Loading...
1995-02-15 ''''''--- OR'~INAL ,':;; -t ; i !'i OUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD O~ APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETiNé' ", FEBRUARY 15, 1995 INDEX Sign Variance No. 5-1995 Holly Wheeler 1- K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs Area. Variance No. 2--1995 Mc Donald's Corporation 5. Area Variance No. 6--1995 Craig & Denise Hanchett 15. Area. Variance No. 7-1995 Barrie Handelman 18. Area Variance No. 8-1995 Clw isti ne C. Spina 19. 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. 'I, , ," .J ....:: ',¡ . ,; "'1 ':1 I ,1:,.'; "i! , ' I;' .! ,'1 ;. , ';¡ '".I I if ".' ~ - QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETiNG, FEBRUARY 15, 1995 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY DAVID MENTER ROBERT KARPELES THOMAS FORD PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARVIN-Before we start, I would like to take just a minute and extend this Board's heartfelt thanks to Mr. Ted Turner, who recently has been elevated to the Town Board. I can speak for myself, Ted, I wish you well in your new endeavor. You are the person probably most responsible for writing the zoning for the Town of Queensbury, and a lot of long hours and a lot of years of service. So, again, I'd like to extend this Board's heartfelt thanks to you, and good luck. MR. KARPELES-I'll second that. MR. CARVIN-It's magnanimous. Okay. The first application is, it looks like Holly Wheeler, file # 5-1995. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-1995 TYPE II SR-IA HOLLY WHEELER K.D. WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS OWNER: AMBERSHIRE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOC. CORNER PITCHER AND AMETHYST ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A FREESTANDING SIGN. AND CANNOT MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 140-6B. SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM THAT SECTION. TAX MAP NO. 125-7-48 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION 140-6B HOLLY WHEELER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 5-1995, Holly Wheeler, K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs, Meeting Date: February 15, 1995 "APPLICANT:_Holly Wheeler PROJECT LOCATION: corner of Pitcher and Amethyst Roads PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to install a freestanding sign with the name "Ambershire" at the entrance to the housing development, surrounded by landscaping. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE: The proposed sign cannot meet the setback requirements of Section 140-6B, which requires a fifteen-foot setback from all property lines. STAFF FINDINGS (Prior to Public Hearing): 1. The lot on which this sign is proposed to be placed is approximately 26 feet wide at the part where the sign is proposed to be placed. 2. The proposed angle appears to be the most effective placement for this sign, relative to Pitcher Road. 3. The sign is otherwise conforming. PARCEL HISTORY: This parcel was created at the time of the Ambershire Subdivision, which received approvals in 1982 and 1986. SEQR: Type II, no further action. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment." MR. CARVIN-Okay. wish to add? Is the applicant here? Is there anything you MS. WHEELER-I think that pretty well sums it up. Did everybody get a chance to look at the property? Those posts are in place. We put them in the middle of the center, depending on frost, which there wasn't any. There's basically nothing there. Behind - 1 - '-- it is. Behind it there's a row of trees and bushes President of the Homeowners Association, Gary Turk, who wi th today, said t,hat in the summer time it all leafs the property owners behind it can't see it, and the quite a distance from the property line. that the I spoke out, and house is MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? Okay. No questions? Then I will open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KARPELES-Well, do we have a picture of the sign? Usually we have some kind of a thing that shows us what the sign's going to look li ke. MS. WHEELER-Sure. It was in the original application. simple, very straightforward. All the lettering will etched in goldleaf, and the background, and I background, I believe, is cranberry. It's small, They're going to put plantings around it. It's very be carved, think the low key. MR. MENTER-Overall height is? MS. WHEELER~Twenty inches is from the middle, measured in the middle. It's not there, and three feet from the bottom of the slanted grade is normally what we do, just for snow. I believe that they're going to landscape around it. There was a landscape shown on the original application. I don't have a copy of it now. MR. FORD-So the top of it would be four feet eight inches off the ground. MR. MENTER-Right. MS. WHEELER-And then when we looked at the map we discovered that we didn't have enough setback, which I didn't realize. MR. CARVIN-Do you have any measurements, by any chance, how much relief you are seeking from the 15 feet? MS. WHEELER-That's a guesstimate. I'll be honest with you. There was snow when I went out. I couldn't find a post. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This is the lot that was? MS. WHEELER-Right. Sue's office provided this. copy, but that's where I got the dimensions from. is angled. It goes back to 36 something back here. It's a faxed The property MR. KARPELES-It's 26 feet to the center of that road, and I don't know how much it is from the center of this other road. MR. THOMAS-Well, it's 20 feet, from the plowed edge, and it's probably 10 feet beyond that. MR. MENTER-Yes. I think the 20 feet is optimistic. MS. WHEELER-Those a'"e !D..'i. measurements. MR. CARVIN-So, you're looking at probably seven to eleven feet. MS. WHEELER-That's taking 26 and subtracting. MR. CARVIN-Okay. from, right? So this is the Section that we need relief - 2 - '...... - MS. WHEELER-Right. MR. CARVIN-Just the west side. east. You're in compliance with the MS. WHEELER-Well, I guess from the center of the road they need 40 feet and there's only 30, because it's a small road. MS. CIPPERLY-The Section of the Ordinance this states 15 feet from the property line. that actually covered So she's okay there. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, it looks like she's okay here and she's okay here. MS. CIPPERLY-The piece where the property line is unknown, you could go to the center of the road, but I think in this case. MR. KARPELES-So this 15 feet is okay? MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. She really only needs just relief on the west side, on the back side. MS. WHEELER-Because according to my calculations, it's about 30 feet back to their property line. MS. CIPPERLY-It's supposed to be 15 feet from any property line. MR. FORD-You've had contact with that property owner? MS. WHEELER-The one that owns that? MR. FORD-Yes. MS. WHEELER-The Homeowners Association owns that parcel of property. MR. MENTER-The one it's on. He means the adjacent property. MR. FORD-The one that you're going to be seven feet from. MR. KARPELES-Yes. here? We're wondering, has anybody been contacted MS. WHEELER-I assumed he got a notice. MR. KARPELES-I don't know. A lot of times they don't. MS. CIPPERLY-I thought you said you had talked to? MS. WHEELER-I talked to Gary Turk, who is the President. He was going to contact them, but I talked to him today. He's in Syracuse. He said when they were working on the corner this summer they discussed it and showed them what they planned to do there, and they didn't have any objections. MR. CARVIN-Was he around when the posts were put in? MS. WHEELER-No. That was prior, I guess he talked to him. He never got over there and got a note or anything from him, but Gary Turk got notification of this meeting, which usually anybody within 500 feet get it. So this guy should have gotten it also. MR. FORD-But you say he's in Syracuse? MS. WHEELER-Gary Turk is. He's the President of the Homeowners Association. The property owner, I don't know what his name is. MR. KARPELES-So we don't know if he was notified or not. MS. WHEELER-He should have been. I mean, I always get notified - 3 - -~ .- of stuff in ffiZ· neighborhood, but isn't it normally, they send out a letter to those within 500 feet? MR. KARPELES-Yes, but a lot of times it doesn't happen. MR. CARVIN-Could we see the faxed map again? MS. WHEELER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Is that part of the Ambershire? I'm wondering if that's even part of it. Do you know if this is part of the Ambershire? MS. WHEELER-No, it isn't. MR. CARVIN-I think that's a private residence. MS. WHEELER...;.It's à pr ivate res'iden'ce. That's off'that:map. John and Joà~ Liberty. i· , , , ) r MRJ MENTEiR-I 'imagine in the summer tim:e it'iS a pretty defining line of trees there~ " I ,,:¡ MS. J..JHEELER~Yes.. MR. CARVIN-Well, as ~ looked at it, it really didn't look like it was intrusive. MR. MENTER-No. MS. WHEELER-No, and they're going to landscape they',-e not moving any of the t,-ees behind it. drawing didn't bring the trees down far enough. down beyond where this line is going. around it, and Actually, my The bushes do go > j,. I ì f' ~ . " , ; \,',1 MR. CARVIN~I almost think that that's wooded here, too, if memory serves C0-rrect. MR. MENTER-Yes. It is~ I was out there just today, actually, and I think that the sign is going to be completely hidden, from almost the whole property, not just where this house is. MS. WHEELER-His entrance goes in off of Pitcher Road. MR. FORD-What will be the color of the back side of this sign? MS. WHEELER-The same as the front. I believe it's cranberry. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. It's cranberry with gold. MR. CARVIN-Any other comments? MR. MENTER-It's certainly a unique piece of prop.erty, I think, because of the size, the dimension of it,. "'\,' MR. THOMAS-I agree with David. It is a unique piece of property that can't be used for anything else but what, you put a sign on it, nobody can build on it. So I don't see any problem with it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In that case, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-1995 HOLLY WHEELER K.D. WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant, Holly Wheeler, who proposes to install a freestanding sign with the name Ambershire at the entrance to Ambershi,-e Housing Development, at the corner of Pitcher Road and Amethyst Road. The parcel is a unique parcel. It serves as a buffer between that development and other adjoining lots. This - 4 - --..,.. -... sign would have no negative effect on the community as it would be hidden from all but the Ambershire side of that piece of property, and the proposed placement and angle appears to be the most effective place for the sign. We're granting eight feet from the southerly post on the westerly side, and four feet from the northerly post on the westerly side. Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A MC DONALD'S CORPORATION OWNER: EDWIN D. KING QUAKER RD., DIX AVENUE, HIGHLAND AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A CURB CUT FOR A FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT THIRTY-SEVEN (37) FEET FROM AN EXISTING CURB CUT, CLOSER THAN ALLOWED BY SECTION 179-66B(4), WHICH REQUIRES ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) FEET BETWEEN ADJOINING ACCESS POINTS FOR COMMERCIAL USES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 1/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-3.3 LOT SIZE: 1.833 ACRES SECTION 179-66B(4) ED BEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-1995, McDonald's Corporation, Meeting Date: February 15, 1995 "APPLICANT: McDonald's Co)"poration PROJECT LOCATION: Dix Avenue PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes placement of a curb-cut for a fast- food restaurant thirty-seven (37) feet from an existing curb cut. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE: Section 179-66B(4) requires one hundred fifty (150) feet between adjoining access points for commercial uses. STAFF FINDINGS (Prior to Public Hearing): 1. The lot shown on the plan submitted has yet to be approved by the Planning Board. Application has been made to subdivide the parcel as shown, but that consideration is awaiting the outcome of the variance proceeding. 2. A Site Plan application has also been filed, and is awaiting the variance and subdivision decisions. 3. The applicant proposes to install a 3-lane driveway, providing the sole access to the site, 38 feet from the curb cut for King Fuels, which is across Dix Avenue from the curb cut for Quaker Farms. These three access points would all be within 450 feet of the Dix/Quaker intersection. 4. The remaining parcel created by the proposed subdivision would also seek a curb cut, adding another set of turns and traffic to the situation. PARCEL HISTORY This 3.42-acre property was split from parcel 3.1, which is north of Dix Avenue, in 1990. Edwin King became sole owner in June, 1992, according to the Assessor's records. SEQR: Unlisted. Short form EAF must be reviewed. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Planning staff have discussed the possibility of a shared access for the two parcels, to improve the situation over that which is proposed. The applicant was reluctant to consider this option, due to their needs relative to on-site circulation. Staff submitted the proposed plan to the Glens Falls Urban Area Transportation Council for review. The resulting comments are attached -- they recommend a circulation plan for this triangle be developed. These comments were echoed by Mark Kennedy, from NYS DOT Region 1. Comments from Warren County Planning Board are enclosed in the form of a resolution." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 11th day of January, 1995, the above application for an Area Variance for the placement of a curb cut for a fast-food restaurant 37 feet from an existing curb cut in lieu of the required 150 feet was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to disapprove. Comments: Curb cuts too - 5 - -- close together, and there are traffic concerns." Thomas Haley, Chairperson. Signed by MR. BEALER-Good evening. My name is Ed Bealer. I'm a Project Manager with McDonald's Corporation~ In regards to this application, we did have a traffic study completed, and (lost words) Engineer at the Planning Board~ He couldn't be here tonight, but his findings with the curb cuts with King Fuels next to us, and with ,the curb cut across the street for the nursery there, basically the traffic levels out there, he did not see any conflicts with turning movements in and out, and he did gap studies in the morning; noon time and evening rush hours and found the proper number of gaps for cars entering our site based on the traffic through there. Again, we minimized this, a lot of our sites we have two curb cuts, one for an entrance only and one for an exit only. I stated in the application, if we went with that route, the entrance curb cut would be much closer, 10, 15 foot separation there. In order to minimize this, we went with the one common entrance and exit curb cut in the center, to try and get as great a distance of separation between those as possible. Because of that existing curb cut at King Fuels, it makes it very difficult for us to get that 150 feet separation. As you can see on our site plan, with the exception of the curb cut location, we meet all the setback requirements, all the parking requirements. We have a substantial amount of green space. However, the 150 foot separation is a severe hardship on this parcel, considering the existing curb cut at King Fuels. Also, (lost word) Dix Avenue being a County road, it has been reviewed by the County Department of Public Works, and the separation more than exceeds the County requirements for state ingress and egress in adjoining curb cuts. MS. CIPPERLY-There are two letters that you probably ought to read into the record. One's from the County~ that's attached to the applic,ation, and the other's the Glens Falls one that's attached to my notes. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to read them now, or wait until after public comment?' MR. CARVIN-You better read them now. MR. THOMAS-Oka~. A letter dated December 12, 1994, McDonald's Corporation, Attention: Ed Bealer "Dear Mr. Bealer: The Warren County Department of Public Works reviewed the proposed McDonald's Restaurant site plan adjacent to CR 42 - Dix Avenue and we have the following comments to make: A. All storm water will remain on the proposed site. No storm water will be allowed to flow in the bounds of CR 70 - Quaker Road. B. We suggest moving the project 16 feet southerly due to the fact that we will be adding another 12' wide lane next to the existing east bound lane on Dix Avenue in the next couple of years. C. Finally, we would like to see a four foot wide curbed median between the ingress lane and the egress lane (left turnout). We will be available at your convenience to discuss the above if you so desire. Thank you, in advance, for letting us comment on the above property. Very truly yours, Roger Gebo Dep. Superintendent" A letter dated February 7th, addressed to James Martin,' Community Development, Town óf Queensbury, regarding proposed McDonald's Development "Dear Jim: I have reviewed the site plan and traffic impact study for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant on Dix Avenue between Quaker Road and Route 32, aka. Highland Avenue, and would you to be aware of the comments listed below. In addition~ I asked Mark Kennedy, NYSDOT Region I Permit Engineer, to review this application within the same time frame. NYSDOT does not have jurisdiction in this matter as the access requested by McDonald's restaurant is not on a NYS highway, but because of the proximity of NYS Route 32, they do have an interest. The McDonald's proposal calls for the subdivision of a triangular lot bordered by Quaker Road, Route 32, and Dix Avenue - 6 - ----- -- into three lots with the McDonald's proposed )"estaurant occupying the center lot. While I agree with the conclusions of the traffic impact study that (1) the circulation within the proposed site plan is adequate and (2) that the traffic impact on current levels on Dix Avenue will be slight, the traffic impact study ignores the impact of the full buildout of the triangular parcel. Mr. Kennedy agrees with me that combined driveways for two or more of the parcels within the larger parcel would be consistent with the Town of Queensbury's access management policy. Furthermore, I feel that a circulation plan for the entire triangular parcel should be developed with a service road or access drive across the proposed McDonald's parcel from the now vacant parcel to the current gasoline station to limit future adverse traffic impacts on the three roads. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed subdivision and site plan. Sincerely, Joanna M. Brunso Staff Director Glens Falls Urban Area Transportation Council" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Would you have any comments to those comments? MR. BEELER-One of the Warren County comments, all stormwater will be retained on site, we don't have any problem with that, an issue with that, and as far as moving the building back 16 feet, actually on this site plan you have, we just moved it back about 22 feet, based on that request, and the other reason for that, I can get into that in a minute. As far as the four foot wide curbed median, we will do that. What we will do is we'll take the curb cut and we'll move it towards the east, to make room for that four foot median. Therefore, we won't be moving any closer to the existing curb cut, King Fuels property. As mentioned, as far as the total circulation for the site, it's kind of hard for us to anticipate what's going to happen there. (lost word) traffic study (lost word) use is going to go in there. Several types of uses could go in there. They could generate different types of traffic. What we did mention to the Planning Board was that if someone came in to purchase that parcel, that we would be willing to relocate our curb cut for one common curb cut at that time. At this time it would help knowing what's going to go in there. We aren't able to do that, but first of all, Mr. King doesn't want to give up anymore property. It's a small piece of property, being a triangular parcel, that's reducing his frontage, that's severely impacts the marketability of that property, but if it works out where the next applicant, it's convenient for him-to have a curb cut adjacent to our property, we'd be more than willing to buy into that. That's one of the reasons we moved our building back more than the 16 feet the County required, so that, if you did have an access road on the side, it would be able to come off of Dix Avenue and make that turning movement into our site and cut across the front of our building. At this time, I just don't feel it's the best thing to do for the site. MR. CARVIN-Sue, did you have anything, as far as the common access? MS. CIPPERLY-Our proposal to McDonald's was that they, since, for one thing, these lots are not yet created, and right-of-ways would be able, you could make a right-of-way, say, along the, it would be the top of that map. You could make a joint driveway that could be accessed by either of these two businesses, move it up here, and you could go in either to McDonald's or into this one, and we'd have one curb cut instead of one here and one here, and since this seems to be a point where that could be accomplished, within the property transfers, rather than have this c)"eated and then come along and say, well, this person doesn't want to do that. There's also a requirement that McDonald's have an access to the next parcel anyway, which they also have to King Fuels. It just seemed like perhaps granting ~ relief from the 150, but having one common. - 7 - "--- MR. CARVIN-Okay. You have a more detailed map, is that correct, of the whole parcel? MS. CIPPERLY-I have a map from the County. This is the existing King Fuels access. This is where Quakey Farms. MR. CARVIN-And then the parcel comes in here, and we'll have still a triangular piece out here. MR. BEELER-This is the subdivision map for the site that shows the existing King Fuels property over here, and this is the parcel we're looking to subdivide, and this would be the remaining parcel, and if we were to do now what's being requested, making a common curb cut, this would be about a 30 foot easement that would be needed that this parcel, a 200 foot depth, which would be about here, which isn't really that great in depth, we'd ónly end up with 150 foot of frontage, which really kind of makes tight for someone to fit in there. MS. CIPPERLY-That's (lost word) what you said in your own application. That's a conforming lot. MR. BEELER-Right, but if it reduces, we couldn't fit on 150 feet, and I don't know, it reduces the number of people that can go in there and fit on a parcel that's only 150 feet wide. While it's conforming with the Zoning Ordinance, it still makes it difficult for someone to go in there and layout on there. Now it may be possible, and we'd be more than willing, as a condition of site plan or whatever, where we can move OUI curb cut ovel hele, if it makes sense for this parcel, if we get a variance fOI OUI curb cut hele. If it doesn't make sense for this parcel to have a curb cut here, they have more than enough frontage to meet the 150 foot of frontage, or separation, on their curb cut. RICHARD SLOW MR. SLOW-I'm here representing Mr. King. My name's Richard Slow. I'm his son-in-law. Because we don't know what the final purpose, if any, will be for this lot, we are actively trying to market it. We don't want to give anything up here. However, we're willing to sign an agreement saying there's a McDonald's there. That after a true purpose is determined, if some land has to be given up here, here, whatever we have to do to make an entlance work for both purposes we're happy to agree with, but until we know what the needs are for here, we don't want to do a nythi ng. MS. CIPPERLY-And it's the Staff's position if somebody along and that situation is already there, they'll have with it. That's a condition of going on to that parcel, you go in from this access. I don't see why that would having an access up here would be even worse because configuration of the road. comes to do is that be so, of the MARK HARRIGAN MR. HARRIGAN-As a property owner trying to market a piece of property, I can tell you that this would severely limit the financial aspects of trying to sell this. If that's not there, it's not limited, while we're tlying to market it, until we find out what the purpose is. We can always tell them that, you know, after we find out what the purpose is, that we made an agreement to put in a Joint access, certain criteria is met, or whatever it is, but until we know what it is, you don't want to devalue the property. MR. CARVIN-Let me frontage? There's there? Would this wanted a curb cut? ask you this, Sue. If this is, they have not 150 feet from this curb cut to hele, is lot have to come in for a variance, if they - 8 - -----' '--- MS. CIPPERLY-If this were here, there would be enough room for a curb cut. You wouldn't need another variance in order to put a curb cut here. The problem was that it's like going to be like on the Million Dollar Half Mile, where you've got entrance, entrance, and you've got an intersection here. MR. CARVIN-And this area is going to become a heavily trafficked area. There's no two ways about it. MS. CIPPERLY-We're just trying to learn from the past, here. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and that was one of the comments about the Million Dollar Half Mile. MR. BEELER-The other thing, one area where it's 200 foot depth, this is a very small area for laying out a septic system, which i required in this area. So, depending on what the use is, our septic system for our site would not be able to fit in that small triangular piece. So this reduces, the smaller the parcel gets there, the fewer the options they have on selling it, because of the size, parking requirements, septic system, reserve area for the septic system, the setbacks. MR. SLOW-We're finding it difficult enough as it is to market it, without making it smaller. MS. CIPPERLY-The other thing that comes up is are create too much on that piece of land? And as criteria for an Area Variance, this lot isn't there would be giving him relief from a physical problem exist yet. It's being created. we trying to far as your yet. So you that doesn't MR. CARVIN-Yes. Does everybody understand that? This is a whole lot, at this point, and this is a proposed lot adjustment. Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MS. CIPPERLY-This front setbacks on which would limit, area, but it would lot would be kind of, again, it would have this road and front setbacks on this road, you could put your septic into some of this be pretty limited. MR. SLOW-This would be the only area that we'd be allowed to build something, or someone would be allowed to build something. MR. KARPELES-Where is the septic going for the McDonald's? MR. BEELER-In the back of our parking lot to the south of the site, on the south end. I think our parking lot goes back to about 230 feet, 238 feet back to here, and then the rest from here back is all green for our septic system reserve area. MR. CARVIN-And then this, has anybody thought about, have you looked at cutting it this way, the McDonald's on one side and the other guys on the other side? MR. MENTER-You wouldn't be able to put your septic in. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. If you draw a line right here, you're going to have plenty, I would think. MR. SLOW-There's not much depth there. I'm not sure who'd want to front on Highland Avenue. There's not much traffic really over on Highland Avenue. MS. CARVIN-There's Quaker Road, here. You'd have your frontage here. MS. CIPPERLY-The other thing is there's an entrance for K-Mart that's there. - 9 - ---- MR. CARVIN-I'm just asking if anybody has thought about that. MR. SLOW-There's an elevation problem here, I think. higher than the road, isn't it? This is MR. BEELER-It rises up quite high there. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying that, if this is a problem lot, then you make this your problem lot down here. MR. HARRIGAN MR. HARRIGAN-I'm Mark Harrigan from McDonald's, from. I think the problem might be is getting a curb cut down close to here. I think you're' going to, now you've got a curb cut here, here, and here. I think you're creating the same problem. MR. SLOW-From here around to maybe here it's impossible to put in a curb cut because of the elevations. MS. CIPPERLY-I was suggesting that you take the one that's at, there is a light there, I beliève that, isn't there a light at K- Mart there? MR. SLOW-No. There's just here and up at Dix and Quaker. MS. CIPPERLY-There's an access here, though, from K-Mart, which could possibly make an aligned intersection there. MR. HARRIGAN-But I think also when you look at this piece from a real estate standpoint, where I come fr6m, is there is not a lot of high traffic users out there that are going to look at this particular parcel. There's not going to, he's a service station guy. We're a fast-foot guy, and we're not going to allow another fast-food to go over here. MR. SLOW-One person that has looked at it in a serious nature, and he's only looked at it once. He hasn't gotten back to me a second time yet, but I think his type use might be what will develop, and he's a supply store, specialty, heating supply equipment type store. I think that would be the type retail use that, the only one we'll be able to entice to build there. That won't be a high volume traffic center. MR. FORD-That really goes back to what was suggested there, and to look at splitting it that way, because if you're looking at supply company with access off Highland Avenue, that might be a possibility, but I didn't understand the answer to that suggestion, or that question. Was that considered, that it would be split that way, rather than back this way? MR. SLOW-When we first, when Mr. King first bought the land, he bought only this parcel. Later on, he bought the rest of the land. King Fuels bought this originally, and then he bought the rest of this with a partner, later on. MS. CIPPERLY-That was part of this parcel over here. MR. SLOW-And when our engineers and our architects looked at the King Fuels portion of it, this was the only spot that we could build a station on this lot, because of the elevations over here. This was the only logical spot for the septic system. This is actually probably a 20 foot difference in height from there to the road. MR. HARRIGAN-I think to take a left turn out onto here, it would be a bit of a dangerous maneuver, too, as cars back up for this light here, and cars come around here. I don't think anybody will want to see a left turn merging in here, when people are slowing up for a light. - 10 - '- '--- MR. CARVIN-No, but on the other hand, you'd have a lot of space on Highland Ave. Do you see what I'm saying? You've got a light there. MR. HARRIGAN-This would be the only way to do particular spot, the only spot you could put an here. We don't know a purpose. it. This entrance was MR. CARVIN-What I'm saying is that that way, then you could put your McDonald's in here, and you'd have your 150 feet, and your entrance would be back here. MR. BEELER-I'm not sure whether our building, and it's not a big building, it's only 3,000 square feet, if we could actually lay it out on here and get the proper traffic circulation, like this, putting it in here, that's a depth of not even 150 feet. MR. CARVIN-Well, remember, you can I mean, this is not cast in stone line, either. move these lot lines that it has to be around. straight MS. CIPPERLY-If this were a smaller type thing. MR. HARRIGAN-That would devalue or make it much less desirable or valuable than from here down, that type triangle. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the other thing to be quite blunt about it, there's really no obligation for you to have two lots there. MR. MENTER-Yes. I understand your point. I mean, it's not a devaluation, because there is no valuation of it, because there's no lots. MR. CARVIN-There's no lot there. MR. BEELER-I think ultimately, though, the Planning Board's intention is to, Staff's intention is to end up with one curb cut for these two parcels, and I'm more than willing to accommodate that in the future, when this person comes in, and it makes sense, but right now, for people to come in to us, we'd still lay the building out this way. The people that come in to our site make this big looping motion, it's rather awkward. I mean, this right now would be the most sensible traffic movement into the site, the most safe movement. MR. CARVIN-Even if you set the building this way, I mean, the traffic still could come in. MR. FORD-Was that considered, this as a lot rather than parceling it off, and laying the building out this way? MR. SLOW-In our minds, in marketing, we always considered it to be two lots this way. We thought that would be the most desirable, but we as the remaining owner of this parcel, proposed parcel, and McDonald's is the proposed user of this parcel, do both agree that when we find out what the purpose might be here that they'll change it and we'll agree to work with them to do whatever's necessary, but until we know what that use is, I don't want to restrict it. MR. HARRIGAN-I think if you looked at our traffic study and how we do our business, we're really a lunch time, noon hour is our peak hour, and I think you'll find that if you look at this road, it's typical a.m./p.m. peak hour, when your traffic (lost word). The other thing is when we met with the lady from the State, Joa nna . MS. CIPPERLY-Joanna Brunso. She's the one that wrote the letter. MR. HARRIGAN-Right. I think she thought the traffic counts were - 11 - ---- much higher than what they are. I forget what they are, but the traffic counts at Dix Road are not what you'd consider a high volume traffic area, and I think when you take a look at the traffic report and see how we do our business, and we are a noon time business, that's when we generate our traffic, I think you'll find that we don't create an impact at allan the street, and we're really still, you've got one curb cut, plus we're putting an access back here. We're saying that we will agree to, to what's being proposed down here, when you figure out what's happening, but I, as a real estate person, when I drive around and I can visually look at somebody's property and see this, and can I fit on it? I don't know. MR. CARVIN-I think that, I don't know when the traffic count was taken, or under what conditions, but I know that Dix Ave. is a fairly busy highway. With the K-Mart here, the traffic on Quaker Road, and with the developing up in this area here, and with all the new businesses coming in, it will have an impact. I mean, McDonald's, I'm sure, has done surveys. They're not putting a McDonald's there because they don't think there's going to be much traffic. MR. HARRIGAN-Traffic has not been one of our major considerations, though. Most of our business is residential based. When you really take a look at the traffic, and the traffic that's moving in this direction, to make a left hand turn, you've got gapping that's created on the light. So it's relatively easy to make a left hand turn. To make a right hand turn, you're coming out and you're making a right hand turn. When you look at, the traffic report breaks down by hour of day, how we do business, and if you look at that, you'll see that it doesn't typically impact the roadways. MR. FORD-I disagree with that. I use this through Dix Avenue quite a bit. This, already, is a dangerous intersection right here at Highland and Dix, and eventually when a second lane is added here, as is proposed, you're making a left hand lane after a dangerous intersection here, and a high flow area here, across two lanes of oncoming traffic. I see a potential danger there. MS. CIPPERLY-The other thing here is there's the King Fuels thing here, which is a line to cross here, with the Quaker Farms has now had this one closed off. Trying to make a left out here is very difficult now, and I can just, I use this intersection a lot, too, and to have turning traffic out of here, turning traffic out of here, turning traffic, it's really the turning into the road. MR. FORD-And this is blind to view back here. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think what we're looking at is having a single curb cut, and as much distance as we can. MR. HARRIGAN-And this would be to service these two proposed, what if that were moved, what if we agreed to go like that, which would be less of a taking from this proposed lot. MR. CARVIN-I think that's what Staff is indicating. MS. CIPPERLY-This is 163 feet across here. This is another, say, 40. So that's 200. So you could come even to here and have a conforming. MR. HARRIGAN-It's 40 on the King Fuels side? MS. CIPPERLY-Between their proposed driveway on there, and where the other curb cut ends. I measured it to 38. MR. KARPELES-Well, what's this 48 foot? - 12 - ---" "-"' MS. CIPPERLY-Well, they measured to the line that comes straight out from King Fuels, rather than. I measured from here to there. What I'm saying is you could, this is rounded off to 40 plus the 160, 200 over here. So you could even come 50 feet. MR. THOMAS-So if you moved the 15 feet this way and straddled that property line. MR. HARRIGAN-There's something about, their zoning runs, lets say if this was subdivided, and then you call for a minimum lot size of 150, but your curb cuts need to be separated by 150, it's just impossible to meet those two requirements, of a minimum lot size of 150. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, there's also, we're supposed to grant the minimum relief necessary. MR. CARVIN-And I think more of a concern is the safety issue, because I think that, and I'm not disputing anybody's traffic studies, but I think they may be underemphasizing the traffic flow through there. MR. HARRIGAN-Well, the DOT comments agreed with the traffic study analysis. That was in the letter, as far as today's levels. They agreed that it's going to be a minimum impact. I forget the wording they had in their letter, but what they were talking about is in the future. In the future, we don't know. MR. CARVIN-I think we can safely assume that the future looks pretty bright for that area. I mean, that's mz feeling. MS. CIPPERLY-That's what the concern was, was not just this individual project, but the cumulative, for both this triangle and for what's going to happen. There's another piece of commercial land across the street that's for sale. This one is 15 acre commercial piece, and that could be aligned, when that sells for commercial, that could be aligned with something here. MR. HARRIGAN-That's why we're saying in the future we're more than willing to agree to close off our curb cut and relocate it down here at that time. MR. CARVIN-But I think I'm more inclined not to create a problem for the future, but solve one today. MR. FORD-You've got a lot here and a lot here. Would any variances at all be required if we looked at it that way, rather than trying to reserve another portion of this land here for future development? MR. HARRIGAN-I don't know. We're