Loading...
1995-06-21 r, ',--, =FILE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 1995 INDEX Area Variance No. 21--1995 A)-ea Variance No. 31-1995 (Cont'd on Pg. 47 ) Area Variance No. 26-1995 Area Variance No. 32--1995 Area. Variance No. 28--1995 Area ~,Iar ia nce No. 24--1995 1'1.ilford Lester 1. Guido Passarelli 4. David L. Barnes, II 20. James G., Sr. & Peggy Fisher 23. Elizabeth Galloway 27. Pauline Palmer 40. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~,: :~, Iô'~t-' ~', I" ,"; \-,",', "nIf,C-',. ~, of 1J'~'- -' ,'... ¡;.J ~ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 1995 7:00 P.M. OF APPEALS ME¡VIBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY DAVID MENTER IrJILLIAM GREEN THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT KARPELES ANTHONY MARESCO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARVIN-I'm going to change the agenda going to move Area Variance No. 31-1995, the New Business, but we're going to hear Variance No. 21-1995 first. Okay. a little bit. We're Guido Passarelli, into the Milf Lester, Area AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1995 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA APA VOTE ONLY MILFORD LESTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 10 FT. BY 30 FT. ONE-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE 75-FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIRED IN SECTION 179-60, AS THE EXISTING HOUSE IS 55 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE. APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO CONVERT AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE INTO UTILITY SPACE AND ADD A BATH AND BEDROOM ABOVE IT. TOTAL ADDITIONAL GROSS FLOOR AREA PROPOSED IS 960 SQ. FT., EXISTING GROSS FLOOR AREA IS 1,536, SO RELIEF IS REQUIRED FROM SECTION 179-79, WHICH STATES THAT NO ENLARGEMENT OR REBUILDING SHALL EXCEED 50 PERCENT OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE ORIGINAL DWELLING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-15 CROSS REF. SPR 26-95 LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES SECTION 179-16C, 179-60(15C) MILFORD LESTER, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-I believe this was a tabling from the May 17th meeting, and I believe we tabled this because we referred this to the Planning Board to be lead agency on the SEQRA review, and as I read the Planning Board minutes, I guess there's no problem with the SEQRA. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. The SEQRA resolution is in the file. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we now can move ahead. Is anyone here for the applicant? MR. LESTER-Just me. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The last time Mr. Thomas was Menter, you were here. Okay. Chris, do you reading the minutes? not here, and, Mr. feel comfortable, MR. THOMAS-Yes. I read the minutes and I've read the application, and I feel comfortable in voting on this. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anyone have any questions of the applicant regarding this project? I know we kind of went through this last week, or last month I guess it was. I think I closed the public hearing. I will open up the public hearing for anyone wishing to - 1 - '-- be heard. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Thomas, if you'd read in the Planning Board application. MR. THOMAS-"RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MR. & MRS. MILFORD LESTER RESOLUTION NO.; 5-1995 INTRODUCED BY: George Stark WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS, in connection with the variance and site plan review for M/M Milford Lester, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for the Pu)"poses of SEQRA review, and BE I T FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows; 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action, as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect. BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 26-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, secondédby Robert Paling: - 2 - ......... --/ WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning MR. & MRS. MILFORD LESTER, and Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. " 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No, that does it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. sure that we are our calculations approximately 715 Just for clarification, I just want to make all on the same page here. It looks like, from from last month, that you will be adding square feet of new construction? MR. LESTER-All I know is that Mr. Parker worked it out, and it came to less than 50 percent, in the 20 area, rather than the 60 area, and I don't have his worksheet. I was hoping I wouldn't have to reconstruct it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I went through the numbers earlier today, and I pulled it off the minutes, and I came up with a figure of 715 out of 1536 square feet, and I just wanted to make sure that we were in agreement there. MR. LESTER-Right, instead of the 960. MR. CARVIN-Right. Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1995 MILFORD LESTER, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by - 3 - '--' Thomas Ford: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10 ft. by 30 ft., one story addition to an existing home which requires relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback required by Section 179-60. As this addition as proposed will be even with the current shoreline front of the preexisting nonconforming structure, I would grant relief of 20 feet from the 75 foot requirement. This relief would allow the applicant to match the current building line which architecturally would allow the applicant to increase and improve upon the existing living space, while at the same time have a minimal impact upon the lot. The applicant is also proposing to construct additional living space over an existing garage/utility room. The total new living space proposed by the applicant for all alterations will not exceed 750 square feet, which is less than the 50 percent total gross floor area of 1536 square feet. So relief from Section 179-79 is not needed. This is based on the fact that there will be no change in the status of the 9arage/utility area, as by example, it will not be converted into living area by the addition of insulation or heat, nor or any contemplated changes in the currently uninhabitable status of that area. By the granting of this relief, there would be no detrimental effects to the neighborhood or the community. There does not appear to be any other feasible alternatives which would be of a benefit to the applicant and at the same time not be a detriment to any nearby properties or the community. The desire for additional living space is a self created situation, but this is the minimum amount of relief needed when relative to the construction and type of existing structure. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Karpeles AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MOUNT ROYAL SHOPPING CENTER WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9 APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-72, WHICH REQUIRES AT LEAST FIFTY FEET AS A VEGETATED BUFFER ZONE FROM THE ADJOINING LOT LINE WHERE A COMMERCIAL ZONE ABUTS A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. PROPOSED BUFFER ZONE IS FIVE (5) TO TWENTY (20) FEET. APPLICANT WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION WITH APPROVAL OF AV 60-1993, WHICH SOUGHT A REDUCTION TO THIRTY (30) FEET FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF FIFTY (50). APPLICANT PROPOSES SITE PERMEABILITY OF TWENTY-TWO (22) PERCENT, SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-23, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, WHICH REQUIRES PERMEABILITY OF 30 PERCENT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 70-1-9 LOT SIZE: 5.25 ACRES SECTION 179-72, 179-23 HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-1995, Guido Passarelli, Meeting Date: June 21, 1995 "APPLICANT: Guido Passarelli PROJECT LOCATION: Mount Royal Plaza PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant applied for a reduction in the amount of permeable area and the width of the buffer zone required at the zoning boundary to the rear of the shopping center. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Where a commercial Zone abuts a residential zone, Section 179-72 requires at least 50 feet as a vegetated buffer zone, on each side of the zone line. Applicant was previously granted relief from this Section, with the approval of AV 60-1993, which proposed a reduction of the buffer zone to thirty (30) feet. *Note - A change to the Tax Map shows that the Sunset Motel claims to be the owner of the 40-foot wide strip known as Pine Drive, which runs behind the Passarelli property. Since this - 4 - --- '- property intervenes between the Passarelli property and the residential zone, the 50-foot buffer is no longer an issue, as the zone line would not be along the Passarelli lot line. The remainder of these notes will address only the permeability question. Section 179-23. Highway Commercial Zone. requires permeability of 30 percent. Applicant proposes site permeability of 22%. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to applicant: The applicant would not have to remove paved areas which contradict the Site Plan approved by the Planning Board on August 30, 1993. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant has not submitted any alternatives for providing additional permeable area,to replace the area taken away by overzealous paving. If the applicant strongly believes that the situation as constructed is necessary, he could investigate purchasing additional property from the adjacent parcels. particularly the Pine Drive section behind his property. 3. Is this relief substantial, relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is asking for a 27% reduction in the amount of permeable area. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? The permeability requirements were established in order to lessen the impacts associated with development. Even if stormwater runoff has been provided for. the purpose of permeable area is also to provide relief from paved and built areas by providing green space. Route 9 is a well-traveled road, this is a very visible parcel. and this area deserves to be treated carefully in terms of upholding development standards. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Yes. Mr. Passarelli had an approved Site Plan, a multitude of discussions with the Planning Board concerning his needs for the site. and did not follow through. PARCEL HISTORY: This project was the subject of Area Variance No. 60-1993, approved in July 1993 and Site Plan 32-93, approved in August 1993. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. SEQR: Unlisted. Short form EAF must be reviewed." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 14th day of June 1995, the above application for an Area Variance for permeability. 30 percent required; 22 percent proposed, and for ab~ffer zone on the west boundary,of less than '30 feet. 50 feet requ,ired, was reviewed and the following action was taken. RECOMMENDA~ION TO: Return. Comments: Since a majority vote could npt þe achieved. no action could be taken on this application. Since the Warren County Planning Bo.rd did not rescind their action of July 13. 1993, that recommendation still stands. A copy, 9iÏ, the mi nutes pertai ni,n9 to this application will be forwarded ~s soon as they are completed." Signed by C. Powell South, Vice Chairman. MR. CARVIN~Okay. Mr. Krantz? MR. KRANTZ-Good evening. To summarize (lost words) very quickly. First, as I think was made clear by Mr. Thomas when he read some of the papers, the only issue before us tonight is the permeability issue. The buffer zone issue is not a problem that needs any variance. MR. CARVIN-That's not the way L look at it. MS. CIPPERLY~That'show it appears, based on the new tax map. MR. KRANTZ-Right. When Mr. Passarelli got approval for the project, the plan was to have a 12 foot wide road servicing the back where the employees park and the deliveries are made, and that was great on paper, but it was apparent when the construction was actually up that that wasn'~ going to be wide enough for tractor trailers and other larger trucks and emergency vehicles. It was for that reason and that reason alone that Mr. Passarelli paved, primarily in the back which is where this difference is of eight percent, between the thirty and the twenty-two percent, paved the wider area. It's exactly for that - 5 - '--- reason. There's no ulterior motive. If anybody thinks there's an ulterior motive, we'd like to hear it, because there wasn't any. That was the sole reason. So, to get the CO, we found out we needed this permeability variance, and I spoke to John Goralski, and we filed the application for the permeability. He also told me that at that time, the two reasons for permeability was for surface water runoff and the second was the aesthetic aspect of it. We filed the application for the Zoning Variance, for the Area Variance setback, Permeability variance. We appeared before the Queensbury Beautification Committee and they approved the plans and made the recommendation unanimously, added also that, and I agree, that this is the nicest appearing shopping center that we have in Queensbury, unanimous approval. It went before the Warren County Planning Board, the champion of doom, of negativism and nay say, and even they couldn't find any fault with permeability. So they took no action on it. That's exactly where we are. As far as the two issues, the permeability, all the surface water runoff is contained on site, everything off the roof. The roof drains down to the site, and drywells in the back take anything that might be additional. There's no problem with surface water runoff at all. If anybody's been back there and you've looked, to see if there's any signs of rutting or channeling, there is none. As far a aesthetics, that's a legitimate concern. However, the permeability is not here. It's not in front. The only people who see it are the employees that park in the back and the delivery truck people. So, other than the aesthetic aspect to the few people who park in back and deliver the goods, this seems like the perfect case for the area variance. We have a strong existing buffer of trees here. As far as the note, the planning note about trying to pick this strip up, this kind of no man's land, we have been trying for three months to pick it up. It can't be built upon. It would just be additional buffer, and if Mr. Passarelli can get it, we're going to seek to do that. It's not clear whether Mr. Harris has valid record and title to it. He has taken the position that he does, but it's not clear to me. I haven't seen a deed yet that gives it to him. Plus, and Leon Steves pointed this out, the deed from the Harris brothers to Mr. Passarelli several years ago, when the title to this parcel was granted, the deed contains the following clause: "Together with all the right, title and interest, if any, of the parties of the first part", that would be the Harris brothers, "in or to any streets or roads abutting the above described premises, to the center line zero". So depending upon how far this got, how close it got to the street, it could be Mr. Passarelli already owns to the center portion, but we're not clear on that. We're not clear on who owns it, but Mr. Passarelli has been trying to pick it up. As I understand, from speaking with Mr. Passarelli, Mr. Harris who owns the Sunset cabins, he would like to own up to this southerly boundary, contiguous to his parcel, and Guido to own that strip of land. MS. CIPPERLY-So what you're saying is that right now that's in contention, that 40 foot wide strip? MR. KRANTZ-As I understand it, Mr. Harris filed an affidavit, back in the early 80's, one of them. I haven't seen the affidavit. I just saw the reference tonight, saying, gee, I think I own it. MR. MARTIN-I don't even think it's that old, Howard. I think he filed that affidavit October of '94 or '93, something like that. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-For the record, Jim, the record here, from the County, says he filed it in 1982. That may be a misprint, because it's dated '93, as to the change in the tax map. MS. CIPPERLY-The affidavit was from 1982, but for some reason the - 6 - ---- '- map change and the filing was done in '93. MR. STEVES-But my point with Howard is that if the Harris', in an affidavit dated 1982, felt they owned that strip, then when they conveyed to Guido, they conveyed half of it to Guido. So 20 feet of that 40 foot strip would be Guido's, by virtue of a deed quick claiming all right, title and interest to the center of the road abutting the property. MR. KRANTZ-No one's 100 percent sure, to be perfectly frank with you, about the ownership of that. I haven't researched it, but what is true is that, just as Mr. Harris would like to secure the title to that paper street behind his property, Mr. Passarelli wants to do the same behind his. MR. MARTIN-In personal conversations with Mr. Harris, his motivation in filing the affidavit was to protect against, from that ever being used as a public right-of-way, and he just is concerned about the area behind his establishment, is what he indicated to me. MS. CIPPERLY-The reason I ask is that, whether that belongs to Mr. Passarelli or Mr. Harris, has a great bearing on whether he needs that buffer variance or not, because that determines where the zone line goes, and whether Mr. Passarelli owns land contiguous to the zoning line or if some of Mr. Harris' is in between. So maybe that ought to get resolved before. MR. KRANTZ-That's going to be a long time coming. As a practical matter, what we're trying to do is acquire the title to it, to the piece that's contiguous to the Passarelli parcel. MR. MARTIN-I know, it's like a black hole, in terms of tax mapping. It hasn't had any taxes paid on it, I think, since the 1920's, and there's just been really nothing done with it since that time. It's just one of those. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, then there's the option of continuing with the buffer zone variance as if that weren't resolved yet, call it still a paper street with the zone line going down the middle of it, which is how the original variance was. MR. CARVIN-Well, lets tackle the permeability first, and then we'll do, lets do one of these at a time. Okay. How much are we talking, here, as far as actual space on permeability? Do yoU have any figures as far as the square footage? MR. KRANTZ-It's eight percent of whatever the site is. MR. STEVES-You're talking 21,000 square foot. MR. CARVIN-Total, you mean, that's what's on the lot, or is that how much you need? MR. STEVES-No. foot, and there talking 21,000 percent. In total, 30 percent would equal 71,000 square is presently over 50,000 square foot. So, we're square feet, or a reduction of 10 percent, 20 MR. MARTIN-So you're off by eight percent. MR. KRANTZ-Right, we are, and frankly. MR. CARVIN-Well, it doesn't look like that road would even pick up the eight percent, would it? I mean, even if you had it. So, I mean, we're still going to go around in a circle on that. MR. MARTIN-It would help, but it wouldn't compensate totally. MS. CIPPERLY-If you added the road onto the parcel, the - 7 - permeability would come out to about 25 percent, even with that parcel. MR. CARVIN-That's three percent. percent. So we're still off by five MR. STEVES-I think we're off in difference percentages. Sue, is that correct? MS. CIPPERLY-I would say 25, if he were able to pick up that entire 40 foot wide strip on the back. MR. CARVIN-Well, but at this point, he can't. I mean, according to the deed, you're saying that you'd be entitled to just half. MR. STEVES-Her 25 percent is based upon the shortage, not on the requirement. That's the trouble with percentages. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, that's why I wanted to get a figure. MS. CIPPERLY-What I did, Leon, was take the total squa1-e footage of the lot. MR. MARTIN-We figured the total square footage of that right-of- way would be 11,240 square feet. MR. STEVES-Agreed. MR. KRANTZ-To answer the other question, it's probably Just a misunderstanding. We're not sure whether Mr. Passarelli owns the mid point of Pine Drive, whether he has title to that or not. He's trying to obtain title to (lost words) of that street. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I'm going on the premise, okay at this point, forgetting about the road, you need to come up with, what, about 21,000 square feet of green space for permeability? MR. STEVES-That's right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-The other thing, it's a minor thing, but there was two approved planted islands at the end of these, this center island. They were, like, perpendicular at the ends of the island. There were some plantings to be done in there, and that has contributed in a minor way to the increase in impermeable area, because they were supposed to be planted. MR. KRANTZ-That's one of the items we're before the Planning Board next week. MR. CARVIN-You say the bulk of that 21,000 square feet is Just overzealous paving in the back? MR. KRANTZ-And to the northwest and the southwest. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-She had the other page here, Fred, that shows the driveway. MS. CIPPERLY-This is what it was supposed to be, a 12 foot wide road here, and instead this is paved all the way to the red line. MR. CARVIN-I see. So this was all going to be green area here? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. MARTIN-This particular project has a lot of history to it, it might be useful just touching on, in that this was an approved - 8 - ---..-' -- shopping cente)", I think, back in '90 or '91, and the approval lapsed. So he had to come back and reapply for site plan approval, and there was a lot of discussion about emergency vehicle access around the perimeter of this building, and at one time, there was discussion about trying to come down Pine Drive from Weeks Road, as an emergency access point to the rear. That's when Mr. Harris started to get nervous, and I think that was the motivating factor behind him filing his quick claim deed or his affidavit on that property, but that site plan that's approved was reviewed by the fire department, and it was something they thought they could supply coverage around the building. MR. FORD-They had no problem with access, using that plan? MR. MARTIN-Right. I plan file to that Marshal. think there's probably letters in the site effect, from the Fire Chief or the Fire MR. FORD-But this was in permeability requirement? compliance of the 30 percent MR. MARTIN-Right. It was close, but it was in compliance. MR. CARVIN-Yes. is probably more if they were to anybody looked at This was going to be all space here. Jim, this Planning Board stuff than it is ours, but what make two big huge planters right here? Has that, right in the center? MR. MARTIN-No, theye's other options, whatever the Board might consider. MR. CARVIN-Because, has any thought been given, I'm just bringing this out as a suggestion or something, in other words, I'm trying to come up with 21,000 square feet of green space or something that we can reduce this down, but originally this had called for planters, I think very similar to what went in over at K-Mart, if memory serves correct, right, these island planters? