had said 2600. MR. CARVIN-But that's just the square footage. into consideration all the floors, under this? everything? So it could be double that? Don't we take Don't we take in MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. It's not just the footprint. MR. CARVIN-So it could be 50 to 200 plus, and if we're gOlng on a 10 foot" or 10 percent, . 44 acre is goi ng to be. MS. CIPPERLY-Say if you call it half an acre, you're talking. i'1P. CAR\ln~-Yes. excess, wouldn't So if IrJe IrJere she? to use the ne¡"J test., you'd be in MS. CIPPERLY-Well, that's not fair to use, because it isn't there yet, but I've been kind of doing that as projects come through. MP. CARVIN-Well, my only problem is that, because of t.he sensitive nature of that area, and our previous experiences up there. I mean, if we were to move on this shed, I would want to have, I mean, it would be a pretty tight variance, as far as height, width, you know, the whole nine yards. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. There are letters in the file that haven't been read yet from the neighbor to the north and the neighbor across the street, slightly to the north Kurucs, stating their support for it. They don't have a problem with it, as long as it's a one story, you know, it doesn't become a two story. MR. FORD-A live in shed. MR. CARR-His biggest problem, the only storage that they have in their basement, now, lawn mowers and larger items are tough 9;13t up and down. l''''' ~> t() MP. CARVIN-My other questlons were going to be, is this going t.o be insulated? - 28 - ¡Vln. C{:ìF~F:.-"No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about electricity or water? MR. CARR-Electric most llkely. MR. CARVIN-No water? Mn. CAF:R-No. MR. MENTER-Was she intending to change t.he size of this to make it storage plus a garage, or? MR. CARR-It would have to be wider and longer to be a garage. You'd probably have to go 12 by 20 something such as that. MR. CARVIN-I think Bill's comment is that, there isn't any reason why it couldn't be moved a couple of feet in, or if she's going to do a garage, to put the garage where the concrete dry slabs are. I mean, if they're going to have a garage, lets have a 9a.ì~ 8S)8 .. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the discussion we had about the garage, I did suggest that she consider some alternatives. If the garage were to be the project, you may want t.o consider either attaching it to the house or moving it further away from the line. That's why I said, if you're talking about a shed right now, it's not just a matter of making that shed wider, to make a garage. MR. MENTER-I feel like we really should not address this right now. I mean, it makes a lot of sense to take it back to her and talk to her and come up wit.h some kind of a plan of what you reall../ ¡,,¡ant. becau.~:::e if ¡,,¡e appro\/e th¿2J shod, it"é'3 not going to be !::;.ui 1 t any¡,,¡ay. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. CARR-Well, it might possibly, sometimes they change their minel quite oft.en. I'\le bei?:n 9i::'!ttino nume,"c)us calls ¡'Jhether tlìi~;;: has been approved or not. I've laid out the time frame, before anything was submitted, you know, what length of time it would take to get the approval to do it. MS. CIPPEnL)-I think what we re trying to say is t.hat the garage idea may not come to pass. MR. MENTER-And if you want us to address this, then we have to add," ess it. MR. CARR-I just didn't want to, you know, if they decide, all of a sudden, yes, we want a garage, I don't want to come back here next month and have you think I'm an idiot, but he's the one that sugge~;~teel t. his; . MR. GREEN-I merely garage instead of a sald, gee, wouldn't it be nice shed, and she said, well, gee. to r'¡,3ve a MR. FORD-I don't think we've got a sufficient plan for even the shsej. I'm feeling uncomfort.abJ.e L~ith ttlat. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, we can qualify it to size and height. MR. ¡V ENTER·'There'~) goino tJ) be rno,::1:Lf:i,ci.'.\tions i.H1Y¡"¡i,3)"'. MR. FORD-But is it up to us to come up with a plan for it? Mf:<'. C{:ìPV:r N·-No . MR. MENTER-He's got a plan. - 29 - MR. FORD-Is that what it's going to be? MR. CARR-That's what they have requested of me. MR. MENTER-Okay. So that's what he's applying for, at that location and that Slze. MR. CARR-And put a door in the end. MS. CIPPERLY-And it's 10 feet wide by 16 feet long. MR. MENTER-Right, 10 by 16, a foot off the line, that structure. MR. GREEN-I think if we were to keep it be more comfortable. If we were to at two feet that the original shed is at, I it's a big deal. in at two feet, I would least keep it in to the mean, if you don't think MS. CIPPERLY-I think Bill's right. There doesn't seem to be any pressing need to increase the nonconformity there. MR. MENTER-I think that's the minimum. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'll open up there's no other questions, gentlemen. the public hearing. the public All 'right. hearln9 if I'll open up PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have a record of a telephone conversation dated 27 June 1995, conversation between Peter C. Johnson, Cleverdale Road, and Sue Cipperly, Assistant Planner "Mr. Johnson is the neighbor on the north side of the Keis property, where the shed now exists. He called to lend his support to this application. His only concern is that the shed be one story, as the existing shed is." Another record of telephone conversation, dated 25 June 1995, conversation between Diane Kuruc and Susan C:ipperl}' "The I<Ui"UCS liv,2 aCi"OSS the road from the K(?i~:; property. Mrs. Kuruc has no problem with the shed as proposed, 10 foot wide by 16 foot long, as long as it's a one story structure and is used as a storage shed, not a garage. At the proposed size, it was recognized that this would be impossible." And that's the only correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comments? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MS. CIPPERLY-I should note, for Mr. Johnson's sake, that at the time that I had the conversation with him, it was my impression that the shed was being built back on the same setback, and that it was actually the property line that was coming in closer. I talked to Pete. The plan was to actually move the shed over a little closer to the line. So, I don't know whether that would make a difference to Mr. Johnson. He seemed more concerned with the height than the, you know, it's already two feet from the property line. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other comments or questions, gentlemen? What's your pleasure? I guess it boils down to, do we want to move this? Do we want to table this for further information? MR. MENTER-What further information? MR. CARVIN-I guess, with me, from what indicatin9, I mean, the need for a shed, shed is rotting. So it's not a case that was a shed there. It needs to be replaced. he's, this gentlemen's apparently the existing looks like that there I guess I don't have - 30 - a problem movIng the shed with some pretty tight qualifications, outlining exactly what our understanding is, because I think if thIS new proposed legislation goes through, if they were to come back in P'lugu~::;t or Sept.ember, tl" (;re'~3 a high lik<,:::,lihooc1 that thc:}" would need a significant variance I would guess, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I also n't know what happens to things t.hat are in process, but if that might be one reason to move this tonight, if you're comfortable with the information you have. MR. MENTER-Yes. I think we probably should move it, because they're not really anticipating changes to this. They're anticipating the possibility of something completely different. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. That's why I said, you might as well just come in and do the shed. You come up with a garage that's a significantly different project. So, it didn't seem to me to make sense to table it, because you've got to re-advertise it anyway. So, it. gets it cleanly off the agenda. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you have t.he height on this? this here some place? Is that on MR. CARR-I would say Where do you want it? it's probably 12 feet. Do you want it average? The grade slopes. ~1S . CIPPERLY-At the peak. MD ~" ~ CARVIN-At the peak. MS. CIPPERLY-It's not even 12. MR. MENTER-If it slopes, you're gOlng to be digging in, right? MR. CARR-No. I'd have to raise It up, because it's got to be accessible to the driveway. So it would have to be elevat.ed on the lake sIde. From the lake side, where the building (lost word) it would have to up ott t.he ground, because the grade slopes. I'd say 12 feet to the peak to the ground. MR. CARVIN-No higher than 12 feet. We're talking about a 16 by 10, no higher than 12. MR. FORD-Don't they, in that book, have the dimensions of that? MR. CARVIN-Well, he's got kind of a unique situation, in that the land does slope So he may have to have a, in other words, the la side may be a little bit higher than the road side. So he ls that 12 feet, and I don't have a problem with 12 feet. All right. Does anybody want to move this? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for Crn" Üs Thomas;: 27-1995 WILLIAM KEIS, its adoption, seconded by The applicant is proposing t.o remove entirely a pre-existing nonconforming storage shed and replace it with a 160 square foot shed. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-16C, which requires a minimum side setback of 20 feet and a total of 50 feet. I would move that we grant the applicant the following relief from that Section: I would move that we grant 18 feet of relief from the side setback of 20 feet. That the new proposed shed be a single story, constructed on either a slab or crushed gravel, with a dimension of 16 ft. by 10 ft., by no higher than 12 feet high. That this is a storage shed and that no automobile storage allowed. That this shed be uninsulated wtth no water. However, the applicant has indicated electricity is desirable. The benefit to t.he applicant by granting this relief would that the current existing storage shed, which is 011ly 80 square feet in size and currently only two feet from the side property - 31 - vehicle type automobiles. This particulal' application going to be referred to the Planning Board for Site Plan anc! at tl'¡is point, an (,red \liiriance ,:should be subrnit.t applicant, at the first opportunity, seeking relief from foot buffer requirements. is ab;;o F~ e \/ i \:;: L-,.J ~ b/ t!, t h·e 50 Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: (:-,,'{E~):: t"'lr. Gre("n, t'11-. Fo-rd, t1r. ¡'1enter, Mr. ¡<a)"peles, t1r. Car\/in 1",,10 E '3 : I'~ 0 ',,~ E ABSTAINED: Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mr. Maresco MR. CARVIN-Okay. You've need to get the, obviously, your Use Varlance. the Area Variance. You'rE' gOl ng t.,~) SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-IA TACO BELL CORPORATION OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 740 GLEN STREET AS A CONDITION OF USE VARIANCE NO. 12-1994, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PART OF THE GLEN SQUARE BUSINESS COMPLEX, AND IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ONE (1) WALL SIGN OF UP TO ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET, PER SECTION 140-6. IN ADDITION, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL ONE (1) FREESTANDING FIFTY-TWO (52) SQUARE FOOT SIGN, SO RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 102-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.48 ACRES SECTION 140-6 JON lAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 25-1995, Taco Bell Corporation, Meeting Date: June 28, 1995 "Applicant: Taco Bell Corporation Project Location: 740 Glen Street Proposed Project: Applicant wishes to install a 52 square foot freestanding sign at the restaurant location. Conformance with the Ordinance: As a condition of Use Variance No. 12-1994, subject property is part of the Glen Square business complex, and is therefore entitled to one wall sign of up to one hundr d square feet, per Section 140-6. Applicant wishes to install one freestanding fifty-two square foot sign in addition to the wall sign, so seeks relief from t.his section. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant believes there is a lack of visibility for their restaurant due to the location of the Troy Savings Bank to the east. 2. Feasible alternatives: Since the applicant is primarily concerned about traffic coming from the Glens Falls direction being able to see the restaurant in time to make a decision to turn in, it seems an additional directional sign could be utilized at the plaza entrance just. past Taco Bell to indicate that there is another opportunity to turn for restaurant. access. This would act.ually be safer in terms of traffic flow than encouraging impulsive left turns on that stretch of road. Directional signs may be installed without a permit, but are subject to dimensional requirements. If the . Board deems t.his variance appropriate, it should consider a decrease in the size and height of the sign. The proposed sign is 2 square feet larger than would normally be allowed at a 15 foot setback. The applicant also has the opportunity to be included on the Glen Square freestanding sign, an option they not appear to believe helpful. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Yes. This fast-food restaurant exists in this location by Use Variance, since neither Plaza Commercial, which constitutes approximately half of the site, nor Multi-family residential, which makes up the other half, allow fast-foot restaurants. An area variance was also granted, eliminating the buffer required between zones at the zone boundary. Part of the approval by the ZSA included merging of - 51 - -- -- MS. CIPPERLY-Yesterday was technically the deadline, but get it in for Friday or so. MR. CARVIN-Or we can table this until July and do the two of them at once, if you feel more comfortable with that. MRS. MACEWAN-I'd rather have one. MS. CIPPERLY-What do you want to do about site plan? ~1P. CAR'v'II"~-~,Jell, IrJe ~:;till Cal'] refer it t.o site plan. Right? r1'S. CIPPERL"'{,..Because the>" c()ulci do that for Jul'/, also. MR. CARVIN-The site plan. MS. CIPPERLY-The could be on our first meeting for the Area Variance and the second meeting there, and get it all done in one mont"h. MR. CARVIN-What are you telling me? So we can do the site plan. MR. FORD-We'd go Use Variance tonight. Call for a site plan, and do the Area Variance July. MPS. BERUBE-There's no way we could just submit something for the Area Variance that might satisfy your concerns? MR. CARVIN-If I didn't have a room full of lawyers, I'd say it ~..