Loading...
1996-04-24 c ORJGINN ''''''' QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 89-1995 Tax Map No. 14-2-20 James Mooney 1. Area Variance No. 3-1996 Tax Map No. 3-1-14 Mark Handelman 1. Area Variance No. 28-1996 Tax Map No. 72-3-18 Amerada Hess Corporation 2. Area Variance No. 20-1996 Tax Map No. 14-1-4 Robert & Susan Morris 8. Area Variance No. 22-1996 Michael Chrys 12. Use Variance No. 26-1996 Tax Map No. 109-3-12.2 Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club 21. 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 j,"\;J;ltJ II V \..,-- -1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROBERT KARPELES WILLIAM GREEN BONNIE LAPHAM STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-1995 TYPE I WR-1A JAMES MOONEY OWNER: JAMES & SUSAN MOONEY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND REPLACE IT WITH A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE HOME FOR USE BY PARENTS. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL, AND FROM SECTION 179-12C, USE REGULATIONS, WHICH STATES THAT THERE WILL NOT BE MORE THAN ON PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON A LOT LESS THAN TWO ACRES IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 14-2-20 LOT SIZE: 0.5202 ACRES SECTION 179-12C, 179- 16 MR. THOMAS-And I have a fax that came in today that says, "Regarding Area Variance No. 89-1995 James & Susan Mooney, "Dear Zoning Board Members: We would like, at this time, to withdraw our application for an Area Variance No. 89-1995 at this time. We will pursue other options that may be available to us. We wish to thank those Staff members who aided us with this application. Sincerely, James and Susan Mooney" So that takes care of the Mooney application. It's been withdrawn. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-1996 TYPE II WR-3A CEA TYPE II MARK HANDELMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF ROUTE 9L, APPROX. 2,400 FT. NORTHWEST OF THE ROUTE 9L AND BAY ROAD INTERSECTION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16 AND THE SHORELINE RESTRICTIONS OF SECTION 179-60, AND THE ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING USE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179- 79A2. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 3-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.95 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-79A2 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-I'll read the tabling motion in. The meeting date was February 3, 1996, Variance File No. 3-1996 for an Area Variance "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-1996 MARK HANDELMAN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: To allow the applicant to provide additional detailed floor plans and schematic structural designs. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1996, by the following vote:" MR. STEVES-I'm Matt Steves from Van Dusen and Steves. I represent Mark Handelman. I would ask if the Board has any questions regarding the new information that was requested at the last meeting, and we had this application tabled until such new information was given to the Board, which you now have in front of you. It was a lake elevation drawing of the addition, and the interior schematic of the existing house, you'll see why the addition has to go where it is proposed. We'd ask for any input - 1 - ',- '...',' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) that the Board may have. I need a majority plus one to get this passed. Therefore, it looks like I'll have to table it again. MR. THOMAS-Might as well table it right now, because there's only four of us here. You're going to need five. Warren County did disapprove it, didn't they. MR. STEVES-Yes, they did. MR. THOMAS-So, table it now for a future meeting. MR. STEVES-We don't have a choice. MR. THOMAS-I guess not. That's what happens when you have four members. It's vacation week at school. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-1996 MARK HANDELMAN, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: To allow the Board to have enough members to vote on this, since it was disapproved by Warren County Planning Board. We need a super majority, which is four plus one. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1996 TYPE II HC-lA AMERADA HESS CORPORATION OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF AVIATION ROAD, EAST OF EXIT 19 OF I-87 APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO BUILD NEW PUMPS, FUEL STORAGE TANKS, CANOPY AND FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM, AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR AN EXISTING GAS STATION. RELIEF IS REQUIRED FROM THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-23(C) AND THE SETBACKS OF SECTION 179-28 (C) TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 72-3-18 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES SECTION 179-23(C), 179-28(C) JON LATHROP, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-1996, Amerada Hess Corporation, Meeting Date: April 24, 1996 "APPLICANT: Amerada Hess Corporation PROJECT LOCATION: Aviation Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant is proposing to construct a new fire suppression canopy system over gas pumps and remove a small portion of green space to provide additional parking for the Hess station on Aviation Rd. The proposed canopy would be located approximately 7.7 feet from the front property line. Relief is required from the Travel Corridor Setback Section of 179- 28C. The reduction of green space for additional parking requires relief from the permeability requirements of Section 179-23C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: This would allow the applicant to construct a new canopy with a fire suppression system and additional parking for this site. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not appear to be any alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The current street setback required is 75 feet. The existing setback is 10.44 feet. The permeability requirements for the HC-1A district are 30%. Currently this site has 28.4% - 2 - \""...' --- {Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96} permeable area. The applicant is proposing a new permeable area of 27.7%. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It appears that the proposed reduction in permeable area would not have any negative impact on the neighborhood. The addition of a new fire canopy would improve fire safety at this location. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The current permeability of this site is below the 30% requirement of the HC-1A zoning district. The existing street setback is 10.44 feet. Staff Comments and Concerns: The proposed canopy would increase fire safety at this location. Staff was initially concerned about the potential for this canopy to hang over the Aviation Road right of way when it is widened as part of the new Exit 19 bridge. Staff has spoken to the NYSDOT and has been informed that the right of way in front of the canopy will not change. The proposed canopy would not hang over Aviation Rd. once a new bridge is constructed. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. II MR. THOMAS-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of April 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to build new pumps, fuel storage tanks, canopy and fire suppression system and provide additional parking for an existing gas system. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: With the condition that the canopy is limited to what is absolutely necessary to protect the fire suppression system. By doing this, the encroachment on the road will be minimized. II Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Gentlemen, anything further to add? MR. LATHROP-Well, for the record, my name is Jon Lathrop, and I'm the agent for the applicant, and with me is Bill Wilfram from Amerada Hess. I'm not going to rehash the information that was already submitted with the application, other than just to say that after attending the Warren County Planning Board meeting, I investigated the extent of the fire suppression system that's recommended by the Planning Department and I have with me a letter and a sketch showing that the fire suppression system pretty much covers the extent of the canopy as it was drawn on the proposal, and that's just a copy of what you already have in your possession. So we're not seeking to overturn the recommendation from the Warren County Planning Board. It seems that we're in conformance, and I would also submit this information from Pem-AII, which is a fire suppression manufacturer, to the Board at this time. It seems that we're in conformance with their recommendation, as the application was prepared. I also have a letter here from the Fire Marshal for the Town of Queensbury, Kip Grant. He's also reviewed the same materials that was approved a permit for the fire suppression system. I have one copy of that, and I have multiple copies of the other letter, and I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. MR. THOMAS-A couple of questions. constructed of? The canopy itself, what's it MR. LATHROP- It's structural steel columns and framing members, with painted, baked enamel, steel panels on the bottom and a cavalar basing, which is a plastic basing. MR. THOMAS-And is it going to be painted any particular colors, the Hess station colors? MR. LATHROP-Hess station colors. The cavalar is basically a white field with a green stripe running down the middle of it. MR. THOMAS-Is there any writing or printing on this? MR. LATHROP-We're proposing two Hess signs on the end of the canopy - 3 - '..,./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) nearest Aviation Road. MR. THOMAS-Does that get into the Sign Ordinance? MR. HILTON-Any of the signs on the canopy would be subject to a sign permit. MR. KARPELES-Do you have an elevation drawing for this? MR. LATHROP-No, I don't at this time. MR. KARPELES-Pretty hard to approve it when we don't know what it looks like. MR. LATHROP-I do have a sketch that is not site specific, but I could show the Board. MR. KARPELES-It's better than nothing. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. LATHROP-This is a typical canopy. That's a four poster canopy. Additionally, this is a copy of the letter from the Fire Marshal. MR. KARPELES-So this would be very similar to this, is what you're saying? MR. LATHROP-It would be virtually identical to that, except that that canopy is, the portion of it that's cut off is, that canopy's a little larger than the one we're proposing, and those are the letters from the manufacturer. MR. THOMAS-It's the same canopy as Exit 18? BILL WILFRAM MR. WILFRAM-The same canopy, other than, of course that's much larger because it covers the store. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. WILFRAM-This is 36 by 54. That's much larger, but it's the same construction, the same white and green. MR. GREEN-So this one doesn't go back over the store, then. MR. LATHROP-No. MRS. LAPHAM-This just covers the gas pumps? MR. LATHROP-Yes, and the fire suppression system. MR. THOMAS-Warren County's concern was if you could shorten or bring back the canopy. That would affect the fire suppression system, is what you're saying? MR. LATHROP-It would reduce the number of nozzles, and it would also reduce the coverage, basically, of the fire suppression system. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. KARPELES-Why is that? MR. LATHROP-Well, the fewer nozzles. MR. KARPELES-No, no, but why do you have to reduce the number of nozzles. - 4 - --. ........." (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. LATHROP-If we made the canopy smaller, I wouldn't have anything to hang the fire suppression nozzles on. I need something up there to support them from. There's piping that runs from the building up the canopy columns and needs to run over to a bottle, and there's limitations on the amount of piping from the bottle, which sits on top of the canopy, to the nozzles. The bottle needs to be fairly close to where the nozzles are. MR. KARPELES-Where does the bottle sit? MR. LATHROP-The bottles have to sit on top of the canopy. MRS. LAPHAM-You mean like here? MR. LATHROP-Behind that, so you really can't see them behind the facia. MR. WILFRAM-That's essentially like, it's an inverted cake pan, if you will. The canopy's like an inverted, like a cake pan, there's the sides and a deck. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. So it's tucked up under the sides and we can't see it. That's all. MR. LATHROP-The outboard row of nozzles for the end of the fire suppression system are less than 18 inches away from the end of the canopy. That just gives enough room for the structural steel manufacturer to get the supporting members in, and then to get the facia panels on. It would be difficult to make the canopy much smaller without effecting the fire suppression system. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions? hearing. If not, I'll open the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Well, lady and gentlemen, lets talk about this one. Bonnie, do you want to go first? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I frequent this station all the time, so I know about what you're referring to between the one at Exit 18. I was waiting to see what the public comment was, because I know this fronts a residential neighborhood, and seeing as there's no public problem with it, I don't have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-I don't have a problem with it at all. I think any time we can be better safe than sorry here, the difference, we're going from 10 feet to 7 feet, permeability 28 to 27%, something like that, to pick up your fire safety, I think it's a wonderful improvement. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I don't really think I have a problem with it, but I have got a few more questions. Why do you need the asphalt, the additional asphalt? It looks like a lot of asphalt, if you just want to get a wheelchair in there. MR. LATHROP-Well, this asphalt, the blacktop line that you see here, and this curb line, this is fully blacktop all the way to the building now. The only thing that we're proposing removing is a planter here. It's a planted planter area, but currently nothing's - 5 - ',.- ~ ...,,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) planted in it. What it does is it constricts getting handicapped parking spaces. MR. KARPELES-So that's the only place? MR. LATHROP- It's basically a 14 foot diameter circle. It's a raised curb. It causes problems with snow plowing and parking, and by its removal we could put the handicapped parking space nearest the building, which is obviously more convenient for anybody that would need to use that space. MR. KARPELES-This is pretty extensive, all these gas tanks you're putting in here. Why do you need all that? MR. LATHROP-Well, the tanks themselves are below ground, and they're protected by a concrete tank mat above. The improvement of having the larger tanks is that you get fewer deliveries so that you have fewer tractor trailers pulling in and out of the site. You have less time when the site is constricted, plus it offers them an additional product, with the tanks in the ground. MR. KARPELES-Okay. I don't have any problem with it. MR. THOMAS - I've got a couple of more questions. The new fuel pumps, are they going back in the same place that they are now? Are they going to be the same size and the same location? MR. LATHROP- In regard to distance from Aviation Road, the pump closest to the road is just, only about a foot closer to Aviation Road. The reason for that is to give a better turning radius in between the pumps that what is currently existing. So that if a car's parked, another car can get around them to the other pump more conveniently. We certainly didn't want to crowd the road anymore than we have to, if for no other reason than to be able to get into that last space, the last fueling area closest to the road. Actually, Bill can probably answer the question about the dispensers better than I can, because I'm not familiar with them. MR. WILFRAM-The new dispensers are multi product dispensers. So no matter where you park you vehicle, you can get any amount of fuel you want, which is not the case today. So we've got a certain amount of queuing today, if you want premium or someone is at that spot getting regular, you have to wait, which is not the case in the new design. Wherever you stop, you can get anyone of the three grades of gasoline. MR. THOMAS-Okay. There's six gas pumps out front now. MR. WILFRAM-There'll be four this time. MR. THOMAS-There'll be four when you get done. MR. WILFRAM-Four with greater capabilities, so we can get people in and out much faster. There's no queuing, no waiting. MR. THOMAS-Like the one on the Corinth Road at Exit 18? MR. WILFRAM-That's correct. MR. THOMAS-The same kind of pump? MR. WILFRAM- Yes. It'll be slightly different. There's design changes since those, but they're pretty old down there. MR. THOMAS-Is there any thought of expanding the convenient store to offer more product? MR. WILFRAM-Yes. - 6 - ~ ......, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you think you'll have more traffic coming in for that? MR. WILFRAM-Yes. It's been our experience that the people, we're just making it more convenient. People stop to buy gasoline, they have to come in, because it's self serve, to pay for the gasoline. While in there, we hope that they buy something, and they like that because they don't have to go on down the road and go somewhere else to make that purchase. MR. THOMAS-George, what about that pad and that fence in the back? Is there any problem with that? MR. HILTON-The pad and the fence, the fence is just subject to the normal setbacks of any fence, and the concrete pad is not considered a structure. Therefore, it's not subject to any of the setbacks back there. It's just concrete ground. All we're looking at is the fence back there, and it would be in compliance with the fence ordinance. MR. THOMAS-Are you going to change the signage out front, the existing Hess sign out front now? MR. WILFRAM-The ID sign will not change. MR. THOMAS-That will stay the same? MR. WILFRAM-That will stay the same. MR. THOMAS-Do you propose any more signs? MR. WILFRAM-Just the canopy sign. MR. THOMAS-Just the canopy signs. MR. WILFRAM-As you know, we have the one up on the old Shell pylon. We went from Shell to Sunoco and we have that one up. So they will, obviously, go away, and we don't want to overburden the site with signs. So if we can get the two on the canopy. MR. THOMAS-Well, that's going to be another variance hearing. MR. WILFRAM-We'll try and stay within the colors, if we can. It makes it easier not to have to come back. MR. THOMAS-Anything else, lady and gentlemen? Nothing? Did I miss anything, George? MR. HILTON-No. I think you covered everything. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I guess we're ready for a motion. Hang on a second. We've got a letter from the State DOT. Do you want that read in there? MR. HILTON-No, because that's just confirming what I said in my notes, that they don't have a problem with the location. MR. THOMAS-What about this letter that the applicant, and Kip's letter? MR. HILTON-You may want to read his. MR. THOMAS-I'll read Kip's letter. A letter dated April 19, 1996, from C.A. Grant, Fire Marshal, subject: Hess Mart tanks, piping dispenser and canopy. "This is to note acceptance of the drawings outlining work to be performed at the Hess Mart, Aviation Road, including installation of new underground storage tanks and related piping, dispensers, canopy and fire suppression system. A permit - 7 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) is hereby issued for the above work to proceed per plans submitted. Please have the responsible on-site party contact me when the work is about to commence for an on-site review of the work being undertaken and to establish contact with said party for several visits that will be made to the site as work progresses. C.A. Grant, Fire Marshalll And a copy was sent to Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company. There. Now we can go. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1996 AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: The applicant is proposing to construct a new fire suppression canopy system over gas pumps and remove a small portion of the green space to provide additional parking for the Hess station. The proposed canopy would be located approximately 7.7 feet from the front property line. Relief is required from the Travel Corridor setback of Section 179-28C. A reduction of green space for additional parking requires relief from the permeability requirements of Section 179-23C. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be able to construct a new canopy which would support a fire suppression system and give additional parking for this site. There are no feasible alternatives for this to accomplish what the applicant wishes to accomplish. The current street setback required is 75 feet. The existing setback on the site is 10.44 feet, so 67.23 feet of relief will be needed for the current street setback, and additional relief of permeability will have to be 2.3 percent. The reduction in permeable area would not appear to have any negative impact on the neighborhood. The addition of the new fire canopy would improve fire safety at this location. I would like to make it clear that this does not grant relief from the Sign Variance. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA ROBERT & SUSAN MORRIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST SIDE OF CLEVERDALE ROAD, APPROX. 1.6 MILES FROM COUNTRY STORE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SCREENED PORCH ON AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THIS ADDITION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-60 (B) . ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 14-1-4 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION 179-60(B) ROBERT MORRIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-1996, Robert & Susan Morris, Meeting Date: April 24, 1996 IIAPPLICANT: Robert & Susan Morris PROJECT LOCATION: Cleverdale Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance wi th the Ordinance: Applicant is proposing to construct a screened porch on an existing single family home. This addition requires relief from the shoreline setbacks of Section 179-60B. This proposed addition is seeking relief to allow a setback of 52 feet from the shore of Lake George. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: This would allow the applicants to construct a screened porch attached to their home. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not appear to be any alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The current shoreline setback required is 75 feet. The applicant is proposing a setback of 52 feet. 4. Effects on - 8 - "-' --.,¿Ì (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) the neighborhood or communi ty? It appears that the proposed addition would not have any negative impact on the neighborhood. Additional comment may be provided at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? Due to the size of this legal nonconforming lot, setback relief would most likely be needed in order to build a porch that would be attached to the existing home. Parcel History: According to the Assessor's records this property has been owned by Robert & Susan Morris since 1990. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. II MR. THOMAS-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of April 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a screened porch on an existing single family home. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact. II Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Morris, anything to add? MR. MORRIS-Well, the porch will be right outside our living room. There's an existing double sliding glass door there now that leads out to a 10 foot wide set of concrete stairs in deteriorating condition. We're taking those out. That took up about 10 by 8 feet maybe, that's gone, and so this is the spot for it, to have it on the side of the house. I do have a drawing of it. It's going to be built on six by six treated posts. This would be a deck. It would be all screened from the floor to the ceiling, and a shed roof from the house out. This was drawn by the fellow that's going to build it for me. That's the way the part facing the lake would be, and this is the side view. MR. GREEN-So the steps coming off the porch would be to the north, basically, not toward the lake? There'd be no steps on the front? MR. MORRIS-No, right, just one screen door. MR. GREEN-How far out did your old steps come? MR. MORRIS-The steps we took out went out about eight feet, and that ended at a concrete tie that is still there, that were (lost word) if you were up there, and we wanted to do something ever since we've been there. My wife and I couldn't agree on what to do in there, but we finally agreed a small screened porch on the outside of the living room wouldn't block the light in the kitchen. It would be the logical place to put it. I think the new setback they're talking about is maybe 50 feet, so this is, I believe, if they approve that, that won't be the size (Lost words) and they might not do what they're talking about with the setback. In talking with the Building Department, if they do change it, this will be conforming with that. I've got quite a bit of space on either side of me. I've talked to my neighbors and they don't have any objection to it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bill, lets start with you this time. MR. GREEN-I'm going to see if there's any public comment. At this point, I've got my questions answered, basically. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I feel the same way. I'd like to hear what the public has to say. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I do, too. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The only questions I have are, this is going to - 9 - "<.- ---.-/' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) remain a screened in porch? You don't plan on putting walls on it, enclosing it to be a year round? MR. MORRIS-No. I really want a screened porch. We've wanted one. We're probably one of the few houses on Cleverdale that doesn't have a screened porch on the lake side of the house, and when mosquitoes come around, it's difficult. You have to go inside. So, we just couldn't agree on where. This is our seventh summer. We finally agree on something. MR. THOMAS-The roof is just going to be a shed roof coming off the existing roof. What about the runoff. Have you made any plans or stipulations for that? MR. MORRIS-Well, it's going to be approved, because we're going to, right now, that whole area is covered with concrete. We're going to be taking out the concrete stairs that are there, and there'll be dirt under the deck, with mulch on it, and there's about over 500 feet of concrete ties that we're jack-hammering out. I'm going to try to do this myself. Blue stone over dirt. So that'll improve the drainage and runoff over what it is now considerably. MR. THOMAS-Because now it just runs off the concrete and heads right for the lake? MR. MORRIS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Hopefully this way it'll just soak right into the ground and filter before it hits the lake. MR. MORRIS-We're also 30 feet above the lake. It doesn't show on that. MR. THOMAS-Right. Yes. I was out there today. MR. MORRIS-Okay. MR. THOMAS-I guess that's about all I've got for right now. So I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. THOMAS-And I have, as far as I can find, one letter, received 4/24/96 , to the Town of Queensbury, regarding Robert and Susan Morris, Area Variance No. 20-1996. "I am a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Robert Morris , living directly east of their residence on Cleverdale Road. I would like to be on record as having no objection to their proposed screened porch. I believe that the proposed porch would greatly enhance their property, both visually and, of course, usage. Sincerely, Linda C. Martin" So, Bill? MR. GREEN-I've got three or four different things going on here. There seems to be, you know, if we were just trying to add a screened porch, we could go to, basically, the north side of the building and not get any closer to the lake, and just put some stairs back in there, but the stairs are going to need basically the same variance anyway. MR. MORRIS-Getting into the north side, there's a septic tank and septic field to the north side. So we had looked at that as a possibility, putting it along the north side of the house. - 10 - '- -.I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. GREEN-And then my other concern is that if we end up with 50 feet here, in another few months, then it's kind of a moot point anyway. I guess since nobody else, neighbors don't have any problem with it, they're going to improve the permeability, I guess I can go along with it. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I went up there today, too, and looked at it. I really couldn't find any objection. I can't see any problem with it. I don't buy the part about permeability improving, though, because there's a roof over the top of it. MR. THOMAS-Well, if they jackhammer out 500 square feet of concrete. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but that roof is still going to be there. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that roof is, well, the roof is 120 square feet. MR. KARPELES-I see. MR. MORRIS-That whole thing out in front, that whole concrete, we're putting blue stone over dirt. MR. KARPELES-Okay. No, I think it would be a worthwhile addition. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I think it would be an improvement over the patio that's there, and the screened porch I know, at the lake, is very enjoyable. I have no problem with it as long as his neighbors don't. MR. THOMAS-I don't have any problem with this either. Seeing that the house sits way up on a hill, or on a bluff, it would be a minimal visual impact from the lake, because most of the people will be seeing the huge boathouse down there, and I think it'll be a worthwhile addition to the house, and plus it will give the applicants the additional screened porch that they desperately want. So, having said that, anybody else have any comments, concerns? Questions? I guess we're in order for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1996 ROBERT & SUSAN MORRIS, Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: On the west side of Cleverdale Road. Applicant is proposing to construct a screen porch on an existing single family home. This addition requires relief from the setbacks listed in Section 179- 60B. The benefit to the applicant would be, this would allow the applicants to construct a screened porch attached to their home. There do not seem to be any feasible alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief. The current shoreline setback required is 75 feet. The applicant is proposing 52 feet. The amount of relief would be 23 feet. It appears that the proposed addition would not have any negative impact on the neighborhood. There has been no public speaking in opposition. This difficulty was not self-created. Due to the size of the legal nonconforming lot, setback relief would be needed in order to build a porch at this point. The applicant has stated that he is going to remove 500 square feet, plus or minus, of concrete and replace with blue stone which would increase the permeability of the lot. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Thomas - 11 - --- ,-",' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford MR. HILTON-Mr. Thomas, just for your information, Mr. Chrys is here. He was here at the last meeting of the Zoning Board with an Area Variance to move a dock. I don't know if the Board would wish to hear this item now. The next two, for Glens Falls Tennis & Swim, are obviously late. I think maybe if we heard Mr. Chrys now, and proceeded with him, and then we could concentrate the rest of the evening on the Glens Falls Tennis & Swim. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. This is Area Variance No. 22-1996 Michael Chrys. Did we leave that public hearing open? MR. HILTON-The public hearing was open. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The public hearing was left open. This concerns a crib dock up in Assembly Point. There was a question as to which way the lot line should go once it hits the lake, and we asked for clarification from Mr. Martin, and Mr. Martin has sent us back a nice letter, and I will read that letter into the minutes right now. A letter dated April 22, 1996, to the Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding Michael Chrys, Area Variance No. 22- 1996, "Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: At the April 17, 1996 meeting of the ZBA concerns were raised over how much relief would be needed in order for Mr. Chrys to move his dock to the point where the property line meets the shoreline on his lot. Mr. Chrys is seeking zero setback to move an existing dock onto his property. Section 179-60B[5] (b) [5] reads as follows: 'Every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum setback of twenty (20) feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line runs on-shore where it meets the lake or at a right angle to the mean high water mark, whichever results in the greater setback'. In the case of Mr. Chrys' property, if the lot line were drawn at a right angle to the mean high water mark, a dock could be located closer to the neighbors property than if the lot lines were extended in the water. Extending the lot lines would provide the greater setback from the property to the north. Therefore in order to provide for a zero setback variance the dock must completely clear the property line as it would be extended straight into the lake. If you have any questions about this matter please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, James M. Martin, AICP Executive Director Community Development" I'm still confused. Now what's he saying? MR. HILTON-What he's saying is in this case, if you were to take and draw a line from the mean highwater mark at a right angle and call that the new lot line as it extends into the lake, then you can move the deck, if you were to grant 0 setback relief in that case, the dock would go to that line, and it would be closer to the neighbor's property. The situation that provides for the dock being farther away or the greater setback from the neighbor's property is when you extend the lot line, as it is now, into the lake. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. HILTON-So, in that situation, because it provides the greater setback, the dock has to be, in order to truly have 0 setback relief, the dock has to be moved as such so that it will not go over that line, as it extends into the water. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. HILTON-And I'll be happy to come up and try to graphically show you. - 12 - '-" --" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. THOMAS-So, what you're saying is he'd have to move that dock probably eight feet. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Toward the center of the property, away from the pin, in order for the dock to have 0 clearance at the end of the dock, where that property line is extended. MR. HILTON-Exactly, because that is the greater setback. MR. THOMAS-That is the greater setback. MR. HILTON-In this situation. MR. THOMAS-All right. setback. So the right angle would be the lesser MR. HILTON-Right. MR. THOMAS-Now, just for argument's sake, if the property was wider at the lake than it was in the back, and the property lines extended out away from the dock, then he could move it closer to the property line for a 0 setback, then the right angle would come in. Okay. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Come on up here, George. You might as well get this all straight right now. What did Warren County do? MR. HILTON-Warren County approved. MR. THOMAS-Warren County approved. MICHAEL CHRYS MR. CHRYS-This is the existing situation. I'm sorry I only have one drawing. This is the existing situation, where it currently encroaches on the lands north, and this is with the proposal. I've got three of these. This is the proposed. I've got just a clarification to something, Bonnie, you asked me last week. MRS. LAPHAM-I think I asked about your deed. MR. CHRYS-I've got letters dating back from 1988 that clarify that that dock is owned by Parcel 6.12, which is the parcel I have, and they're on file at the Park Commission. MRS. LAPHAM-See, that's why I can't understand why your lender doesn't just go along with that, and leave everything the way it is. I mean, this is a lot of expense and trouble for you. MR. CHRYS-It's a lot of expense. I mean, I can leave it, actually, the way it is, but I've got difficulty with re-financing, and I think in the long run it clears up some matters of boundary. It definitely improves a situation that's not good, in my opinion, but I'd like to read these for the record, too, so that everybody has a clear understanding. MR. GREEN-So what you're doing is you're eliminating the (lost word) dock, and actually it's going to go over to there. MR. THOMAS-So you'd have to move it over six and a half feet. MR. CHRYS-And, I mean, that's what I'd prefer not to have to do. MR. THOMAS-Because we were guessing eight feet, last time, if I remember right. - 13 - ......-- -....-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. CHRYS-Well, just for purposes of common sense, this portion, which I combined, because I had to, if you look at this lot line, it's interesting that it goes right down the dock, and if I were to give this piece to my neighbor, in other words, if I made my property smaller, I'd actually conform. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but the thing of it is, you can't give that piece, because you'd have to have a variance to do it, because it's nonconforming. MR. HILTON-Right. Exactly. MR. CHRYS-I understand, but I just made it more conforming by adding property. I mean, actually, if I took a little corner of it and said, okay, I'm just going to give you this little piece, or if she, you know, if they turned around and said, okay, we'll give you this piece. So the point is, I mean, it's not so, I mean, common sense says one and one equals two, but in this case, for some reason. MR. HILTON-In this situation right now he has merged these two pieces into one. If these areas of these, if this now one lot is greater than an acre, if he were reducing this and he would still have an acre, as a result, he could do that. MR. THOMAS-But he doesn't have over an acre now. MR. CHRYS-How about the fact that, and maybe I did it backwards here. I merged these two and made it more. If I took this piece off and simultaneously added that piece, I'm making the parcel bigger, not smaller. MR. THOMAS-The thing of it is, we can't grant a variance less than 0, which this would be, because 0 would be along this line here, okay. This would be O. Anything that goes over that line is less than O. MR. CHRYS-There's a couple of letters that I'd like to read into the record that maybe will help, too, and one of the other things that's interesting is, in talking to the Building Department, it's odd that they would actually let me cut this if I want to, in other words reduce it and cut it off directly on that line, and I don't need a variance to do it. So I could actually cut the structure and have exactly what I want, except the cribs won't be in the right place, and I could do that without variance. MR. KARPELES-What could you do? You lost me. MR. CHRYS-Yes. They'll actually, Bob, let me cut this little, there's a boathouse that comes across here. They will actually let me cut that, legally, without any kind of a variance or permit because I'm reducing it and making it smaller. In other words, I'm allowed to cut something off without a variance, yet when I'm trying to do it properly, so it looks right and proportionate, I've got a problem. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CHRYS-I don't have any objections from neighbors, I mean, none that I'm aware of, and also I've got verification that, in answer to your question, Bonnie, dating all the way back to '98, that this whole dock, in it's entirety, and these are letters from the Park Commission on file, is owned by this property. MRS. LAPHAM-And you must own, then, property it's attached to, even though it goes over. MR. CHRYS-That's correct, but then you run into that area where, - 14 - '-' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) that's exactly right. You run into, this lot line thing is actually, according to. MRS. LAPHAM-But according to your deed, though, your lot line goes over to there. MR. CHRYS-That's right. MRS. LAPHAM-So you'd have 0 setback already. MR. CHRYS-No, no. This is the new one. So this is how it exists. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. So if this is owned by this tax map number, and you have to own the land it's attached to. So you'd own that much frontage, and you would already have it. MR. CHRYS-Have it. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. I mean, I don't see how we can give it to you over again, when you already own it. MR. GREEN-Well, as long as he leaves it, it's fine, but when you want to go and change it, then you've got to, I'm coming into, kind of, the middle, because I wasn't here last week, but if you're going to move it, how far initially? How much do you want to move it? Why can't you just move it the other six feet? MR. CHRYS-I've got piers in there, first of all, cribs, and as it is, I've got to move one. MR. GREEN-If you go the extra six feet, you've got more. MR. CHRYS-I've got substantially more cost. I've also, it begins to, this is a beautiful porch back here, and it starts to continue to inhibit the aesthetics of the property. I think it diminishes the value of the property by going any farther, but I'm trying to do the right thing for all here. It's expensive, and unfortunately I can't put the dock this way because of the way the shoreline is, also. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CHRYS-So, I mean, I'm kind of, my hands are tied. MR. KARPELES-You've got a catch-22, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, Jim says you've got to move it over six and a half feet to get a 0 side line setback. The only thing you could do is go for a determination. MR. CHRYS-So, in other words, you'll approve it and then I can go for a determination. MR. THOMAS-No, you have to go for the determination first. We'll table it. MR. HILTON-This was an effort to, actually determine what was necessary. MR. THOMAS-Yes, a determination from the Zoning Administrator's, like we did with the Harris Logging. MR. GREEN-That's basically what he's done. MR. THOMAS-Yes. See, that's what this letter has done. So you would have to appeal the Zoning Administrator's determination. MR. CHRYS-What if you allow you to, again, I'm a layman here, but - 15 - "",.-- ---/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) again, so I don't know, but what if I say, okay, if you've given me that relief, I'll accept that, but then can I turn around and appeal it for this little triangular piece that I want to? In other words, if you say, okay, this is the only way we could do it based on interpretation is six and a half feet over, and I'd say, well that's my worst case scenario, that, if I want to appeal it, ,. . . can I do that. I don't know what the legal constra~nts are. MR. KARPELES-You can appeal at any time, as far as I know. MR. CHRYS-Okay. So, in other words, it's not going to hurt me to say, I agree to that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CHRYS-Is that a fair statement? MR. THOMAS-Well, I wouldn't agree to it until I got an appeal from the Zoning Administrator's letter here. You'd have to come back here. We'd leave the variance tabled, like it is now, and you'd have to come back and ask for a determination. MR. CHRYS-Can I accept what you're allowed to do and appeal it at any time, if I decide? I mean, chances are, even if I do this, I may not do it. MR. THOMAS-Well, I don't know how the rest of the Board's going to go, but I'm going to go for the six, making you go over the six and a half feet. MR. CHRYS-That's what I'm saying. I'm not objecting to that. What I'm saying, Christian, is if you approve it that way, based on what your back up is, I can, at some point, if I want to, I mean, I've got to digest this and talk about it with my wife. I can, at some point, still appeal it and say I'd rather, I still want this. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You can appeal it. MR. CHRYS-That way I'm not putting myself in a do or die situation. As long as I understand that. MR. GREEN-Although, will that come under the same heading of the same variance that was applied for or granted, or whatever, once before? Is it different from a previous application? MR. HILTON-I think it's different in terms of what actual distance he's asking for, and if there's a determination made MR. KARPELES-Well, I guess what I was going to say, he can always sue us, right? I mean, that. I'm serious. You can sue us, that's what I meant, not appeal. Maybe I gave the wrong impression. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You'd have to Article 78 it. Once we grant you the variance, and you don't like it, even though this letter is in existence, you'd have to take us to court. It's called an Article 78. Am I right or wrong, George? Once we make a determination, see, but if you leave this tabled now, okay, and appeal the Zoning Administrator's determination, okay, then we could get that cleared up and then we could go on with the variance. This is what Jim's saying he's going to have to do. You're going to have to go over six and a half feet that way. MR. GREEN-Then what you have to do now is appeal that decision in front of the Board to see whether we agree with his determination or not. MRS. LAPHAM-What you have to do is decide if that's really what you want to do or not. This would be a good time to go home and talk - 16 - '- --/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) with your wife. MR. CHRYS-Is the public hearing closed after tonight? MR. THOMAS-No, it's still open. Worst case scenario is you're going to have to move this over six and a half feet. MR. CHRYS-That's the worst case? MR. THOMAS-That's the worst case. If we approve it at a 0 setback, okay, we'd still be giving you 20 feet. That's what the Zoning Administrator says. Okay. That's the most you can have is six and a half feet over. That would give you 0 setback, according to the Ordinance. Now, you can appeal the Zoning Administrator's determination to the Zoning Board, that's us, saying, no, for whatever reason, you would want to move this over, that the Building Department told me I can cut the boathouse off right at the property line, perpendicular to the shoreline, and that would be okay. I can't tell you which way it's going to go. MR. CHRYS-Or, I could turn around, at some point, if I decide next year, that I'm going to do this, is just to sue the Board? MR. THOMAS-Well, yes, you'd have to take us to, once we make a determination of the variance, either denied it or, if we denied it, then you would have to take us to court. MR. KARPELES-I don't think you'd stand any chance at all, but you have that option. MR. THOMAS-That is your option, like Bob says. Jim hasn't lost one yet. MR. GREEN-Why do you have to move it in the first place? MR. CHRYS-I really don't. MR. KARPELES-He doesn't have to. He wants to improve it for his neighbors. MR. CHRYS-I want to move it for future bankability and, you know, this kind of conflict. I mean, I bought it with the intentions of keeping it in the family for generations. MR. GREEN-Personally, I might pursue some lot line changes, rather than. ' MR. CHRYS-If I do that, I can always apply for another variance, if I pursue lot lines. So I can accept this like this and say, okay, let me see if I can do. MR. KARPELES-Because I kind of scares me. I think this is getting into the area of legal responsibility, and I'm afraid, we grant this variance, and then it goes to a court of law and they say, well, the Zoning Board granted this variance. MR. GREEN-It seems that if he wanted to go over the extra six and a half feet, that might be possible. MR. HILTON-If you grant a variance based on the Ordinance and a Zoning Administrator's determination, it doesn't seem like. MR. CHRYS-I'll take the six and a half feet. MR. THOMAS-I haven't got the folder here to run it through to make a motion. MR. HILTON-The public hearing was left open. We received public - 17 - '-- --'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) comment that was read into the record. MRS. LAPHAM-I don't have that one either because I didn't know we were going to do it. MR. GREEN-But even if you got the variance for six and a half feet, and that's good for a year, if you wanted to go for lot line adjustments instead, during that course of time, the variance just would lapse and you'd be fine that way. Just because you give it a variance doesn't mean you have to act on it. MR. CHRYS-Right. I asked that last week of Bonnie. I said, just because you get a variance, does that mean you have to act on it. I'm getting an education. MR. THOMAS-What do you want to do? Do you want to move it or leave it tabled? To me, I would like to leave it tabled until Fred gets back. MR. KARPELES-I think you'd be better off with a bigger Board. All one of us has got to say is they don't agree with it. MR. THOMAS-Because there's only four here, if one of us say no, you're sunk. MR. HILTON-Well, no, because Warren County approved it. MR. THOMAS-Warren County approved it, but you'd have to have a majority of the vote, you'd have to have a majority of the Board, and there's only a majority sitting here right now. One of us say no, you know, you're sunk. I mean, right then and there, the application's allover with. I think you would be better off waiting. There's seven members of the Board, okay. Four is a majority. If somebody makes a motion for approval, and one person of the four here has to say no, this variance is denied. MR. GREEN-No, because you can't deny it on three votes either. It would just be a no action. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It would be a no action anyway. So you'd have to wait for the next Board meeting anyway. MR. CHRYS-Okay. There's no risk there. MR. KARPELES-You've got no choice. MR. CHRYS-If I understand it, just to clarify a couple of things, is that based on the determination of Mr. Martin, I'd have to move the additional six and a half feet. MR. THOMAS-Right, that's to give you a 0 side setback. MR. CHRYS-With the 0 side setback, and that way there is no legal issue and there's no problem there. Nobody's got any gray area. If I want more relief than that, well then that becomes a legal issue, and at this point, I'd just as soon, you know, I'll go along with Mr. Martin's determination, as it currently exists, because I don't know any better, and he's the guy with the jurisdiction there. MR. THOMAS-Still and all, I'd rather see more Board members here voting on this than just the four of us. MR. KARPELES-Because you've still got to get 20 feet of relief. You've got to go over 26 and a half feet. MR. THOMAS-To be legal, you'd have to go over 26 and a half feet. - 18 - '- .......,I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. KARPELES-And that's a lot. MR. GREEN-Well, no, only 20, because once he's over the 20, he's going to be. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but at six and a half feet, he'd be at O. MR. GREEN-All right. MR. THOMAS-So he'd have to go over the 20 feet to be legal. MR. KARPELES-Yes. Okay. MR. THOMAS-So that's why I say, wait for more Board members to be here, when there's more on here. I would feel more comfortable with it, and I would feel more comfortable if Jim Martin was sitting here, too. It really depends on how bad you want this. MR. HILTON-As far as scheduling goes, and I'm going to say this Mike. If we hear the variance in May, in the first week, assuming some action is taken that's favorable to you, we could hear the site plan for the next week. You could, presumably, be wrapped up in May. Your site plan's going to go in May anyway. So, that's my only comment. If there is a tabling motion, is it going to be for the standard 60 days and we can hear it any time within the 60 days? MR. THOMAS-It was tabled last week for 60 days. So we can hear it any time within that 60 days. MR. HILTON-Okay. So next month. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CHRYS-What was determined by the determination then tonight? MR. THOMAS-What was determined by the Board? That the right angle would give you, would put you closer, but the determination would be a less than 0 setback. MR. CHRYS-And they want a more discriminatory relief? MR. THOMAS-And the most we can give is 0 setback. We can't give less than 0 setback, because we would be giving you lIa variance to be on somebody else's propertyll. MR. CHRYS-I understand. MR. THOMAS-See, that would be less than O. Zero would be at the property line. Less than 0 is across the property line. MR. CHRYS-Should I read into the record the proof that that is my property, where the dock sits now? MR. THOMAS-Well, according to the map that you gave us, you know, right here, that the iron pipe boundary is the corner of your lot, as it is on the shoreline. Now, if the lot is under water, okay, that's a whole other ball game, and we've got one of those coming up, too. MR. CHRYS-What happens then? MR. THOMAS-I have no idea. If the land is under water, I couldn't tell you what happens, because the Attorney General, I think, has just come out with an opinion that any land under water belongs to the State. It was in the newspaper, I think, two weeks ago, because of laying power cables, telephone cables and stuff like that on lake bottoms. That's getting into the, onto State property rather than public property. - 19 - '-'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. CHRYS-Forgive me for sounding repetitive, but when I first approached the table, it seemed the understanding of the Board, based on Jim Martin's letter, was that the most discriminatory relief was done by the extension of the property line, and therefore the 0 lot line relief would create that angle, if you will, on the dock, which means I'd have to move the whole structure over an additional six and a half feet. Okay. MR. THOMAS-From the property pin. MR. CHRYS-From the property pin. It's my understanding that nobody's in objection to that, if that's what I decided to accept. That's not what I asked for, but if I decided to accept that. Am I clear on that? MR. THOMAS-I couldn't tell you. I don't remember. I'd have to go through the minutes of the meeting" and they haven't been published yet. MR. KARPELES-He means the people that are here. MR. CHRYS-This evening. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CHRYS-Am I undèrstanding that correctly, that that was what the determination was, and that was acceptable by the Board? MR. KARPELES-I don't think anybody has said yet. MR. CHRYS-Then I misinterpreted it. MR. THOMAS-So, but I would wait, you know, because this is pretty important to you, because like you said, future financing, and the future of thè lot and the family. MR. CHRYS-Right. The worst case scenario is six and a half feet. MR. THOMAS-Six and a half feet. That would be the least you would have to move the dock. The most it would be would be 26 and a half feet, depending on how it effects that other property line, on the other side. Because I think you have 87 feet across, and how wide is that? MR. CHRYS-Approximately 40. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you move it over 26 and a half feet, and that thing is 40 wide, you're over 66. So you're coming close to the other side. MR. CHRYS-I mean, I think then I would also have a concern, (lost words) worried about boats coming in closer to her lot. MR. THOMAS-There again, too, that property line also angles in like that. So the,O lot line is six and a half feet over from there, also. So, you're losing 13 feet, to start with, okay, from both sides, if the property lines are symmetrical coming down, okay. Yes, you'd be real close, but I would talk to the Planning Department, see about getting back on the agenda when there's a full Board here. All right. It's tabled. MR. CHRYS-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You're welcome. MR. KARPELES-One thing I'd likè to clear up, this six and a half feet, this is just something that he has scaled off the drawing. I mean, it might be seven feet, it might be eight feet. - 20 - ~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. CHRYS-I understand that. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. USE VARIANCE NO. 26-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A GLENS FALLS TENNI S & SWIM CLUB OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE QUAKER ROAD TO SANDFORD STREET, FIRST DRIVEWAY ON RIGHT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LOCATE 2 PLATFORM TENNIS COURTS AND WARMING HUT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS ACTION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE USES LISTED IN SECTION 179-20(D). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 109-3-12.2 LOT SIZE: 2.60 ACRES SECTION 179-20(D) STEVE LAPHAM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 26-1996, Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club, Meeting Date: April 24, 1996 "APPLICANT: Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club PROJECT LOCATION: Sandford Street PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to construct two platform tennis courts and a warming hut. Relief is required from the permitted uses listed in Section 179-20D. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? The land which is zoned SFR-1A is currently being used as the Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? Due to the fact that this property currently contains a recreational use, it would be difficult to locate a use allowed in the SFR-1A zone on this property. 3 . IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? The character of the neighborhood may be effected if the present use of this property were expanded in the proposed location. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? The applicant may be able to locate the new tennis courts behind the pool and club house on this property. If relocated, the new tennis courts may not impact the wetland or house located in front of the existing tennis courts. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has concerns over the impact these new courts could have on the home in front of this property. Access to the property could also be effected if the new courts were to close off the driveway shown on the plan. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF required. II MR. THOMAS-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of April 1996, the above application for a Use Variance to locate 2 platform tennis courts and warming hut on the east side of the Property. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve II Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. GREEN-Just out of curiosity, would be possibly better served to do the Area Variance first? MR. THOMAS-No. He's have to get the Use first and then the Area. You have to able to use it before you can site it. MR. GREEN-Okay. My thought is if it was placed elsewhere I might not have a problem with the use, but where it is now, I'd have some concerns. MR. THOMAS-Well, it has to get by the Use first, and then we can address that at the Area, if it gets by the Use. If it doesn't get by the Use, then the Area Variance becomes null and void. - 21 - -.- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. GREEN-But is the Use Variance based on its location? MR. THOMAS-No. The Use Variance is based on what they want to use it for. See, a recreational complex such as this is not allowed in a Single Family Residential One Acre zone, and what the Use Variance is asking for, that they be allowed to use this that's proposed. MR. GREEN-But the variance itself is the Use Variance is not based on the location of that use, you're saying? MR. THOMAS-I would say no, that it's not based on the location of it. Well, would that be right, George? MR. HILTON-I think you can make, in the process of taking action on the Use Variance, the Board can make recommendations as to where they want to see the use located, and they could possibly approve the Use Variance based on those conditions. Then at the time of Area Variance you can refine that and address the setbacks at that time. MR. GREEN-Okay. I just wasn't sure how to handle it. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It's a little tricky when you get two at the same time. Would you like to add anything to the application? MR. LAPHAM-I heard what you said, and I do have some concerns about your suggestion on where to locate the courts. I mean, we've located where we put them for specific reasons. At this point, I think we're just considering whether, you know, it's a recreational use in a. MR. THOMAS-Single Family Residential area. MR. LAPHAM-Single Family Residential area, and the Club's been there since '62. If we're going to do anything more there, it's obviously going to be recreational. MR. THOMAS-The house in front there, it belongs to, I think I saw, four doctors names on the building. MR. LAPHAM-Yes. It's Henel's, and to my knowledge, no one lives there. It's strictly a professional office. MR. THOMAS-Could you state your name for the record? MR. LAPHAM-Okay. My name is, it's not John Buecking, for the record. He's with his kids down in Disney Land. He's been promising them for a long time. So he couldn't be here, and he's a Board member. My name is Steve Lapham, and I did the drawings. I'm a member of the Club, but I'm not a Board member. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any relation to Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Are you going to abstain? MRS. LAPHAM-No. I spoke with Fred about it, and I was planning on abstaining because of that, but Fred's suggestion was to go ahead and vote, because there wouldn't be quorum, and, basically he asked me if I had any interest in this proj ect beyond that of an objective Board member, and I don't. I mean, I will not benefit financially or emotionally if it's passed. I won't have a problem if it doesn't. I'm not a member of the Tennis and Swim Club. I don't even play tennis. MR. THOMAS-Do you swim? - 22 - '---' -....-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, but not on the platform courts. So I think, really, I, in the interest of keeping a quorum, so that they can get on with their business, I can vote objectively. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-And Fred said he had no problem with it. If there were five people here, I would abstain. MR. THOMAS-Okay. know of. Okay. All right. No one lives in the house that you It's just the office that's there? MR. LAPHAM-Just the office. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What are platform tennis courts? MR. LAPHAM-Would you like to see a picture of one? MR. THOMAS-Yes, if we could see something. All I see is a flat piece of paper now. MR. LAPHAM-Although this is not the system that's he's going to choose, I think, there's some in the Country Club, in the back of the parking lot, near the driving range. MR. THOMAS-The Glens Falls Country Club? MR. LAPHAM-Yes. feet by 30 feet. aluminum channels the winter time. Okay. They're small tennis courts. They're 60 They're totally screened in. They're made of like this, and non skid surface. It's played in MR. KARPELES-How about night, are you going to light these? MR. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Have you got any other activities at night, currently going on at night? MR. LAPHAM-No. MR. KARPELES-This would be an awful big change for the neighborho<;>d. MR. LAPHAM-A total change. winter either. You don't play tennis there in the MR. KARPELES-Well, yes, but at night is what I'm concerned about, the lighting and the noise. MR. THOMAS-This structure doesn't have a roof over it, does it? MR. LAPHAM-No. It's four feet off the ground. It's held up by piers, concrete piers, so that it doesn't touch the ground. It's up on piers. There's a skirt around it because there are two, basically, salamanders, underneath, for heating purposes. So if you get bad weather, you can fire those up so you can get the ice and debris off. MR. THOMAS-People want to play tennis that bad outside in the winter time that they're willing to go out there in below zero. MR. KARPELES-The Country Club, they're busy all the while. MR. LAPHAM-You start off with your parka, and the parka comes off, and then the first sweater comes off, and you kind of go in layers. MR. KARPELES-Because they've got the heaters around there. - 23 - ..-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. THOMAS-And the application also states that there's a warming hut. Is that on this plot plan that's provided? MR. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Is that that little rectangular thing there at the end? MR. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. LAPHAM-It's very small. MR. THOMAS-There's no dimensions on that. MR. LAPHAM-I may have another drawing that does have the dimensions. MR. GREEN-You basically can get two courts on the size of one, essentially? Because you said they're smaller. MR. LAPHAM-The warming hut is 16 by 12. Didn't you get this? MR. THOMAS-The only thing I got's this right here. MRS. LAPHAM-We have this one, but it doesn't have dimensions. MR. THOMAS-It doesn't have the dimensions on it. The only thing we got is this right here. MR. LAPHAM-I gave it all to John. I don't know why he didn't make the necessary copies. This is kind of an overview of the whole property, and this is just kind of a (lost word) view of that. This is the actual court, and this represents the piers. MR. KARPELES-You heard the Staff notes. Evidentally the Staff feels that there's a better location for this than you've chosen, and could you counter that? I couldn't get on the property. So I couldn't look at it. There was chain across the fence. So I figured, what the hell, I'm not going to cross any line to get out there. MR. LAPHAM-If you looked at the chain, you saw the dumpster back there, that's the location that we have chosen, right in back of Tennis Court Number Four. Now there's 110 feet there. The driveway only takes up about 40, 45, 50 at the most. The rest of the property goes toward the Henel property. MR. KARPELES-Okay, that's the house. MR. LAPHAM-That's the house that the Tennis and Swim Club property surrounds. Next to the Henel property, there's a ditch and a row of trees and then a lot of, just back growth and shrubs and weeds. MR. KARPELES-Where is this? MR. LAPHAM-Going from the Henel property east. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. LAPHAM-By the drive, there's a drainage ditch that crosses the road there, that angles right along the Henel property, and there's kind of a row of large trees, and then there's probably 30 feet of just brush and it's not very attractive. So we would have to widen the parking lot, if we put the platform tennis courts at the location we want. MR. KARPELES-Well, I thought they were talking about behind the - 24 - ,-. ..J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) pool. MR. HILTON-Yes. What I'm suggesting, another location, what I'm looking at is behind the pool next to what is indicated at the Number Nine Tennis Court. If you stuck the platform tennis courts back in there, you may not even need any of the Area Variances that you're seeking in the next application. MR. LAPHAM-There's a number of reasons I wouldn't want to put it there. Number One, it's going to be the winter time. That's the only time they're going to be using it. Platform tennis is not played in the summer. So it's strictly winter use. They would have to plow the entire parking lot. They would have to possibly build a road for access past the Clubhouse to get to that area, or they would have to shovel a path, and people would have to park and then walk the path to get to the facility, and also there's a house. In the Windy Hill area on the Glens Falls, the whole property borders the City of Glens Falls line. So we go back, what, 675 feet, I think. In the back of the property, if you look, there's a house sitting up there, a rather nice house. They would be overlooking the platform courts if we put them there, and that is residential. There's no question about that. That whole area is residential, and we thought it would be much preferable to, I don't see any more residential expansion in the Crockwell's swamp. From our property toward Quaker Road is basically unbuildable, from my point of view. It's all wetland. The only building lot left is across Sandford Street next to Julie Bowe, and that's a small one. Whether that would be for development or not, I don't know. We also wanted a separate electric utilities for the warming hut and so forth. We would have to re-do all our electric, because we wouldn't be able to supply it from the Clubhouse. The basic electricity goes into the pumphouse of the pool, and there's just one line that goes over to that Clubhouse. It's not much of a, it's just a summer Clubhouse. It's not a (lost words). So there would be a number of problems for us to have it back there. It just wouldn't work as well, from our point of view. MR. HILTON-My other concern is with the location, as proposed, is that, as indicated on the plan, the platform tennis courts are put over the existing driveway. You've effectively closed off an access point. You've got one way in, and cars, it narrows down there. Any cars that go down there searching for a spot might not have an outlet and would have a hard time either turning around or they'd have to be forced to back out. Access would be the other concern. MR. LAPHAM-There'd be about 30 or 40 feet we could use for (lost words). There's 110 feet, and as it angles back, it gets wider. There's 110 feet on Sandford, and as it goes back by Henel's property, which is 125 feet deep. MR. KARPELES-The print that we've got doesn't show that. It shows you're blocking this whole driveway off. MR. HILTON-Yes, and a 20 foot drive aisle would be needed, and the drive aisle would have to be located five feet off the adjacent property line, and I'm just stating that the plan I have in front of me indicates they should be closing off the driveway and no new driveway alignment is indicated. MR. LAPHAM-Well, I did not do that. (Lost words) to the property line, so we have all this. All this is filled. It just has to be leveled, or not even leveled. I mean, the bushes and stuff have to be taken out and it's the driveway. It's already been filled, but that was what our plan was, but I did not consider that construction part in, part of the project. I mean, I feel there is room, and the board does, too, and we did get letters from Julie Bowe, who lives right across the street from the Henel property. - 25 - '---' .