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And I know you were pretty adamant on K-Mart holding to their guns, here, but I do see that LaFlure, in his letter, indicated that painted would probably be okay, and I'm wondering if there was any way to build two very large, because of the snow. In other words, instead of having these smaller ones, but have a fairly decent size. MR. MARTIN-I agree with the applicant's observation that these are impractical for plowing patterns. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, if we could put a rectangle in. So, in other words, that there would be a plowing pattern. MR. KRANTZ-A lot of the difference in the 30 and the 22 percent, maybe not all, but I'm not, just off the top of my head, would be if a front end loader went in there and ripped up some of this asphalt, and just leave gravel. Would it be permeable then, Jim, gravel? MR. MARTIN-It's been a, basically a policy that gravel is not accepted, but then you get into coefficients of drainage and gravel and things like that. MR. MENTER-Policy versus practicality. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MENTER-Versus reality. - 9 - -..--/ MR. STEVES-One of the problems in widening this out is the parking, not only that, but the width, because you really need 20 feet for your parking and (lost words). MR. MARTIN-See, we foot deep parking aisle. have a 60 foot width here that reflects a 20 stall at either side, and the 20 foot drive MR. FORD-You wouldn't have to widen these, however, or put in that thing at the end, if you're going to be plowing, if we went back to the original design, which called for a driveway to go around there, which met with Fire Department approval. MR. MARTIN-It was approved. It wasn't the best. MR. CARVIN-The 12 foot, see, in other words, this was all going to remain green area and buffer, all through here, even down in here, and it looks like this got carried right out, all of this got blacktopped in. MR. KRANTZ-I don't think it's all of it. I think it's virtually all of it, all the difference is the difference right here, all the way along the west side. MR. MARTIN-See, where it's very long and linear and it doesn't take long for the square footage to add up. GUIDO PASSARELLI MR. PASSARELLI-I didn't want to build this road across this. The Fire Department made me build that road. MR. MARTIN-Right, because we had to have full coverage around that building. MR. PASSARELLI-And the way it's in the plan originally, there's no way any truck (lost word). MR. CARVIN-Even now, it's hard for a car to get through here. MR. GREEN-Yes, that one end is kind of tight. MR. CARVIN-There is a drainage problem in here. I saw erosion. MR. FORD-On a 12 foot wide road? MR. PASSARELLI-If there's any problem, I'll put a (lost word) down, or something. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, because it looked like there looked like there was some runoff. MR. MARTIN-What if, Leon, I know, in the past, we have allowed an 18 foot painted stall, and if we went 18 and 20 and 18, and then you'd pick up four feet with that shorter stall. MR. STEVES-You'd pick up four feet on either side, then. MR. MARTIN-Right, and then you could do Fred's idea of, because I know like Wal-Mart, for example. That's their standard painting pattern, because they say that encourages the car to pull further into the stall. MR. STEVES-Help me out here. Would that require a Planning Board change or approval, because of modification? MR. MARTIN-I think then you're in a win/win situation. You're getting your permeability back. You're getting it in the front as opposed to the rear, where I agree with Howard, not a lot of people see it, and it gives you a chance for more beautification in these islands, but you're leaving these ears off the island. - 10 - -- --... MR. PASSARELLI-You mean extend the curbs on both sides? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Widen in other words, plowing can go center. this to six or eight feet, and just square so you don't have these wings, so that circular with an opening, obviously, in it, your the MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't know, that's why I asked Leon about turning dimensions and things like that, if we'd be compromising too much, but that's one suggestion. MR. PASSARELLI-What's going to happen, if I make this smaller, the cars are going to bump against each other. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm making it as a suggestion. I'm not an engineer or a surveyor. That's Leon's. MR. KRANTZ-Another point that I feel compelled to mention is I don't know if any of the present Board members were on the when the Aviation Mall got a variance for permeability, correct me if I'm wrong. I think there's was 10 percent. I could have sworn that's what it was. I was at a meeting when they got a 10 percent. MR. MARTIN-1990, they wrote shopping center, and when permeability in that zoning what they're at. They're at a new zoning district, enclosed they did that, they lowered the district to 20 percent, and that's 20 percent. MR. KRANTZ-They're even less. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. KRANTZ-Because one is called and enclosed and one's a. MR. MENTER-Right. It's what they are zoned. MR. MARTIN-They did develop a special zoning district for that. MR. CARVIN-Any other thoughts, anything here? I don't want to everybody else. gentlemen? Has anyone else got redesign this to the expense of MS. CIPPERLY-That's why it was on last. MR. MARTIN-You don't think that would work, though, to shorten that up a little bit? MS. CIPPERLY-It's already tight. You back out of this space, and you run across this painted thing. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, we wouldn't even have, we wouldn't have that. That wouldn't be there. MS. CIPPERLY-I mean, it's not there. still, these spaces are already tight. It's painted, but you MR. PASSARELLI-If you've got large cars and trucks and impossible. small cars, fine, if you have some stuff like that, it's almost MR. MENTER-There's a lot of vans these days. MR. CARVIN-Well, people will have to adapt, I guess. MR. KRANTZ-What we're talking is about the aesthetic aspect of it. I think you've all been there. I think it's the nicest looking landscaped shopping center we have in Queensbury. - 11 - '-- ----- MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, lets see if there's anything has to say. Okay. Well, having gone nowhere permeability. Jim or Sue, do we have a resolution as buffer? I mean, I'm looking at a 25 foot. the public with the far as the MS. CIPPERLY-Buffer? I don't think you can answer the question of the buffer until it's resolved who owns that property. MR. FORD-What about the rest of it, to the north of that property in question? MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, he's got 60 percent that falls under the 50 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-The rest of it is. MR. MARTIN-Abutting a commercial use. That's why the buffer zone's not required. It's just that portion of Pine Drive where the buffer area's required. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So none of this is a problem down in here? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-Sue, following your scenario here, if line is (lost words) the zone line would still property line of the Highway Commercial zone. the property be along the MR. KRANTZ-If Guido has no interest in (lost word) half way, he's still abutting a commercial parcel. MS. CIPPERLY-Up until yesterday, I thought where the zone line is going down the middle is the property that's next to that zone line. the situation was of the street, his MR. STEVES-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-So he would need a 50 foot buffer. MR. STEVES-From that, but if the zone line, as defined in the Code, follows the near property line, that's a different street, and the nearest property line, based upon the Highway Commercial use in front, (lost word) Robert Gardens. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. That's based on the information that's on. MR. STEVES-Either he owns the 40 foot strip or he doesn't. MS. CIPPERLY-Right, and if he doesn't own it, then Mr. Passarelli owns the nearest property to that zone line. MR. STEVES-The nearest property to be splitting Mr. Harris boundary. (lost word) of that line. the zone line, though, would So we would have to go to the MR. MARTIN-So you're saying the buffer's needed in any regard, the relief? Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-I know what you're saying, but he still, nobody owns that. MR. KRANTZ-Somebody owns it, that I can assure you. MS. CIPPERLY-Normally, on a place where we have a street, we don't just omit the 50 foot buffer. MR. STEVES-Right. Mr. Harris is saying he owns it by an affidavit dated 1982. - 12 - -' ~ MS. CIPPERLY-So are you accepting the fact that he owns that or IrJha t ? MR. STEVES-Am I? MS. CIPPERLY-I'm just saying, we can't really resolve the buffer issue unless the, who owns that is resolved. MR. CARVIN-All right. Then what you're saying, I guess I don't have a real challenge with the buffer, with the road there. We're only talking just this section. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-We're talking right he's encroached by, 20? He had 35 feet or so relief from that. So how encroached, 10, 15 feet? what, about much is he MS. CIPPERLY-He was supposed to have 50, and the last variance let him have 30, a buffer zone of 30. Now he's down to five on the one end and I think 20 on the other. So the closest, right now, that he is to his property line is about five feet, where he was, in theory, he's supposed to have 50. MR. CARVIN-Well, we gave him a variance to have a minimum of 30, 35. MS. CIPPERLY-Then in theory, to have 30, and then it became 5. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going other questions, gentlemen, the public hearing. to open up the public hearing. Any first? Okay. I'm going tö open up PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-You do have the minutes from the Warren County Planning Board meeting? MR. CARVIN-Yes, which is, in essence, a denial. So I'm assuming he would need. MR. STEVES-No, it's a no action. MR. MARTIN-No action. MS. CIPPERLY-After 30 days it's an automatic. MR. MARTIN-Approval. MR. STEVES-Approval by default. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I stand corrected. action is the denial. It's here that the no MR. KRANTZ-Mr. Chairman, I might add, being there at that meeting, there was (lost words) the permeability because at that time it wasn't known about the impact of that street. They did not have a problem with permeability. Some of them wanted to see more buffer, but they didn't have a problem with the permeability. MS. CIPPERLY-That's one way of characterizing it, yes. MR. KRANTZ-That's what happened. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I've got the minutes right here. They did - 13 - -..' -' suggest the possibility of buying the paper road in order to increase permeability. MR. KRANTZ-And we said if we can we will. figure out who owns it. First we have to MR. MARTIN-Good luck. MR. KRANTZ-Somebody owns it. MR. MARTIN-It's going to be a tough one. MR. CARVIN-Okay, gentlemen, I'll open it up for discussion. MR. GREEN-I don't, if the islands in the front, if we started losing grass and things of that sort in the front, I would have had a lot bigger problem then I do in the back, for the simple reason, I'd just as soon see the bigger drive to make sure the trucks get through, emergency vehicles. We're having a problem deciding who owns Pine Road back here and this and that. I don't think you could get a fire truck around this north end, with it any smaller than it is, and that's a long way from the end of Pine Road up there. I don't see any real problem with it. MR. FORD-I do. I think permeability is an important issue. It was addressed, back at the time when the original variance was granted, and it was granted on the basis that 30 percent would be maintained, and it appears that it is easier to disregard that and apologize for it later than to stick with what was originally agr eed to. MR. MENTER-Mr. Krantz, I think you said that the reason that paving was done was that during construction Mr. Passarelli realized that the trucks weren't going to be able to deliver back there, there wasn't going to be room for the delivery vehicles. What was the original delivery plan? MR. KRANTZ-In other words, what was shown on the original site plan? A 12 foot wide road. MR. MENTER-The trucks were going to just drive along, parallel to the building, stop and unload and continue around, one at a time? MR. KRANTZ-Theoretically, I guess that's what was going to happen. Right. Again, why would Mr. Passarelli spend more money to make a wider road in the back? What possible advantage was there or is there for Mr. Passarelli to do that? He did what he believes to be practically necessary to make the center work. There is absolutely no advantage, to spend more money to do it, more money to maintain it. MR. CARVIN-When you discovered that the road was going to be inadequate, was there any thought of coming back and amending your plan, at that point, or was this just done, and here we are? MR. PASSARELLI-I really didn't wrong. I'll be honest with you. something right. realize I was doing I took for granted I anything was doing MR. KRANTZ-As far as 1 know, the issue came up when we were pursuing the Certificate of Occupancy. That's when John Goralski (lost word). MR. THOMAS-The only thing I've been kicking around, ever since I read this application was the fact that, you know, why wasn't this thought of in the inception of the original plan, because there's a lot of malls around here that are similar to that. Take the one there on the Quaker Road, the infamous blue and white one there. They have driveways, and that one there is a circular one also. It just seems to me that this should have - 14 - ,-- '- been thought of at the inception, and not an afterthought. MR. CARVIN-I guess my problem with this is that it was right at the 30 percent permeability when this was approved by site plan, and any alteration beyond that was going to tip it into a problem, and when you're maxed out on a spot here. I mean, any change is going to tip the permeability, and it should have been brought back and applied for at that point. This is like the case down in New York City where they built the five extra stories. They thought they were doing right, and guess what, they had to come by and tear them all down, because that's not what the site plan called for. I don't have half the trouble, I guess, with the buffer. I think that, from a practical standpoint, looks to resolve itself, if that road, indeed, is a no man's land. I think that's going to be pretty much covered. MR. KRANTZ-Just so you know we're talking the same thing. Does the Board appreciate or disagree with the statement that virtually all the difference is at that northwest end along the whole back, and that southwest end? It's not in the (lost word) Does the Board agree? Just so I know where I'm coming from. MR. FORD-Well, in ~ opinion, it can be addressed at any point on the property. MR. KRANTZ-No, but I'm saying, where it deviated from the plan, is what I'm saying. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I don't know if it deviated from the plan. I don't know if these were supposed to be planters in the front and then turned to paint. Do you know what I'm saying? In other words, I don't if these were originally planters as part of the permeability. MR. FORD-It went from a 12 foot wide road to almost a totally paved spaced. MR. KRANTZ-Right, but I'm saying, it's in the back, and if it's the wisdom of this Board that (lost word) should go in there and rip up some of this blacktop, that that's an improvement, you know, that'll be it. I guess that's the alternative. How that is a better situation than what we have now escapes me, but if that's the judgement of the Board, that's what we're looking at. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, unless the alternative is to pick up some more permeability in the front, I mean, and that way, like Jim says, you end up with a win/win. You end up with a little bit more green space in the front, and you still get your permeability. I don't know. MR. KRANTZ-(lost word) to the parking scheme, the expense of it versus taking a front end loader and ripping up some of that asphalt in the back, I know what I would do. I mean, it's Mr. Passarelli's decision. This Board would not grant the eight percent reduction from thirty percent, I would take a front end loader and rip up what's there to get to the permeability. I don't think Mr. Passarelli's going to (lost word) going to redesign the front barriers and planters to make it work. MS. CIPPERLY-Another thing that happened, though, is that because they had to have this buffer along the back, the Planning Board may not have felt they had to address buffering along the back between that, I mean, absent any other requirement, the Planning Board may have required some buffering back there. MR. STEVES-One of the problems with a buffer, though, is that everyone assumes that just because the word "buffer" that there's vegetation in there. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I'm saying, the Planning Board may have - 15 - "- -~ required some plantings there. MR. STEVES-I understand that, but there hasn't been really much planting back in the southwest corner of that property. Historically, there was a motel there, and there was a pool alongside that and that was right up against the property line, and to the west of that was a road that went around that pool, so that there's certainly no vegetation in that area. You can call it a buffer, but there's no vegetation. So there's no vegetation today because there wasn't any then. MR. KRANTZ-Mr. Passarelli did plant the cedars along the south and north boundaries. If any of you have been there, you've seen those plantings. MR. CARVIN-Jim, do you know what the permeability is at Wal-Mart? Didn't we have a go around on that? MR. MARTIN-That was granted a variance. MR. CARVIN-Of how much, do you remember, because they had an underground system, too, didn't they? MR. MARTIN-Well, they have the same system here, for the stormwater. MR. CARVIN-That's why I was wondering. MR. MARTIN-It was substantial. I neighborhood of 15 to 18 percent relief. like 13 percent permeable there. think it was in the I think they only have MR. CARVIN-Okay, and again, correct me if my memory serves correct, they had an underground system, and you're saying this is the same system here, that you have the same underground system? MR. MARTIN-They have in-ground infiltrators here. They came back for a site plan amendment, I think, for their drainage. Tom Nace redesigned the drainage, and it's an underground infiltration system because there's favorable soils here for that. The only difference, I will point out, with Wal-Mart is, that was again, a pre-designed condition. It was recognized as a problem and it was designed from the beginning. MR. CARVIN-That's why they were allowed to build out to the maximum of 30? MR. MARTIN-No. They're beyond the maximum of 30. They're, no, they just came in. Five variances were granted for that project, and acknowledged from the beginning as being needed. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You gentlemen understand that there is a system? In other words, we did grant a variance up at Wal-Mart. MR. FORD-Before the fact. MR. CARVIN-Well, yes. Wal-Mart came in and they knew that they were going to go over, but they had the in-ground system. MR. THOMAS-So they're not depending on surface drainage for the 30 percent, so they can handle the same amount of water with less green space. MR. MARTIN-They have a very complex drainage system. There's literally 60 piping under that parking lot. system in the Wal-Mart inch diameter perforated MR. FORD-Lets try to draw some particular property in question. comparison as we look at this What type of underground system - 16 - -,. '-- exists there that might help me look favorably upon a reduction from that 30 percent permeability? MR. MARTIN-Basically what an in-ground infiltration system is, it's essentially a septic leach bed. It operates much the same way. The water comes into a drywell, and I think it's absorbed there first. If there's an overload factor there, it drains into these leachbeds, which are essentially, it's a PVC plastic cone shaped structure, placed in the ground with gravel around it, and the water flushes out, you know, over that structure, and they're long, linear structures like a septic leachbed, very much like that, and the theory being, the mall has it as well, the Aviation Mall recent expansion. They installed them there as well, the theory being that no water ever enters this area, because there's pavement right over the top, so you have an impervious surface over the top of this soil, so the only water seen in this area is what enters that infiltration unit, and they've worked very well. We don't know of any failures or back ups or anything like that. I mean, we have very favorable soils in this section of Town for that type of a system. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and that is, indeed, the system that's here? Os that con'ect? MR. GREEN-So basically the runoff isn't the talking just dealing with green space is the having a problem with this? problem. We're reason that we're MS. CIPPERlY-In theory, you could pave the entire able to capture all the water, yes, but you might look at it. site and be not want to MR. GREEN-No, exactly. Okay. MR. KRANTZ-But again, the in the back, where nobody in. green space issue, 90 percent of it's sees, not even the people in the Drive MS. CIPPERLY-I've seen it from the Drive-in. back of this building and the lights and the buffered from the back. You look at b,"ick. It's the not MR. KRANTZ-No, what I'm saying is no one sees the amount of the width of the macadam. You're not sitting there at the Drive-in looking at the, up to the width of the driveway. You can see the back of the shopping center, but not the macadam driveway. The only people who see it are the people who park there and that deliver back there. MR. MARTIN-Now what will be a site plan issue is there is an eight percent increased area here, and one thing to be asked is, the system installed was designed for an area eight percent less in size. So we'll want to check and see if the system is adequate to cover the extra surface area. but that's a site plan issue for the Planning Board. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, well, this has got to go back to the Planning Board anyway. right, and they would pick that uP. as a site plan. Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen. or are we comfortable? Okay. I would ask for a motion, if anybody's got any thoughts here. Okay. Do you want to table it for a week, and think of a motion? Additional information? MR. THOMAS-Since Warren County didn't take any action on this, they gave it a, it's approved, by them. unless they change it within 30 days. MR. CARVIN-And I don't think we can take a no action. No action by us is a denial. - 17 - MR. THOMAS-Yes. So, in order for us to deny this, it would have to be a unanimous vote of the Board, right? MR. CARVIN-No, just a majority. MR. THOMAS-I thought to overtu1-n Warren County, you had to have a unanimous vote? MS. CIPPERLY-There's wasn't a vote. MR. CARVIN-There is nothing to overturn. MR. MARTIN-First of all, they're advisory only. Only in the event should they deny, or recommend denial, then it requires a super majority of this Board to override that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I got confused. MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman, if the more comfortable, I believe, opportunity to research it a bit and other on-site visitation. others would agree, I would feel in a week's time, having an more, give it more thought time, MR. KRANTZ-We're due before the Planning Board, when next week? MS. CIPPERLY-Next Tuesday, normally they meet Tuesdays. If it puts them off into the next month, for the Planning Board, that's the way it goes. MR. FORD-I could also vote tonight. MR. CARVIN-Not unless somebody makes a motion. MR. MENTER-I think we should move it tonight. I don't see any sense in. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I can't think of any alternatives to the site. MR. GREEN-I mean, the planter idea is nice. You're going to add more green space in the front, but I don't know how much permeability, really, that's going to pick up, and that's really not the problem. It's just, apparently as far as I can see, the problem is, granted, not doing what was originally proposed, which is a concern, but I don't see any real alternatives to adding more green space to the front. I think the only real alternative is to rip UP the pavement to meet the Ordinance. MS. CIPPERLY-I really think you should consider precedent here, too. MR. GREEN-I don't think that's necessary. MR. THOMAS-I don't, either, since they have that underground disposal system, and they don't have to worry about absorption from ground level, to get rid of their water. MR. MENTER-From a practical standpoint. MR. GREEN-I have a serious problem with not doing what was originally proposed or coming back and not fixing it first, but I can understand, when everybody's there and you're ready to go, maybe adding more than you had thought. MR. MARTIN-Our main hangup, from a Staff point of view, was the self-created nature of the hardship. That's the main hangup. I agree with the practical nature of the stormwater and all that. MR. GREEN-If we're merely going to penalize them by making them tear up the asphalt, and that's going to be as a penalty, I can't agree with that. - 18 - --- ',-" MR. CARVIN-Well, that's why I think it's important that we have our ducks in a rowan this, because, otherwise, you will have people just building and then coming in and saying, guess what. MR. GREEN-Absolutely. MR. MENTER-Penalization is not the only issue. It's a question of precedent and everything else that we have to consider. I mean, it's not just the practicality of that one. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think you want to bear in mind, I think this Board does a very good job of dealing with each case on a case by case basis, and on its own individual merits, but you don't want to get into a mode here where it's perceived policy in the community that, well, this is the way to do business. I mean, if there are unique circumstances to this that you feel compelled to let it go, then fine, but I'd just caution against the policy setting nature, precedent setting nature. MS. CIPPERLY-You've seen it happen here tonight. What did Wal- Mart get, what did, you know. MR. GREEN-Yes, and, see, I don't think we should do that. I think we should look at each one individually. I mean, that's fine that we can ask those questions, but I don't think that really should make a bearing on this. MR. CARVIN-Well, there is, and I think Tom has alluded to this. I mean, Wal-Mart brought the cart before the horse, or the horse before the cart. In other words, they knew they were going to have a permeability problem, and they addressed that right up front, and this is a case where a decision was made on site, and now, as somebody said, you know, you can't dump the garbage and then come up with a solution on how to pick it up. MR. GREEN-Right, and that's my only real concern, also. MR. KRANTZ-I agree that, clearly, if we had a chance to do it over again, the procedure that Wal-Mart followed was better, but the net result is that they have less permeability. So, this is psychological, but, yes, they did it the better way, the better procedure, as far as the timing of it, but the net result is, they have much greater relief. MS. CIPPERLY-You may have also ended up with a smaller building if this problem had been brought up in the first place. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Because I'm looking at this little jag right here. I mean, maybe the building would have been downsized. MR. KRANTZ-I believe that Mr. Passarelli can meet the permeability by ripping up his asphalt. If that's the wisdom of the Board, as I said before. MR. FORD-Well, the other side of that is, Mr. Passarelli, could have met the permeability of the 30 percent, had he never added the additional blacktop to begin with. So the ripping up is not to correct something that we're imposing. The Ordinance was there. It was agreed to at 30 percent. MR. KRANTZ-I agree. I think the plan could have been better thought through from those who proposed it, and I frankly believe that everybody that looked at it, on this issue, also had a little hand in, you know, approving it, but now the question is, is the remedy worse than the problem? MR. FORD-And I would just add that the potential problem being created by an affirmative vote on this issue tonight, I think it has far reaching potential, in terms of what it says to potential developers in our community, whether they be for personal - 19 - '- residence or larger scale development. MR. CARVIN-I'm still waiting for a motion. MR. GREEN-Do you want to wait the week or not? No? I would be comfortable doing that, but if you don't want to, that's fine. I'm the newest member, so I'm not sure how you'd want to go about it. Possibly see if there are any alternatives to adding some more green space somewhere. MR. CARVIN-I see why we put this one on for last. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Do you want to put this off until the end? I mean, we can mull it over? I don't think there's any reason for Leon. I mean, we don't have to move this tonight. I mean, we have 30 days to move it. MR. KRANTZ-Leon has to leave. If you have any questions of him on a technical point of view, if you could ask them now. MR. CARVIN-I think we've covered pretty much all the technical aspects. I think now it's a moral issue, if I can be so broad there, and I think that that's something that this Board's going to have to resolve. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to postpone this until the end of the meeting, where we can thrash this out, not to the expense of these other folks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1995 TYPE II SR-1A DAVID L. BARNES, II OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 4 JOHN STREET APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A 2-CAR GARAGE ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A CORNER LOT, AND SEEKS FRONT SETBACK RELIEF. THIRTY- FIVE (35) FOOT FRONT SETBACKS WERE REQUIRED UNDER THE 1979 SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. SECTION 179-19 OF THE 1988 ORDINANCE REQUIRES A THIRTY (30) FOOT SETBACK IN THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 121-1-16.30 LOT SIZE: 0.65 SECTION 179-19 OF 1988 ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL: 1979 EDWARD J. EPPICH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-1995, David L. Barnes, II, Meeting Date: June 21,1995 "Applicant: David L. Barnes, II Project Location: 4 John Street Proposed Action: Applicant seeks to construct a 2-car garage attached to an existing residence located on a corner lot. Conformance with the Ordinance: According to Section 179-30.1, lots bounded by two roads are subject to the front yard setback on both roads. This lot was part of a 1979 subdivision approval, which set front setbacks at 35 feet. The current setback requirement for this zoning district is 30 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, According to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to applicant: Applicant would be able to have a two-car garage for storage and vehicles. 2. Feasible alternatives: Considering the location of the existing driveway, plus the topography of the site, there does not appear to be a feasible alternative. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The relief requested is 43% of the 35-foot setback, and 33% of the current requirement. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It does not appear that there would be any adverse effects from this project particularly since there is an existing driveway, and traffic pattern established that would not change. 5. Is this difficulty self-created?: This does not appear to be the case. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. SEQR: Type II" MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held - 20 - '- "--' on the 14th day of June 1995 the above application for an Area Variance to add a two-car attached garage to existing single family residence was reviewed and th~ following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powell South, Vice Chairman. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Eppich, is there anything that you'd care t.o add? MR. EPPICH-I don't think so. It's pretty self-explanatory. The one factor that I can think of (lost words) why all of a sudden a garage after all these years. Mr. Barnes, the applicant, is a recent purchaser of the property, within the last year, and he has a small child, a three, four year old daughter, and the reason he wanted to be able to build the garage was to be able to, not to be able to get out of the car in the middle of (lost word) with the baby. We looked at the property, at some length, to see if there were any feasible alternatives. On this particular property, it doesn't seem there is. I mean, there's no place else we can get a garage in close proximity to the house. On the south side, which is also a 35 foot setback, the ground slopes sharply, and we looked at putting a garage at floor level, which would be as shown in the application, but it would require so much fill on that side, the neighbors would be adversely affected. The garage would be up to here, and there would be a lot of fill sharply down the property line. It just didn't seem comfortable on the property. So being that West. Mountain Road is a considerable distance from their property line, there didn't seem to be any crowding. I personally sited the' edge of where the new gar age would be with the ' adjacent resident.s to the south_ and it would still be in line with that house. There would still be fill (lost words) as far as looking askew. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are you familiar with this house? MR. EPPICH-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because the original garage, when this house was built, was underneath the house. MR. EPPICH-Yes, right. MR. CARVIN-And it exited out onto West Mountain Road. correct? Is that MR. EPPICH-Yes, and that was the problem, both from the exit direction and the fact that because it was underground (lost words) constant flooding problem. MR. CARVIN-I guess my only question is, I know that was all filled in, because that garage being below the ground level, so to speak. Is there going to be any problems putting a foundation on that loose gravel, or whatever that fill is? MR. EPPICH-I have the working drawings here, for the addition, if you'd care to see them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So this foundation is going to be eight feet in the 91- au nd? MR. EPPICH-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then you're going to fill all that back in so that the grade will remain the same to West Mountain Road? MR. EPPICH-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that we are actually looking at the final results here. In other words, it will be a single level garage? - 21 - -' MR. EPPICH-Right. MR. FORD-There's going to be no basement under the garage? MR. CARVIN-Not at this point, no. MR. EPPICH-There are other ways of solving the problem, because of the substantial fill (lost words). MR. CARVIN-Are you gentlemen familiar with the house by any chance? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because the original underneath the house, and it actually driveway was out onto West Mountain Road. house, exited the garage out onto, was the MR. FORD-So the entrance to it was on the west end of the house? MR. CARVIN-In other words, it was underneath the house here. They closed that off and converted it, I assume, to living space. MR. EPPICH-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And then just don't have a garage. I was going to say, that's going to be a pretty sizeable foundation, eight feet. MR. EPPICH-Yes. Again, it was the least expensive solution. other was to come in and compact the soil considerably to percent density,. which, again, that's one solution and theory, but the owner chose to go this route, because in case the foundation is less expensive. The 110 one this MR. CARVIN-Okay. So there won't be any living area underneath the garage, obviously. MR. EPPICH-No. Again, I have plans here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-So the westerly setback is going to be 20 foot? MR. EPPICH-Yes. MR. FORD-Twenty point four, five. Okay. plus percent, right? So it really is a 41 MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions. MR. GREEN-It's about 42.8 percent. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any final questions, gentlemen? Then I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1995 DAVID L. BARNES, II, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: The proposed action is to construct a two car garage attached to an existing residence located on a corner lot, and according to Section 179-30.1, the lot being a corner lot is subject to two - 22 - -./ '~ front yard setbacks, one on each adjacent street. The current setback requirement is 30. Applicant seeks approval for a 20.45 foot setback from the westerly side adjoining West Mountain Road. The building at present has no garage. It originally had one that was filled in because of severe drainage problems. To add a garage, there would appear to be no feasible alternatives due to the topography, existing septic system and location of the house on the property. While the relief is substantial, it does not appear as though it will have an adverse effect on the neighborhood, as even this setback appears to be in line with many of the adjoining properties. Therefore, there would seem to be no adverse effect on the community, and this is not a self- created hardship. The current owner and applicant has owned the property for approximately a year, and bought it in the current garageless state. There was No County Impact determined by Warren County Planning Board. There also was no public opposition. It's a relief of 9.55 feet from the setback. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin !\IOES: !\lONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Maresco AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-1995 TYPE II SR-1A JAMES G., SR. & PEGGY FISHER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 2 GARNER STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE A PRE-EXISTING, NONCONFORMING GARAGE, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-79, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK OF TEN (10) FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 131-6-14 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION 179-19 JAMES G. FISHER, SR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-1995, James G., Sr. & Peggy Fisher, Meeting Date: June 21, 1995 "Applicant: James G., Sr. & Peggy Fisher Project Location: 2 Garner Street Proposed Action: Applicant proposes to replace a pre-existing, nonconforming garage located 1'6" from the side property line. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-19 requires a minimum side setback of ten (10) feet in the SR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to applicant: ApÞlicant would be able to utilize the existing garage foundation in replacing the structure. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not seem to be any feasible alternatives, considering the existing placement of buildings and the driveway. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The relief sought is 85% of the requirement. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It does not appear there would be any adverse effect on the community. 5. Is this difficulty self-created?: The condition of the structure and a water problem seem to be the difficulty. Staff Comments and Concerns: It appears that any attempt to reduce the amount of relief needed would yield insi~nificant results, compared to the expense and difficulty it would create for the applicant. SEQR: Type II" MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 14th day of May, 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to rebuild garage on existing foundation. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact." Signed by C. Powell South, Vice Chairman. MR. CARVIN-I've got to ask you. What's your water problem? MR. FISHER-Well, in the spring of the year, the foundation's so low, the water runs right into the garage, and I have ice in - 23 - '-- there, when it thaws. So I want to raise the foundation on it, and back up, put the garage in the same location. MR. CARVIN-Is that lower, I mean the water? MR. FISHER-Yes. When that originally was built, it was built too low. The floor was poured in it too low. They don't even have a footing underneath the box. That's set in sand, with three fourths of the box and they poured the floor inside and they poured it too low for the area. It's always been a problem. I moved there in 1958. The house was built in 1938, and the garage was built somewhere around 1940. I'm familiar with the area up there. I've lived up there all my life. So that is the reason I want to re-pour the foundation and the new garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It's more a drainage problem than it is an environmental problem, then. MR. FISHER-It's a drainage problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. On your map here, is this part of the house, is it? MR. FISHER-That's right. about 1982. That's a family room. It was added MR. CARVIN-Okay, and that's always been the garage right there? MR. FISHER-The garage was built there, yes. MR. FORD-Are all dimensions of the garage going to remain the same? MR. FISHER-Yes, they are. MR. FORD-You're not lengthening it or widening it or raising it? MR. FISHER-Just raising it, not the total height. No. Just the foundation will be raised up. The total height should be a little bit lower because that has an eight twelve pitch on it, and I'm going with a six twelve. So the difference in raising the floor should still lower the height of the roof. It shouldn't be any higher, lets put it that way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How high is it right now? Do you know, right off hand? MR. FISHER-That is close to nine foot inside, from the floor. MR. CARVIN-We're talking maybe 10 or 12 feet at the peak, maybe? MR. FISHER-That's probably closer to 14 foot, I thinkJ MR. CARVIN-About 14. Okay. There's no loft or anything in that right now, is there? MR. FISHER-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-Physically, what are you going to do? of block are your footing? Those courses MR. FISHER-That's correct. I'm going to pull those out and pour (lost words) the footing/floor all together. Come up with a row and a half of block, to get back up, so I don't have a problem with the (lost words). MR. GREEN-You're not going to be using the existing block at all? You're going to be taking those out and pouring in? - 24 - -- '- MR. FISHER-That's correct. MR. GREEN-You're going to be on the same footprint, though? MR. FISHER-That's right. MR. CARVIN-I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BRUCE ALLEN MR. ALLEN-My name's Bruce Allen. I live at 25 Richardson Street. I own the lot there. It's adjacent to Mr. Fisher's. His garage has been there for a number of years, as he stated. I think putting a new garage in, as he plans, will only improve the appearance of the property. It won't change the aesthetics of the neighborhood. It will generally fit in with the neighborhood. As far as affects on the adjacent properties, I think it will only improve it. I welcome the change. Of course, any time you can improve a structure and the property, it's going to help. As far as the setbacks go, it's been there for all these years. It's become a fixture for everyone who owns the property around. It really has no effect on any of the other properties. The adjacent properties more than meet the setbacks, and even if they did come right to their setback lines, I feel it would still provide plenty of setback as far as aesthetics and safety and value of the land around, because it really doesn't change the lot. As I said, it fits in with the neighborhood that's existing now. Most of the houses in there were built when the setbacks were very short, within a couple of feet of the line. So it really kind of fits in with everything in there. It's not going to change anything really at all. It'll be a definite improve and we'll welcome it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. CATHY ALLEN SHERRY FISHER BILLINGTON MRS. FISHER BILLINGTON-We agree with Bruce. Sherry Fisher Billington. I live down on the corner of Fourth and Richardson. I put up a house four years ago, and I agree. CATHY ALLEN MRS. ALLEN-Cathy Allen. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Good. Thank you. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. THOMAS-Just one note from one of those that were notified. "We have no objection to this project." I don't know who's signature it is, but it's Double A Provisions, Inc. 64 Main Street, Queensbury, NY. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think it's Ben Aronson. questions or comments, gentlemen? Okay. Any other MR. MENTER-I have a question. me, there's a line right near goes across the parcel that's Is that a property line, or is On the map that I have in fro~t of the back edge of the garage that on Richardson Street, or parcels. that just? MR. FISHER-Yes. That's a property line of Mr. Allen. - 25 - --...-' MR. MENTER-Mr. Allen's here then? MR. FISHER-That's right. MR. MENTER-Okay, and this is Mr.? MR. FISHER-That's Matte's. MR. MENTER-Okay. Have you spoken to them about it? MR. FISHER-No. I haven't. MR. MENTER-I just ask because it's a foot and a half off their property line where you're going to be doing. MR. FISHER-They've lived there. kid. I've known him since he was a MRS. ALLEN-They just put an addition on that's attached to their home, with their new living quarters up above. I'll improve everybody's in the area. When you take something like this old and put up something new, it's only going to look better. MR. MENTER-Well, yes. That's generally true. A lot of times people get funny, though, with things that are that close to their property line. MRS. FISHER BILLINGTON-I think if they had a problem, they'd have been here. tonight. They've grown up there. We've grown up together. The whole family has lived there, and the son bought the property from the father. That whole corner, we've all grown up together. Now we've moved our families in there. MR. FORD-Is there any plan to make a part of this project any modification to that storage shed in back of the current garage? MR. FISHER-None at all. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I would entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-1995 PEGGY FISHER, Introduced by Fred Carvin who adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: JAMES G.. SR. & moved for its The applicant proposes to replace a preexisting nonconforming garage, located one and a half feet from the west side property. Section 179-19 requires a minimum side setback of 10 feet in the SR-IA zone. The benefit to the applicant is that the applicant will be able to utilize an existing garage foundation and at the same time replace the structure with new construction. The applicant is proposing no additional increases in either height, width or length, over and above what is currently existing. The main benefit would allow the applicant the ability to solve a reoccurring water problem. There does not seem to be any other feasible alternatives considering the existing placement of current buildings in the driveway. This relief might be considered substantial relevant to the Ordinance, but when you take into consideration the fact that the applicant is indeed truly just replacing a preexisting, nonconforming structure, the relief actually is minimum. By replacing in kind this garage, there will be no effect on the neighborhood or the community. This difficulty does not seem to be self created, as the main reason for replacing the structure is both age and a reoccurring water problem which is not the fault of the applicant. I would grant 8.5 feet of relief from the appropriate Section. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin - 26 - ...,¡" --- NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Maresco AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1995 WR-1A CEA ELIZABETH GALLOWAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 17 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING CAMP AND CONSTRUCT A RESIDENCE, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL. RELIEF IS ALSO NEEDED FROM SECTION 179-70, WHICH REQUIRES FORTY (40) FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 41-1-2 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-70 KEN GALLOWAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-1995, Elizabeth Galloway, Meeting Date: June 21, 1995 "Applicant: Elizabeth Galloway Project Location: 17 Fitzgerald Road Proposed Action: Applicant proposes to remove an existing camp and construct a year-round residence. Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant will meet the 75-foot shoreline setback required, but seeks relief from Section 179-16, which requires a total of 50 feet in side setbacks, with a minimum of 20 on one side. Applicant is proposing setback of 13.9 on the south side and 4.32 on the north side. Section 179-70 requires 40 feet of frontage on a Town road, and applicant is asking relief from this Section, as well. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be able to construct her house, as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not appear to be any alternatives that would not require a variance, from side setbacks, since the lot is 50.66 feet wide. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? It does appear substantial, especially on the north side, but it matches the current side setbacks of the existing house, with the advantage of meeting the 75 foot setback from the shore. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No adverse effects are apparent. Letters received to date have been positive. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? This difficulty relates more to tHe lot siz~ than to an unreasonable project. Staff Comments and Concerns: Applicant also owns a parcel between the subject parcel and the road, and has been paying taxes, etc., as a separate building lot. The preference would be to maintain that status, with access to the new house via the same route as the existing one. SEQR: Unlisted. Short form EAF must be reviewed." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 14th day of June 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a permanent, year round, single family dwelling with a one car garage. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve" Signed by C. Powell South, Vice Chairman. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Galloway, is there anything that you'd care to add. MR. GALLOWAY-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. gentlemèn? Questions from the members? No questions, MR. GALLOWAY-There is one thing. I do have pictures of a similar structure. MR. CARVIN-Oka,>'. in other words, road? Would you have, out of curiosity, a wider map, showing this lot and your adjacent lot to the - 27 - "'---, MR. GALLOWAY-Yes. As a matter of fact, I have a map. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Let me get this straight. In other words, this is the current lot, to here? MR. GALLOWAY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And then you own this lot out to the road here, is that correct? MR. GALLOWAY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and you have actually 44 feet here, or, no 106 feet? MR. GALLOWAY-I06 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. other words, this landlocked piece. feet frontage on right-of-way that Do you gentlemen see our problem here? In is a separate building lot. This is a At this point, they need relief from the 40 a Town road. As I understand it, there is a comes in this way, is that correct? MR. GALLOWAY-Right. MR. CARVIN-I don't know how wide that right-of-way is, but I don't think that, going down there and looking at all these camps, it's utilized. MS. CIPPERLY-One neighbor uses them. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Mr. Rathbun is most concerned about keeping that, or having that recognized, I mean. MR. CARVIN-Well, interesting right-of-way. That's all I can tell you. MR. GALLOWAY-I'd be happy to provide a right-of-way along this area for this lot, and we will access it from that, but we did not want to deed over the land to it to jeopardize this. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Let me tell you what some of the other solutions, when we've had situations like this. We've had a case where they actually deeded a 40 by 1 foot space out here, with a minimum of, what, 12 feet is it, Jim, for a road? MR. MARTIN-Right, for a private drive, yes. MR. CARVIN-A 12 foot strip, that becomes your access to the road. Would you have any thoughts or considerations of doing something Ii ke that? MR. GALLOWAY-Well, something to do, the setback for anything up here, come from the? if there was anything with from the original line or MR. CARVIN-No, it would come in 12 feet in. Do yOU see what I'm saying? This becomes your property line. You just come 12 feet up the outside to a 40 foot section back here. MR. MARTIN-Another complicating factor with that, is that this is also a nonconforming lot in terms of lot area. So if you do that, you're increasing the nonconformity, and you would need a variance for that as well. So, we had talked about this in the office, and I think they would give some consideration to joining the two lots, and then you have a totally conforming lot. MS. CIPPERLY-But she'd be paying taxes on that second one as a building lot. - 28 - .-' '- MR. MARTIN-I said they'd give consideration to it. I didn't say they'd do it. I just mentioned they'd give consideration to it. MR. CARVIN-Well, my problem, and again, this is a personal problem. I'm going to throw it right out right up front. I've always had a real hard time with right-of-ways, because they're very ill-defined, and I can appreciate your concern here, and we've, at least I know I've always tried to go on incident of ownership, where we have a landlocked piece like this. MR. GALLOWAY-So then, the existing camp has this right-of-way down here. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. The right-of-ways are very touchy, very, very sticky situations. So your right-of-way is not frontage on a Town road. A right-of-way is just the right- of-way across somebody else's property. MS. CIPPERLY-Since this camp is here, to play Devil's Advocate, they could leave this camp here, build another house there, and that would be' perfectly legal for them to do, so that the end result is. MR. GALLOWAY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I hear you. MR. GALLOWAY-That thought has already crossed my mind. It makes sense to, I mean, we're, if it came down to that, it would be a toss up between, you know, joining the lots or putting something up here, and leaving the camp 20 feet from the lake, leaving the existing septic 25 feet from the lake. MR. CARVIN-Okay. what we're dealing ahead. Okay. Any public hear i ng. Well, just having, does the Board understand with here? Okay. Having said that, lets move que~tions, gentlemen? Then I will open up the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RAYMOND ERB MR. ERB-My name is Raymond Erb. I live at 19 Fitzgerald. I am the next door neighbor. I greatly approve of the project that they want to install and put in a new home and get rid of their camp. The other thing is, they're in an Environmentally Critical Area, and like many of who've lived there for many years, our septic systems were within 25 or 30 feet of the lake, and we were polluting the lake, no doubt, and today the restrictions on septic systems is a good situation, and they will be moving theirs back behind their house. They have been there for 25 years and they are nice neighbors and we're glad to have them. This other thing about the right-of-way, and the 40 foot footage to the road, they own the property behind them. It has 106 feet on Fitzgerald Road. So I don't know what the problem is because I didn't hear all the remarks up there, but what about joining the two properties together as one? Wouldn't that solve the situation? MR. CARVIN-It would as far as I'm concerned. MR. GALLOWAY-Well, that's one alternative. MR. CARVIN-That's one alternative. However, we can't make that decision. MR. FORD-But don't you want to maintain that second one as a possible residential lot as well, building lot? MR. GALLOWAY-Yes. Well, I've been paying taxes on it. She would - 29 - "--" want to give it up about as much as Queensbury would want to refund the taxes, I suppose, but you talk about a right-of-way down through here. I just did some, ran some quick numbers. Even with the 12 foot right-of-way, and I have done this with 40 feet, running this parallel to this, but I like your idea better, with the one foot and the right-of-way down there. I can still put a dwelling on there and maintain the setbacks, the 50 feet, 106 minus 50 minus 12. So, I don't have a problem with that. I mean, it just, we were going to access it, we had no plans on doing this. It just doesn't seem right that, you know, for all these years she's been paying on it, that (lost words). MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now this is a right-of-way or is this ownership, you would deed this over? MR. GALLOWAY-I would deed exactly what you've said, the 12 feet and the one foot, the 40 feet along the road. I mean, the way I set it up here, I was kind of hoping it could be a right-of-way so I could use this road to access both, if anything ever did happen in here, but there is room enough. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, this makes more sense, because then you only have one curb cut, obviously, if you have a driveway coming off here, and it's actually a very good plan. MR. GALLOWAY-I put a lot of time and effort into it. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, lets continue on with the public discussion and then we'll take a look at that. Jim indicates that this is a preexisting nonconforming lot, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Right. It's undersized, in terms of lot area. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but if he were to deed difficulty, I mean, is this the path of least He's got this plan, I mean, he's got it angled. it off. He would have 40 feet here. this, how much resistance here? He would squ.are MR. MENTER-Would that initially require a variance, to create a more nonconforming lot? MR. MARTIN-Right. He'd be taking from this lot here to give to this lot. MR. CARVIN-Right. He says he still can meet the setbacks. MR. MENTER-But it would be nonconforming in terms of area. He would need an Area Variance to do that. MR. MARTIN-Yes, to increase the, because you'd be taking away from a nonconforming lot. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but only if this was to move forward they would need an Area Variance. He doesn't need any, he can always deed this over to this lot at any point, right? MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. FORD-He would need an Area Variance to, structure, to create this lot. forget this MR. MENTER-Create it, yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm saying, forget the structure, to take whatever amount of square footage you want to add to this lot here, and take from this lot, you're increasing the nonconformity of this lot by doing that. You're making it smaller. It has a grandfathered right to exist as it does today. MR. CARVIN-All right, but that still would come before this - 30 - --- '-- Board, right, is what you're saying? MR. MARTIN-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-It's kind of like the one you had out on Ridge Road where there were two nonconforming lots next to each other, trading property. MR. CARVIN-I think I would prefer something along this lines. MR. MARTIN-How was this (lost words)? Is that something that they own already? MR. CARVIN-Yes. He owns 106 feet along here. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. GALLOWAY-But I mean, I would definitely do what you said, with the 40 foot and 1 foot wide, and 12 feet off of that line. MR. CARVIN-He owns both lots. So it really is not a case where he's got to bring in another neighbor to negotiate this thing, and it really creates, it unlocks this landlocked situation here, and it'll prevent arguments in the future, which is what'll all boil down to, eventually. MR. MARTIN-You can deed over this amount of property to this lot, and still meet setbacks here for another structure, right? MR. MENTER-Except for the building lot. MR. GREEN-Yes. He'd still need a variance for the (lost word) size of the lot. MR. GALLOWAY-So you've got 125 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-I thought you had 106 on the road? MR. CARVIN-I06, I thought it Wi3S, on the map. MS. CIPPERLY-Take away 40 is. MR. CARVIN-Sixty-four feet. MR. MARTIN-That's certainly an option, then. definitely an option. I mean, that's MR. GALLOWAY-I basically took the same deal and plopped it up here with a garage and a breezeway. MR. CARVIN-Okay. hea,- i ng . It's an option. I will continue the public DONALD MILNE MR. MILNE-Donald Milne, 31 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury. I've used that right-of-way in the front there. I think the Board is losing sight of the important issues. The septic issue, I think, is a very, very important issue, and the new project will have a septic system to current Code, okay, which many of the places don't have, and we're trying, around the lake, to get that situation resolved in as many properties as we can. As far as this right-of-way issue, these camps have had these right-of-ways for years. Sometimes they're thorny. Sometimes they're devicive, but this particular project is upgrading an existing camp, moving it back away from the lake. It's environmentally better for the lake. They're talking about permeability. You're talking about permeability. The size of this house is not excessive. So in terms of permeability, it's much better for the lake, because there's going to be no green space in front of the - 31 - ',-, property. It's not going to be a camp right on the edge of the lake. So, I think you're getting hung up on this right-of-way issue, and I think the important issues are the issues of the fact that the septic and the location of the building, in fact the size of the building, and as I understand it, Mrs. Galloway is also a resident of Florida, and is a retired person who is spending a good part of the year there. So, again, you're dealing with (lost word) year round houses, going to be primarily used a summer residence. So the impact is very slight. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. THOMAS-A letter dated June 19, 1995, "Pursuant to my receipt on June 15, 1995 of the Notice of Public Hearing and my telephone conversation with Mr. Jim Martin, I am writing to express my concerns to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the application for variance submitted by Elizabeth Galloway. I have the following concerns: 1. I appreciate that it may be difficult to construct a new dwelling which will meet the side yard setback requirements of the Town. However, I would ask that the side yard distance be increased from the present 13.9' to the minimum requirement of 20' to allow both parties some privacy. 2. The proposed location of the septic system will be within 100' feet of the only location I have available to have a well drilled due to the size of my lot. The point of my property that is furthest from the lake is the only location that will avoid pollution from the existing surrounding septic systems. 3. My other adjacent neighbor, Jim Underwood, is constructing a new dwelling which is located directly underneath the power lines which supply power to 8 homes: Ward, Charlebois, Underwood, Rathbun, Galloway, Erb, Dougherty and Kim. This has caused considerable problems, which to date have not been resolved. If Mrs. Galloway is planning to also build directly under the power lines, which appears to be the case, I request that the matter of the existing power lines be investigated and resolved prior to granting any additional building permits or variances. 4. My Right-of-Way road to my property is not shown on Mrs. Galloway's plot plan. I request that the plan be redone to clearly show this existing road which crosses directly in front of her entire property along the shoreline. I am concerned that this right-of-way road, that is my legal entrance to my property, not be interfered with, blocked or altered, at any time, during the construction process by Mrs. Galloway or her agents. I trust that my above mentioned concerns will be given full consideration prior to a decision by the Board. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Hal Rathbun" "In reference to the application submitted to the Board of Appeals by Mrs. Elizabeth Galloway, to construct a building at 17 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury, Tax Map No. 41-12-WR-1A, we are more than happy to give our approval. The existing building is in very poor condition and not an asset to our neighborhood. A new structure would be most pleasing. Sincerely, Dorothea M. Charlebois Gerald Charlebois" A letter dated June 21, 1995. I have no problem with side setback of Section 179-16 Waterfront Residential nor Section 179-70 frontage on a Town Road. Sincerely, James A. Underwood 99 Mannis Road, Queensbury for location 17 Fitzergald Road in WR-1A zone." MS. CIPPERLY-I believe he's the adjoining neighbor to your back parcel. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated June 13, 1995, regarding Elizabeth Galloway, "Dear Sir: It is my understanding that Elizabeth Galloway has made an application to the Planning Board regarding construction on her property at Glen Lake. As the owner of property at 21 Fitzgerald Road, as well as property facing the lake, I have no objection to such construction. Very truly - 32 - _/ '-- yours, Catherine Doughrety (Mrs. B.T. Dougherty)" A letter dated June 12, 1995, "Dear Mr. Martin: We are the owners of the property immediately to the east of the land owned by Mrs. Elizabeth Galloway. Mrs. Galloway plans to raze the existing camp on this property, and to replace it with a year-round dwelling. We have seen her plans for this new structure and have no objection to this improvement. Mrs. Galloway has been a good neighbor and friend for more than 25 years, and we hope you can act favorably on her request so we may enjoy her company for many more years. Sincerely, Raymond E. Erb Joan M. Erb" A letter dated June 14, 1995 "Dear Sir: It was brought to our attention that Elizabeth Galloway would like to build a home at her present site on Glen Lake. Elizabeth Galloway has an impeccable character and is an asset to any community. We are proud to have her as a neighbor. Joyce Ward and Richard Ward" A letter dated June 16, 1995 "Dear Mr. Thomas: We have no objection to the proposal by Elizabeth Galloway to remove an existing camp and construct a residence at 17 Fitzgerald Road. The year round residence would certainly be an asset to the area. We urge your approval in this matter. Sincerely, Hyung R. Kim and Eleanor Kim" A letter dated 6/15/95 "Dear Mr. Martin: Being a neighbor of Elizabeth Galloway who owns the lake property at 17 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury, NY we understand that she has applied for a land variance so that she could remove the existing camp on said land and build a new house. We have no objection to her plans. We feel it would enhance the look of the property as well as raise the property value of the immediate neighbors. We feel this would be good for all concerned. Sincerely, Florence & Dale Jarvis 35 Fitzgerald Road Queensbury" A letter dated June 12, 1995 "Dear Mr. Martin: We would like to let you know that we have no objection to the plan of Betty Galloway to build a new house on her property at Glen Lake. In fact, we are very pleased and feel that this will be a fine addition to our neighborhood. Very truly yours, Herb & Aileen Kane" MR. CARVIN-Okay. The power lines, is that going to be a problem? Is that a true problem, the power line? MR. GALLOWAY-Tomorrow at 12:30 Niagara Mohawk was going to come up and discuss it. They were looking at putting underground wires in this case, and we're going to have a meeting tomorrow at 12:30. MR. MARTIN-Are they the responsibility of Niagara Mohawk, the wires in their current location? MR. GALLOWAY-I believe the wires. MR. MARTIN-They're owned by Niagara Mohawk? MR. GALLOWAY-Ves, right. MR. MARTIN-All right. Chris, you know about that stuff. MR. THOMAS-Sure I do. It's exactly what I do for a living. MR. ERB-They have to be removed. What Jim Underwood is putting up his log building because they go directly (lost word). MR. MARTIN-Is that something they would do, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. If we have an easement there, we will charge. If Niagara Mohawk does not have an easement, they will do it at no cost. MR. ERB-Jim Underwood had told me on the phone that you had a map MR. GALLOWAY-Yes. I have a map of the present location and the temporary location. - 33 - '--- -- MR. ERB-Where they were going to move it and stuff (lost words) gave them a copy. MR. THOMAS-What's the date on that? last three years? Five years? Do you know? Within the MR. ERB-No, no, way back further than that, '77, '78 I think. Because there was temporary wires, and then they were going to move back, one of the places he said the wires were hung in the trees. That was (lost word) tearing down the mountain. MR. THOMAS-I've seen them limb a tree and put a cross arm on it and run the wire on it, and that's in 0l:L lifetime. I've worked there 23 years. So, it's not unusual. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Can you expound upon the Rathbun, the right-of- way conce)- n? MR. GALLOWAY-Well, it's that right-of-way along the front. He's the one that's been maintaining it. He's the last one on the road, and, I mean, it's going to be there. He's going to continue driving in. MR. MARTIN-Just for the record, you have no trouble maintaining the right-of-way on your property? MS. CIPPERLY-You're not planning to block it, to put a gate across it or anything? MR. GALLOWAY-Not at all. In fact, it's so rarely used it's all grassed over now as it is, but I don't intend to block it in any way, shape or form. In fact, I don't know if you have a different map than that, but it does, I tried to put it in as best I could. Yes. I see. You have it indicated as existing garage. MR. GALLOWAY-Right, and as far as his comment as to drilling a well in the back of his property, there is not one square inch of his property or my mother's front property that you can legally drill a well on because of the camp septic, Rathbun's septic, and the Erb's septic, and that's why I show this 150 foot radius from the Erb's septic. It pretty much eliminates that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. He also expressed concern about the, roughly, the 14 feet, 13.9. MR. GALLOWAY-It's no different. In fact, the 4.32 that you had mentioned, we basically want to, we're holding the 2., the 3.91 and the 13.9 from the existing lines and going no closer. When we first talked about this, and I talked to Jim, he said, don't go any closer to the lake. Don't go any closer to your neighbors. Go as far back as you want. MR. MARTIN-See, I feel for the applicant in this, a little bit, in a way, because they came in, pre-Mooring Post, and then came in post-Mooring Post, and they came in post-Mooring Post thinking they were going to get a building permit, because they were rebuilding in the same footprint, and that was the policy prior to the discussion that came out of that particular application. So now they got caught up in this, and they really are here with an unexpected delay that they didn't they were going to have. So they got sort of caught in the transition here. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, that house is going to be, the 75 feet is going to be the conforming. MR. MARTIN-That's the overriding concern. MR. CARVIN-I just couldn't understand what he was referring to in his letter, that he wanted the e:(tra three or four feet. In 0l:L - 34 - ........,/ '-- mind, I think there's some other extenuating circumstances here. The 75 foot setback is certainly something to encourage, and that's very good, and the septic system also. I think on this particular body of water, the thing that's causing the greatest amount of detriment to the quality of the water in the lake is the wastewater, the leachate, and I agree with the one neighbor that said, any time we get a chance for a conforming system that should certainly be encouraged. MS. CIPPERLY-In terms of the privacy there is a six foot fence around that Rathbun's property. that was mentioned, too, adjoining property, the MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, when I looked at it, when he moves it back the 75 feet, I don't see where there's going to be any, I mean, you're going to be way back away from everybody else. MR. ERB-And if anything, if he tore the fence down, he'd improve his v ielrJ . MR. GALLOWAY-If you're interested, this is the existing structure that's on Lake George right now that I've based this design on. MR. FORD-I'm interested in what the new structure will look like. Do you have any drawings or pictures of that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's what this is. MS. CIPPERLY-That's one that was built on Lake George, that he's basing his. MR. GALLOWAY-I have preliminary drawings that I've done. MR. FORD-I've seen the existing structure. MR. MARTIN-No. This is the one that's proposed. MR. GALLOWAY-This is what it was based on, an existing structure on Lake George. MR. FORD-On Lake George. I beg your pardon. MR. GALLOWAY-And these are preliminary drawings. It's a very narrow lot on Cleverdale. It was a sloping lot. These drawings here are based on, this was one that was much closer. So the slope's going to change, but they're going into an architect's hands, if we get an approval, and he's going to check them out and stamp them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. applicant here? Well, any other questions, gentlemen, of the MR. FORD-At some point I have some comments to make. No questions. MR. CARVIN-Well, I would like to, I don't have a problem with the side yard setbacks, moving back the 75 feet, or the septic, and I guess, if you are amenable to moving along this plan where you actually can deed that 12 foot with the 40 foot, that will eliminate that particular aspect. I really don't have a problem with it, other than that. I mean if you can agree to that, that's mz comments. MR. MENTER-I agree 100 percent. I think that's the only issue that, the rest of it, most of the comments and concerns didn't have really much to do with the building. It was, you know, other issues, which was, pretty much are going to be effected or are going to be effected in a positive way by the project. So I don~t have a problem with the building of the project, and the only issue is, down the road, having this opportunity to avert - 35 - -- potential problems for everybody. MR. GREEN-I don't have a problem with it at all, if we can get a driveway into it. MR. THOMAS-I like the idea of the driveway coming off that other piece of property. As far as the setbacks are concerned, I have no problem with that. MR. FORD-I hope we didn't convey your perception that we were getting all hungup on that right-of-way and the driveway and so forth. We had a lot of discussion about that, and I think that it was creative solving problem, and your agreement with this solution that Fred has suggested I think is great. I want to compliment you folks on what you are doing. By comparison, all too frequently we have people who want to get as close to the lake. I fully expect, someday, to have someone wanting to build out on the lake, and you have seized and opportunity to get in compliance, 75 feet back from the shoreline is admirable. You're in compliance, dealing with a septic system. You're to be complimented for that, and I have no problem with the side setbacks. I think that we would have a better Glen Lake if more people approached their building solutions as you folks have. MR. GALLOWAY-Can I ask one question? Should we decide to go to, just before the meeting, I looked at where the different wells were, and seeing that we had kind of limited parking back there, on the front lot with the leach field, I quickly laid it out to see if we could fit, put in a seepage pit, and it looks like that may work. Will we be tied to this drawing, or, this is just for the variance. MR. CARVIN-No. I mean, that comes into site plan, doesn't it? MS. CIPPERLY-The septic plan. MR. MARTIN-That's a building permit concern, and I think, the standards for a seepage pit is if a leach field system cannot be shown, then that's your next fall back position. If you don't have enough area to accommodate a leach bed, then the next thing is the seepage pit, but I think that will require a stamped, engineered drawing for the sizing of the seepage pits. That's the way it works. MR. GALLOWAY-The only thing I was thinking is that you can, well, one, Ray's is right next to it, his seepage pit, and he has, he's able to drive over his entire system. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's possible. MR. GALLOWAY-So, to give her a little more parking in there, I may, you know, right now there's just enough for two cars, two vehicles in there, in the turnaround. MR. MARTIN-That's something you deal with at the building permit level. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Jim, the only thing that, you know, if we condition this, because I would condition this on the deeding of the proposed driveway, and the 40 foot road frontage. Is he going to require another variance? So you'd have to come back next month anyway, right? MR. MARTIN-I think that would be the best way. I mean, I don't want to put off the individual, but if that's the solution. MR. CARVIN-What would be the average turnaround time on a deeding like that? MR. MARTIN-Well, it's just a matter of getting the language for - 36 - --- ---- the deed to be written. A surveyor can supply you with that. MR. GALLOWAY-I thought there's going to be a meeting a week from now? MR. CARVIN-It has to be advertised, though. MR. MARTIN-It's a matter of advertising and, see, I hadn't anticipated this, or I would have told you to file for both variances. I didn't realize this was an option. I thought you might just simply join both lots. You could have advertised for both and had it heard tonight, but I didn't know that would be the route it would take. MS. CIPPERLY-Would this require subdivision approval? MR. MARTIN-No. It's a boundary line adjustment. You're starting with two lots and ending with two lots, right? MR. GALLOWAY-Yes. MR. MARTIN-It's a boundary line adjustment. the nonconformity of their lot on the road. They're increasing MR. CARVIN-Yes, but if we were to grant the variance with the stipulation that, you know, if he provides a deed, he could probabl '/ get a bui ldi ng permi t for this aspect, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Because the variance on the other really wouldn't hold up the building permit, you know, if you get that deed changed. MR. MARTIN-It's for the other lot, the building permit. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So, I mean. as far as that's concerned, if he just showed up with a deed change, you could know that he's in compliance of the variance. Then you could issue a building permit. So he could actually start on that. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. GALLOWAY-I mean, other than, we'd be coming before the same Board. Is this something that you see as a problem? MR. CARVIN-Do L see it as a problem? No. MR. MENTER-No, I don't think so. MR. CIPPERLY-See, the only problem is, and especially where we have one neighbor who's not in favor of it, apparently. You want to have all your T's crossed and !'s dotted, as far as legal notification, and, as you know, everybody within 500 feet has to get notified at least five days before the meeting. MR. GALLOWAY-I guess I want to know what the odds are of this going through. MS. CIPPERLY-I think you're safe. MR. MENTER-They're fair. MR. CARVIN-Unless there's an atomic waste dump here, they're pretty decent. MR. MARTIN-What Fred is saying is that you would have a form of approval tonight that would allow a building permit to be issued on the house, on the lake side lot, as shown here, 75 feet back, 13 foot setback, whatever it is, and so on. We could get that much of it done. So it would be simply a matter of the area - 37 - variance would be it's had building for the reduction in size of the road side lot. That the issue. So you could come in with this approval, if tonight, with your building permit tomorrow and start your house, but that other lot would remain an issue. MR. MENTER-Does the variance need to proceed the deed change? MR. MARTIN-Yes, it should. MS. CIPPERLY-On the rear lot. MR. MARTIN-Yes, it should. Technically, if you were to go up and file the deed, the County would likely accept it. MR. CARVIN-The County would accept it. MR. MARTIN-I mean, there's nothing they happened with the one there on Ridge Road. deed and it would be accepted. could, that's what He could file that MR. MENTER-So we could just make that a requirement, that he files that deed change, and then, regardless of the variance, and we just start a motion now, the variance proceedings, and just make sure that that happens. He fulfilled his requirements. MR. FORD-What are your plans for building a house on that outer lot? MR. GALLOWAY-At this point, we have none. MR. CARVIN-Well, how soon are you looking to build on the lake? Is that an issue? MR. GALLOWAY-On the lake? As soon as possible. MR. FORD-I was asking about their plans for the outer lot. MR. MARTIN-You'd indicated some intention, maybe, of putting a garage on there for the house, right? MR. GALLOWAY-Yes, but it is a building lot. as a building lot. I'd like to keep it MR. MARTIN-I don't blame you for that. MR. GALLOWAY-And if it came down to it, we would end up keeping the camp and putting the house on the road lot. We don't want to do that. MS. CIPPERLY-How do you currently access camp? You along the front of everybody's property? You just the neighbor's driveway? don't drive come through MR. GALLOWAY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Stranger things have happened, but I think we can condition it and let him have the building permit and then tackle the other. MS. CIPPERLY-Probably applicant has agreed that rear lot. in your motion you could say that to come in for, apply for a variance the for MR. MENTER-Two things. He files a deed change and he applies for a variance for the lot reduction on the other lot. MR. CARVIN-I think the variance should be granted before the deed. MR. MARTIN-I can't tell you that it shouldn't. As a technical - 38 - -...../ ~ matter, it should. MR. CARVIN-We could probably table this, couldn't we? There's no way we can get this advertised, right? It's too late, isn't it? MR. MARTIN-For next Wednesday it is. MR. CARVIN-I was thinking a special meeting, too, but that doesn't make any sense. MR. MARTIN-The other early July. I mean, option is a special meeting Ted did it in the past. some time in MR. GALLOWAY-What are we looking at here, the third week of July? MR. MARTIN-Well, with the normal option of a special meeting, too. of weeks, maybe. schedule, yes, but there's the It would advance it a couple MR. GALLOWAY-If I have a warm and comfy feeling, we still have to go to the architect, and he's going to. MR. MARTIN-That's true. MR. CARVIN-I think what I'd like to do is maybe table this, have you apply, get your ducks in a rowan this, and then apply for that second variance here, and then we can knock the whole thing out in one sitting in July. We can make it the first item in July. MR. MARTIN-That's fine. The other thing that can be done, also, is you can submit your building permit application. We would not issue it until the variance is taken care of, but you could submit all your paper work for that and get that underway, and have it in a condition that, should the variance be granted, the very next day, literally, we could issue the building permit. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think I'd rather move along that line. MR. MARTIN-So if you have architectural work to about a week's review at our end once you submit permit application anyhow. do and there's your building MR. FORD-You're doing things that have got to be done, but they're being done before that next meeting. MR. MARTIN-We can move concurrently on the building permit application. -MR. GALLOWAY-That sounds great. Do it. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and that way you can give us the, you can reconfigure, whatever you're going to do here, for the 40 feet. You can show us the actual new plot. MR. MARTIN-Now the submission deadline, then, for the variance for this road side lot would be one week from today. If you want to come in tomorrow or the next day and go through what numbers would have to be (lost words), we'll do that with you, too. MR. CARVIN-All right. Then I'm going to move for tabling. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1995 ELIZABETH GALLOWAY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In order for the applicant to prepare and present a new plot plan indicating the deeding of a driveway with a 40 foot road front, at road frontage, and also allow the applicant all opportunity to submit any other appropriate variances that are required, as a - 39 - ---- result of this situation. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Maresco MR. MARTIN-I know this is taking a little longer, but you'll truly have a properly done, correct approach to this. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 PAULINE PALMER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 42 MICHIGAN AVENUE APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONVERT EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO A DUPLEX. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM SECTION 179-71, MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, WHICH REQUIRES 750 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT FOR A TWO-FAMILY UNIT. CROSS REF. SPR 32-95 TAX MAP NO. 127-8-5 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179- 18, 179-71 PAULINE PALMER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-1995, Pauline Palmer, Meeting Date: June 21, 1995 "Applicant: Pauline Palmer, Project Location: 42 Michigan Avenue Proposed Action: Applicant proposes to convert existing single family residence to a duplex. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-18, Multi-family Residential zone, requires 5,000 square feet of lot per dwelling, and from Section 179-71, Minimum Floor Area, which requires 750 square feet per unit for a two-family unit, 600 square feet for an apartment unit, defined as 3 or more units. Subject lot is 9,147 s.f. in size. The size proposed for the second dwelling unit is 432 square feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to applicant: The applicant would be able to rent this upstairs space as an efficiency apartment, rather than rooms. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not seem to be any alternatives to accomplish this goal. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The lot size relief is not substantial, but the unit size relief is 42% of the requirement. Even compared to the apartment standards, the relief is 28% of the requirement. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? This is a Multi-Family residential zone, where a conventional single-family dwelling is a nonconformity. It does not appear that having two units in this house would cause an adverse effect on the neighborhood. However, the unit size is not one that would necessarily be a desirable situation or precedent. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The applicant was aware that the upstairs portion of the house was not adequate in size for a dwelling unit when the building permit was issued for renovations to the upstairs. Parcel History: The house was first built in 1940. The Assessor's office lists the first floor area as 783, and the "1/2" story as 609, probably because storage area under the roof was included. This still would not meet the duplex requirement. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. SEQR: Unlisted" MR. CARVIN-Jim, I just have a question. In the conformity with the Ordinance, 5,000 square feet of lot per dwelling. Am I to interpret this that if we have two dwellings, we need 10,000? MR. MARTIN-Yes, and if you read the lot size requirement of that zone, the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. MR. FORD-That would be for a duplex. - 40 - ~ '--- MR. MARTIN-Right, and no matter what the lot size, how many units there are, the minimum lot size has to be 10,000 square feet, and then it has another standard of 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit, but the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything you'd care to add? MRS. PALMER-I do have a tenant that is a long time, and has signed a lease. Not being able to have cooking facilities, I would end up with more like a transient, by just renting the rooms, and I think it's more effective to have a long term type of individual living in the area than somebody there for two or three months and. moving on. That's about all I can say. MR. FORD-You H~ve someone there now? MRS. PALMER-~es. I have someone there now. It is rented. He has signed a lease. MR. FORD-And how long has this person been there? MRS. PALMER-Three months. It has it's own outside entrance, and it has a stairway inside and out, a separate access out from my living quarters that is accessible to them to get out, as a second fire exit, and the only problem is the space for the cooking facilities. That creates a problem to having (lost words). MR. CARVIN-How long have you owned the home? When did you buy it? MRS. PALMER-I bought the home in 1982. on the house. I've done extensive work MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. 1940. The house looks newer than a MRS. PALMER-Extensive. MR. CARVIN-You've done a nice job, believe it or not. MRS. PALMER-Thank you. MR. FORD-What building permit was renovations? issued? That was for MRS. PALMER-Well, for the outside entrance. I had to have a building permit. I will need a new building permit because I ran out of money to put a roof over the outside entrance that was on the original building plan to have a roof over the outside entrance. I ran out of capital at the time. So I had to put that part on hold. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, gentlemen? Okay. Then I'll open up the public heari~g. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE CLARK MR. CLARK-I'm George Clark. I live on Illinois Avenue, 42, next block over. When she started this project, working on this house, we were under the impression that it was going to be for her daughter. I went to Dave Hatin. I talked to Dave Hatin about it. Dave Hatin told me the same thing, Vic, whatever his last name is, that it was going to be her daughter, was going to move in upstairs. We have other people that want a duplex house, and I was always under the impression that a duplex house means that they would have the facilities where you go in the door and have facilities for a door going out, on the same building, but - 41 - it would be separate than a building going where the residence would be. I didn't know this, well, getting back to the daughter, that's what we heard was the daughter was going to move in upstairs, and then all of a sudden, then I see this guy coming in and out of the building where she was renting it, and I objected to it right there, because I feel that she should have went through the Town in the first place, before she even rented it. It's already renovated, but these letters are supposed to go around first before you rent. Isn't that right? MR. CARVIN-I don't believe for a room rental. I don't think. MR. MARTIN-Well, it's as a second dwelling that you would need to have the variance prior to, and we do have a second dwelling here now. It's not just a room for rent. It constitutes a second dwelling and the applicant was informed, prior to undertaking the project, that there couldn't be a second dwelling here. MR. CLARK-May I say a little bit more, about three years ago there was another person that did the same thing. They started doing, they fixed the house up and everything else, and they were turned down, almost for the same thing, but I just object to having that going on in the neighborhood right at the present time. MRS. PALMER-The rooms can be rented, even without the variance. The tenant can still be here. There just will not be a cooking facility. That's what the two family dwelling stipulates the difference. So if I take out the cooking facility in the upstairs, that does not mean that I cannot have tenants. It just means that I'm liable to have crappier tenants, excuse the language. MR. CLARK-Looking at it, like I said, a duplex house, to me, would be like they have up the street about three or four streets up, blocks up, where actually they've got one tenant on one side and one on the other. It wouldn't be going through her house to put a (lost words) second door. I wouldn't believe that. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, that's what I thought was being proposed here, that the people have a second, a duplex can be up and down, and she's proposing that the entrance be from the outside. MRS. PALMER-It is. MR. CLARK-It is, one going in, but nothing coming out. You've got to go down through her. MRS. PALMER-No, you do not. MR. CLARK-Where do you come out? MRS. PALMER-You're talking the second entrance. Even a window can be used as a second. MR. FORD-Can't you go in and out that same door? MRS. PALMER-Sure. MR. CLARK-For fire, wouldn't it be against the State Code? MR. MARTIN-No, as long as you have a second dedicated access. MR. FORD-There's a second one there. MRS. PALMER-There's a second one there. Plus there's also windows that lead right out onto a porch, that as far as the fire code. MR. MARTIN-I think the main two issues are the presence of the - 42 - '- --' second dwelling, again, the kitchen facilities, and the apartment size standard in the Code. MR. CARVIN-I think that's more to where the issue really lies, is the of the apartment. the point. I size of the lot think that's and the size MR. MARTIN-The other thing I will point out is Home Occupation is a permitted use in this zone, and Home Occupation, if you read the definition, specifically says, the keeping of not more than two roomers or boarders shall be considered a permitted Home Occupation. MR. CLARK-Well, that's what I have. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? JEAN MOONEY MRS. MOONEY-My name is Jean Mooney. I live on the corner of Indiana and Central Avenue. I was here the last time something of this nature was propQsed in the neighborhood. Again, my concerns are the same. The lot is not big enough to house a two unit situation. The apartment size, and this is nothing personal. I'm Just concerned about the kids in the neighborhood and the type of tenants that are there. The apartment size sounds, per square footage, sounds even less than what the McGoverns had in the situation that they had down the road from me. I mean, I don't know how much of that you remember, but in this case where she has one single tenant right now, in that tiny little apartment, that in itself, wouldn't be so bad, but what if, down the road, she rents to, say a young lady who ends up with a child or even a single father, a family who has a child? Then what? I mean, it just, 450 feet of living space is, what, a little bigger than a nice walk-in closet. I would think that a fire hazard would be just tremendous, in that small a space, if there's a cooking environment there as well. I just, I mean, that is, like, really small. The house is lovely. The lawn is beautiful. The outside is kept absolutely impeccable. It's nice, but it doesn't change the safety issue at all, or the impact that it's going to have on the neighborhood, if the wrong type of tenant gets in there. As I said before, our neighborhood was a little better than a ghetto when I was a child growing up there. It's changed a lot, and I would hate to see anything set it back. If she keeps a tight rein on things, and all is well, then she doesn't have a problem, but I don't know. Have you ever been in a situation where you've had to evict a tenant? I mean, in a two family situation, it's not as simple as renting a room. I mean, you can get involved in courts and it goes on for months and months and months, and in a month's time, one bad tenant can destroy a block. I mean, they can just literally destroy your neighborhood. I just don't think it's a good situation. Again, I would be extremely concerned about the fire hazard inside that tiny little apartment. If she wanted to rent rooms in her house, that's fine. I mean, they're in her kitchen cooking. That's fine, but a separate situation where you cannot monitor it, you don't know what's going on, it's not a good situation. I am strongly opposed. Strongly. I also, if I might ask a question, what is next Tuesday's meeting about? What is that? MS. CIPPERLY-That's the Planning Board, who also has to review, if this variance were granted, for the size and the, basically the lot size and the second dwelling, then the Planning Board looks at it as far as how it's being done on the site, and looks at it more from a, this sort of lets it happen, and the Planning Board looks at it as how it's being done, as far as. MR. MARTIN-In terms of parking for the tenant, that type of thing? In other words, then if this were approved tonight, we have a duplex now, and duplexes are a listed site plan review use - 43 - ,-' oversight on my part by not checking the Certificate of Occupancy when I got it and reading it correctly. I take full responsibility. Nobody else. MR. MENTER-Well, it seems to me that both of the neighbors have pretty valid concerns. There's a reason why apartments are allowed smaller square footage per unit than in the multi-family buildings, and the whole key is to protect the neighborhood, and I think this is a perfect case of where that comes into play. It is a very small, it's a very small space, and the types of problems that you'd get, you can run into with this type of a rental arrangement, with a full living facility with kitchen and the whole thing aTe just expanded and compounded over boarding people in rooms, and that's the type of thing that the zoning is designed to eliminate and protect the neighborhood from, and it seems to me like it shows a real potential detriment to the neighborhood. I mean, I don't know what they rest of the Board thinks. MR. FORD-I conCUT, basically, with Dave, and I'm concerned, especially for the very small amount of space, first of all, and, secondly, that this is after the fact, when it was clearly stipulated in the Certificate of Occupancy that there were to be no cooking facilities. I just have to accept what you said, that you didn't read it carefully enough. At any rate, it does show a disregard for the Certificate. MR. GREEN-I don't see a real difference, whether it's rooms or living, per say, as far as the type of people that might rent the area. I'm just concerned with the space itself. It's just too small, in my opinion. MR. THOMAS-I'll go along with all the other members, that the space is too small, and with the addition of the cooking facilities, it cuts down the "living space" even more. If the owner wants to rent it out as rooms, well, can't do anything about that, but we can do something about the fact that it's an "apartment" with cooking facilities. MR. CARVIN-How much difference, economically, do you stand to gain or lose if you rent it as an apartment, as opposed to rooms? MRS. PALMER-The rent is about $100 a month less than it runs now. I have a mortgage that I put on the house to do the rental work, so I'm going to take a little loss, about $1200 to $1800 a year, less the increase in tax value (lost words) tax value when they did the reassessment on the house, of $5,000. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess what you're saying is that it's approximately $100 difference between a boarder and a renter? MRS. PALMER-And a renter, because they're constantly, usually when you get a boarder, you don't get them to stay for any length of time. They're constantly moving in and they're constantly moving out. So you're having to possibly repaint, shampoo your rugs, repair work that needs to be done. MR. CARVIN-This is going to be a one bedroom apartment? MRS. PALMER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I guess you would have a great deal of difficulty if you had two people or three people? MRS. PALMER-I could not allow that amount of people in there. I'm talking just me, personally. I live downstai1"s. So I've got. to feel safe, and I wouldn't feel safe with that. MR. CARVIN-Just out of curiosity, all right, in other words, I'm assuming that the $100 difference, lets assume that we have one - 45 - "-' -..-I with the Planning Board. MRS. MOONEY-Can I ask where the tenant would park? legitimate question? Is that a MRS. PALMER-The tenant has its own set of garages, a two car garage, to use as one side of the garage as his space that goes along with the apartment. MRS. MOONEY-Is it a divided garage? MRS. PALMER-There's no partition. gan.õlge. It's an (lost word) two car MRS. MOONEY-In most situations where there's a duplex situation and a shared garage, I mean, isn't, I shouldn't say isn't. In any situation I have seen, those garage units are separated, I mean, clear this portion (lost word). MRS. PALMER-We're not talking a duplex. You're talking about a house changed into a two family, not a duplex. It's basically what it's existing. Would I like a wall between the two garages? Sure. Now I need the apartment rented so that I can have the finances in order to be able to complete what I've been striving to do. MS. MOONEY-My concern is the impact on neighborhood, me being right down, I mean, we have (lost words) to me is a compounded situation enough. We have two of them in the immediate area, and I just think adding to the population problem in the neighborhood is just going to be a problem, all around. I was raised in a very small house myself. I mean, we had six children in an extremely small house. I know what it's like. We spent a lot of time outside, and that's what I'm concerned about. If you don't have the room in the house or on the lot, to maintain its inhabitants, then they're going to be out in the street and down the road, and God knows where else. I mean, I'm just concerned about that. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and we appreciate that. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions, gentlemen? Comments? MR. FORD-This current residence has been there for a relatively short amount of time. Prior to that, how had this been occupied? MRS. PALMER-I raised five children in the home, two bedrooms upstairs. When my daughter moved to Ohio, she was going to come back. That's where he got the contention I was doing this for my daughter, and I wanted us to keep our own living space, but she's since gained a job and got a boyfriend, etc. So I completed what I started and tried to rent the living space out to recoup what I had invested to improve this living space in my house. MR. MARTIN-Just for the Board's information, there was a building permit applied for on December 5th, for interior alterations upstairs. The various inspections were had, framing, electrical, final and so on. The notation on the final inspection slip by the Building Inspector was, "no cooking facilities". A CO was issued on March 13th, for the interior alterations, but it was as a single family dwelling. At some point after that time, the cooking facilities were installed, and the tenant came in. MR. GREEN-Why did you not try and seek this variance before you added the cooking facilities? MRS. PALMER-I thought my contractor had. I had a contractor on this job, and as far as I knew this had been done. It was an - 44 - '--' boarder who lives up there, as opposed to one renter, and there's a $100 difference, that's $1200 a year just right off the top. How much have you expended in your kitchen facilities, your bath facilities, and upgrading the facility to an apartment status? Is that in excess of? MRS. PALMER-The whole renovation you're talking? The whole renovation, upstairs alone, I'm not talking the other renovations, was $10,000 was invested, for the outside entrance. It basically was gutted right out, re-insulated, rewired. I put in a new heating unit, new furnace. I've done a lot of work on it. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I guess what I'm trying to prove or say here is that, at $100, you're looking at a minimum of probably six to seven years, fully rented, before you even break even. MRS. PALMER-That's correct. MR. MENTER-The kitchen was kind of an afterthought, or the? MRS. PALMER-It was. facilities. Got very what do you think I'm time? I tried renting it without cooking little response, got very negative, well, going to do, eat in a restaurant all the MR. GREEN-When you originally were going to do this for your daughter, specifically originally, she wasn't going to have cooking facilities there? She was going to continue to use the downstairs? MRS. PALMER-That's allowed under, I believe, see, the difference is, my daughter I wouldn't mind coming down into my living space, going through my living room, out through my home and then to my kitchen. There's no way to enter my kitchen from the upstairs, without going through my whole house, and I'm sorry, my family is one thing, but I don't want any stranger coming through my living room, going through my hallway, into my kitchen to use kitchen facilities. My kitchen is toward the back of the house. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but what I'm saying is that you won't gain any economic value for six to eight years. MRS. PALMER-I realize, I know this, but I'm not going to gain. MR. CARVIN-You would have gained more by not putting the money in and renting it out to a boarder. MRS. PALMER-What about the bathroom, their own shower. need to have them have She's now an adult. their own MR. MARTIN-Just for the record, were you specifically informed, by your contractor, prior to this project occurring, and during and after, that this was approved as a second apartment, full apartment unit? MRS. PALMER-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have a real hard time with it. I think it's too small. I think that 432 square feet, I think you're asking substantial relief. I think this is definitely a self-created hardship. I can't see any benefit to the applicant. I really can't, if we allow this, and I think it would have a detriment to the community, I really do. Any other questions? Okay. I would ask for a motion, if there's no other comments. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1995 PAULINE PALMER, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: - 46 - "'-- -/ The applicant is proposing to convert an existing single family residence to a duplex. In order for the applicant to move forward with this proposed action, she would need relief from Section 179-18, Multifamily residential zones, which require 5,000 square feet of lot per dwelling, and from Section 179-71, which is a minimum floor area requirement, which requires a minimum of 750 square feet per unit, for a two family unit, or 600 square feet for an apartment unit. The applicant's lot currently is 9147 square feet and the size of the proposed second dwelling unit is only 432 square feet. The benefit to the applicant as indicated is that the applicant would be able to rent the upstairs apartment space as an efficiency apartment. However, I think the economics that the applicant has presented or indicated would lead us to believe that this benefit would be several years in the coming, and that the detriment to the community by granting of this area variance would be substantial. That plus the fact that 432 square feet unit size is substantial when compared to the minimum requirements of a two family or apartment unit, and that this difficulty is self-created, that the applicant apparently was aware that the upstairs portion of the house was not adequate in size for a dwelling unit when she requested a building permit, or when a building permit was requested and issued for renovations to the upstairs. I think if we were to grant this variance, that there would be an effect to the neighborhood and community, and that a unit size of these dimensions is not necessarily a desirable situation, and I think it would lead to setting a precedent. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Maresco MRS. PALMER-Is there a time limit on when the stove has tD be removed? MR. MARTIN-We could work with you on that, end of the month? Is that adequate time? I'll inform the Compliance Officer, and he'll pay a visit by the end of the month. MRS. PALMER-Now is it the piping that goes up to it, too? Does the pipe have to be removed or just the stove? MR. MARTIN-The stove, as far as I know. If that changes, we'll let you know, but as far as I kno~J, it's just the unit itself. MRS. PALMER-So I know what I've got to remove. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-That does away with the action for next Tuesday night. (Area Variance No. 31-1995 Guido Passarelli, Cont'd) MR. KRANTZ-Just a couple of things, if I may. I understand the point that you make. I do. I appreciate the point that you're making, but what I would ask is, I understand the procedure gives you pause. If Mr. Passarelli was aware of the problem, which would have been to his benefit, and if he came to this Board for the same relief that he's asking for this evening, but he did it before he paved the widér area in the back, would your thinking be any different? In other words, on the merits of the issue, I ,understand the procedure and how the timing occurred (lost words), but on the merits of the issue, just for the sake of discussion, had he come with proper timing, before the work was done, would that be different? The other point that I would just mention, I think we discussed the actual permeability or the - 47 - surface water. As Jim has explained, the subsurface system works extremely well. From an aesthetic point of view, we've had the Queensbury Beautification Committee, who's only job is to look at it from an appearance point of view, approve it unanimously, and I was there, with rave compliments to what Mr. Passarelli has done there. Warren County Planning couldn't muster a majority against it. No contiguous property owners oppose. No adjacent property owners oppose. I submit that the taking up of some of the paving, my way of thinking, will have really no practical benefit at all. I think it would be a step down from what there is now. Outside of that, I think I'd be repeating the same points over and over again. MR. PASSARELLI-What I would like to say, if you want to teach me a lesson, believe me, I've learned a lesson. It cost me $21,000 to pave. He charged me by the seconds. Believe me, it cost me a lot of money. MR. KRANTZ-And really there was no and is no ulterior motive for doing it. MR. FORD-I've never suggested, I've never meant it to be interpreted that way, and you have a good question, and it deserves an answer. Had it been brought in a timely fashion, we would have looked, I'm sure, at a number of different alternatives, including building size and all kinds of other things that would impact the decision to cut down on that 30 percent permeable. MR. KRANTZ-No. I meant, when the building was already up. The paving was, right at the very end, I would think, at that point. Believe it or not, in his mind's eye, permeability and open space were one in the same thing, from his experience in building elsewhere down in the City, that, down in the City, when they talk about open space, it doesn't have to be permeable, because it's concrete, sidewalks, whatever. At the point that, he got the paving contract, at that time. MR. FORD-Well, I guess I would have to rely on those people who will be called upon to provide emergency service to the structure, and they were pleased with the original plan. MR. GREEN-That's where I'm a little confused. Maybe I didn't read it correctly, but I thought that the emergency service people were happier with it wider. That's where I'm kind of basing a lot of my thinking. MR. CARVIN-This is what they proposed is the 12 foot. MR. MENTER-The original proposal was the 12 foot, not what you see on that. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-That actually was one of the things we went round and round on prior to the approval of the original site plan. Like I said, there were many discussed, one of which was even coming in Pine Drive from Weeks Road, as a method of providing emergency access. That's the first time we began to look into the history of that paper street. There were a number of options discussed for emergency service to the site. MR. FORD-I'm not into admonishing or penalizing. That's not why I serve, but I do believe that that original plan that was approved, that gave the 30 percent, was appropriate, and I think we have too much blacktop on the surface now. MR. KRANTZ-Even though it's only visible to, basically, the people parking in the back? - 48 - "-- --..,.I' MR. FORD-Visibility is only a part of it. We're talking beauty. We're also, you know, the permeability is the issue. MR. GREEN-But is it? I mean, if they have an underground system that is, see, maybe that's where I don't know if we're seeing eye to eye, is that I don't see a problem with the permeability, dealing with the rain water. Apparently, the engineers and whatever have said that it's adequate to do that. If that is still a problem, then I'm not understanding their, that it isn't going to take up the water. If we're dealing with strictly an aesthetic, open space green area for attractiveness, not rain water absorption, I don't ha\ie a problef1'\,. If we do have a problem with rain water absorption, then there is a problem, and I still have the problem with not coming before hand. It's already gone from 50 to 30, and now we're down to whatever. MR. KRANTZ-No, no. You're talking about the permeability? We're from 30 to 22. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-The other was that buffer business that we. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-I was just reading the minutes from the Variance No. 60-1993. MR. CARVIN-It really didn't deal with permeability. more with the buffer It dealt MR. THOMAS-Yes, to the buffer back there, but it also states something about the Fire Marshal. MR. CARVIN-Well, yes. I mean, the Fire Marshal indicated that, well, you see, it says here, according to Mr. Miller, and I'm not sure who Mr. Miller was. MR. MARTIN-He was the architect who designed the site plan. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In order to do that and keep our permeability at 30 percent, we made our building smaller by about 2500 square feet, and so we shrunk the building to comply with the additional pavement of the access road. MR. MENTER-You mean the 12 foot originally? MR. CARVIN-I'm assuming that that's what they're referring to. MR. MARTIN-Yes. See, when it came upon the idea of putting in the access road, there had to be accommodation for that covered area elsewhere, and we came up with it by shrinking the building. MR. CARVIN-So, in answer to your hypothetical question, I mean, maybe at that point, had the issue been raised, maybe the building could have been shrunk even more. I don't know, to accommodate some of the permeability. MR. KRANTZ-Again, the point Before the paving contractor point, lets say, encourage percent permeability. We're of what happened, the paving I was saying, the goes in, we Guido, we're at that point. was the last. come going That building's up. to you at that less than 30 is the sequence MR. MENTER-Wasn't a major issue? issue that is project? the issue of loading and unloading, isn't that I mean, even before site plan, isn't that an just typically discussed with this type of a MR. KRANTZ-Should it have been? - 49 - MR. MENTER-I would guess. Wouldn't provisions for areas for loading and unloading of tractor trailer trucks for this type of a project be typically thoroughly discussed in Planning? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It was discussed at site plan, what kind of access would be needed for deliveries to the various stores that might go in there. MR. MENTER-They all have rear access, but it was just to be like a one way kind of traffic pattern? MR. MARTIN-Garbage trucks were discussed for the dumpster, loading and unloading. That was all discussed. MR. PASSARELLI-Clost words) it doesn't work. It's impossible to get a fire truck (lost words). It looks good on paper. MR. MENTER-I'm saying it doesn't look good on paper. can you have a 12 foot wide strip and expect sufficient, usable? I mean, how that to be MR. MARTIN-Ask Jim Miller. MS. CIPPERLY-The Lake George Jim Miller. MR. MENTER-I know Jim. Yes. MR. PASSARELLI-If you remember, we didn't want to build that strip in the back. The Fire Marshal made me build that strip. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. MR. MENTER-You were going to deliver in front? MR. PASSARELLI-I guess so. MR. MENTER-Boy, you'd be worse off then. You'd really have a problem. MR. MARTIN-I think I recall that the first submission had the building almost exact, all the way back to the property line, and I think that's what I recall, you were going to push the building all the way back and then you were going to come in Pine Street, by Pine Drive. You tried to acquire that, and that's how we got into this morass of who owned the property, you know, it was very difficult to nail down an owner, and so the compromise was to push the building ahead, provide an access all the way around the building, and abandon the idea of Pine Drive. MR. CARVIN-Well, Jim, you also are on record, back in saying that, the other thing I'd like to put on record the applicant has been very accommodating on the Town's and the request of the Fire Marshal in this regard, great delay to him, and I think that should be noted. '93, of is that request and at a MR. MARTIN-Yes. I remember we had Brian LaFlure in the room, Kip Grant, Dave Hatin, and we all sat around the table and the accommodation was made. MS. CIPPERLY-And that's on the site plan. That's what everybody approved, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. KRANTZ-I've driven behind the shopping center. I don't know if any of YOU have. It looks like anybody else's back of a shopp i ng cente)-. - 50 - ~ ~ MR. CARVIN-You've got that right. MR. KRANTZ-I mean, except it's not as deep as some of the others, as far as the width. MR. CARVIN-And you can see the screen, the Drive-in screen. MR. FORD-And the speakers. MR. CARVIN-And the speakers. MR. PASSARELLI-Well, you could see them before too. MR. CARVIN-Do you have problems with people going out there and parking? MR. PASSARELLI-Not yet. MR. MENTER-I think I would need to base my decision on a couple of things. First of all, despite the real temptation to get punitive here, I feel like, I don't see an adverse effect. I don't see a possible premeditated plan here. I don't see that having happened. I don't see the permeability, the actual permeability, being an issue, because there is stormwater control. I don't see aesthetics being an issue, because it's not going to be affected, and I would do the same thing, if I were in their position right now. I would be inclined to grant the variance. It's either that or don't, and I think it's the lesser of two non perfect answers, at this point. That's ~ feeling. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess, I don't know, without sounding like this is a baiting or leading question, but have you had other situations like this? I don't think we've seen Mr. Passarelli in here before coming back. MR. MARTIN-Well, the other thing, in fairness, is that this is a project that came in the transition of this Enforcement Officer position we have. I mean, if this were starting out from the beginning, we would have caught this exactly at the point that Mr. Krantz is describing, the paving is going in, and it would have been seen right away as not being in compliance, if that would have helped at all, but this is something that John came on in April, and this thing has been paved since, when, last November? MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess that's the gist of my question, is, I mean, are we going to have a rash of these things? I mean, where all of a sudden what looks good on paper is not actually being built? MR. MARTIN-I still think it's functional on paper. I disagree with, I believe that you can pull a fire truck back there, on that plan, in reality. That's my opinion. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I'll tell you, there are some, for instance, Queensbury Plaza, right now is saying, well, we submitted the site plan showing a certain kind of drainage pattern, but that's not what we want to do, and before they, for one thing, I wish they would do this during their planning process and their site plans, instead of having to come back for a modification, but they're doing it before they do the work. They're coming back for modification to the Planning Board, before they actually go out and install the thing differently than they told everybody. MR. MARTIN-But it is helpful that that's happening by virtue of having the availability of staff to be there at the moment the drainage is about to go in, rather than, before we just simply didn't have the time to cover all these different aspects. MS. CIPPERLY-I guess I also see you guys sit here on residential - 51 - projects, where there's 65 percent permeability and 35 percent structures and paving, and worry about one or two percent, on a residential thing. So here's somebody doing a commercial thing, where only one third or less of the thing is required, and they can't even make that. Somehow, that doesn't seem fair. MR. KRANTZ-We can make it. The question is, is it desirable? We can make it, but is it desirable? MS. CIPPERLY-It looks to me like, if you granted this, you'd be holding, for one thing, commercial properties to a tougher standard than a residential one, in general, and letting some people get away with things and other people are going to have to comply with. Just being in our office, we see the number of times that people think they can just come in and put something on paper that they don't really intend to do, and then you go out and say, well, why didn't you do that, and they say, well, I don't know. The guy came and put in different trees. MR. CARVIN-Well, on the other hand, we've situations where we invoke, is it, 101 there. thing could be, because misrepresentation. got a number of I mean, the whole MS. CIPPERLY-I just don't know how you make the responsible for what they're doing. commercial ones MR. CARVIN-I guess that's the hardest part that ~ have is the fact that if we grant this, I think we're going to be setting a dangerous precedent. I really do. We weren't given that opportunity to look at the project when we should have. Smarter people than I have looked at this and come up with this as the plan. I mean, I think that that's the problem that I've got with it, and I appreciate where you're coming from. I truly do, but I've got to agree with you, Tom, I think we've got to stay with the plan, if that's the permeability. MR. THOMAS-So what are we going to do, make them rip it up? MR. GREEN-See, that's my concern is, granted, we should have been here three months ago, before the pavement went down, but the only way, I think, personally, feasibly, to solve the problem, it's going to seem more punitive. I mean, if we could add more green space to the front, to get back to the 30 percent, that would be the recommendation, but I can't see how we can do that, put the planters in that Fred suggested. That may add some, but to make him tear up the pavement, granted, is setting the bad precedent, but I look at that as more punitive. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but we have to look at our criteria for granting a variance. I mean, is this minimum relief, and I'm not positive that I can get over the hurdle of minimum relief when we had an approved plan at 30 percent. MR. THOMAS-Well, lets go back and look at Wal-Mart, and what relief they got. MR. CARVIN-But there is a difference. MR. THOMAS-Yes. There is a difference. They came in first, and then did it. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. GREEN-And I don't agree with the way it was done at all, but I, well, we just told a woman she had to take out her stove, too. MS. CIPPERLY-I think Mr. Passarelli is also on the next week for a modification based on what happens he could go to the Planning Board to see if they with a way of achieving a better permeability. Planning Board here. Perhaps could come up - 52 - -- -..-' MR. THOMAS-Do they need all those parking spaces that they have? MR. MARTIN-That's what ~ was hoping, is there some way you could, you know, I think as a practical matter we overbuild parking lots, in a great many instances. K-Mart is a great example. MR. CARVIN-Yes. They all want full parking lots, and you go down there and you can fire a cannon in most of them. MR. MARTIN-Nobody's going to walk 700 feet to a store. I don't care if you're giving the stuff away. I've yet to see anybody park in the lower third of that lot, even at Christmas time and during the grand opening, and I would not be opposed to, if there was some way you could shrink the parking in the front, but I don't know what that does to the marketability of his plaza. He may say that that's going to reduce the attractiveness of the plaza. He feels the parking is needed out front, every bit of it. MR. GREEN-My only question is if we didn't approve it, were forced to add more green space, some how, how would it, just off hand? and you 'y'ou do MR. PASSARELLI-I can plant more trees if you want them. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's the other thing I was going to say. I mean, if this were to get by the variance tonight, one thing that the Planning Board could say, lets add some more vegetation to the site, as a compromise position, but they'd have to get beyond this step f i n~t . MR. THOMAS-I go along with Bill. blacktop is punitive. I really do. I think tearing up that MR. GREEN-If that's the way you want to do it then, I mean, if that's what we have to do to set the example, then that's fine. I haven't been here long enough to make those decisions, I don't think. MR. CARVIN-Well, we haven't skated out onto this ice this far. This is, as far as ~ know, this is. MR. MENTER-Pretty clear and defined, at this point. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MENTER-Usually we have the luxury of a little fluff. one is pretty cut and dried. This MR. CARVIN-This is sort of in our face. MR. MARTIN-And I'll go on record, too, about the Wal-Mart thing. Staff was, I would say vehemently opposed to those set of variances, and I think now we see the impact of when you try and wad that much store onto an undersized lot. I have to deal with the calls about the buffer being violated when we only had eight feet left to accommodate a vegetative buffer. I mean, all the guy on the bull dozer had to do is keep his foot on the accelerator a couple of seconds and he's violated the buffer. I mean, it's just too tight. Bob Karpeles was the only one who had the right idea. If you want this site, Wal-Mart, build a second addition to your store, and if you can't do that, then, look for another site. MS. CIPPERLY-A second floor. MR. FORD-I know it can be interpreted as being punitive, and if I were sitting there, I probably would choose to interpret it that way, but I have to sit here and for every home, for every shopping plaza that is going to be built in the Town of - 53 - Queensbury, I don't want to encounter this, with this as a back drop, having said, okay, because I don't want to be seen as being punitive, I'm going to say, okay. I can't do that. Because tonight, I will set my own precedent on how I look at this in the future. MR. KRANTZ-Well, I think, listening to the five of you, it's clear that people come from different perspectives, and have different view points, and each within, looking at it singly, is a legitimate viewpoint. People have legitimate differences of opinion. MR. CARVIN-Well, it still boils down to, gentlemen, we need either A, to approve, deny or table. If someone wants to move to approve, I think we should move along that lines first. MR. MARTIN-Or approve with conditions. MR. CARVIN-Or approve with conditions, or deny or table. I mean, I don't know if referring to the Planning Board first, in other words, tabling it to see what their input is. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but they won't be able to act. MR. CARVIN-I know. We're coming right back to the same spot. MR. GREEN-We just need a majority, basically, since there~s five? MR. CARVIN-Well, with five it's going to be extremely difficult. If I'm reading the Board right, now, I think we have a three, two vote, on an approval, which is not enough to approve, which is a no decision, which is a denial. MR. MARTIN-Correct. MR. CARVIN-So, that's the danger you run. MR. THOMAS-Maybe the applicant would like to table it until there's a full Board. MR. GREEN-That was my question. I mean, you know my opinion on it. MR. CARVIN-On the other hand, I suspect that I'd have a two to three to deny. MR. MENTER-Unlike the County, if it's not passed, even though it's not rejected, that is a denial. MR. KRANTZ-And that is because there are people missing? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we're missing two. MR. MARTIN-And Tony Maresco. MR. CARVIN-And I don't know what Bob, Bob has missed several. I don't know when, he's been on vacation because I think he's missed the last three now. the last or sick, MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. He was on vacation for one month, and I think he's been ill since then. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I haven't talked with him. As I said, I'm pretty sure I know how I would vote if presented, and I don't want to put votes in anybody's mouth. I'd like to see some kind of minimum relief. I mean, I look at the criteria on the Area Variance, and that's one of the big ones that we have to get over. MR. KRANTZ-What was Wal-Mart's minimum relief for their - 54 - '--' -- substantially reduced permeability? MR. CARVIN-Without looking at all the minutes and records on it, I couldn't tell you, off hand. MR. THOMAS-The number 17 sticks in my mind. have. That's what they MR. MARTIN-I think it was in the neighborhood of 15 percent permeable ¡,nea. MS. CIPPERLY-They were also dealing with an existing site that was. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I'm sure there was, and I hate to use the term "horse trading", but I'm sure there was a lot of horse trading as occurs every now and then. MR. FORD-Could consideration be given to tabling it until a time when some creative problem solving on your part could take place, and to come back in with an alternative to what we are presented with tonight. MR. KRANTZ-That's certainly one possibility, except for the timing that's involved. Could I make a suggestion? Are those two Board members that have expressed reservations about the Area Vaì" ia nce . MR. MENTER-I think five have expressed understand what you're saying. Go ahead. MR. KRANTZ-Well, serious enough for them nay. reservations, but I to vote possibly in the MR. MENTER--Yes. MR. KRANTZ-Try and come up with something better. Could we work together, you know, maybe just kick around this evening the possibility of approving the variance with some conditions that would be beneficial for all concerned. MR. CARVIN-What conditions? MR. FORD-That's basically what I'm charging you with the responsibility to do, come back with some modifications. MR. CARVIN-I want to work with you. I really do. me something that I can chew on. I mean, give MR. KRANTZ-Again, the hour is certainly late. Mr. Passarelli suggested about taking up a width of the paving in back of five feet. If you look at the plan, taking out a five foot swathe of the asphalt in back. MR. GREEN-What is the length of that? MR. KRANTZ-That is, looks like about 500 feet maybe, 550. MR. MARTIN-I'd say that's a pretty fair estimate. MR. GREEN-It's 487 plus the 281? MR. FORD-No. They're not going to run it the full length. MR. KRANTZ-280 plus a little more than half of 480. roughly 240 plus 280. So it's MR. MARTIN-Yes, about 500 feet. MR. GREEN-It's only 2500 square feet additional, and we're - 55 - talking about, we're 20,000 over, and we're going to take back 2500, by taking the five foot strip off. You're taking off 2500 square feet, versus, we're short 21,000 square feet. MR. MENTER-Yes. Ten percent, say, tops. MR. GREEN-Yes, ten percent of the. MR. MENTER-Short fall. MR. GREEN-You're not even putting a drop in the bucket. MR. KRANTZ-We're trying. MR. GREEN-Absolutely. My You're presenting options. don't think that's going to a very legitimate option. concern is that, that's an option. That's what we asked you to do, but I really make a big difference. That's MR. KRANTZ-I asked Mr. Passarelli how it would be if that asphalt in the back was replaced with gravel. The problem would be, in the spring with the mud, and then the plowing in the winter. MR. MARTIN-We've basically got a difference, I think, of about 18,316 square feet, between 22 percent and 30 percent. MR. GREEN-Even the 550 is only another 250 square feet. MR. MARTIN-With that 2500, you're down to 15,816. MR. FORD-Do you need the parking spaces that are closest to Route 9? MR. PASSARELLI-I mean, I can cut seven feet (lost word) five, much easier. MR. MARTIN-What if we took a portion of those ones in the front, or something like that? MR. FORD-He's up to seven feet wide on the cut on the back. MS. CIPPERLY-This is 10, okay. So he cut this in half. MR. FORD-From this point south, Mr. Passarelli is willing to take seven feet off the back. MR. MARTIN-Thirty-five hundred square feet. MR. CARVIN-I can't see where else we're going to get it. MR. GREEN-If he's going to cut anything, he might as well do it all. Then we're back to the punitive. MR. CARVIN-There's 2500 there. That's not 21,000. Do you see what I'm saying? MS. CIPPERLY-It was surveyed. That's why we had a surveyor do it. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but how much is this area? He's lost quite a bit, obviously, in here. MR. MARTIN-Was part of the idea, Howard, to try and maintain a two way drive around this whole building, or is it still supposed to be one way? MR. PASSARELLI-You can't go two way. It's still one way. MR. MARTIN-Can you shave any off that side, then, to the south, right there? - 56 - ~ --/ MR. PASSARELLI-(Lost words) because I moved the parking spaces. MR. KRANTZ-The other thing, you'll notice, this isn't actually the landscaping is of-way. It's actually over in terms of appearance and buffering, (lost words) the calculations, but (lost word) the New York state right- the property line. MR. CARVIN-So what are we looking to do here? MR. PASSARELLI-I can start from a seven feet. It's not going to really help. MR. CARVIN-I would like to see that, because I'd like to see some plantings in here, because this is the section along the Drive-In that is really the low point. This is really, I don't have a problem. This seems to be buffered. MR. PASSARELLI-There's a lot of trees. MR. CARVIN-But this is pretty thin in here. MR. PASSARELLI-Fine. there. I'll spend lots of money planting trees MR. CARVIN-If we can get some permeability there, and put some trees up in there, that way we'd be. MR. PASSARELLI-I've got plenty of rooms to put trees the way it is now. I've got plenty of room to put trees there. I'd still have to plant the trees to the property line. So what is the difference if the asphalt is there or the asphalt is seven feet over? The truck's going to go over the asphalt and knock the asphalt to pieces. MR. CARVIN-Well, as I said, when I was out there, I did observe that there is a drainage (lost words). MR. PASSARELLI-I'd be glad to put a (lost word) there. I'd be glad to put trees there. I'd be glad to do everything possible. MR. CARVIN-In my notes, I noticed that this is substantially higher. So that the water does drain. MR. KRANTZ-There's no question that the Drive-In's lower. MR. CARVIN-If we can pick up some permeability in through here, and get some planting in there. MR. FORD-Now he wants to do the planting without cutting any asphal t . MR. CARVIN-I'd like to try to get some ground there. MR. PASSARELLI-Okay. From the movie theater north. Is that what you're saying? MR. CARVIN-Well, no. You said you could cut seven feet, whatever direction that is. ~1R. PASSARELLI-Because we can't cut this off. There's no room to cut. MR. FORD-Seven from that narrow point there. MR. CARVIN-That'll give you a soakage, and then if you can prevent the erosion. little bit more bare ground for throw some trees in there, that'll MR. FORD-Shrubs, trees, something. - 57 - -.-' MR. CARVIN-All right. So where do we stand here? MR. KRANTZ-Well, we talked about, before we got into the street again, was seven feet, were we talking about up to Pine Drive? MR. CARVIN-We said all the way. MR. KRANTZ-All right, seven feet, and you wanted some trees. MR. FORD-Shrubs, something. MR. KRANTZ-Okay, some foliage. You decide. MR. MARTIN-Something that forms as a screen. MR. KRANTZ-All right, but if we are able to get title to this, can we then rip up less asphalt? MR. CARVIN-Absolutely. I mean, as long as you can get to the per permeabili ty. MR. FORD-If you're not at 30 percent, then it requires a variance. MR. MARTIN-I would say, Guido, it's very reasonable. If you buy this, you're at 25, it's not going to take that much to get 5 percent more and you're done. You don't have to come before any Boards and you're done. MR. KRANTZ-All right, and despite our best efforts, if we can't get this. MR. MARTIN-All right. How compromise? The overall per cent of that? much square footage is five percent lot size is 228,960. What's five MR. KRANTZ-A little over 10,000? MR. MARTIN-l1,448. distance there. I mean, you're talking about a minuscule MS. CIPPERLY-I don't understand why this got down to 10 feet instead of 20? One place you could make up the 250 feet times 10, equals 2500 feet. I don't understand why this had to be 57 feet 9. MR. PASSARELLI-I moved the parking lot on this side. MR. THOMAS-Moved the parking lot because of the snow and ice coming off the roof. MS. CIPPERLY-So this was 40 feet wide when it had parking spaces. Now it doesn't have parking spaces and it's 47. I mean, why docs it have to be wider when you don't have parking spaces? MR. KRANTZ-Well, there's still going to be parking spaces. They'll be over here. MS. CIPPERLY-Where are they going to be? MR. KRANTZ-Instead of being against the building, the same spaces, they're just going to be on the south line. That's one of the things, relocating the parking is before the Planning Board. Right. MS. CIPPERLY-So if you put the parking spaces over here, you're going to take up more of this, or is it going to be on this paved par t? MR. MARTIN-It's going to be on what they have paved now. - 58 - --- '-"'" MR. FORD-If you're going to take some pavement out of here, would YOU rather take it over here on this line, or close to the building? MR. PASSARELLI-No, close to the building. MR. FORD-Wouldn't that help? MR. MENTER-Some drainage there would be nice. MR. PASSARELLI-Okay. We didn't have such a wet winter. Every time rain, we have a pretty wet spring, pick up the cover and see, my catch basin, my (lost word) those tunnels to a special pipe. It's never reached that level. So those pipes haven't been used yet. Okay. We had a pretty mild winter. We didn't have that much snow, but the capacity of this drainage is ten times more than what I need. MR. MARTIN-The thing I see as a problem on this site, you've got such nice landscaping out here, snow storage or, you've got to remove it from the site, because you start stockpiling it here, you're going to kill all that nice vegetation you just installed. If we get snow like we did, not this past winter, but the winter before. MR. PASSARELLI-We get snow like that, we're all in trouble. MR. KRANTZ-The sense I was getting from the Board is the actual absorption into the ground wasn't really the major concern. It was more the screening. MR. MARTIN-What that does is it virtually makes it like there was no asphalt at all on the site. I mean, it makes available all this area under the parking lot for drainage. MR. KRANTZ-Isn't there a better way of addressing the aesthetics than ripping up a lot of asphalt? Planting trees, to me, I lived in Queensbury, would be more desirable than ripping up asphalt. MR. PASSARELLI-I still have plenty of room to plant trees. If I've got to spend money on trees, I'll be glad to. I'll try to buy the piece of property, as soon as possible. I don't know how soon. MR. MENTER-You're talking about, effectively, a year to determine whether that piece of property can even be bought. Who knows where that thing is deeded to. Contingent on that is scary. MR. GREEN-I think we ought to have the pavement come out, no matter what happens to the street, and add the trees, and that way ~"'e. MR. CARVIN-We minimize the relief. MR. GREEN-We've minimized it as best we can. It's still not the best scenario, but we have reduced it some. MR. FORD-And we get on with it, and you guys get on with it. Go ahead and buy it if you can get it, but lets go the seven feet. MR. MENTER-I think that's wise. MR. CARVIN-Do the seven feet. MR. PASSARELLI-Yes. MR. GREEN-In my opinion, I would be willing to agree to that. MR. THOMAS-I'll go along with the 3500 feet, plus the effort to try and get that chunk of property. - 59 - ---- MR. GREEN-Exactly, plus the effort. MR. MENTER-And the screening. MR. THOMAS-And the screening. MR. FORD-Shrubs, trees, something. MR. MARTIN-Arborvitae would be preferred. MR. FORD-Seven feet in plantings from that narrow spot all the way to the south edge. MR. PASSARELLI-Jim, can I have somebody come and mark it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. John will be there to verify, mark it in paint, and he'll be there to verify it. I was going to suggest that before you left. That's a good point. You talk about this property to the back. There really is no practical gain toward making him buy that, or pursuing that, because that property, no matter who owns it, is always going to serve as a buffer, whether it's the adjoining owner or whoever. It's always going to have that practical use. It'll never see a building or a parking lot or anything like that anyhow. So it doesn't matter who owns it. MR. CARVIN-It always will be permeable. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's always going to be a buffer. I don't see the zoning lines in that area changing in the foreseeable future. MR. CARVIN-If they reduce it to that come out as a percentage? the 3500 square feet, where does Does that come out to about 24? MR. MARTIN-I don't know that you have to be concerned about a percent. I would just cite the dimension in the resolution, as a condition of the approval, and leave it at that. r don't know that the percentage is necessary. Howard, are you going to be prepared to come next week with a type and size and quantity of trees to be planted back there, to the Planning Board? Something above a one inch caliper, because we don't want to see broomsticks back there. MS. CIPPERLY-You did a nice job across the street. MR. CARVIN-We decided he does not need relief from the buffers, is that correct? Or does he? MR. MARTIN-I think you would be wise to figure it off today, as things exist. MR. CARVIN-In other words, he does? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I would not make that in consideration of a future action or a questionable action. My understanding is he does not own that property. That's what I would say, and if it turns out that he owns a piece of it, grea~. MR. MENTER-But you're talking relative to permeability, not buffer, right? MR. MARTIN-80th. MR. GREEN-So if he doesn't own it, he doesn't need the buffer, but if he does own it, he may. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. GREEN-So it's to his advantage to say he doesn't own it, for the buffer. - 60 - ........... ,.....,/ MR. MARTIN-I'd just say come prepared next week to talk about that type of thing, type, size and quantity. MR. KRANTZ-We're talking from Pine Drive north? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. KRANTZ-From the north end of Pine Drive? MR. MARTIN-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-No. We're talking about wherever he was taking out the seven feet of paving, right, you want trees? MR. MARTIN--Yes. MR. PASSARELLI-Pine Drive is all trees there. MS. CIPPERLY-That's not on your property. That's the punitive part. You said you were going to take out seven feet of the pavement from the corner of the building, as 1 understood it, 500 feet over to? MR. PASSARELLI-Yes. I didn't knock any trees down. MS. CIPPERLY-Just be a kind sole and put some up. MR. PASSARELLI-But there's plenty of trees back there. MR. KRANTZ-We'll have a planting plan. MR. MARTIN-There still is an issue, I think you are missing some trees that you were supposed to have in those islands that you took out, in the front. MS. CIPPERLY-Also, the Planning Board has the those islands. That's not being resolved here. final say over So they may. MR. MARTIN-Want some more out front somehow or something. MR. PASSARELLI-Jim, I've got more trees there than the rest of the shopping plazas in the area. MR. MARTIN-Wait until you see Red Lobster. I'm talking about the new stu.ff. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1995 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant is requ.esting relief from Section 179-72, requiring at least 50 feet as a vegetation buffer zone and Section 179-23, which requires, on a Highway Commercial zone, a permeability of 30 percent. In 1993, the applicant was granted relief from Section 179-72, reducing the required buffer zone from 50 feet to a figure between 35 to 38 feet. However, because of the necessity of paving a wider driveway, larger than the 12 foot proposed on the west side, the applicant needs an additional five feet of relief, and I would grant this relief. It should be noted that the property abuts a paper road, which adds an additional 40 feet of buffering to the applicant's property. It is understood that the ownership of this parcel will be sought by the applicant', but in any event, the utilization of the area by anyone will not be a question, and it will and could remain available for buffering. As far as the permeability, the applicant was approved permeability at 30 percent of the lot, based on an approved site plan, indicating a 12 foot access road in the rear portion of the property. However, the adequacy of the 12 foot access road was found to be unusable and inappropriate to the needs of the delivery trucks and emergency - 61 - '.../ --- equipment because of the unusual configuration of the buildings. This has resulted in the permeability being reduced from 30 percent to approximately 22 percent. Even though the permeability has been reduced, the on-site drainage and in-ground systems should more than adequately handle the permeability. I move that we grant relief from the permeability requirements with the following stipulations: One, no additional blacktopping be conducted. Two, the applicant remove approximately, but no less than, 3500 square feet of blacktopping from the rear portion of the' lot, and that this area be returned to a natural state. Three, the addition of screening foliage be planted from a point at the end of Pine Drive, which is the paper road, extending north along the rear property line. The benefit to the applicant would be a wider, safer rear access road, with a minimum impact to the community, and this would be the minimum relief necessary to address the self-created situation. Because of the in-ground drainage, the reduction in permeability will have a minimum or no effect on the neighborhood or community. It also should be noted that the applicant will make and is making an honest effort to acquire the Pine Drive section, which again will add additional buffering and permeability should the applicant be successful in this endeavor. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1995, by the following vote: MS. CIPPERLY-I have one question, Fred. Why did you specify the plantings only from the end of Pine Drive? Why not along the entire back property line? MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that that buffering there is adequate, but I think it is rather sparse. MS. CIPPERLY-Because you really can't depend on this Pine Drive property as, the owner, whoever it turns out to be, isn't bound by anything you do here tonight. They could come in and take all the trees off it. MR. KRANTZ-Why would anybody go (lost word) Pine Drive and take out all those trees? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, control over that application. So I'm along the entire back I'm saying, this Board doesn't piece of property, in this just wondering why you didn't just property line? have any Variance make it MR. PASSARELLI-There's so many big trees there, it's impossible to (lost word) small trees. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Looking at that area, I'm not additional buffering would be needed there. positive that MR. GREEN-I think he's right, that you put 10 or underneath all those big pine ones, they might not begin with. 12 foot trees even 1 i \Je to MR. FORD-Early on in there, there was a point you made reference to, something necessitated the paving at the rear of the building. MR. CARVIN-However the adequacy of the 12 foot access road was found to be unusable and inappropriate? MR. FORD-No, it was before that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In 1993 the applicant was granted relief from Section 179-72, something or other, requiring a buffer from 50 to 35 to 38 feet. However, because of the necessity of paving a wider driveway, larger than the 12 foot proposed on the west side, the applicant needs an additional five feet of relief. - 62 - -- ......."". MS. CIPPERLY-I didn't understand that part either. MR. MENTER-Five feet of relief from? MR. CARVIN-Of the buffering. In other words, he's going from 35, he needs 30 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-But I thought the buffer zone was not an issue anymore? MR. CARVIN-I thought it was? That's what I was told. I mean, he's reduced this, according to what I've got here in the information. Okay. According to this, where a commercial zone abuts a residential zone, 50 feet vegetation on each side of the zone. The applicant was previously granted relief from this Section with the approval in 1993 which proposed a reduction of the buffer zone to 30 feet. That 30 feet I think is incorrect, because if I read the minutes, it was only reduced to 35 feet. MR. KRANTZ-Well, it seems to me if there's any doubt at all about legally how you could figure out that (lost word) the impact on the buffer, you've got it included, we'll take it, so we don't have to come back on that issue. MR. MARTIN-I would say to leave it in. MS. CIPPERLy-How wide of a buffer strip are we ending up with there? MR. CARVIN-Well, according to the minutes here, the record, it looks like 30 feet, but, I mean, if you take the 40 feet in, I mean, he's going to have the 50 feet no matter what. So, I mean, it becomes a moot question, but I think you might want to really cover it. MR. MARTIN-That's what I would recommend. MR. CARVIN-Because we're only talking along that one section there, that Pine Drive, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. So what what he's asked for, as far you're sa)'ing as the !::;.uffer? is, you're giving him MR. CARVIN-Essentially, yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. I'm just thinking of the Compliance guy. MR. CARVIN-Yes. We're pretty much granting him relief from the buffer, at least along that section anyway. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Maresco MR. KRANTZ-I would like to say, I have, like you, served on a Board, not as a Zoning Board of Appeals or a Planning Board, but I was on the Queensbury Board of Education for 10 years, wrestled with problems (lost word) and I volunteered !I:!Y time, as you. volunteer you.r time, and you almost never get any credit for what you do, and the five plus hours that you put in, helping the community that you could have been at home with your families, I've been at some of those meetings, and I think that people who serve on Zoning Boards and Planning Boards and school boards and volunteer their time should get more credit for what they do. - 63 - ---..-......... -- Because people just come in here and blast away, and I would also add that this has been the most respectful Board I have been in front of in I can't tell you when. I've been in front of Boa,ds where they have made their mind up before they come in. They don't want to hear facts. They don't want to hear a different viewpoint or a different theory or a different argument. They've made thei, mind up. They come in, won't let you speak, and I'm talking about the Warren County Planning Board, and it's a pleasure to see people come in with, and I respect different ideas and approaches, and that's the way it should be, but come in with an open mind. It's appreciated, the people who ,epresent applicants. MR. CARVIN-And we appreciate your comments. We do the best we can. MR. KRANTZ-And the Staff is also very professional. MR. PASSARELLI-Thank you very much. MR. CARVIN-Okay. A couple of movement on the, I assume you our conversation that we had proposed changes? items, gentlemen. Is there any all got my letter that I wrote on last month regarding some of the MR. MARTIN-They',e on for July 10th, public hearing with the Town Board, for the Waterfront Residential, substantially as or almost exactly as you last saw them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. there. Well, it's good to see that we're moving ahead MR. MARTIN-It should be adopted that night. MS. CIPPERLY-Did they get a final, like the shaded? ['~] ';MR. MARTIN-No. We could give you one Wednesday night, a copy of that, as they went hear i ng . of those next up for public MS. CIPPERLY-·It's easier to read because the Attorney's Office types it up with the shaded portions added. MR. MARTIN-The WordPerfect does the shading over the new sections. It's very easy to read what's new. MR. CARVIN-I also don't know, what meetings? want to bring you up to speed do you call those meetings, Jim, as far as, I I guess Staff i"1R. MARTIN-Yes. Planning Board. Informal meetings of the Zoning Board and MR. CARVIN-In fact, I haven't had a chance to photocopy it, but I know Jim has put a lot of time and work in on it, with, what did you say these things were from? MS. CIPPERLY-San Bernadino, California. MR. CARVIN-Some new definitions of other communities, how they tackle what we've been looking at, and hopefully Jim will have some constructive, by our next meeting. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I should time, too. She covers my butt with these things. say that Sue has put in a lot of a lot of times on helping me out MR. CARVIN-Well, whoever's been doing it, I think it's been pretty beneficial. - 64 - -4 --- .....,/ MR. MARTIN-I think the next set of changes we'll see will be with the accessory structures. We're basically developing a chart that will pull together all of the dimensional requirements of the various districts, but we'll be introducing a building size and a number of buildings, as another regulation, but it'll be meant, it's a chart that San Bernadino uses in their Code. It's very easy to read. You have the zoning districts across the top and the various regulations down the side, and then there's notations as to what districts they apply in and what number. It's very easy to read. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-The other thing I've been impressed with in their definitions is they're just very brief but they say, instead of trying to address every situation that might possibly come up. MR. MARTIN-It's written in simple language that doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation. MR. CARVIN-And they have something for kitchen, and speaking of kitchens, I would hope that we try to get everybody here for next week, because I really would like to get the Hodgkins. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 65 -