¡ould be no problem, but I've got a ì"OOm full of law'/ors that would pick it up the next time somebody else wanted a special favor. I don't see any way around it. I really don't, unless somebody else has got an idea, here. Okay. Has anybody else written a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 30-1995 RESOURCES CORP., Introduced by Fred Carvin adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: COMMUNITY WORKSHOP who moved for its The applicant is proposing to utilize this property as a storage and repair facility for their own buses and other vehicles with occasional serVlce to similar vehicles of other nonprofit organizations. Section 179-24, which outlines the Commercial Residential zone, does not allow this type of use. So relief is being sought from this Section. The current use of this site is a nonconforming heavy equipment sales and service compan,/, was allowed by Use Variance No. 110-1989. As part of that Use Variance, the stipulation regarding heavy equipment and the uses outlined during that variance hearing, the stipulation was put on that no parking within a 50 foot distance from Dix Avenue and Quarry Crossing would be allowed. Because of the anticipated new use, it is felt that this stipulation is no longer relevant and is not applicable t.o this particular use. The applicant has demonstrated, by competent financial testimony, that a reasonable return is not possible for the land as it's currently zoned, because the existing building on the property is not useable as a residential structure and the site itself 1S not necessar1ly conducive to commercial use, based on it's size and configuration, along with the presence of power lines on the adjacent Niagara Mohawk parcel. The circumstances of this particular request 1S unique and 1S not due to any unreasonableness of the Ordinance. One could consider the uniqueness of this lot is due to its unmarketability as a conforming use. By the granting of this variance, it does not appear that there would be any adverse effects on the neighborhood character or detriment to the community, and that by granting of this variance there actually would be an improvement in terms of neighborhood aesthetics due to the fact that we would be replacing heavy equipment, bull dozers, tractor trailers, backhoes, etc., with a much less intense buses and emergency - 50 - MS. CIPPERLY-Normally, a Use Variance has to proceed the Area '\J.3 r i :.::.\ nc:{?· .. MR. GREEN-She's agreed t.o put up a full fence. MR. FORD-Stockade type fence. MR. CARVIN-No, no, no. It's guess is an Area situation. ('ir ,z)iè) Var ia nce . the 50 foot buffer parking, Right? It's not a Use. t.Jrlich I It's an MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Because you don't fall under the preexisting nonconforming use, as far as that, because this is a new use, and t r fore you would have to comply with the 50 foot, because your property abuts a resi ntial zone, which requires a 50 foot buffer between commercial and resi ntial. If you were using t same use, that's one thing, I mean, then you would be pr(",~'>~isti ng nonconform,i ng, but trÜs Ü:; a net.J use. So, therefore, you should have to comply with the 50 foot buffer. The prior variance I can get. around. I don't have a problem with the prior variance, but it's where you abut the residential zone is where I'm having a problem, because of the parking aspect., and what you've indicat is that you're going to be parking in that area. If we were to lop out the 50 feet, it kills the property. MRS. MACEWAN-And, yet, I couldn't park along Dix Avenue either 1'1F-;. C¡6¡R\/Ii"1--At UÜs point, that'~:; correct.. I mean, the Dix Avenue I don't have a real challenge with, but I do have a problem beca,use that's an Area Variance. That's ~;omethin9 that I çan't. change. I mean, that changes zoning. That's, I think at this point, well beyond, without submission of a variance. MRS. MACEWAN-We would have to submit an Area Variance, or lS t t :::;011'1 E: t h i n9? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think we can grant the Use Variance, with that stipulation that the Area Variance be submitted. The worst that comes down is that we have a room full of people that. say, no, we want that 50 foot buffer maintained, and you get turned down, so you can't park in the rear 50 feet. ¡"i¡':ZS. ¡ViACEWAt\j·,l.Je ha\/e the ne ighbo'¡' to the south who lS will in,; to live with a lot less than that. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, going to be a problem. way they are right now, I'm saying I can't say that that's not I don't know, but with them parking t.he it certainly hasn't been an issue. MS. CIPPERLY-If nothing else, it will clarify the situation ln the future, as to the fact that you did get appropriate varlances like the Area Variance, and it will be clear. MR. CARVIN-You could submit for July at this point. Right MS. CIPPERLY-July. MR. GREEN-Well, I was goin9 to say, if we were t.o give them the Area Variance, then they could pretty much go ahead and then cams back and ~:;ubrnit for the, I mean, 9ive them the Use Variance, ,and then they would be able to proceed on a pretty good feeling, and then submit for the. MRS. MACEWAN-If we, then, didn't I'm stuck with a piece of property get the pr Ol~')er I can't use. Area Variance, MR. MENTER-Yes, I could understand that. - 49 - -' 50 feet of Dix or Quarry. Technically, that goes with the land. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it's not, technically, a modification. It's a new variance. It's like giving them, and if there was a reason tl"lat. applied to h<2avy equiplnent, maybe the same reasons don't apply to buses. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think it opens up a whole moral issue. MR. GREEN-I mean, we've put other varlances. If we could just come to amount of space. Do you have any plans around t ""lis~;' stipulations in other some sort of figure or to put any sort of fence MRS. MACEWAN-I would certainly like t.o. MR. GREEN-Chain link or stockade? MRS. MACEWAN-To tell you t.he truth, I would await professional architectural guidance on that. MR. GREEN-My only thought is that if you were to have a stockade fence, something you couldn't see through, you might tend to be able to park a little closer to the line. If it's a chain link fence, then that's really not cutting down on the obstruction, which really is what the 50 foot buffer is all about. It's just an ielea. MS. CIPPERLY-I think that's a good point. can FORD-How many of the buses are diesels, be an issue, as we crank those up in the approximately? That winter and let them MF: R warm. MR. NOF<TON-They're quiet diesels. ¡VIR. FORD··'Dut I don't think the'/'re, they"ce not odor free iIHC; t,h~~~)/? vIF:. t\IOF<'TOt''¡·-No. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know if that goes on now at the site, anyway, with the heavy equipment. MR. MCLAUGHLIN-The equipment that's there now, you mean? MRS. BERUBE-Yes. Is most of it diesel? MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Yes. MRS. BERUBE-And is the, you start those up pretty regularly? MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Well, yes. There's some running every day. Not every piece is (lost word) every day. Quite a few of them at one time. MR. CARVIN-It's not really a preexisting nonconforming use. It's a use granted by variance. It's a change in use. So 50 foot would be a requirement. So they would have to get a variance from that. Yes. Sue, I think they need a variance from the 50 foot commercial or residential buffer. I think they have to apply' for that. MRS. MACEWAN-I could certaInly agree to put up a full fence. MS. CIPPERLY-I mean, if you they need the additional. ~'Ji;1 nt to ",! ,.., ~y..j ~..J tho Use \/a ì- i i3 ncc: and sa)/ 1'1R. Cr::'I~\,IIN'-Yes;, variance for the and condition r;:,o foot. it IrJith the subml~:;slon of a. -- 48- speakers, that there's some amount of problem with that, which I haven't noticed, myself, but, I guess t.hat's why I suggested in my Staff notes that this isn't usually something the Zoning Board s into is the nitty gritty of the site dimensions and circulation patterns. If you look favorably upon the use, but just want the how ironed out, then. MRS. MACEWAN-First of all, our ability to purchase this building will depend upon our positivB variance outcome. We anticipat~ working with an architect who, for one, has done a feasibility study on our present site to see if there was anything that we cOl¡.l.cl cjo to ~:::ta>; v,Jhere VJe VJe1"e, and it \.¡as determined t.f",at thi,:;¡t was not a possibility, but we would anticipate working with an ar(:hitc:ct who \,¡ol.dd dravJ up just \'.)hat/ou'1's sug~Je~3ting and fík.d:. recommendations for us in t.he most safe and efficient way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Yes, I think, gentlemen, the point of all of this exercise is, if you feel that this is a use, and they've met the use criteria. then I think we can move this. We can also ref r it to site plan review for the mechanics. I mean, all ,..¡o·re beJing a~3kec¡ i~3 t.hi:;;:; a w:::e that \.¡e t.hink is apP1'opr.iate for that particular piece of property, and have they met the tests that have been outlined for the use variance? Are there any questions of the applicant, other questions? I would ask for "/()ur comment.s, then. I don't. knovJ. E3i 11, what's )iOU1' thought on it? MR. GF<EEN-I haven't had a problem from the first time I read through it, and I haven't heard anything tonight t.o really give me any bad feelings about it at this point, As we've mentioned a number of times, anyt.hing is going to really be an improvement to tl",,2:; ar 8;a. MR. FORD-I'm in favor of it. I think it's an improvement, and CWI has a very positive influence in our community, and I don't think that they're going to degrade that neighborhood in any way. MR. MENTER-¡ concur. MR. KARPELES-I agree, but I think it should be subjected to site plan review, definitely. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I won't ask Chris, because he's not able to comment. I only have, I don't have a problem with the use. 1 r,:"ally don't, but I just ha\/e a lit,tle problem lrJith some of thc, mechanics, which I think we have t.o address, especially the 50 foot business, because, under any interpretation, the 50 foot, there is a 50 foot restriction that goes with the land, so that, so that if we make a motion, that we're going t.o have to address this 50 foot issue. So, having said that, anyone who would care to ma a mot.ion. MRS. BERUBE-Fifty feet on all six boundaries? MR. CARVIN-I think we're going to have to address that. of ffia the whole thing. It k,¡,ncl MR. MENTER-It's something of an issue. MR. CARVIN-It is something of an issue. MR. KARPELES-It sure is. MR. GREEN-I mean, what would we do, put a stipulation saYlng no closer than 10 feet.? MR. CAF<VIN-I don't know. I've never been confronted with changing a previous variance. Do you know what I'm saying? In other words, because in essence, that's what we're doing. I rne¿~n, the p1"e\/ic:,u:3, the original \/ariance ~:3aid no parking \'.)ithin - 47 - -" start using this lot? What are your plans? MRS. MACEWAN-Well, what we anticipate is closing on the building. At which time Mr. McLaughlin would build another building, and we would lease the property to him for a maximum of 90 days to give him time to build his building and move out, and so I believe that brings us to October 1 would be the latest date t.hat we would actually move onto the property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. none, then I will Any other public comment? close the public hearing. Hearing or ::~(?iS i ng PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FORD-A concern was raised, I believe, here, relative to that NiMo property, and I noticed, edge of gravel parking. Would it be your intention to utilize t.hat for that purpose, or utilize that boundary line? MRS. MACEWAN-I have Power Corporation. I me to do that or not. I'''¡ð,d ['lave no communication with Niagara Mohawk no idea as to whether they would allow MRS. BERU8E-I don't believe that the current plan that you have in front of you for the parking includes that area. MRS. MACEWAN-I believe there's only one, our antlclPated use. MR. FORD-You're not anticipating using that? MRS. MACEWAN-Not without permission. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Staff has expressed a concern that it would be beneficial to limit access to Dix Ave, either by using the Quarry Crossing access only or by using the Dix Ave. side for the right hand turn traffic only. MR. FORD-We've got that traffic pattern there. 1'-1RS. MACEI,.J{iN·-Wr'lich does not follow her, I bel ieve I,.<Jhat Id.SL.shol,.<J lS an incoming on Dix Avenue and exits from Quarry Crossing. MR. KARPELES-That's what she says, isn't it? r¡IR. C¡e'ìR'v'IN-·No. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, you could if you were coming from the east. If you're using the Dix Avenue access as an in. you would be making left turns across Dix Avenue, if you were heading west and wanted to turn in. So that's one way of handling it. Another is to have, I just don't know where your traffic goes to, as part of the, you could have people only. MRS. MACEWAN-Probably six of one pretty much to all corners of Saratoga Counties. half a dozen of another. I go Warren/Washington and Northern MS. CIPPERLY-It would be easier for you, too, to sort of police a one way intersection, than it would be to have a right turn only type, like come in, if you're coming from the west, you could make a right turn in there. but if you were coming from the east. you would turn onto Quarry Crossing Road and go in. Something should be done there about not having just totally free access onto Dix Avenue for buses. MRS. MACEWAN-Of course, we have totally free access onto Dix Avenue now, because where we are now is on Dix Avenue. MS. CIPPERLY-It was just mentioned that that's become a problem there, too. I can't remember which, maybe it was one of your - 46 - space planning, logistical layout right now, and I think that this site could also be, lets say, igned or without putting any restrictions on them, I think it's in their best interest to do that right now anyway, and I'd Ii to just close with the fact that CWI is a good neighbor, if we take a look at all the other properties that they have. I wish all the commercial property owners in the Town of Queensbury would take the type of concern and consideration of their neighbors that they've done here, that they've done on other sites and that they plan to do here this evening. I'd like to close by asking if you have any comments or questions on, from a commercial real estate aspect? MR. CARVIN-Okay. Has this property been listed for a long period of time? MR. LEVACK-The property went undel contract in February 22nd, and we have had no lookers at the property. They have been the only person that has expressed an interest in the property since that tlme. Even though the property went under contract a month and a half after it was listed, we still, as a mat.ter of practice, continue to seek buyers for properties until all the hurdles are cleared. Obviously, we want to continue to work on behalf of the seller, and I could tell you that there is no one else interested in this property at this time. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and this 1S being listed as a commercial property, is it? ivlf? l_[\,!(,CI<"'(es, it is. It's:; multiple lists and I may have a see that it's been marketed. in a commercial section of the copy of that, if you'd care to i'1R. C¡;F~Vlt'~--Okay. Thank )'ou. Any other questions, gentlemen of Mr. Levack? MR. LEVACK-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Any correspondence, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes, just one telephone correspondence between Jesse Roy and myself, on 6/22/95. Mr. Roy questioned whether or not the existing equipment will remain or be removed, and in response to his question, I read t,im the revised Paragraph 15 of the Use Variance application, and he was satisfied with that. MS. CIPPERlY-Is he one of the neighbors that was notified? i'1R.. TliOi"'!