going to look at that. MS. CIPPERLY-If they could put their driveway here, wherever 150 feet is, then they wouldn't need a variance. So it's really this attempt to subdivide the land. MR. FORD-Right. So it is self-created, in order for future development of this parcel here. That requires the variance. MS. CIPPERLY-And you're also creating another piece that's going to have to some problems, it would not surprise me if they had to come in for variances for the setbacks in order to. MR. FORD-So we're taking one lot that would variance and forcing two lots, both of which variances. One definite, and the other projected. not require a will require MS. CIPPERLY-The setback there is 50 feet. So a building on this would have to be within that triangle. - 13 - - MR. KARPELES-I agree with Tom. I don't see why we can't just, I think we're making another Million Dollar Mile, if we do this. We're trying to cram too much into too small an area, and there's one lot there. He can meet the requirement. MR. CARVIN-I tend to agree with all these comments. So, if there are no other comments, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1995 MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant is proposing the placement of a curb cut for a fast food ,-estaurant 37 feet from an existing curb cut. Section 179- 66B Paragraph Four requires 150 feet between adjoining access points for commercial use. Upon review of the applicant's proposal, the existing lot would appear to have the possibility and potential of complying with the Ordinance as currently written. I think by granting relief from this particular Section would cause, or could cause, a safety situation that would not be in the Town's best interest. There also appears to be other possible alternatives which have been suggested which, if explored, could possibly comply with the Section as written. If we allowed this or granted this Area Variance, there would be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and it would appear that this requested relief is self-created, and if we also granted relief from this particular Area Variance that would appear to be the maximum relief and not minimum relief. Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1995 TYPE II WR-1A CEA CRAIG & DENISE HANCHETT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE PALMER DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO CAR GARAGE THIRTEEN (13) FEET FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, REPLACING AN EXISTING GARAGE WHICH IS THREE (3) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179- 16C, WHICH REQUIRES A TWENTY (20) FOOT SETBACK ON THIS SIDE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 2/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 144-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES SECTION 179-16C CRAIG HANCHETT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-1995, Craig & Denise Hanchett, Meeting Date: February 15, 1995 "APPLICANT: Craig and Denise Hanchett PROJECT LOCATION: 9 Palmer Drive PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to construct a two car garage thirteen (13) feet from the property line, replacing an existing garage which is three (3) feet from the property line. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE: Section 179-16C requires a twenty (20) foot setback on this side. Applicant seeks relief of seven (7) feet, resulting in a thirteen (13) foot setback. STAFF FINDINGS (Prior to Public Hearing): 1. The proposed location would increase compliance with the Ordinance, while still maintaining at least the required separation distance of ten (10) feet between the house and garage. 2. It would not be possible to move the garage any closer to the house because of the relation of the septic system to the driveway. 3. Power lines run directly in back of the proposed garage. It appears preferable to site the structure as proposed, rather than move it back. PARCEL HISTORY: According to the Assessor's Office, this is a 0.48 lot and the house was built in 1959. SEQR: Type II. - 15 - '- --- MR. HARRIGAN-Which is possible. It just reduces the size of the building, where we'd be able to construct, and they'd be able to. MS. CIPPERLY-I was just saying that because you're fronting on two roads, you're going to have to extend this 50 foot setback across this property here, and you'll have another one coming up here, and if you put in a four foot wide island, that makes your. MR. CARVIN-Are they going to need a buffer here too, Sue, from the building? MS. CIPPERLY-No, not between those two lots. MR. KARPELES-Where is that four foot wide island supposed to go, right in here where this thing is? So this is supposed to be four feet. MR. CARVIN-If you come that way, I think they both end up with more room, because this one's going to have a handicapped anyway, at some point, conceivably could. MR. HARRIGAN-What's the setback from this property line, that we'd be restricted from? MR. THOMAS-That one there says 25, on on that one. It would probably be line is. this. So that would be 25 right about where that red MR. SLOW-So we're not left with very much to begin with. That's what I'd hate to give anything up. MR. KARPELES-Well, it probably ought to be just one lot. MR. FORD-That's what it is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen, or comments, thoughts? If not, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT' PUBLIC HEAR!NG CLOSËD MR. CARVIN-Well, gentlemen, any other questions, comments or thoughts? MR. THOMAS-Well, I like the idea of putting in that common driveway right now, to avoid a problem in the future, because the next applicant that comes in for the other triangular: piece may or may not want it, and this way the driveway's in now. He's forced to take it, and it may cut into that property a little bit, but like was drawn on that map, if you straddled the proposed property line with that driveway, 15 feet either side, for a 30 foot road, I don't see where that would be any big deal. I don't think it'll take away from either property. I know both have about the same road frontage. MR. FORD-I see us being asked to offer a variance when one is not, these lots do not yet exist as two separate entities. Therefore, I view it as one lot, and, therefore, working with that configuíation, there's ample space to provide entíances and egress without even coming in fOí a variance. MR. MENTER-I agree. I'd be inclined to deal with the situation now, because it is going to be a problem. In fact, the final parcel may wind up being better off if it's taken caíe of now than later. I think it needs to be deteímined befoíe the píoject goes. - 14 - ---' No further action needed. further comment." STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County planning Board held on the 8th day of February 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 2 car garage 13' from the south property line, replacing an existing'garage which is 3' from the property line. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: NoCounty Impact" Signed by Thomas Haley, Chairperson" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Hanchett. Is there anything you'd care to add? MR. HANCHETT-No. Pretty much the letter sums it up. MR. CARVIN-Any questions from anybody on the Board? I just have one. I just want to make sure I'm understanding this. Your existing garage is on a three foot setback and you're going to move that closer to the house, is that correct, back to about a 13 foot? MR. HANCHETT-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I'm assuming that the old garage will come down? MR. HANCHETT-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and the driveway will stay existing, but just kind of anGled a little bit. MR. HANCHETT-Right. MR. CARVIN-All right. There's some trees out there. Will any of the trees be impacted by any chance? MR. HANCHETT-No trees at all. MR. CARVIN-So you won't have any vegetation problem or anything like that? MR. HANCHETT-No. The driveway will stay the way it is. It's at an angle now. 1 MR. FORD-Could you describe for us the appearánce of the new structure? MR. HANCHETT-I can show you. MR. FORD--It's got textured siding on the sides, vertical blinds? MR. HANCHETT-What's on the house now is board and batten. MS. CIPPERLY-Could someone tell me what the height of the garage is? MR. MENTER-What's the scale, an inch equals a foot? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, when the building permit comes in, I don't want to see 20 foot tall. MR. THOMAS-The scale as noted, take that eight foot measurement and see what that measures. Measure that eight foot and see what that says, right here. Just measure that eight and that'll give us a scale. Yes. It's about one inch equals four feet. MR. KARPELES-How did you arrive upon 13 feet, from the house to the garage? - 16 - \..-.- ....../ MR. HANCHETT-It's from the house to where I wanted it. MR. KARPELES-Couldn't you bring it over another three feet, and have even less? MR. HANCHETT-I could, but then I'd be cut, just to make the swing into the garage, it would be too much of an angle, and I'd be actually pulling out of the garage. I'd be coming right near the septic. That's in that area, coming too close. MR. KARPELES-What's that, is that a drainage field, or is this just a tank there? MR. HANCHETT-That is a septic. drywell off in there. There is a septic and then the MS. CIPPERLY-And by Code you can't be driving over your septic. So he'd have to use his existing driveway and somehow get to his gar age. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT BARODY MR. BARODY-Robert Barody. I'm within 500 feet. I own a cottage in the area. All these lots were undersized lots. The subdivision was drawn up way back in the early 30's. So a lot of times in this area relief is needed. I don't see any problem with this whatsoever. Also, the lots originally were 50 foot wide lots. Fortunately most people bought two of them which allowed us to have 100 feet wide, which doesn't meet today's standards, I realize, but I think in this area we do need relief occasionally. The neighbor called last night, the one right next door, and he agreed with it. It was just a verbal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-I'll ask the Board one more time if there's any questions or comments? MR. MENTER-My comment would be that I would certainly be inclined to grant it because he's actually reducing the relief that's needed, or the nQnconformity anyway, and I don't think it'll have any effect whatsoever on the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If we have no other questions or comments, I would ask for a motion. MS. CIPPERLY-When you do your motions, could you start, on garages, putting the height, or approximate height, one story, in there, if that's what your intention is. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. HANCHETT, Introduced by David Menter seconded by Fred Carvin: 6-1995 CRAIG & DENISE who moved for its adoption, The applicant proposes to construct a one story two car garage, 13 feet from the property line, which is to replace an existing garage, which is three feet from the property line. Section 179- 16C requires a 20 foot setback on the side. Therefore, the applicant seeks relief of seven feet. The relief sought would put the new garage closer to conformity than the existing garage. It would appear to have no negative impact on the community. It would be in character with the rest of the community. Because of the size of this as well as the adjoining lots, it is not a self- created hardship, and, again, this would be in character to the adjoining lots and the rest of the community, and this would also - 17 - -- be minimum r~lief. }'i Duly vote: adopted this 15th day , of February, 1995', by the following AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ford, Mr. Meritèr,Mr. 'Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1995 TYPE II WR-1A CEA BARRIE HANDELMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CROOKED TREE POINT, ROUTE 9L, DUNHAM'S BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES'!A FORTY;;"EIGHT (48) SQUARE FOOT EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING 1,180 SQ. FT. 'OOCK. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FRoM SECTION 179- 60B(1)(b) WHICH REQUIRES A TWENTY (20) FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE EXTENDED INTO THE LAKE, AND FURTHER STATES THAT THE DOCf<AREA SHALL"'! NOT EX"CEED$El\fEN HUNDRED (700) SQUARE FEET. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION) (WARREN COUÑTY PLANNING) 2/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 3-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.95 ACRES SECTION 179-60B(1)(b)[4] and [5] MR. CARVIN-And we have a letter from the applicant requesting a tabling until your March meeting. MR. THOMAS-I'll read the letter. A letter dated February 3, 1995, "Dear Zoni ng EMard of Appeals: Would it be possible to delay my appearancé b'efor'e your Zorri ngBoard from February 15, 1995 until your March 15, 1995 meeting? I will be out of the Country for your February session. Thank you very much for your consideration. Barrie Handelman" MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Introduced by Chris Thomas who by Fred Carvin: NO. 7-1995 BARRIE HANDELMAN, moved for its adoption, seconded Until the March 15, 1995 meeting. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The reason for the tabling of this application is at the request of the applicant. Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1995, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-I would also like some clarification from Staff as to exact location. I went out there, and I don't know if anybody else went out and tried to look at this, but I had an extremely difficult time deciding which piece of property I was looking at, and I was chased off by a dog. So I wasn't about to exploring around. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, if you'd like to use one of our four wheel drive Queensbury trucks, I'd be glad to take you out there. This is, if you're going up to the end of Bay Road, you go about four tenths of a mile west. There's two sets of stone pillars with driveways. The first set is not it. That's not plowed. The second set that you come to was plowed, and you go down and there's a circular drive, and it's possible to get back up. The dock is, obviously, out in front of the house down a hill. MR. CARVIN-Well, if you would, when the applicant returns, would you indicate that they should put that bright orange or pink, stress that to them, so that wè can all go out and visit that and take a look at that particular,site. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco -18 - -/ '- AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1995 TYPE II SR-IA CHRISTINE C. SPINA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 423 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING 480 SQ. FT. GARAGE VIA A 264 SQ. FT. ADDITION. SECTION 179-19C REQUIRES A SIDE SETBACK OF TEN (10) FEET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE (3) FOOT SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 2/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 55-2-24 LOT SIZE: 1.34 ACRES SECTION 179-19 CHRISTINE SPINA, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-1995, Christine C. Spina, Meeting Date: February 15, 1995 "APPLICANT: Christine C. Spina PROJECT LOCATION: 423 Ridge Road PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant pyoposes to enlarge an existing 480 square foot garage via a 264 square foot addition, which would be set back 3 feet from the property line. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE: Section 179-19C ,-equi,-es a side setback of ten (10) feet, so applicant seeks relief of seven (7) feet. STAFF FINDINGS (Prior to Public Hearing): Applicant currently has a 22 ft. by 18 ft. attached garage (396 sq. ft.) and a 20 ft. by 24 ft. detached garage (480 sq. ft.), which the building permit indicates was to be 10 feet from the property line. There is also an additional storage structure at the rear of the detached garage. PARCEL HISTORY: This parcel was purchased by the applicant in January 1986. The residence was constructed in 1986. SEQR: Type II, no further action needed. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: A copy of the building permit map from 1988 is attached." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 8th day of February 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to enlarge ao,existing 480 sq. ft. garage via a 264 sq. ft. addition. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Thomas Haley, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add? MS. SPINA-No. I think the application is self-explanatory. MR. CARVIN-Any questions from the Board members? MR. MENTER-Let me just clarify what we have there. Lets see, there's currently a 22 by 18 attached garage, attached to the house? MS. SPINA-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-The reason I put the figures in there from the building permits is that there is a discrepancy, in some cases, with what's shown on the applicant's map. So, I figured for the record it ought to be addressed. On the application it says it's 20 by 18 attached garage, and in the building permit it says 22 by 18. So I wanted to establish which it was. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, anybody? a little history of how the two garages got some of the files here, and I'm not transactions. Okay. Can you give me got built, because I've sure I follow all the MS. SPINA-The tall garage that's attached to the house, I had originally built when the house was constructed, a very small garage (lost word) storage. The second garage, which Jeff had built shortly after that was designed for vehicles and storage (lost word). The proposal that I'm requesting was to really extend the detached garage. It has nothing to do with the attached garage. It's a mere extension of 12 feet, and that will allow me to store my tractor and a few other things that would have to be put in there. Currently, if you've all been to the - 19 - ~ site, currently it's Just a parking space right now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess I'm looking at some of the '86 building permit. MS. SPINA-The '86 building permit was for the house, and along with the house was this tall garage. MR. CARVIN-Right. According to this, though, it was a two car attached garage, but then th~re's a note to the file. MS. SPINA-It was not a two car. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what it indicates here on the building permit. MS. CIPPERLY-It also indicates there that it was reduced to a one car. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Yes, I was going to say, then here that, "Will not build garage at this time. car garage when built, probably Spring of '87." built after the house. there's a note Will be a one So this was MS. SPINA-It was built When the house was constructed. MR. CARVIN-Okay, in '86, and then in '88. MS. SPINA-1988 was the two car detached. MR. CARVIN-The two car detached. Well, it was applied as a two car. This is what you're saying, Sue, is it was supposed to be 10 feet off the property line at that point? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, in the building permit there, it says it was to be 10 feet off the property line. So I don't know whethe1-, when it was actually built, it was moved two feet over, or if it's actually now 10 feet from the property line, and the one in the building permit, I believe, was from a survey map. MR. CARVIN-Yes. This is a survey. MS. SPINA-I apologize. I'm not really aware of the discrepancy, but Jeff Camerer built that garage, and you can ask him that question. (Lost words) dimensions of thè detached garage. JEFF CAMERER MR. CAMERER-The detached garage will be 12 by (lost word). Right now it's 15 feet away from the property line, the detached garage. MR. FORD-So if approved and built, you finally would wind up with the equivalent of parking spaces within garages for the equivalent of four cars? MS. SPINA-The detached garage that's standing right now is truly not a two car garage. Obviously, that's how it was applied for. MR. FORD-Twenty feet wide. MS. SPINA-The way it's constructed, two cars could not get into that garage. MS. CIPPERLY-You would end up with a 24 by 32 detached garage, plus the. MR. FORD-Plus the attached one car? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. - 20 - ------ --- MR. CARVIN-Well, if my math is correct, between the garages that you currently have, I'm coming up with, what, 876 square feet. MR. KARPELES-Yes, that's what ~ got. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-We're talking about 264. MR. CARVIN-On top of that. So we're talking in excess of the 900 squ.are feet. MR. MENTER-Right, which is another issue. MR. CARVIN-Which is a whole other issue. MR. MENTER-Because there's a 900 squ.are foot limit on garage space. MS. SPINA-The lean-to that's attached to the detached garage, the current detached garage, is going to be coming down with this extension (lost word). MR. CARVIN-Well, that's not even taken into consideration. I'm assuming that we've got a 20 by 24, 480 square feet, one and a half, two car garage of some size or dimension, at least 480 square feet there, and then there's another, whatever the difference is to the attached. That looks like it's a 22 by. MR. THOMAS-Eighteen by twenty, three hundred and sixty square feet. MR. CARVIN-Three hundred and sixty. MS. CIPPERLY-That was another discrepancy. The attached one in the permit is 18 by 22, but on the application it's 18 by 20. So I don't know which one they're going to use. MR. CARVIN-So we really don't know, but we're talking real close to the 900 square feet. So, I don't know what the Board's pleasure is on this one. MR. MENTER-Well, why is there no alternatives to that location, if you were to expand that, if you wanted to add that space and needed that space, why couldn't you go in another direction with it? MS. SPINA-Economically, it would be much more favorable to extend the current detached garage. Obviously, you can enlarge the current detached garage by ripping the roof and doing things that would cost quite a bit more money. MR. MENTER-Well, my question is, why go south? I mean, why on that side of the building? You couldn't go on the opposite side? MS. SPINA-Because there's already a parking space there, and I guess I was trying to utilize the driveway, which extends to that corner portion of the property. If you were at the property, if you traveled up the driveway, the driveway actually continues straight right to (lost word). MR. CAMERER-To the left of that detached garage (lost word). MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, they're showing a leach field here. MR. FORD-This is a single family structure, correct? MS. SPINA-Yes. - 21 - -- MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? heat- i ng. Okay. I'll open the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AUDREY CRIMSKI MRS. CRIMSKI-Audrey Crimski, I'm the neighbor to the south, that this property line will be very close to. One of the reasons that we bought was for the open space. We don't have that anymore. On one side we've got an ápartment house that you had built, and the parking lot is right up on our, to the edge of our line. We've got cars going in and out of there all the time. On the other side, Chris and Jeff have built the garage, but of more concern to me is the truck. He has a large truck that he uses for the business, and in the morning, you put clothes out on the line, they smell like diesel fuel because he has to let it run for a while. I don't think that┼ôs good fOT the kids to be around, and not only that, but if you're going to build it up to three feet from my property line, and the roof is high on that, I'm worried about ice and stuff coming off that roof, hurting my kids or damaging other stuff. She's got plenty of room. She can go back further or go to the side, you know, move her leach field or whatnot, but I don't feel that I should be penalized by this. MS. CIPPERLY-If the garage were extended to the back, Mrs. Crimski, if it were, would that obstruct your view? I notice there's quite a. MRS. CRIMSKI-It would, but not as much as it is now. I'm mean, they've got that. Now he says 12 feet. I don't know, but after it was surveyed they paved it over so quick, and I've always kind of doubted the boundary line anyway, but if he comes out 12 feet, I'm afraid they're going to be on to ou.r property. Once that's set, what can we do? Nothing. MS. SPINA-I can assure you, that's not the case. MRS. CRIMSKI-But I mean, you know, I think there should be some consideration for neighbors. I mean, my kids can't even play on that side of the house without problems. MR. CARVIN-Is there a fence that goes up along the back? MRS. CRIMSK1-Yes, there is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that on your property line? MRS. CRIMSKI-Well, it's on the property line, but. MS. SPINA-It's away from the property line. It's to the left of the property line. The survey was done, and it's one foot left of the property line. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I know when I was out there I did notice kind of a large tt-uck and also, I guess, a Scout or a Jeep type, Rodeo. I'm not real good on those four wheél drives. MS. SPINA-The big large truck is Jeff's work truck, and the Rodeo is his personal truck. My car is in the little garage that's attached to the house. MRS. CRIMSKI-But the work truck is there all the time, every weekend. It's there. So, like, during the Balloon Festival and stuff we can't see anything. He's got the truck and that big garage. MS. SPINA-Well, I had to put the garage somewhere, and that was really the only place I could put the garage, because the blacktopping was always a part of my plan when I purchased the - 22 - ~ '--' property. Paving was something I wanted to do before I purchased the property. Moving the leach field, I don't think I want to get involved with doing that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any othe)- questions? Any other comments? MS. SPINA-I'd like to make one other comment, that, visually, what the neighbors have to look at right now is identical with what they'd have to look at if this were approved. . It's only a 12 foot extension of what they're already looking at, without the truck. The diesel, my brother comes up and visits me all the time and unfortunately he has a diesel vehicle, too. My sister has a diesel car and a van. I honestly don't know how to control what happens to the air. MRS. CRIMSKI-It's just that if you live in a don't feel that you should, on a daily basis, fuel, and I mean, it billows. It's not a billows. It will billow into the kitchen. smells like diesel. residential area, I have to have diesel small amount. It I mean, the laundry MS. SPINA-I don't really want to belabor this subject, but I don't think that's the matter here. MR. CARVIN-Will the truck be stored in the new addition? MS. SPINA-No. The truck is going to be located to another area. That's what we've been trying to do is find a home for the truck. MR. CAMERER-It's 24 feet long. It's an eight ton truck. MR. CARVIN-How many automobiles do you currently have right now? MS. SPINA-Two. MR. CARVIN-Two plus the truck? MS. SPINA-Yes. The addition is going to be primarily for the snow blower, tractor, that type of equipment. MR. FORD-If that is the case, then is there any reason that you might not consider locating that with a 90 degree turn back of the existing two car garage, or single car, but that detached garage? In other words, if you came down, as you face the right side of that, of the detached garage, and built this, in essence, shed, on the back side of that. Therefore, you would not be coming any closer to the line than you would be right now. MS. SPINA-You're talking about building in back of the current garage? MR. FORD-That's correct. MS. SPINA-That would be taking up a lot of property space that I would rather not tie, I would rather not do that, if I didn't have to, plus then there would be no chance of ever (lost word). I'd like to be able to have some flexibility. If I understand you correctly, the extension, instead of being to the side of the current two car garage, it would be to the back of it. To get to that, if I ever did want to use it for parking, which I (lost word). Plus there's a (lost word). MR. FORD-It would be a 12 foot extension off the back of your current garage. MS. SPINA-That would not be a favorable (lost word). MR. FORD-But it wouldn't require a variance, in terms of coming closer to the line. - 23 - MS. SPINA-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Any other public comment? TOM CRIMSKI MR. CRIMSKI-My name's Tom Crimski. I think my reasons for opposition are different from my wife's, and they're also personal and private, and I have not explained those, as yet, to Chris and Jeff, and I think I owe them that, but I also think it's not something for the Board. It's more something that I need to speak with them about in private, but I have strong feelings that are different from my wife's. My wife has her own thoughts about it, but I've got mine too, and I think that, I know my mind clearly about what I want to say, but I think it's personal. I think it's private, and I think it's between me and them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any comments or questions from the Board? MR. THOMAS-The only comment !'ve got is I don't think I could approve the addition going that ~Jay, toward that property