()S--Yes. MF. CPìR'v'IN--Oka¡. MR. MENTER-What's currently happening with the NiMo property to the west? This map that we have indicates that there's gravel just continues over there, the gravel parking. MFS. BERUBE-Power llnes. ~:,TE\.JE j\IORTOI"'1 MR. NORTON-Power line right-of-way MF. MENTER-That's not being used this, it looks like sort of just an at all, though? extensIon of the I_ooki ng at ¡::;·a'( kl ng. MS. CIPPERlY-If you look at the larger tax map. Niagara Mohawk owns, if you look at the larger tax map, there are other parcels that continue diagonally down other streets, that are also Niagara Mohawk property. MR. KARPELES-What's your timing on this? How fast would you - 45 - mlne to go off. here, as they so often do. MS. CIPPERLY-Another option is t.o look up the 1987 site plan and see what the site was approved for, but then you've still got. this is a different use than that one. MR. CAR'v'IN-'\'c.'s. that any of this That's what I'm saying. IS insurmountable. I mean, I don't suspect MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. CARVIN-But I'm not quite sure I know what I'm climbing over. What is your pleasure, gentlemen? Is the 50 foot a problem with anybody? I mean, if we variance this thing. MR. KARPELES-Are we going to have a public comment? ~m. U~F<VIN--Ye~s. MR. KARPELES-I'd like to hear what people have to say about this. MR. FORD-Yes, I would, too. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHPIS DIS':::Æt--jIf\ MR. DISSENIA-My name is Chris Dissenia. I live across the road from the McLaughlins, and I have absolutely no objections to the buses coming in there. As you said, sir, anything is better than what there is now. That's all I have to say. MR. FORD-What 1S your address, please, sir? MR. DISSENIA-487 Dix Avenue, right across the road, and my wife has been a very unhappy person all the while that place was there, and if that goes out, she'll be happy. Thank you. 1'1i~f~:< LEW~CK MR. LEVACK-My name's Mark Levack, President of Levack Real Estate. I'm sitting here this evening with an obvious interest in seeing this property go through. I'm the listing agent for Scott McLaughlin. I'd like to just quickly hit on a couple of points that I think are important to note, here, and why I would urge this Board for a timely, favorable resolution on this matter. They're currently occupying a half acre site, and this parcel is three times as large as that. If you've ever been down Dix Avenue in the morning when the buses are leaving, I think it's posing an eminent hazard to motorists on the road. As I see it, this site offers something that the other site doesn't, and that's two curb cuts, and I think that the traffic flow, by accommodi],ti ng t.heir opc,ration on this site, IrJOuld be significantly enhanced. The other thing I'd like to point out is that the economy is a slow economy, and we see this buyer as the highest and best use of this property, and that we would urge you to be in favor of this resolution as a result of that. Also, too, I think it should be noted that CWI has been looking, for two years. I've been working with them for over two years to find a site, when this opportunity presented itself. It seemed to be a nice match and would also be a favorable issue for the Town. in that it would be a downgrading of the use, and that it would also clean up the unsightly aspect of all this variation of equipment. We see the buses being stored in a nice neat fashion, and while I can appreciate Mr. Karpeles' concerns for lot storage and bus storage and can we mitigate this to make this something that is acceptable to this site and t.o this use. I think the an:3v~(::;'ì- to ti'iat que~:3tion i~3, yes. I rnean, they clei,:n 1/ have a - 44 - MR. CARVIN-Yes. I t.hink the addressed, because if that is E;O foot, r'~umber a 11ve shell. IJ TV2 > neecJs to MRS. MACEWAN-In other words, I would be expected to utilize this property with a 50 foot buffer at that back property line? MR. CARVIN-Or request a variance. MS. CIPPERLY-Or I can research it and find out what. MR. CARVIN-Or if it's researched that it is a preexisting nonconforming use and that this use has always been within the 50 feet, then I have, you know, we have some basis t.o move forward. MRS. BERUBE-Because that's my understanding, that it was based on a preexisting nonconforming use, which I think the documents ((;'garding the Use Vaì'iance for ~'3cott t1cL.au.ghlin do reflect. MS. CIPPERLY-My research from the Assessor's Office, all I found was previously owned by an oil company. MRS. BERUBE-Cray Oil Company for 34 years prior. MS. CIPPERLY-And I don't know, really, what they did with it. It, apparently, was kind of vacant, but maybe they also parked things there, and then it was sold to Mr. McLaughlin, and in '87. So, apparently, there's a history of that kind of use there, because from the discussion by the Board, they called it 3 r:::·ree,;isting. MRS, BERUBE-(Lost word) Ordinance change wIth respect to thlS property in 1988? MS. CIPPERLY-The zoning. MRS. BERUBE-That's my understanding, and so when Mr. McLaughlin purcha the property in 1987, and started to utilize fo) his purposes, for the repair and resale of heavy equipment, the heavy equipment, at that time, was already parked closer than 50 feet. When it was granted a variance in 1989> it was found to a preexisting nonconforming use. I think (lost word) by the fact that the only mention of the 50 foot buffer is along Dix Ave. Otherwise, I would think that that would be a condition. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've got a note here. The applicant received a site plan approval in May of 1987 for a farming equipment sales business on this site. One stipulation of this approval was that all equipment be kept 50 feet from the property line. The property was re-zoned in 1988, and this is no longer an allowable use. I would recommend that the Board consider the four items listed under t.he Use Variance in the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the Board should consider what steps can be taken to improve t.he appearance of this site from t.he surrounding neighborhood, and this was, apparently, a note to file from John Goralski, Planner, and this is dated Scc)ptember the 27th, ':::;;<).. So, apparently, there was a stipulation. Again, I've got a clue that in 1987 there was a stipulation 50 feet from the property line. Well, there's four of them here that I can find, or five. Which property line? MRS. BERUBE It seems that, from the wording of the varIance itself, that it meant the Dix Avenue property. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but then I'm which preexisted, obviously, :::;ornetf'''li ng else. reading here a site plan in '87 the '(39, ~'Jhich lS indicatin'J MRS. BERUBE-Well, worst case scenario, that that's indicating. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I'm on your side. I just don"t want a land - 43 - --- MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I was going to say, if there's a 50 foot in the back and a 50 foot in the front, you've got a strip that just runs pretty narrow. MR. MCLAUGHLIN-That 50 foot, I agreed to that so that equipment wouldn't be displayed, we wouldn't be putting trucks and tractors and everything right up to the property line, in the front of the building. You couldn't do that all the way around the property, the way the lines are cut up around there. The property wouldn't worth anything. You wouldn't be able to do anything with it. MR. CARVIN-I assume you're Mr. McLaughlin, are you? Scott? Are you MR. MCLAUGHLIN-I am Scott. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MCLAUGHLIN-I just thought I'd mention this. you were involved in. I know I'm not due to speak but I just. At this time, at this time, MR. CARVIN-No, I appreciate your input. MR. MCLAUGHLIN-I just understand what that 50 wanted this foot setback input was. in so that Thank you. you could MR. CARVIN-Okay. right, as far as Thank you, but I think the Ordinance is worded, the parking. Am I incorrect on that, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know what they did in 1987, as far as what they may have discussed at the meetings that we're not privy to because, for one thing, notes were done or minutes were done differently. They were summarized instead of verbatim, and it's hard to second guess what was said at the time. Clearly, the intent was to park. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what I'm saying is, there is a 50 foot buffer in the back with no parking. MS. CIPPERLY-That's what the definition says. know what was said at those meetings, what reached as far as this particular property. just handled differently. As I said, I don't understandings were Some things were MR. CARVIN-So, if we were to move on this, we would need a variance from that then, right? Is that the interpretation? MRS. BERUBE-It was a preexisting nonconforming use, which may have had something to do with the reason why the 50 foot buffer may not have been in place. The property had been used for two years for that same use prior to the time that the Zoning Ordinance, I believe the switch from the Light Industrial to the CR-15. MS. CIPPERLY-That may very well be, because that Use Variance, I think, was tied to the building. There was a trailer there before. That resolution mentions the building and office. So I think there was a use on that parcel that. MR. CARVIN-Preexisted the 50 foot? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I don't know, was there a 50 foot prior? MS. CIPPERLY-That I and I think one of formal drawing of. really, what the members I think might be helpful, here, suggested, is to have a more - 42 - i'1R. Ci~FNII'j^~Sue, becaw3e it does that back line. does this requires abut a residential Is that correct? a 50 foot setback, zone, at this point, right, alonu MS. CIPPERLY-Lets go with this buffer zone definition. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've got, that's why I was wondering, it says re, a 50 foot buffer shall be required when adjoining residential and industrial zones, and that's under 179-24. MRS. BERUBE-But isn't that 50 foot buffer only for structures? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Well, it says an unpaved natural area without buildings, designed to reduce the possibility of adverse impact on land or water quality of conflicts of land use between two or more areas. No parking or storage of vehicles of any kind associated with the use of property is permitted. I don't know, apparently you said, Fred, in the previous variance, there was supposed to be a 50 foot? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm re-reading this, and there's, I think I know what they were trying to do, but I'm. I think it can be interpreted two ways. It says here, this will improve t.he situation. It will remove the outdoor repair. We expect full compliance with the May '88 as well as our own requirement that he stay back 50 feet from both Quarry Crossing and Dix Ave., and that there will be no equipment. stored or parked within the 50 feet, but I guess you can interpret it two ways. Does that mean that, 50 feet comi ng thi§_ way, but, or are the!', did they jU::3t fO(get_ to put U',e word, "the 50 foot buffer "? Because I don't know what the Ordinance was back then, if there was a 50 foot buffer he'ie. MS. CIPPERLY-What year was that? That was '87? t~ R. Cf~R\lI N-, 'f39 . MS. CIPPERLY-That would have n this Ordinance, then. MR. CARVIN-So I'm assuming that there was a 50 foot buffer here, and I think, you know, as I said, I don't want to speak for what that Board, as I said. looking at that, obviously they were saying, no parking, they could say no parking here and here, in which case the guy's in total violation. MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Could I add something at this time? MR. CARVIN-Yes, please. MR. MCLAUGHLIN-The 50 foot setback was created for the area right di,-¡:f/ctly in f,^ont of v-Jhe,"e the office acea i~3 i3ncl the c)"us;heo:j stone, setback so equipment wouldn't be displayed on Dix Avenue. That was all it was intended for was just on Dix Avenue, so t I wouldn't create a problem like there is up at the corner by Hertz', where they're displaying equipment right up to the road all the way around, bordering Dix Avenue and the Airport Road, and I agreed to that, and I've got to admit that I'm in violation over toward where the power lines are, we've got some equipment that got in there and then we just ran out of room, and it ended up in there and nobody bothered us, but on the corner in front of the office, we had kept that back. Occasionally, a truck will get parked t.here. There's a neighbor that brings his truck in at night, and he lives down around the corner in one of those houses and he has no place to park the truck to spend the night and then in the morning early he's gone, but, I mean, other than that, we don't, we displayed equipment within that 50 foot area in front of the office area or the area to the east up toward Quarry Crossing, and that's what that 50 foot buffer zone, if that was enforced on the whole lot, you wouldn't be able to use anything. - 41 - ---- instance. I'm not sure consideration about the proposing is obviously a there at the present time. that that necessarily (lost words) for present use and why this that we're less intensive use than the use that's MR. KARPELES-It is right now, but you have no guarantee that it's not going to become just as intensive as the use is. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you have any ldea how many pleces of equipment are on the property right now? MRS. BERUBE-I went and counted them today. Actually, Mr. McLaughlin is here. So he could probably tell you exactly Do you know how many vehicles are presently on the property? SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN MR. MCLAUGHLIN-We've got pleces of equipment listed upwards of around 200. Now, they aren't all there. other different locations, but I would say there's vehicles, at least. on that property now. in inventory, Thsl-e's two got to be 100 MRS. BERUBE-Not all of them are all vehicles. pieces, right? Some of them are MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Yes. MRS. BERUBE-But I counted, myself, I counted 60 vehicles, but in addition to that, they also have some other items which are not actually a vehicle. MS. CIPPERLY-Another thought I had, in terms of the land use question, and you're saying, well, what if you need to expand, and they say, well, we'll move, but it occurred to me that what's happening here, and part of the reason for commercial residential zones, is because they're considered to be areas in transition, and I can see that maybe this could be, you're sort of bringing it down from this heavy industrial. Maybe some day Community Workshop won't need it anymore, but by that time, Dix Avenue's likely to have become either more commercial, probably more commercial, the way it's going. They're probably going to, you could eventually end up with a conforming use on that property, over time. That's just one scenario I was thinking about today that, you know, you're kind of bringing it down from that heavy, the heavy equipment, and at the same time, the neighborhood lS sort of gearing up in intensity of use. So it's really not a residential situation there. MR. FORD-Is this complicated enough, with these exchanges of property and so forth, so that we ought to call for a site plan review? MR. CARVIN-I think so. MRS. BERUBE-We would withdraw any request for the boundary line change if that would be the case, if that would make this more difficult. We honestly did this in an attempt to accommodate the people who had the pool on their property. They've agreed to remove the pool if this is not going, if we cannot do a boundary line agreement to accommodate them, they've agreed to remove the pool, and that's what we would do. We certainly don't want to jeopardize our application for the Use Variance with regard to this property that we wish to purchase to do that. We were trying to do the neighborly thing by getting the surveys, trying to work something out with them. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think you're openlng up a bigger can of worms. MRS. BERUBE-Okay. That's fine. - 40 - MR. KARPELES-I really think that we need a better idea of how this lot is going to utilized. I mean, I'd hate to see us recreate something like we've got t.here now, and if, eventually, buses are just going to fill this thing up entirely, it's coino to just'as bad a~ it is now. I wo~ld thinkth~i you-p;o~l; would have a plan of just what areas you intended to utilize nd what plans you didn't intend to utilize, and the maximum number of buses that you intend to place on this lot. I think that~' the kind of information we need. MRS. BERUBE-Well, we do have a hand drawn sketch. which I will :::;ubrnit. MR. KARPELES-Where are the buses going to be parked? MRS. BERUBE-Well, here's the 25 buses there. re~;er\"ed a:::; room to exparld pa,rking if nec.essar)/. some for car parking for the bus drivers, okay. They ha\/e t.hi~;:; They've mar !,c,d i'1fL C¡6¡RVIN-See, and again, I guess UÜ",; is IrJhat I'm getting inte, is a permeability lssue. I mean, this thing is going to become a vast parking lot. MR. KARPELES-And this would be one way t.raffic In here? MRS. BERUBE-Well, that was a proposal, because I think that, when I spoke to Sue, she indicated that it might be better for the buses to come in on Dix and come out on Quarry, okay. That would accomplish that. MS. CIPPERLY-Bringing it driveway, which Jim had entirely, having everybody out to an intersection rather t.han a suggested closing off that entrance come in. MR. FORD-On Dix Ave.? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MRS. BERUBE-It is three times they're utilizing now, for the also in the Town of Queensbury. larger thantr'/e same nurnbeì' of (lost IrJord) trlat buses, which is MR. KARPELES-Yes, but by t.he time you if you're going t.o have anymore room get. through for bu.ses? her e, I hlonck,r MS. CIPPERLY-In terms of expansion. MRS. BERUBE-Those numbers, I mean, t.he property we have now also has a building on it. MS. CIPPERLY-This is what I was saying, across the back, I figure probably 16, maybe 18 of the large buses. MRS. MACEWAN-We don't park a bus so that people can enter those buses from where they are. Our drivers have it down t.o a SClence, and we actually store 28 buses where we currently are at D.1 >< A'v'e: nue . MR. KARPELES-Now how long is that 28, in a line? MRS. MACEWAN-No. Some of them, because they're shorter, the airport type shuttles, actually go one behind t.he other, and they're lined up so that the fin:;t one (,ut in thf? mon"d,ns;¡ allovJ~3 access to the next one, etc. You have to be very creative, and this is Steve Norton, our Transportation Coordinator, and he tells me t.hat he can get buses across that back line, I'll bet ,!"()U he ca n . 1'1RS. BERUBE ,- If , obviously, we'll in t.he future, we outgrow t.his property then, require a new one, as we've had to do in t.his - 39 - - --- MR. CARVIN-You pick up this, and they give up that. ,-¡-"e\l) ai.Jaì-e of the si tuation that tf"lat. might raise, as; difference in zones? Okay. r;r,3 far as th,¿, MRS. BERUBE-Yes, and we had to really get the survey to see how close the property lines would change, in relation to the buildings that are presently on the property, and we really had no idea what the setbacks would be until we had the survey actually done. Again, we did this in an attempt to help out the neighbors who, unfortunately, have this encroachment. We do not consider this to be, obviously, a part of our Use Variance application. It was merely done to see whether or not the neighbors could be accommodated and that, perhaps, we could do this by a boundary line agreement, but if that's not the case, thf~n that's t,he:ir deci~3ion. Ob\/ious3l',/', they don't. object to a changing of the buffer zone_ MS. CIPPERLY-Another aspect of this is the zone line goes right along the: back of this property, the line betwe:e:n comme:rcial residential and UR-10, which is purely residential, so you'd be trading. for one thing, be creating some split parce:ls, where parcels being in two zones, and also this property to the rear here: that would become: the Community Workshop property would be in a residential zone. So you wouldn't really probably want to be pEn- ki ng buses. Thos:;e i.:n-e ¡:::·eople's:; back '-¡-''i3rch;, !::;.ut that i-'Jc,uld have to be included in your variance, if that were to be done. MR. CARVIN-Well, if we do that and stipulate that no buses can be parked back there, we're actually looking at a smaller lot. MS. CIPPERLY-Right.. That's why I. usually the problem with nonconforming uses is t.hat they don't have enough space. So that's why I said in my notes that it could probably create problems in the future, when some expansion was maybe desirable. They sort of eliminated some: options for themselves, and if you look at it from another standpoint, looking from Quarry Crossing Road, that reside:ntial lot with the pool in the: back kind of creates a nlce end to the residential section. So it kind of separates that neighborhood from this. MR. CARVIN-Well, Sue, and this might be on an entirely different tange:nt, because t.hese are essentially going to be parking lots. Are we going to have a permeability problem here? I mean, I don't know if the:y're going to be crushed gravel. I mean, he's got equipment parked allover the place now. I assume it's just on grass or ground. MS. CIPPERLY-The existing parking, as you said, is gravel. I guess that would be an existing permeability, if they didn't gravel more area. Also, by using a 10 by 45 figure, using about a 15 foot wide space, you can get 15, possibly 16 buses in that 50 foot deep section on the back property line. MR. CARVIN-In here you mean? MS. CIPPERLY-Fifteen is probably a reasonable width for a bus space, because you have to have some room. MR. CARVIN-Yes. You're talking about in this? MS. CIPPERLY-I'm talking about this piece here that's behind the house. It looks like you could get probably 15, maybe 16 buses there, which leaves. MR. CARVIN-You mean across the back property line? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, across the back. I'm not sure where the other buses would go. They may be smaller, and would probably take some sort of scheduling. - 38 - MS. CIPPERLY-Do you happen to know the dimensions of your buses, t I"'j a.\/e)·'r d.ge? MRS. MACEWAN-The largest bus is, there are six full sIzed and then the other buses are of varying sizes. They're not all the extra large school bus type buses. Some of them are, you know, the smaller type buses like you see, I'm sure you've all ~:;e'z) fl them. MR. CARVIN-This was the original motion, gentlemen, and there IS a 50 foot stipLtlation in that motion, 'for what it~8 wOl-th. MS. CIPPERLY-And do these all go out every day? MRS. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-What would be your estImate, or best guess, at a full maximization of this property, as far as the number of buses you might be able to handle? You've indicated 33 is what you have now. What would be a comfortable estimate? MRS. BEF<UBE-That's really difficult to say without having some experience about how they're going to be maneuvered and the property line at the present time. It's difficult to estimate. The property where they have their buses now is a great deal smaller. I don't have the exact. The existing property is less than half an acre, and there's 33 buses on that. This property is three times that size. MR. CARVIN-I'm not quite sure I'd want to see 100 buses there. you KARPELES-Are you going going to sell t.hat, or to maintain the existing area IrJI'''¡at? o ì- a ì" (; MF:. . ¡VIS:.S. BE.F<U8E'-Tt",e e>o::isting area i~3 (lo~;;;t ,,,,o)-d) cloes not b(31onu to us, and we will not (lost words). MR. KARPELES-So you will abandon that? MRS. BERUBE-That's correct. So the traffic concerns are not really great, since the existing property where they hav their buses at the present time is actually also located on Dix Avenue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. As argument, I'm afraid ~3ituat,i,on hf::ì-e?' much as I'm going I don , 1" ,,,,ant to get I nt>:) the to have to I,..Jhat I ~::; the ¡:::()O 1 MRS. BERUBE-We discovered, when we did our survey, to submit it to the Board, that there was an encroachment by the neighbor to the south, regarding their pool, and the neighbors are here tonight, and what we did was we had the surveyor pencil in a proposed boundary lIne agreement where we thought, perhaps, we could accommodate the neiuhbors to the south so that they wouldn't have to move the pool. If you'd like me to come up, I can kind of trace. i'1R. C¡;F~VIH-Yes. I'm assuming t.his is your proposed here? MRS. BERUBE-Right. It's the dotted lines, and then it goes along the property line and maybe, this is the property that they would trade, essentially, for this property. That's how the boundary line would change. It would change in this fashion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody see what's happening here? MR. GREEN-So you're picking up t.his back square down here, and you're putting buses back there, probably. MRS. BERUBE-Well, we weren't planning to put any buses back thc:re. - 37 - :;;..- - a full time job. MR. FOF<D-How will the tractor trailer be stored? MRS. MACEWAN-The tractor trailer is stored at 36 Everts Avenue, at our main headquarters, but the tractor would come down for repairs and maintenance, should that become necessary. MR. CARVIN-Okay. anticipate, maximum, Approximately how many buses on the property at anyone time? would you MRS. BERUBE-Thirty-three. th,,;:¡-e. In the evenings, they're all stored MR. KARPELES-Yes, but you facility. Are you willing say you've outgrown your present to accept the 33 maximum on this P'¡" ()!=¡Gr t~ ;/? MRS. MACEWAN-Absolutely, I could not. I have probably doubled in size in the last five years, and I don't see that that will stop in t.he future. MR. KARPELES-Well, one of your arguments is that you're going to improve the looks of the place, and I have no idea how much of this area is going to be utilized to store thirty-three buses. Have you got any layout that shows these thirty-three buses in place? I mean, I've got to agree that almost anything would be better than what they have there now, but. MRS. BERUBE-But if you currently, if you were t.o go by our existing garage, which is also on Dix Avenue just past the BOCES on the left, you will find that we try to line them up in neat ì- OWS3 . MR. KARPELES-Yes, but I don't know how much of this cover. Have you got anything that shows thirty-three in here? Dr ea the)/ !::;.useS3 ()u t MR. CARVIN-Well, approximately how much larger is t.his lot from your current lot? MRS. BERUBE-The present location of where we anticipate parking these buses lS, as you face Dix Avenue, and the building is there. We would park them along the back property line, facing out toward Dix Avenue. They'd actually be behind the building and we feel that there's room there for 25 buses. The other big buses that we have there now would be parked along the front. MR. FORD-Northeast corner of the property? MRS. BERUBE-No, it would be the south, it would actually be along the Niagara Mohawk property line. So it would be along the back and the southwest property line. 1'1R. C(iF<VII''''''Oka}'. it to be kind of I just was reading the old motion, i nteì- e~:3t i \l:;; . and I found MRS. BERUBE-Well, the problem was that we though, we are not able to store thirty-three vehicles in that (lost words). MR. CARVIN-Well, no, part of that 1988 variance to Mr. McLaughlin had indicated that no equipment be stored or parked within 50 t of the property lines, and I looked at it, and I would have to guess that he's in violation of that. Now you're proposing to, I suspect, move the buses right to the property line? Would that be a fair assessment, or would you be able to still utilize that space and maintain a 50 foot buffer? MRS. MACEWAN-A 50 foot buffer between parking my buses and the I·:~'Y· C)F)(-.~r t~ Y' .1 i n e? - 36 - i nt,i,c,;:11. purpO~;;i? tl-¡at it '~~; U~3e(:! fo)- now, in that i t ~,,()ul.:::! be solely used to work on Community Workshop's buses. Occasionally Wi? may also work on some other large equipment from another not for profit corporation. Something that comes to mind is the Fort Edward Rescue Squad. Sometimes they bring their vehicles in to be serviced, and we're willing to help them by working on their vel"liclo~;3, and anotheì- ono m.i.gf-'It be the "iead :3tart p,-ogram. The)" need help for their vehicles. So, in conclusion, this is d nonconforming use, but it's not a nonconforming use that's self created, something that's existed on the property. It's a less intensive use of the property. It's more aesthetically pleasing. Community Workshop has a good reputation in this area for being a good neighbor and for maintaining their property, in a way which is beneficial to their neighbors and as far as we know, no one who has ever been a neighbor of Community Workshop has complained about the way that t.he propert.y has been run. There IS a peripheral issue about boundary lines, which I (lost word) perhaps we can discuss after we discuss the Use Variance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any proposing to buy this questions, gentlemen? All right. property, is that correct? \'ou're MRS. BERUBE-That's correct. i'1F:. Cr;R\/IH"'O ka'/ . MRS. BERUBE-But we have to be able to use it for that purpose. Obviously, that's the sole reason for purchasing it. MR. CARVIN-Right. equiprnent, the everything, would So, in summary, heavy equipment, r emo\/sd . e,':ssentlally, tht~ tract.::))" all t.ho~;e, t. traili:?:.'r~~; sn,:! MRS. BERUBE-Removed. MR. CARVIN-And the only thing that point, basically, are school buses vehicle type of repair? you're proposing and/or occasional .EJ. t: t ¡-"Ii :::s: emer ,gi:.:n.::,':' MRS. BERUBE-That's right. JAI\!C i'1?KElrJ¡6¡H i'1PS. tl'Ii3,t ~Ji th take MACEWAN-Community Workshop does have one tractor trailer would be worked on occasionally, but it is in conformance all of our, it has our decal on it, etc. We don't intend to in tractor trailers. MR. CARVIN-Right. prImarIly your own I was just going to ask. vehicles. This would not These would just be general public? MRS. MACEWAN-We'd only be working on our own vehicles or vehicles of other not for profits, and we do have garages (lost word) for tl'''¡at. . I"IF;;. C(:1RVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-Community Workshop has full the)-e. . . ... tlme malnLenance ¡::,eo¡::;.lc" MRS. MACEWAN-We have two and a half full time equivalent møchanics. MR. MEHTER-And that service organizations has been just resources that you have? you provided becau~:;e of the other nonprofit a\/ailabilit/ of MRS. MACEWAN-And because we requested to do so, always, it doesn't always occur, and it is not, we spend, primarily provide service for our own )/ E~ :::~ " That~::~ n()t ceì-ta.lnl)" , and that ':õ:; it' '--3 buse:::; - 35 - right-turn-only traffic. Site Plan review lS a possibility for the Board to consider. There is an encroachment onto the property by a neighbor's pool, garden and fence. The applicant has proposed modifying the lot lines to allow the neighbor to keep the pool. This would require variances for fifty-foot buffer areas on either side of the zone boundary, and may not be desirable in terms of future use of this lot. SEQR: Unlisted Action. Short form review is required." ~1F<. THO~1r;S--"(it a meet.ing of the I"Jarren County Planning Board, held on the 14th day of June 1995, the above application for a Use Variance to use building to repair buses, other large vehicles and to house buses, with a portion still used as office space. was reviewed and the following act.ion was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Concur with local conditions. " Signed by C. PC)/,"Jel :;,',)lJth. l-Jith trk1t i ng said, I would ask that I be excused from participating in this Variance application. I am an employee of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and there might be a conflict of interest since Niagara Mohawk borders this property. I will, however, remain as Secretary to read any correspondence, but will not be participating in any motion or vote. ¡viR. C(~R'v'IN-·Oka''/. Is there anything you'd care to add? MRS. BERUBE-Good evening. I'm Paula Nadeau Berube, we're the attorneys for the applicant. Community Workshop Resources Jane MacEwan is the Executive Vice President of Community Workshop Resources, and she's here with me. Also, Larry Pelchowitz, a principal at my firm, is here and Nick Norton is here for some technical advice, should that be necessary. We're coming for a Use Variance basically because we've outgrown the space that we currently house our buses at, which, by the way, is also located on Dix Avenue and is just down the road from the premises that we're seeking the Use Variance for. So we have been attempting to locate a location for ou( busc~~;; vJhich can accommodate our needs, and we wanted to stay in the Town of Queensbury. So, therefore, when the McLaughlin property came up for sale, it seemed like this was a good location for us to move to. As you know, the use of the property, historically, since 1987, Scott McLaughlin purchased the property and has been using that for the repair and resale of heavy equipment for approximately 50 or 60 vehicles of that nature on the property at this time. They are heavy equipment, such as farm machinery, tractor trailer trucks, vans, trucks, that's sort of vehicle. The existing building on the property, which is a 40 by 70 building, was built in 1989, with the approval of this Board for a Use Variance for building that structure, and the reason for building the structure was to effectuate the repairs of Mr. McLaughlin's heavy equipment indoors instead of outdoors. It had been conducted outdoors, and also to house some office space. It's my understanding there was a small trailer before the building was there, so the building has been used for repair of his equipment and for some office space. The property has been used as a nonconforming use since the inception of the Zoning Ordinance, and our use would not detrimentally effect that nonconforming use as it now exists. I believe that everyone in the room is familiar with Community Workshop and all the benefits that it has to the community over the years. What we're proposing (lost word) as indicated in the application, we only have 33 buses. They are fairly uniform in appearance. I would think that would be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors and to the neighborhood, and it's also a less intensive use, in the fact of the smaller numbers. The hours of operation for the buses would be approximately six o'clock in the morning until approximately seven o'clock in the evening, and that's five days a week, Monday through Friday. There may be an occasional use on the weekend, of one or more bu:¿:;e~:; fOj" purposes of not for ¡::>rofit corporations tha,t come and have special events or something of that nature, that may require the use of a bus. The building itself would be used for an -, 34 -" The her closer you got to the house, visibility up the la the more she's cutting down on jc1P. CARR--I think her p'(oblem 18 U"le dining room is on that. side and it cuts down on the light through the windows. (lost word) your thing about this lot, the original house was built 147 feet away from the lake, which more or less precludes them from using an awful lot of the front portion of the lot. It jams everything into one tiny area. So this is a case where a larger setback is turned around in her, the owner of the property more so than some people with lesser setbacks. If you have a lesser setback, sometimes you're allowed to do more. MR. FORD-Thanks for letting me voice that concern. MR. CARVIN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin j·',,10ES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco USE VARIANCE NO. 30-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP RESOURCES CORP. OWNER: D. SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN SOUTH SIDE OF DIX AVENUE CORNER OF DIX AVENUE & QUARRY CROSSING APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE THIS PROPERTY AS A STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY FOR APPLICANT'S BUSES AND OTHER LARGE VEHICLES, WITH A PORTION OF THE BUILDING USED FOR OFFICE SPACE. SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL, DOES NOT ALLOW THIS USE, SO RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THIS SECTION. CURRENT USE OF THE SITE IS A NONCONFORMING HEAVY EQUIPMENT SALES AND SERVICE ALLOWED BY USE VARIANCE NO. 110-1989. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 111-7-5 LOT SIZE: 1.41 ACRES SECTION 179-24 PAULA NADEAU BERUBE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 30-1995, Community Workshop Resources Corp., Meeting Date: June 28, 1995 "Applicant: Community Workshop Resources Corp. Project Location: Dix Avenue Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to utilize this property as a storage and repair facility for buses and other large vehicles, with a portion of the building used for office space. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-24, Commercial residential, does not allow this use, so relief is sought from this section. Current use of the site is a nonconforming heavy equipment sales and service allowed by Use Variance No. 110-1989. Criteria for considering a Use Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? The existing building on the property is not usable as a residential structure. The property could possibly be used for a commercial structure, but not without major w01"k. The site itself is not necessarily conducive to commercial use, based on its size and configuration, and the presence of low power lines on the adjacent Niagara Mohawk parcel. 2. Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? This lot was purchased by Mr. McLaughlin in 1987, and has been used for heavy equipment storage and repair under the Use Variance granted in 1989. Before that, the lot was vacant. It could be said that this use has created a unique situation, not readily marketable as a conforming use. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? It {}PP,?EJ,¡~;:;; t ha t t her (0 VJ()U I d actua 11 y be ani rnpr O\leme nt in te1" m~3 () f neighborhood impacts, due to the replacement of the heavy equipment by buses. Staff Comments and Concerns: It would be beneficial to limit access to Dix Avenue, either by using the Quarry Crossing access only, or by using the Dix Avenue side for - 33 - - line, is In desperate need of repair. So this would allow the applicant to have an increased amount of storage, essentially in the same spot. Although there might be other alternatives more feasible for the siting of this shed, because of the long nature of the current shed being there, it is felt that this is a good alternative, and again, even though this relief may appear to be substantial, when all is said and done, there's very little change from the existing situation. By siting of the shed in this same spot, with these parameters, there would not be any detrimental effects to th~ neighborhood or the community. This does not appear to be a self-created situation, because of the current shed is a nonconforming item and certainly the need to replace a rotting and deteriorating shed is not something that the applicant has total control over. Duly adopted t.his 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: MR. FORD-May I raise a question on the motion before it's re- read? If this existing structure is to be razed, then in effect, we go back, as we do so many times, to no structure and an opportunity to ask for less relief than is being requested at this time, and I'm finding it difficult to justify, maybe my colleagues on the Board can help me justify maintenance of, when you raze the structure, start from scratch, and then still build it that close to the property line, when you have an opportunity for further setback and less relief being sought. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I think that this really does address the lssue, that each of these cases have to be taken individually, Number One. Number Two, I think we have to weight the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the community. Certainly, I know you're making a reference that we just turned down a house here for this reason, but certainly a shed is a long way from a house. There's no sewage or any other situation here. This is back away from the lake well over the 75 feet. The alternative would be to move it basically closer to the house if you take a look at the plan. I, unfortunately, was at the other end of Mason Road. So I didn't look at this property. So I will have to defer, but my guess is that the benefit to the applicant of siting this shed where it is currently will have a minimal effect on the rest of the neighborhood. So, I think moving it into the neighborhood, closer to the house, actually puts the weight too far to the other side. If there's no detriment to the community with the shed there, moving it closer to the house, there may be a detriment to applicant. Do you follow the logic here? MR. FORD-I follow it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I fol.lo~'" it. MR. GREEN-My justification might be that you wouldn't be able to get it too much closer to the house, because now you're not going to be able to get around behind with anything, other than say a walkway. I mean, there's not a lot of room between the shed and the house now, and if you needed to drive around in back, for whatever reason, you move it any closer to the house, you're gOIng to lose that passageway. MR. FORD-You've got 30 feet there now. That's all the way to the line. MR. CARVIN-That's 30 feet total. You could move it within 10 feet of the house, but then I think you're going to bump into a problem there. Right? MR. FORD-The new structure would be within 18 feet of the house. MS. CIPPERLY That would be okay. I believe it's 10 feet, like a garage or shed or any. MR. KARPELES-I think she'd start to interfere with her own view. - 32 - the two parcels, making the Taco Bell part of the shopping plaza. As with any other plaza, signage is limited to one wall sign per business and one freestanding sign for the plaza, which already exists. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? The addition of one more freestanding sign on this stretch of Route 9 would not be beneficial to its visual character. This is a heavy traffic area, and the purpose of this sign would be to encourage additional left turns into the property, as described above. A similar situation exists directly across Rte. 9, where Red Lobster is under construction. There is probably an argument available for why this restaurant would need similar relief. Granting of this one would set a precedent in this area and this type of situation. Relief has already been granted to plazas in the form of sign ordinance revisions allowing individual stores to be listed on the plaza sign. If this is not acceptable to the plaza owners, then the business may have to be content with a wall sign. At least one other fast food restaurant owner within a plaza on Route 9, has written to oppose granting of this variance. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The agreement to merge this parcel was a trade-off made in order to be allowed to have this fast-food establishment. Siting of the structure was given much thought and review by both the Planning Board and the applicant. The fact that the building was not visible to traffic coming from Glens Falls should have been addressed earlier if that was an important factor. Parcel History: The Carvel parcel was a triangular piece of property of insufficient size for the construction of a drive-up restaurant facility, and of a shape impossible to build on and meet current setbacks. The Glen Square Plaza is zoned Multi-Family residential, and 1S a pre- existing, nonconforming use. Staff Comments and Concerns: This discussion has addressed visibility from one direction -- coming from Glens Falls -- because there is excellent visibility from the opposite direction, and the building itself IS obviously a Taco Bell. It should be noted that the applicant has already installed a number of directional signs, at least one of which is visible from either direction at the entrance to the site. There are a few points to be addressed concerning the last paragraph of Mr. Lapper's letter: - he states that the approve site plan indicates a pylon sign. This is not something that is a site plan review issue, so its presence on the drawing is not indicative of Planning Board review or approval. - the letter also states that the planning board asked that the Carvel parcel be merged with Glen Square, when it was actually the Zoning Board. the Taco Bell site was designed to be accessible from either the Rte. 9 side Of from the plaza, so a sign on the Glen Square freestanding sign would not be considered misleading or confu~3ing. SEQR: Unlist.ed. Short forrn E¡C:\F mUfòt be revi.s"Jed." 1'1H. THOj'1¡c'ì:::' - "(it a meet. i ng of t. he ~,Jar r e n Cou nt y P 1 ann i ng Boar d , held on the 14th day of June 1995. the above application for a Sign Variance to allow for a 52 sq. ft. free-standing sign. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Since the pylon sign conforms to the Sign Ordinance. if it is not squared off. Also, the pylon sign was approved with the ::;i t.e Plan." Signed C. POI;Jel South, Vice Chairperson. I'm. CAR'vH¡··Oka>'. ¿3.clc!-;) Mr. Lapper, Is there anyt.hing you'd cafe to MH. LAPPER-Yes. Thank you. With me tonight is Dave Barlow from Clough Harbour who is the engineer who worked with me for the six months or so that we worked with the Planning Board and Zoning Board to do the detailed redesign of the Plaza, including the Blockbuster, the Troy Savings Bank and this building. We're very pleased with the way it's come out and we've heard from members of the community, and certainly the owners of the Plaza and t tenants are happy. As you'll remember, it was an old fashioned, 50's Carvel building that was set back, I believe, 30 feet or so, 20 feet from Glen Street, and a big part of the change was to - 52 - br i fig this gr ·eòn space for lrJ,¿,\r d to I" ign tr,e traffic patt,er ns and to move the building back to comply with the 75 foot buffer. It is absolutely true that we agreed to merge the parcels as part of this, that was tho request, I guess I was wrong, of the Zoning Board, this Board, rather than the Planning Board, but, regardless of which Board, it was a good idea to do that. We didn't realize at the time t.hat, as somewhat of a Catch-22, really just a legal technicality, that would change the, undel the Sign Code, what this building would be allowed t.o have, and it was always designed, always envisioned, that there would be a pylon sign in front, and it was on the plan, it was on the plan that was approved, and that doesn't mean that we applied for a sign permit for the pylon sign. We didn't. It was just always the intention, and that's why it was shown to the Zoning Board and the Planning Board, and when it was applied, it was certainly an out parcel, if you will, a separate parcel, just like the Blockbl..Jster buildiílg is; a s;eparate parcel, and the Troy Savings E~ank.. That '~3 sornev~fìat of arl equitable is:;sue, no'!::- a legal i~3sue. Obviously, now, it's one parcel, but the reason t.hat we feel that there needs to be a pylon sign is just, as stated in the application, this lS a visibility issue, just coming from the south. Dave's ta n pictures, which he can show you. D(.