line. I think it is an encumberment on the property next door, and I think there is an alternative to put it on the back of the garage or on the north side of the garage, even offset it from the septic tank, but I think that three feet to that pToperty line is too close to the neighbor, and I think that addition on there, too, brings it way over the 900 square feet for a garage, even though it would be a "shed". MR. CARVIN-I have a hard time with that, also. MR. KARPELES-I don't see how minimum variance to be given. we can approve it. That's about it. It's not the MR. MENTER-I agree. It wouldn't be the minimum relief, and I don't think they've shown us there's no alternatives. MR. FORD-I feel there are alternatives to be explored. I'm concerned about coming that close to the property line, and I'm also concerned about an issue that we have taken up several times in the last couple of months, and that is exceeding the 900 square feet for garage space. MR. CARVIN-Well, those are, essentially, my comments, also. I have a hard time wi th the 900 square feet. I also have a han:l time with the line placement three feet. You've mirrored my comments exactly, I guess, to summarize. Okay. If there are no other comments, I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1995 CHRISTINE C. SPINA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant is proposing to ènlarge an existing 480 square foot garage via a 264 square foot addition, which would be set back three feet from the property line. Section 179-19C requires a side setback of 10 feet. The relief that the applicant is requesting and the additional square footage that they're proposing would be in addition to an attached garage which is an additional approximately 396 square feet. So, in essence, the applicant is proposing to add 264 square feet 'of additional garage space to an existing 876 square feet, which would be in excess of the current 900 square foot allowable garage space. If we were to grant this Area Variance, we would be creating an - 24 - ~ ..,../ -- undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and creating possible detriments to nearby properties. It would also appear that the benefit being sought by the applicant, which may be storage, and not necessarily parking, could be achieved by other means available. Because of the total square footage of the garage space being requested, this certainly would be maximum relief and a long ways from minimum relief. It would appear that the alleged difficulty is self-created and not any fault of the Ordinance or the property layout. Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think that's the end of the Official agenda. MR. THOMAS-We've got one other thing we've got to do. MR. CARVIN-What's that? MR. THOMAS-The thing there for the Town Board, regarding William Threw Lead Agency thing. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Okay. I'm assuming that everybody received the letter from the Town Board requesting. I don't have a problem with the Town Board taking Lead Agency Status. MR. THOMAS-Well, let me read their resolution into our record, so we know what they're doing. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-"RESOLUTION REGARDING LEAD AGENT FOR USE VARIANCE APPLICATION FILED BY WILLIAM E. THREW RESOLUTION NO. 104.95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been notified that a SEQRA )"eview is about to be commenced by the Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with a use variance application filed by William E. Threw in connection with a commercial landfill located on Eagan Road in the Town of Queensbu)"y, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has indicated its desire to commence a coordinated SEQRA Review process and it desires to be lead agency for purposes of review and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is also a permitting agency for landfills under the Code of the Town of Queensbury and also desires to be lead agency for purposes of the SEQRA Review, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that it consents to a coordinated SEQRA review but advises the Zoning Board of Appeals that it desires to be the lead agents and would like to receive a resolution from the Zoning Board of Appeals indicating its consent to the Town Boards request to be a lead agent. - 25 - ""- '- Duly adopted this 6th day of January, 1995 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: Mr. Turner MR. CARVIN-Okay. So I guess we need to make a motion. MR. THOMAS-I think we have to make a motion to rescind our. MR. MENTER-How about some background, here, for my benefit. MR. KARPELES-Yes. What's behind all this? MS. CIPPERLY-The Town Board has to issue a permit in order for someone to have a landfill or dump. So they are an involved agency, and they have the right to take lead agency status. If the Zoning Board felt strongly about it, they could try to take lead agency status, but it probably. MR. MENTER-But did the Zoning Board request lead agency status? I missed that. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it came, really, to the Zoning Board because of the Use Variance, and that would have been the next step, as far as the Zoning Board goes, is to do the SEQRA review. So as far as the notice goes, you send it to~ DEC is also a permitting agency, but they apparently don't want lead agency status. In fact, we have a letter on file to that effect, but the Town Board does. So the Town Board is going to undertake the SEQRA review, which could include requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. KARPELES-Well, what happens to, we got it by originally? What happens to the use variance? until this? a use variance, Is that delayed MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. KARPELES-So we don't have to table that or anything like that? It's just automatically delayed? MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I think the Town Board, it would still come back, even after the Town Board, right? Because they would refer it back, if the use variance was still needed. MR. KARPELES-It might not even be needed? MR. CARVIN-It might not come back. If the Town Board decides to change the Ordinance, or makes approval, then it may not come back, but if it still requires a use variance, it would come back. We have to make a motion to rescind our original motion. MOTION THAT WE WITHDRAW OUR LEAD AGENCY STATUS ON USE VARIANCE NO. 4-1995 WILLIAM E. THREW. AND THAT THE TOWN BOARD BE THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THIS SEQRA., Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco MR. CARVIN-I just have a couple of other bookkeeping items, I guess. Charles Barber, that's still tabled, is that correct? - 26 - '-..., ..,.../' MS. CIPPERLY-There should be a letter in the box withdrawing. It may be still on my desk. They did submit a letter asking that, they're going to withdraw their application. I can bring that letter next week. MR. CARVIN-Okay. agreement off? Were they able to come to some kind of MS. CIPPERLY-No, they were not. different piece of property. They've decided to build on a MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that one will be closed eventually. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I'll bring that letter next week. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then I had one here on a Gary D'Angelo, which was an area variance from July of '94. MR. THOMAS-That was that shed. MS. CIPPERLY-He decided to build a conforming shed. I also had a list of. MR. CARVIN-I just never had anything come through, or I didn't see anything. I kept it in my file. Okay. So that one also has been withdrawn. Okay. It looks like our tabling file is in good shape. MS. CIPPERLY-Paul Dusek will be here next week. You can ask him what the procedure is. I'm not sure whether the Zoning Board makes a recommendation to the Town Board, but it is the Town Board that would appoint a Chairman. Also, as a housekeeping matter, I had written up a list of sort of outstanding applications. You do have that? MR. KARPELES-Yes, we've got it. MS. CIPPERLY-The Mooring Post's Area Variance application needs to be tabled, if the Board would like to do that, or you can ask them to withdraw it. MR. CARVIN-They've got a suit going against the Town. think they've ever applied for an Area Variance. I don't MS. CIPPERLY-They applied for the Area Variance, but it can't be considered until the Use Variance is applied for, but it was out there, and rather than have it approved by default, due to timeframes being exceeded, the Board needs to do something, either, for instance, table it for 60 days, or you could ask the applicant if he'd be willing to withdraw it until the Use Variance is applied for. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. guess I have no reaction tàble the Area Variance. Use Variance. What's the Board's pleasure on this? I on it one way or the other, whether to I mean, it's not moving ahead without a MR. That and more THOMAS-I think we should way we aren't confined keep withdrawing, make days. ask the applicant to withdraw it. to the 60 days, and have to go back a motion to keep tabling it for 60 MR. CARVIN-That's probably a good suggestion. MR. MENTER-It sounds like a good idea. Where are we now? MR. CARVIN-We're probably 30 days, anyway. Does that sound good to you, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-Sure. I can write up a letter and have you sign it, - 27 - ~._¿ r I guess, as Acting Chairman. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and have them withdraw it until the Use Variance. MR. MENTER-Sounds like a good plan. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other business? If business or comments, I will officially closed, or ask for adjournment. there is no declare the other meeting On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Acting Chairman - 28 -