\VE BARL..O~,J MR. BARLOW-What I can do is run through these pictures. The first type written page is the summary of what's described in the picture. Briefly, the first photograph is taken right along t.he Route 9 frontage, on the north side of Taco Bell, and the important view to look at in that picture is where the Taco Bell building is placed, if you see that in the corner of the photograph, with relationship to the Troy Savings Bank and the Blockbuster building. Moving down to the next photograph, it's taken right from the travel lane on Route 9, which I must add I almost got killed doing that, and you can't see the Taco Bell building becausò of the Troy Savings Bank and the Blockbuster. I know the picture's a little ceiving because it's distort ,but I was kind of almost across the street from that liquor store. I think you can see the sign, just in the corner by Blockbuster. The third picture I kind went. right across the street and I took it up F:e,ute 9, and ag.';iin, '¡<'(At (:al1't ,ô;ee th<õ') Taco E~ell. It's; totally blocked by the Blockbuster and the Troy Savings Bank, and in the last picture, I just want to show the relationship of the other out ¡::oarcel buildirI9c:; that's; on the prope'rty, tf"le Troy Savings Bank and the Blockbuster. That's taken right from the Taco Bell drive through, and you can see their pylon signs right there. MR. LAPPER-What we're concerned about here, and we think is legitimate, is that we want cars that ar coming north on Glen Street t.o know that there's a Taco Bell there, so that they don't see it at the last minute, once they pass the Bank, and have to react quickly and move left. The other major argument here, which I think is real significant, is that, as Sue stated in her notes, Taco Bell could have a 100 square foot sign on the front facade of the building, and instead, as a compromise, and I believe as minimum relief, what's on the front of the building is a 17 square foot facade sign, which is far smaller than any other use around there, and something that is really tasteful and 3mall. Tliat, tog(2'th(,::r ,,~ith t. ;;:;LJìi t.hat'~;:; a.pplieci for, i,3.nd whether or not you, Dave has a drawing, nding upon how t.he Town counts it. It's either 49 feet or 52 feet, whether you count, it's curbed at t.he top, if you wanted to square it off and treat it as if it were a differ nt sign, it would come to 52, but that's what the County Planning Board discussed with us and what they were mentioning, that t called it a 49, but regardless, if the Town wants to call it 52. In any case, 52 and 17 would :3till be: far :3rnalleì- thari tl-,,:: 100 feet that':"~ allo,,~e)ci. ~,Je feel that the applicant is giving something up, the total square footage, in order to get the visibility from the south. - 53 - MR. CARVIN-Okay Anything else? MR. LAPPER-No. I think that's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. GREEN-In your pictures here, can you show me where the sIgn i s ~Jo i n9 to go;:' MR. BARLOW-See that's the sIgn symbol right there, where it's set back 25 feet from the property line. So, it would be right about there. One of the reasons it is 25 feet back is because we do have a sanitary sewer easement that runs across the front of the property, and we obviously can't put the sign structure within that easøment. MR. GREEN-Just as a point of reference, how far back, do you have any idea, that Blockbustør sign is? MR. BARLOW-That was, that's was it, Empirø Video, and I spot. the original sign location of, believø the sign is right in thø what ::3arnc' MR. GREEN-What is that distance? MR. LAPPER-It's probably on the site plan. MR. BARLOW-I have it on It's probably close to 25 the sIte plan, the t e("t . one in front of f¡,¡e. MR. GREEN-It's just about in line. MR. BARLOW-Almost in line with the Blockbuster. sign, you can see it in the picture, that's where The Blockbuster it is. MR. KARPELES-Where is the directional sign in this picture? MR. BARLOW-You can't see it. MF~. Cf~R\-/IN"'Oka/. MS. CIPPERLY-Here's some shocking news. I made a mistake. If they're going to be 25 feet from the property line, the normal SIze slgn allowed would be 64 square feet, if somebody were allowed a sign. In my notes, I said it was 90ing to be 15 feet back, and they're allowed 50 square feet. So the sign they're propOSln9 would be okay, Slze wise, at that distance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Unfortunately, we have the Area Variance. I clon't. see, .in the Area Variance, v,Jheì-e that i.¡a~3, a me:'r9i\î9 c)f the lots was a mandate or a qualification. MS. CIPPERLY-I asked for the Use Variance. I just didn't get it. MR. CARVIN-It's not essential. MS. CIPPERLY-I have the map from the previous variance. I just don't have the resolution. This was one parcel, with Taco Bell on it, and this was the Plaza parcel. That's why you asked to have the, if they were going to be trying to use the whole site, and there was a zone line going down the middle. MR. lAPPER-The reason to merge t.he parcels didn't have anything to do with losing the ability to put up t.he pylon sign. It was just in terms of traffic flow, connecting the two parcels in the back ~:;o that. vehicles could (?:cLt into the Plaza, and v~e fi9un3d that whole area, which I was there today, and it's really much safer, because we put in 9rassed islands t.hat. direct traffic from the back of the Taco Bell either to the Blockbuster or the Bank or back through the Plaza or over to the t.raffic light. - 54 - -- ~ir:;. C¡C'IF<VIN^Yes. I guess; in> point is that I think that IrJas; a compromise Of suggestion. I don't know who made it. I don't think it was something that we predicated our decision on, and I was on the Board, but I don't remembel-, I remember discussing some of it, but I don't thirlk it was as much horse trading as it was that, gee whiz, this is our pIal). I mean, it just makes more ~:~en~se " Mr:;. LAPPER^ras, but it didn't hava wasn't dona to eliminate a slgn. flow better. al'ìythi rig It ¡,'-!a2',; to do with signs. just done to make It it MR. CARVIN-Okay applicant? Okay. Any othef questions, gentlemen, of the I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Mr:;. CARVIN-Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we have one letter, addressed to the Zoning Board of (~I:)pea1::L "Dear Boar d i"I¿-;mber s: I a,m ~'Jr i ti ng in I' ega r ds to Sign Variance 25-1995 submitted by the Taco Bell Corporation. I feel that it is imperative that the standards concerning free standing signs in business complexes be upheld in order to insure fair competition among businesses. There are many buslnesses in similar circumstances to Taco Bell who would benefit from an addition of a free standing sign, mine being one. As you may VI may not know, I have appli in the past for a free standing sign on the property of Northgata Center so that my business would be sign-wise competitive to my neighbors: McDonalds, Mr. B, long John Silvers, Pizza Hut, Burger King, and Papa Glnos. In that appeal I was turned down because of my location in the shopping center. I would anticipate t.he same logic to prevail for the Taco Bell sign request. Sign regulation is a difficult job, at t, but t¡-"¡;s(,3sul ts of ::::;tr ict conforinance to the ordinance produces a more pleasing community for everyone and a level playing field for those in business. Sincerely, James P. Mathis 'v'iCE:' Pre,'::i nt r1~, l<>J Food:;:;, Inc." {md it also ha:3 i.'.\ ":<F~C" lOG:o in t upper right hand side. That's the only thing. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond to that letter. Certainly we'll agree in a level playing field, I think that it's distinguishable. However, based upon the specific land use here that, look at the ~(FC. Uppô¡- Clen S,tree-t, at that point, curves, so that when you're coming north or south, it's very visible, because the location of the KFC is sort of right in front of you. If you're heading towards lt, there's a big curve out by the Northway Plaza. So you can see it, in ôither direction, clearly, th,:;t tl" ('H,:;:<",::; a i<entuck'/ Fri. Chick,cn. Heì-e, v,¡e do ha\!e the issue that we've got the other buildings t.hat are, with a very small ~~;etback al()I'liJ Gl.en ~:;tì'eet, i3ncJ ()Uì' buil,:Jin,;¡, ¡,,¡hich has; -E\ substantial setback, and you don't see it until you're coming rL;iht upon it, when 'j',)u'rc corninG: north, and I think that'~3 the issue. Besides that, as a competitive issue, I'm sure he's not hdP~:'/ abcH,Ü, l'I-E\\/in:;J anotlH::í c:()[f¡petitor, but t}-'iat":3 not a land U~3e i:",~::¡Je . MR. CARVIN-Okay. No other correspondence? MR. THOMAS That's it. Mr:;. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant? t¡IR. GF~EEt\j-·I don't -'Ia\ie a quc'::::t..ior¡ c.f the applicant, but in tl-¡i:: notes some place, lt was noted that one other fastfood restaurant - 55 - within in the Plaza on Route 9 has written to oppose granting of this variance. Is that the same one? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. t"IF:. CPEEN-O kay' . MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just have a question, on this, the here, it said 704 Glen Street, and this one says 740. the actual address? old one [.Jhat i~:; MR. BARLOW-I belleve that Larvel was 704 at the time of the application. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and now we've got the 911. Okay correct? ~;() ì;.:lCJ is ~1P. LJ1PPEF~"~Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any comments? MP. THOMAS-I was looking for it, here, in the notes. Here it is right here. How would you respond to, since the applicant is primarily concerned about traffic coming from the Glens Falls direction being able to see the restaurant in time to make a decision to turn in, it seems an additional directional sign could be utilized at the Plaza entrance, just past Taco Bell, to indicate t.here is another opportunity to turn in for the restaurant access? That means at the stop light there. Instead of turning into the Taco Sell itself, take a left at into the Plaza and enter that way. MR. LAPPER-That is one of the ways that you can enter the Plaza, but that, if you looked at the sign board itself for Glen Square Plaza, it's, because it's tastefully done and just because it's the way John Nigro has done that Plaza, it's set back pretty far and the signs are very small, and under the Ordinance they have to be relatively small, but it's not something that's very visible. There are evergreens around it, which is nicer than just having it out there. It's on the NiMo easement. It's not something that's very visible, and I think it's still the case where you drive up and you don't see that sign board until you're right at the light. MS. CIPPERLY-I was talking about a directional sign, which means the kind that are at an entrance with an arrow. MP. LAPPER-Okay. Then that's a different issue. The directional sign right along Glen Street, right at the entrance, and the issue there, because it's not a pylon sign, during the day, at peaks hours, which for Glen Street it's morning and afternoon and at lunch time, it's very common to have two lanes of traffic coming south, so that you're not going to see something that's at this height, and we're not t.alking about something that's substantially, we're talking about a 20 foot pylon, which is right above the window of the restaurant. So t.his isn't something that's up in the air, above the restaurant, above the roof, but you won't see something that's this big if cars are in the south bound lane next to you and you're headed north bound. So we don't think that that'll accomplish the purpose for vi~:3ibility . MP. CARVIN-Any thoughts or comments? MR. THOMAS-Well, I've been going back and forth on this one, and right now I'm leaning towards a no, because of the, there are already too many signs along that road. It is visible, and even though, once you go past it, you can make a turn, a left turn into the Glen Square Plaza, at the light, and get right into Taco Bell. Now there are other signs out there. There are - 56 - directional signs out there to turn in there, and I think once you get past the Bank it becomes visible real quick, and if you"re in the outside lane there, or in the eastern lane, you're not going to have time to shoot ove) and get in there anyway, e'v'on if tl",(', ;;:;,i,g\ì was tl"lere. I cion't think,'/ou'd ha'v'e time to get OV8) , because the ot.her signs would be blocking it, the Blockbuster and, what was that other sign that was in there, that Blockbuster and the Bank sign would block it, so you wouldn't be able to shoot over into that turning lane. So, but I think once you've gone past it, you've gone past it. I don't think the sign would do that much good. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom, how about you? MR. FORD-Taco Bell is a 1 (:. () f r ¿j, fl C :"ì 1. f;~) <::: "';:' ~) -~l :::;tor(;c' . Taco Ee.L.l It's d Pepsico MR. BARLOW-It's a subsidiary, and this corpoT'at,e CJv,¡n :"tore .1.:,; ow)"¡ec': Cor¡::,oration. MR. FORD-It's not owned by lCe)';' MR. BARLOW-No. Taco Eell is a Pepsico subsidiary. not ,;} f r ,;:HIC I''', i se' . It's CO! por ate OI,-oJ ned . The: :::;tore is MR. FORD-I'd believe that, an additional freestanding sign on this; ~:;t'((')tch of Route "';J 'AJolÜd not be \Iisually beneficial. ()ther~:; have already been turned down for freestanding signs in that neighborhood. I believe it is self-created, or should have been considered earlier. It is not new, this issue of the signage there. I also have safety concern as we further visually impact drivers in this heavy traffic aroa. Variances have already been grEif/led to this applic¿¡nt's; F'roject, and I cJon't feel t¡''',a,t" ~'Je :::;h()u.lcl g'cant thi::3, anci I thilll<, it. wo;')uld be furtl"le)" ø:;;;tablishing a bad prec nt for signage. MR. KARPELES-I agree with t.hing L have to add is Blockbust.er sign. everything that's been said. I wish we could get rid The of only tl"lat MR. MENTER-I disagree. I see a huge difference between this project and some of the othe! ones, between the one that you mentioned, Red Lobster lS going to here eventually with the same request as KFC, this unit, even though it's tied in to the shopping center, which was as a matter of convenience and traffic flow is, or has its own ent)'ance. I mean, it has its own cuts, and even though that is ti to the shopping center, those are its cuts, and people pull in there, people are not going to pull in there to go into the Plaza. Thoy're going to pull in there to go to Taco Bell. It has its own entrance. KFC not and Red Lobster does not. They are truly Plaza, you know, units within tho::;;o plaza;;õ;. Tho only ~'Ja>" to ~J(':t t.here i.:;;; thro:::;.ugh the Plaza main entrance. To me, that's a very big difference between this and those. I n't see a big pcoblem with one and not the other, and I think that the variances that have already been given for t.1"¡is ¿;.:Ir¿" a:s rnucl", becdus;e of incomplete 0,- poor c),-dinances a;:;; the',' are special requests on the part of the applicant. I would be inclined to approve this because I think it is unique. I think it's a huge uniqueness to t other projects. MR. GREEN-I have to agree with Dave. I think it's a separate entity, and the fact that it sit back, just looking at these p ic:tu ," es, a nd I' \/e dr i \/(,3 n u¡:,:, ,3, \'1,:::1 ':::!o~...¡ n t hr c,ugh t her e a coup leaf different ways just to look at this, and it's, once you get in front of it, it's quite visible that it's there, but I would tend to go ahead and approve it. ~m . 1_¡c·~PPEF\-'1'1r. minimum, and to the ßC)ðl"d, tllere p'/ 1 0 n :'3 1 ',;¡ n, and Chairman, in order to request t.he absolute hopefully satisfy some of the concerns raised i:::; a 30 foot :3i9n, ¡..)hich 1::;; really srna,ll for a Dave has a drawing of that, that we would offer - 57 - to reduce the 50 foot request to a 30 square foot request. We feel that we need, for visibility and safety, to just have people, before they get right up to the building, to be able to know that there's a Taco Bell t.here, and perhaps that would sway some of the members, if we just reduced it to the absolute smallest that there is. It's the same ign, but just the 30 square foot, which would be less of a visual impact to anything on tl''',e '(oad. MR. CARVIN-How high would this sign be? MR. LAPPER-What we've requested is 20 feet, which lS right above the) I;Ji ndolt'Js;. MR. BARLOW-The t.op of the building, it's just at the top of the builc1ins;¡. MR. LAPPER-Below the top of the building. MR. BARLOW-The building is 17 feet. The top of the slgn will be 20 feet. MR. LAPPER-We could reduce it to 17 feet, as well. would be at the top of the building, and reduce the ~,;quaJe feet. So trlat it sign to 30 MS. CIPPERLY-What's the reason for having it match the height of the building? MR. BARLOW-Similar to the Troy Savings Bank and the Blockbuster. Their signs are equivalent to the top of their building. MS. CIPPERLY-It seems like if yours are the same height as theirs, yours are more likely to be blocked. It seems like maybe even bringing it down below there might be more visible to a. MR. BARLOW-The Troy sign's actually a than ours. Theirs is right in front of we're far enough from Blockbuster. little bit further back the building. We think MR. GREEN-It looks as though that Blockbuster is up even higher than their building. MR. LAPPER-That's a much, much, much larger sign than what we're talking about, because they were grandfathered. MR. GREEN-Am I correct in assuming that if this was still a separate parcel, you wouldn't need the variance? MR. LAPPER-Right, and we could have up to 100 feet. have 64 feet for the pylon sign. I,.J·s' coulcJ MS. CIPPERLY-At the 25 foot distance from the property line, they could have a 64 square foot sign. MR. LAPPER-And we could still have 100 feet on the facade. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. LAPPER-Rather than the 17 that we're requesting. MR. GREEN-Gee, I think they're going all out here for us. I can't see any problem with this at. all. MR. THOMAS-Well, I llke the idea of the smaller sign and the ::;;ho'(ter p'llon. t·'IF~. GREEt",·"(e~:;. MR. LAP PER-We were hoping you would. - 58 - 1'1F'(. FOF<D....ln fì"ee~3tandi.nu fairness t.o some siÇin, per-i.od. of t. he 01.:, her :,3 , I don't IrJ¿:¡nt a MR. THOMAS-Do you t.hink you could make it shorter than 17 feet? I mean, you know, the average car height is, what, five feet, if you're looking over t.he top of that, from a three foot. i"IF:. Ef~F:UJl"'·:r cc,u I d br i ng it ck:OLo-,Jl , F'r obab 1/, to I'd have to go back to the sign manufacturer. it's feasible below 15 feet. 15 feet, and then I don't kno~'¡ if MR. LAPPER-We'd really rat. r visit)ilitj' iSSlJ8. not gC) be.1 O]¡~J :15 f ee-t , f () 'j" t :"" (-; MR. CARVIN-I guess my feeling is that this visibility issue lS, as far as I'm, you know, K-Mart comes in and says they need the visibility and they're putting a 96,000 square foot, and like nobody knows what K-Mart is, and Wal-Mart comes in, and with t 1'''1 e:,;:;e nat.ional chains, they all IrJònt \/isibility, and in Glens Falls, belie....ie me, p<sc,plo are goin~~ì 1:.0 find Taco Dell, 'o.Jhether you're in a corner or not., and I really don't think visibility 1~:;, on tl"lat. ::;tr,:?:tcl'¡ of ther MR. LAPPER-But the 17 foot issue lS really significant. I mean, that i~;~ ()ne :':;rnall ::3i9n. YOU Ci:.,n't look an}"'Jher"o and find a 17 square foot si9n, and we feel that we really have compromi t make it look tasteful and not ostentatious and not jump out at you, and 17 plus 30 ther, compared to the 100, and we could t.ake t.he 17 foot do,,~n, put up a 100 tomorrow, if v~e felt there was a real visibility issue, if that's all we got and that's all we had, it would be 100, and we're buffering, or requesting, respectfully, 30 plus 17, which would be 47 feet combined. I mean, you're not talking about excess signage here. MR. CARVIN-All right. How about the Glen Square? Hre you going to be included on that also? MR. LAPPER-No, because t.hat's building is, as Dave said. sepal-ate CU)"J) ~:u·t~ r·eall'l sel::;,arat.e l'~e " '," (,: r ¡sa 11)/ .'3 fr Oill IrJher e our sepa¡-ate access, i'1P. the BARLOW-Blockbuster and Troy Glen Square sign either. 'Sa\i i n::;.¡~; Bank are not included on MR. CARVIN-But t y're not part of L parcel, are they? t1R. LAPPEp·,·I,!,,). MS. CIPPERLY-The dimensions f01 a directional type sign, they can bi3 as ¡'Iigh i3~3 ~!3L< fe,,::;t, anc! f()ul' :3Ql,ki'r¿S' 'l'eet, .:.~nd the/ can eithe'í- be illuminated or not. Shop N' Save has t.hose. They sit, they're fairly visible at their entrance. Dave made an interesting point that I hadll't really thought about, but I don't know what terminas whet.her something's part of a plaza, because t.his, tf-"¡e fact that'/ou Ilal/-2 }'OUI OI"JII entrance, but }'ou're on tf-"Ie same par cc;: 1 . MR. MENTER-Yes. I think :,;;1,911, over b)/, bot'o.Jeerl Tro) what's confusing '3n,::;! bloci.bu~;:;ter. lS tl'le' Glen S,quare MR. LAPPER-That is confusing because t.hat's not where the Plaza is or anything else. 1'1R . ~1Ei'HEF<w I ripS a n , practical matter. I don't L_. .~." , j t,:;,,¡\.· a,ny 101./0 for ~:;i9rí:':;, LìLJ.t a:::s 3. MR. KARPELES Well you're going to have piles of them, E! !=) I:) r .:) \/ f.:3: t. f"¡ i ~;~~ ~ if/au MS. CIPPERLY-On the other hand, what if somebody like Red Lobster - 59 - had said, well, what if they had an entrance. They're still part of the Plaza. MR. CAF<VIN-I think t.he guy from the Kentucky Fried Chicken IS ~JoirL~J to ha\/e a real good argument. MR. THOMAS-He's got visibility both ways. MR. MENTER-He's got visibility, plus the entrance is the Plaza 8nt,í a nce . MR. CARVIN-Yes. He's also got a curb cut on the back, there. MR. FORD-But look at how far back from the road he is. i'1R. UiF;VI 1'+-t,.Je 1 1 , thil'ìk he might. ~,Jasn 't too long the Plaza sign. I mean, if anybody's got a visibility, I would Especially with these Plaza signs. I mean, it ago when you couldn't even have your business on RL;¡ht? MS. CIPPERLY-But I drove this, also, several times, and you can't see Taco Bell, as you're coming, in fact the flags that are on top of Taco Bell actually look like they're on top of the Bank, until you get to a certain point, but I'm still not sure that a sign set back from the road, I'm not sure that by the time you see it it would still give you time to react and go in that Taco Bell driveway, when there's a second one that you can also access it fì-orn. That's part of UlL pì-()blern is that }"ou've got a signalized intersection after you've seen Taco Bell. That's pI' obabl y a safe'," place to go and m¿'J. ke a I eft tur n . MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think I have to agree with Tom and maybe Bob here, I mean, as far as these freestanding signs, I think we're going to just have a slew of them, and I think visibility is, in recognition of where these places arc, it'L just not going to be a problem. I mean, I've had, quite lIterally, dozens of people come up and already tell me, I mean, they knew about where Taco Bell is. I mean, it's not gOlng to be a recognition problem whatsoever. MR. LAPPER-Certainly as a resident of Queensbury and also not a fan of so many signs, sensitive to that, we feel that this is distinguishable, for the size and the location of the building, and I certainly don't want to see pylon signs allover the place. We think this is a special case. I guess what I'm wondering, because you have, it seems that the Board is split three, three, and with one member out tonight, I wonder if it might be appropriate to table this, even though I don't want to bother you (lo~;::t ¡'Jorel) agairl. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know. ~;:;tri3.ight in ()Uì- mi nel2:: heì-e. I think we ought to get it i'1R. 1'1EI'HER---Yes. It could be a long time before ~'Je have sô\/erl h(9:ìNe .. MR. CARVIN-I don't think that's going to be a situation that's going to change. I'm not even sure if we've got three, three. I guess, Chris, are you? MR. THOMAS-No, I'm still flip flopping. MR. CARVIN-I guess we're going to have to make a decision hôrô, I 9ue~;:::::; . MR. GREEN-My only thought is, as they said, if they don't get their big sign out in front, what is their alternative? Go for the 100 foot on the front of the building, I think that's going to look just, really bad, and they can do that with no problem, and I ju::st, I l.->JOuld rather see a rnore tasteful sign t.hat, - 60 - granted, you know, nobody wants about other variances that ve ì"eque~:~t~;:; . m()(,') sis.;¡n~~;, but" n bef or e l"OU ancJ I don't knc'H in the pas;t, or ~1F< . The>" CARVIN-Signs, historically, have been like are all extremely difficult to cllmb over. pull i n9 tc",eth.. MR. GREEN-I just think that, you know, as you said, with its own entrance, and it does, you knoH, t.hey're back the 75 feet, Hhich is farther than the rest of them, and they tried to accommodate a~:; b(~st t.he)' '':;,3n. I jU~3t, 1: 'e! hate to ~::;ee i.'.\ groi.',t big, huge: lCI foot by 10 foot thing moun on the front of it. MS. CIPPERLY Another way to look at this, they just opened this week, right? We don't really know whether it's a problem yet or not. The visibility, if people keep comins.;¡ into Taco Bell and saying, 1 feally didn't see you until 1 was past, or if they n't come in and business seems to be worse than expected, maybe then you could say there's a problem. So, I don't know if thcne'~~ a 1:)1" lc;,m ji':;t. It':::; kine! c·f like ~0hat Fred ~'.)as; ~;:;a}'in:J. MR. KARPELES-They're always going to percelve that t.hey could do br?ttc:ì" if t.1'iC:;y had a ShFi out t ¡"e'. r"1R. C¡,~F:\/II\¡"","(es.. 1 mean, I;J!"I.C],t t ,^e? I rrlean~ gee, we W0\lt. tl~)W that just went forever. ut Brown's Motel up the road ma ny' mc.'et. i n9S 0 \1 t ha t . I mea n " MS. CIPPERLY-I'm just saying that. at some point in t.he future. MR. CARVIN-Did he even open up? the sign put. him out? Is he still in business? Did MS. CIPPERLY-I think he did submit his sign application. MR. LAPPER-As sensitive as signs are, you've probably never seen somebody come in asking for 17 and 30, when they can get 100. 1 mean. I think that. this is a reasonable case. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the 100 foot sign wouldr¡'t solve your problem, ('"it.her. MR. LAPPER-We don't think it would solve au¡- problem, and I'm not telling you or threatening you at all that that's Hhat. they're going to do, although we assume that if they don't get this, they're going to want something bigger than the 17 they have on the front. That was certainly why they picked 17, the smallest pO~;3sible sign. MR. CARVIN Okay (;0'(( ect? I t. ' ~~~ :;10 1. fì:9 t I,~) 2~:) f eot.. I, r, . I~;:; that !'1P. I._(:,PPEF: Ye~:;.. MR. BARLOW You've got the square footage of that small sign. I think it's 30.9, including the (lost Hords) square it off. MR.. CARVIN-So, what, 17 feet high? MR. KARPELES-Fifteen. MR. LAPPER-Fifteen. MR. CARVIN-And you will not be on the Glen Square freestanding ~3.i ,,:;¡ Ii . MP. LAPPER-That's right. MR. CARVIN-And you don't t.hink an addItlonal directional sIgn '" ,i 1.1. so 1. "Je )-'uu ì" pr ob 1 eli'l? - 61 - ¡ViF:. U'iPPEF:-"No. MR. THOMAS-I don't remember requiring that to be part of the parcel. I don't remember asking that to be part of the Glen Square parcel, when we did the variance. M'" .:::J " CIPPERLY-I've looked it up several times now. MR. THOMAS-Because that was a separate parcel, in the appllcatlon here it says that the Zoning Board required us, or required the owner, to make it part of the Glen Square Plaza. MR. CARVIN-No, that's what I'm saying. MS. CIPPERLY-I think it required it to merge it with that. MR. CARVIN-I think we indicated that they would. I suspect that it was worded along the lines that the applicant has agreed, or has indicated that they were going to merge it. I don't think it "Ja~;, thi.:3 IrJaS somethi ng that they requested. MS. CIPPERLY-It was a requirement, and I've discussed that with John, too, and he agreed that that was what that meant. MR. CARVIN-I mean, because t.heir site plan would indicate that it was an unmanageable lot. So it would make more sense to include it. I t.ried to get a copy of the Use Variance and all we got was the Area, and it's not part of the Area Variance, but I don't know if it would be, but I don't think that that's an issue. I think that that v.,¡as a suggestion that thei br()ught in, and th¡,:;n we just reacted to it. I mean, if I'm wrong on that, please co'rrect, me. I'm. L,¡'~'iPPER"'Sue arid Jirn have n reminding rfle for a IrJld":Lle that that's something that we'd agreed to, and I've been under the impression that we'd agreed to it. I don't think the suggestion came from us, but I'd have to look at the minutes and (lost IrJord) . MR. CARVIN-I mean, I don't know if there was any discussion of signs during the conversation or not. MS. CIPPERLY-It didn't pertain t.o signs. It was just that that was such a small parcel, oddly shaped, and they just wanted to get it somewhere where it was part of something bigger. MR. LAPPER-I think that's the issue. This lS (lost words) as a freestanding parcel with its own access. MR. CARVIN-Well, as I remember it, I had a concern of Taco Bells going allover town because, I think YOU were in here for two or three Use Variances across the street. MR. LAPPER-Well, we had looked to put it across the street, and they liked this site better. MR. CARVIN-I remember that. í'1R. ¿,>nd L..¡6¡PPER""'But.. wit.h this, in both cases. I think we, with the Red Lobster that my clients have cleaned up eyesores, really. MR. CARVIN-Not a problem. I think that if any of the comments that I've heard throughout town, they've all been positive. Everybody has just remarked what kind of a revitalization that Plaza has had. I don't have a problem from the good neighbor type of thing. I just have a problem with signs in general. MR. FORD-If you enjoy hearing sign variances, then we ought to approve it, but I don't. - 62 - MR. CARVIN-Nothing against national chains or that but they have such high power advertising and name recognition, that people seek them out. t)/pe of thing, ~~;o forth, anc:! MR. LAPPER-They're so small, tiny signs. MR. FORD-If they're not so tiny, they don't require a variance. MR. THOMAS-What I'm kicking around is the 100 square foot sign on the building, versus two small ones. MR. CARVIN I think that that's, I think if they were to do that t y would perfectly within their rights, but I think they'd probably subject themselves to the c1iticism that Blockbuster has had. I think it would probably general negative impact, more than positi\/e. i'1S . foot CIPPERLY-I think it would sign on that facade. [)e; difficult to fit a 100 square MR. LAPPER-I don't think they'll go 100 feet, but I don't think t!'le'l'll bc? ~3ati~:3fi.ect ",¡it!', ()!¡i0 17 foot ::;ign as their wholc: Si:,;:iì package. That's just unreasonably small. The reason t.hat the 17 is up, ordinarily, they would have waited, but since this didn't get in for last month, t.hey had to get ready to open, t )/ weren't going to put something big and then change it. I mean, they put what they hoped to get, hoping that they'd get the pylon. So they put their small 17 foot sign in. 50 they'd have something to open. MR. CARVIN-And I'm looking on the other side don't see, really, any, I'm trying to f:r~3e;sta,n(li iÎ\$J ~~~.l,:9n::;" T ~:/ all. s;,:::'c~rn t.o I:)(::~ on literall)'. of the street. I \/i'ôõ;ualize other t t side, quite 1"1S. that C I PPEF\L. Y "'T rle r ,:3 st. r <:tct, . ¿i'(' C' :::;OHle .i. n frofit of tr'lG Sherwin Williams, MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's what I'm signs are on that side of the Sherwin Williams is on that si :saylng. '( ()¿icJ, ()r\ , Y' i ::~J r't tJ ? (:,¡n'l of the the freestanding Ti,3CO 13e11 ~;idi'? MR. KARPELE5-No. They're on the other si MS. CIPPERLY-Across the street. ¡"'IF:. r/IENTER'-C;reen~::; and CUi" L()w C:'aì"¡::'et.. MR. CARVIN-Is that a freestanding or is that attached to the roof ? MR. KARPELES-Well, t t's a pol 1'1':'3. CIF'PEf?L'Y TI¡eri::; "::;; one that , Ii . three businesses on it. 1'1 F1. Ci F~ E E: j",l T e '~:; a I]u,ic!': L, L-<JT¡ t re in the back, too. MR. MENTER-Yes. You've got 0uick Lube l\l the back and you've got ¡:;Uy L_o~'.i C.a r ¡:::·et . 1'1FL Cf:~\F~VII",~·-I,..J'ell, I 9ue:~:;s I L-<JÌll ,:;¡d.>3ftôín ¿¡ ¡notion, try to put it tC) t'.)O(J:; I'··¡(;. r f:;: ~ MR. MENTER-All right. Let m"C' . , 9 l'v'Co' 11~, a L-<Jhac k, then. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE CORPORATION, Introduced by David adoption, seconded by William Green: NO. I"!¿';nter 25-1995 L-<Jho moved TACO for BELL i t~~ For 740 Glen Street. Proposal is to install a ~~ square foot - 63 - sign, freestanding sign. As a condition of the Use Variance No. 12-1994, subject property is part of the Glen Square business complex and is therefore entitled to one wall sign of up to 100 square feet, per Section 140-6. Applicant wishes to install freestanding 33 square foot sign, in addition to this wall sign and, therefore, seeks relief from this Section. The applicant stands to benefit, due to increased visibility, particularly from the south, where the visibility is limited due to the fact that the building is set back further from the road than the buildings immediately to the south of it, possibly creating a hazardous situation for those turning left into the lot. There do not appear to be any adverse effects on the community or the neighborhood, because the size of the sign lS, the size of the proposed sign is minimal, at 33 square feet. It fits in with the neighborhood, and would certainly not change the character of t.he al-aa at all~ 'r1161-e do Il0t appear to be any -feasible alternatives, as the building is set so far back that any wall signage would not achieve the desired results. The difficulty also does not appear t.o be self-created, as t.his building was merged with the Glen Square Plaza, as a matter of traffic flow convenience, and was unrelated to signage. The fact that Taco Bell is designed with its own entrance and egress on Route 9 makes it unique as a Plaza restaurant. Taco Bell has also agreed to limit their wall signage to the current 16.9 square foot sign on the front of the building, has agreed not to utilize the Glen Square Plaza sign for any additional signage, and will locate their 33 square foot pylon sign 25 feet back from the property line. They've also agreed to a 15 foot maximum height on the 33 foot pylon sign. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote· MR. CARVIN-Can I Just stop you for a second? What is the wall sign r igr'lt now? MR. BARLOW-Seventeen feet exactly. MS. CIPPERLY-Your application says 24 square feet for the wall ~31.gn'::; . MR. BARLOW-And I think t.hey had three of them in the initial E:l.pplication. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. BARLOW-Sixteen point nine. MR. CARVIN-Why don't we limit it to that. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin ABSENT: Mr. Maresco MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that's a three, three. That's a which, in essence, constitutes a denial. I will another, I don't know if anybody's going to have a heart, if there's anything, or if we're just adamantly posit.iori::;; . n() dC:t,.i(;n 5 onteì- ta i n chang,,; ()f ~;;;et in \)ur MR. KARPELES-I'm adamant. MR. FORD-I wouldn't anticipate changing. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just don't, it's my voto, I guess. I'm not comfortable with this particular situation. I don't think the benefit to the applicant, as far as the visibility, has been substantiated, and I don't. think it's a real problem. I think that it can be addressed by additional directional signs. I - 64 - ---" think that would alleviate that particular situation. I appreciate what Taco Bell has proposed to do, by lowering it and making it smaller, but I also think that they have an opportunity and would have an opportunity, or could have an opportunity to be included on the Glen Square freestanding sign, if they felt that this visibility was going to be a problem, and I do think that if we were to grant this, that. we would be setting a precedent, that it, ultimately, could come back to create some very undesirable :,,;ituat,ions in the TOI,>HI.':;O I ;;'Jues::,; I'iil prett)... adarnant in my position on freestanding signs. We have a three. three vote. I guess that's a no decision, right? I suspect t.hat if we move for denial, I don't know if we would get a, are the pros as set as t 1'1 e n ,,-.¡ >' S;;' MR. THOMAS-I think you're right at a three, three split. I don't think )"()u'rc" gOlng to:) ~~;¡(;t it. changed. ¡'iR. C¡;f~VIi'\lwI goi (IJ to 9<,:;t 9ue~ss I,>Je cou 1 d a Se\/8, nt h memLH?r t,a.ble it, but I don't think 1~.Je' ''( 8 MR. LAPPER-We would be months, when there was a willing to come back in a couple of seventh lilc-:'mber, and take our ::;hot at, it.. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, are you requestlng a tabling, are you? 1'1F\. L_/~PF'Ef?·,-"{e:;;;. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I couple, three months, don't i f'/ou ¡""j a \j ;¿~ ,:3. ~<Ja nt to problem tabling this for break the tie, as it were. a MR. LAPPER-We would our up with some additional opportunity t.o, and maybe we could come compromise, at that point.. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do we sure of Roberts Rules. have to rescind anythin9, here? I'm not MS. CIPPERLY-No. You don't. I asked Paul that before. MR. FORD-Can you table somethin9 you've already voted on? MR. CARVIN-Well, it's a no action. ¡VIS. CIPPERI_"(--l,Jherl 1:.heì·e'~3 ,,',\ riO ,3ction, 1.:::10(1'1:. belie:\/e thi3re' 1:3 a re~:;olution . MR. LAPPER We would just request to resubmit when there's a full E;()d r (J .. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we have a tabling time frame, normally, of 60 days. I'd be more than willing to table it for the 60 days, but we would have to readdress it, or you'd have to apply f 0';' a not her e:< t.e n:3 ion. 0 >' Doe::;; a n/bod/ ha\/() i.,;\ pr ob 1 ern VJ i t I", t r'l .3.t ? MR. FORD-No, pvr there arE times where we don't know whether we've got a full Board unt.il we sit down here. 50 we're going to put it on t.he calendar, and if there are six of us, we dor¡'t have itH MR. CARVIN-Well, if he's not on July or August, then he has to approve, you know, it has to be properly noticed, or applied for. In other words, you just can't come in the day before the meeting a nel ~:;a<,/, I V¡.'!, nt to be, 0 n t ¡'Ii,;; as)<~llcld. MR. FORD-I understand that. We can have him if we still don't have seven members, do we Lirn8:? I::, that the understandin,;,¡:' on the agenda, but not hear it at that t'lf\. KARP[LE5--Well,:;/ou rnioht ha\le :;;;1,;'1. different member"3. one member different mi9ht make the difference. ... 65 - MS. CIPPERLY-The other option is to allow them they have a significantly different application. t.o come back, if "{()U ca n . MR. LAPPER-I don't think there's much more we can give here, but we'll certainly go home and consider it. MS. CIPPERLY-As you said, you don't really know, if that's the issue, how many Board members there are. MR. CARVIN-If we have Tony, if he should come back. We don't know the status of Tony. He certainly would have to be brought up to speed on it, and if we have a new member, then they would have to be brought up to speed. So it's just not a matter of bringing on the seventh member and moving down the line. MS. CIPPERLY-So as it stands right now, I believe you have a no decision, which is a denial. So how can you table something? MR. CARVIN-You'd have to get a unanimous vote to rescind it, I 9ues::::> ,. MR. FORD-Isn't there some other way of reapplying? MR. lAPPER-I guess I would say that we would try to reserve our right to table when we requested that, even though therc wasn't seven members before the vote, perhaps that would sway the Board in our direction. We're just, we would like an opportunity to present it to a full Board, if that's possible at this point. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm trying to recall a discussion that I've had with Paul Dusek about no action votes and whether they had to be rescinded, and I believe, and maybe you can help, Jon, that where thel-e's a, I believe he said tflat w:181-e tllsre is no action, ttlat there's nothing to rescind, but he's on vacation. MR. CARVIN-Well, technically, we have 30 days to make a motion. That's always bothered me about the no action. I mean, it's a no action, but do we still have 30 days to make an action? At this point, we haven't approved it and we haven't denied it, but by not approving it, in e~:;sence, v~e ª-.'C..§. den/ing it. MR. MENTER-Well, we're denying it in that it can't happen. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. MENTER-We're not denying it in the final sense. MS. CIPPERlY-I think two months from now, motion. if there were to be another motion on it, you don't necessarily have to rescind this 1'1R. i'1ENTER"~ If we did that right now, it or denied it, we if we had a motion right wouldn't have to address now, and passed l>Jhe're l>Je are. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I almost think, because we have a no action, we can table this, for at least 60 days, to get clarification and legal counsel, if we need it. If that's the pleasure of the Board, then I think I would move that we table. MO~ION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-1995 TACO BELL CORPORATION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by F<or);;;;.;rt.. ¡<a'(ì=,.¿jle::::;: I would move t.hat we table this for a maximum of 60 days, allowing the Board an opportunity to perhaps address the issue on a more fuller basis, and also to allow the applicant an opportunity to explore other feasible alternatives, and to get a legal opinion from the Town Attorney as to the uniqueness of this particular situation. - 66 - '- - Dul'/ ado¡::·!::, this 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr.. Green, Mr. Menter, t"1r. Car'.} i n l'iOES: i'''tr. FOI d ABSENT: Mr. Maresco MR. CARVIN-I guess we're tabled. MR. LAPPER-Thanks for your patience. MR. CARVIN-Okay, A couple of items. CORRECTION OF MINUTES February 15, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE Introduced by Thomas Fre;d C-:arvin: THE MINLJTE.S F'orci \.Jhe· rno'.j OF FEBRUARY 15, 1995 AS IS, for its adoption, seconded by i)u 1/ ad this 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin 1"iOE":, : I"~ONE AE~'::r(\It'IED:: t'1r. Grc,'en ABSENT: Mr. Maresco February 22, 1995: Page ~¿, middle of page, Mr. Carvin, if there's going to be a second bath in the house how are we going to get tl",e fluent up th;¿~ Iii II , in:3ert "ho!;J"; Page 33, l1¡iddle of page, Mr. Carvin, well I guess the only question that L have to that is the garage connection is that at the top of the hill or at the, sib bottom, not top, Page 34, it should indicate that the, Mr. Cushing's are Mr. S. Cushing and not Mr. J. Cushing, ause L re were two Cushings here that evening, sib Scott Cushing; Page 35, Mrs. Cushing, no, you didn't tell us, but we asked what the building was. and that's what we were told, and thc"n "was that was" s,/b taken ,:out, it s~hould read, \.Jhat w;;: v~ere told, she was going to build there because she didn't want to li'.jo in tho little h()u~3<-:"; Pdg,;} 3'f, sp"311ing is incorì"ect for ¡Vir. BarIlia LaBo1-e, sib LaBour; G\age ~.4, toward bottom, secof,d M1'·~ Carvin up from the top, thoy're saying that it's going to be used for the kids, the grand kids, temporary, not permanent, omit the won::! "not"; r'a~;H'3 46, t1ì" , I)u:ë;¡d", \<.J",:11" I gUØS:,3 the onl/, the \..;or.::J "que¿:;tion" :::;hould be omitted,:s T gu.e:3S the only I.-Ja'/ '/OU could answer that is possibly; and later on in his testimony, it certainly within the jurisdiction of this Board to decide, take out "whether or not", sib this Board to decide if, after you've reviewed the Ordinance MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 1995 AS AMENDED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who mov for its adoption, seconded by Chris; Tr',oma~;;: Duly adopted t.his 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: I'YYE:S· t''ìr. Tlìorna:;õ;, t1ì". t1en!::.er, t,'!ì" C:,':H'./ i (I (JOE::;): j',10r',IE ABSTAINE:D: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Karpales ABSENT: Mr. Maresco - 67 - ~/ March 15, 1995: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT Introduced by Fred F;obert Karpeles: THE MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 1995 Carvin who moved for its adoption. AS PRINTED, ~~8c()rlde,;j t),>/ Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin !\!OES :: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Green ABSENT: Mr. Maresco April 19, 1995: NONE ~OTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 1995, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin I\IOE~ ':;;; : ¡\IONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford, Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Maresco March 22, 1995: Page 14, Mr. Carvin, first third of the way down, you gentlemen can come up with the, sib "Rube" Goldberg solution; Page 28, Mr. Carvin, the lost word the modification of, :3/'b "\/iewing" portals; Pa:~Je 52, Mr. Car....,.in, dOI.--Jn tovJarci bottom, I think that just because Jim Martin says something can proceed or that a building permit is issued is not point blank authorization "nor", does not necessarily make a wrong or a right; MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 1995 AS AMENDED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thoma:';; F 0)" d: Duly adopted t.his 28th day of June, 1995, by t.he following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ford. 1'1'1". Car\/in NOES: NOt'IE ABSTAINED: Mr. Green ABSENT: Mr. Maresco MR. CARVIN-Okay. The other issue, as I said, lS a Vice Chairman, and I would open the floor for nominations. MR. GREEN-Well, just in my few short months, I feel that I could recommend Mr. Ford, who seems to be quite artlculate and understands things quite clearly most times. I would feel comfortable with him filling in in your absence. MR. KARPELES-I think that's a good nomination. MOTION THAT THOMAS FORD BE THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZON.ING BOARD OF APPEALS IN THE CHAIRMAN'S ABSENCE, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption. seconded by Robert ~~a>(peles: - 68 - -- - Duly adopted this 28th ~,' of Jun,,:, 19';,>5, b'/tl'''le follol.-'Jing \.iote: ¡:YYES: t'1r. t"lenter, 1'"11. Kar¡::,e.LC::ê3" IVlr. The'llIa:;:;, ¡'''If. GrCH"n" ~1r. Car\/i n NOE':::'; , ¡...IONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford ABSENT: Mr. Maresco On motion meeting was adjour RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 69 -