-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) I have it here, if you'd like to see that, and Dr. O'Keefe, who is also a neighbor down the road a few houses. MR. THOMAS-We have no correspondence in this folder. MR. GREEN-You said you don't play night tennis there now? There's no lighting on those existing courts? MR. LAPHAM-We're open until about eight o'clock. time, it stays light until about eight. In the summer MR. GREEN-But there's no existing lighting in there? MR. LAPHAM-No. MR. GREEN-These courts would be lit? MR. LAPHAM-There'd be six lights. MR. GREEN-And how late will they be on? MR. LAPHAM-Nine or nine thirty. I'm not saying they couldn't go longer, but in my experience, the Queensbury Racquet Club is an indoor facility, it's lighted. After 9:30, 10 o'clock, it's hard to get people to play, even indoors. There would be, definitely, from seven to nine on. The courts would be about 100 plus back, and there is a row of trees that would block it from the Henel house, and the courts light focus down on the courts. There's no light that goes up in the air at all. MR. THOMAS-Or shines away from. MR. LAPHAM-It shines down on the court. As you drove by, you'd definitely be able to see the people playing, but I don't think any of the light would get anywhere near the road. MR. THOMAS-These things aren't portable, are they? MR. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Once they're in place, they're there? MR. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-My thought was maybe put them on one of the existing tennis courts in the winter time, since you don't use those. Can they be made portable? MR. LAPHAM-No. MRS. LAPHAM-And it would ruin the existing tennis courts if you did that, wouldn't it? I mean, if you tried to do anything like that. MR. LAPHAM-The screens are tensioned. They playoff the screens. MRS. LAPHAM-Like racquet ball. MR. LAPHAM-Racquet ball, except that the ball has to be hit into the court first and then it bounces off the screen. The ball, it's not a loud sport. It's bigger than a tennis ball, but it's sponge rubber, solid. It's played with a paddle, and there's almost no noise at all. The only noise would be the excitement of the players. From here to Quaker Road is just a garbage dump. The things people throw out on the side of the road, it's really kind of disgusting, and I don't know whether having some activity there in the evening hours would alleviate any of that or not. I have no idea, but it certainly seems to me the least obtrusive area to put - 26 - ',-, ......,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) those courts. I mean, we played around with putting it on the west side rather than the east side, near the pool-house area, but that's, the land next to that I think Mike Woodbury owns and he's trying to sell for residential housing. MR. THOMAS-Is DEC going to get involved in this in any way? Are they going to make any comments, since it goes right up against the DEC wetland. MR. HILTON-It was my understanding that the applicant was to have a letter, I think, provided. MR. LAPHAM-Yes. I've got all kinds of stuff. MR. HILTON-From the DEC saying that they didn't have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Do you have those letters? MR. LAPHAM-I don't know exactly where they are. They're in there. MR. HILTON-One further comment on the driveway there. The applicant has indicated that he, I guess, plans to have the driveway continued along the property line and to the side of the additional tennis court. I would just, probably, from Staff point of view, want to see that on a plan to make sure that we have the proper driveway width and setback from that property line. This plan doesn't indicate that there's going to be any expansion of the driveway. MR. THOMAS-This isn't going to the Planning Board either, is it? They don't need site plan. MR. HILTON-SFR-IA, they don't need site plan. MR. KARPELES-But we're just talking Use now, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We're just talking Use now. MR. HILTON-Although I would like to also say that on the back of the EAF, there are some questions relating to the Use Variance. One of them, Part II, Number C, asks "Could Action result in an adverse effect associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns". I think because this Use Variance proposed in this location could have an effect on the traffic, if you accept the findings that the Use variance wouldn't have any effect on those issues, then you're also finding that the Area Variance wouldn't either. It's kind of tricky there. MR. THOMAS-I don't have a back. Environmental Assessment Form. We do have to do the Short MR. HILTON-I'll give you a back. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions? Okay. MR. LAPHAM-I've got a letter for you asking applications for permits, but I know we've got it (lost word) . MR. THOMAS-Like George said, the Staff would like to see what the roadway, the new roadway would look going into there, and since we don't have a map of that, we can't do anything with that. MR. LAPHAM-So we're going to table it, then? MR. THOMAS-It looks like we're going to table this anyway, but some - 27 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) other things to think about, when applying for a Use Variance, the applicant cannot realize reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. That means, can you prove you're not making money without having these? MR. LAPHAM-Well, it's a non profit Club that's owned by the members. MR. THOMAS-So, you really don't. MR. LAPHAM-They would probably have to assess an additional fee for use purposes, for the courts, just because it costs about $80,000 to build them. MR. THOMAS-So, the Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club is a private club. It's not open to the public. So these tennis courts would not be open to the public. MR. LAPHAM-Right. MR. THOMAS-It would be strictly for member use. MR. LAPHAM-Member use, the membership owns the Club. profit. It's non MR. THOMAS-That's like the company ~ work for. It's Niagara Mohawk. It's non profit. MR. GREEN-Sure it is. MR. THOMAS-Unique. Is this unique? Yes, it is. Will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Alleged hardship has not been self created. Boy, there's some tough questions to answer there. MR. LAPHAM-It's the DEC letter. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We need the DEC letter. We need a revised plot plan showing the driveway that is being moved, or relocated because of these two proposed platform tennis courts. So you're in no big hurry for them anyway, because these are just used in the winter time. Aren't they? MR. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So you wouldn't be constructing these, until a variance was granted, until October or November. MR. LAPHAM-The fall. This has to get approved by the membership, and we can't take it to the membership until the plan's been approved. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The membership will be around during the summer time. MR. LAPHAM-We want to grab our members in the summer time. MR. THOMAS-Yes, while you've got them. MR. LAPHAM-While we've got them. MR. KARPELES-I'd like to take a look at this area. Is there some way I can get in there, some time that I can get in there to look around? MR. LAPHAM-You must have picked a bad time, because. - 28 - "- ,--,,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. KARPELES-I was there at 10 o'clock this morning. MR. GREEN-I was over there Tuesday noon time, and both chains were up. MR. THOMAS-I was there today, it was just after noon, it was right about noon time, and the chains were down because they were cleaning the tennis courts. Were you there? Was that you that I ran into? MR. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. KARPELES-What's a good time to go? MR. LAPHAM-You can certainly park next to the chain and walk over. If you go to the east side, if you look at the fence right behind the dumpster, there's a chartreuse or. MR. THOMAS-Yes, hot pink. MR. KARPELES-There's no time of the day when you'd have a better chance of the gate being down? MR. LAPHAM-Well, Dick Williams is the new Manager, and he was there all day today. I would expect he would be there probably all day tomorrow. I don't know why, if you went today, the chain was down because I was there all day. MR. KARPELES-I didn't make it up. The chain was up. Both chains were up, but I've got a lot of reservations about this. I've got reservations about the lighting. As far as I'm concerned, this is a complete change of use, if you're going to start using it in the winter time, and you're going to have it lighted at night, and I'd like to see some people here supporting this thing, and I also, when you get to the Area Variance, this certainly wouldn't be granting the minimum relief. I have a lot of trouble with that, too. MR. LAPHAM-John has sent out a questionnaire to the members, and he's gotten a number of responses from that. I don't have that with me, but those are certainly available. MR. KARPELES-Well, they should be submitted to us, and it always means more when people are actually here than it does when you've got something in writing. MR. THOMAS- In a recent variance application, specifically, the Washington County SPCA, everybody got letters, at home, here. I, myself, probably got, probably 15 or 16 letters at home in support of it. So, you know, a letter writing campaign, the same thing. I want to open the public hearing, leave it open, read in any comments and letters, and then table it, read the Area Variance application. No, I really shouldn't. MR. HILTON-I think you can't open the Area Variance. MR. THOMAS-No. I can't open the Area Variance until the Use Variance. So what do we do with that? That would have to be re- advertised, right? If we don't hear it, it would have to be re- advertised. MR. HILTON-I believe it would. MR. THOMAS-So we'll just forget about the Area Variance tonight. MR. HILTON-I think that's the only thing we can do. MR. THOMAS-Yes. - 29 - ~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. KARPELES-When this was advertised, was it advertised as being a lighted facility and year round use and so forth? MR. HILTON-The advertising mentioned nothing about year round or lighted. MR. KARPELES-Because I'm surprised that there aren't any people here. Should it? MR. HILTON-Well, I can only write that down, and I'll talk to Jim, and see. MR. KARPELES-I'd want to be completely open with the public, that it should be advertised. I think it might not be a bad idea to re- advertise it. MR. LAPHAM-Most of the positively. The Henels are the street are in favor of down from the (lost words) . immediate neighbors have responded in favor of it. The Julie Bowe across it. Dick Burke, who lives two houses MR. KARPELES-You see, we have trouble with that, because when somebody's in favor of something or opposed to it, we usually get overwhelmed with letters, and so when we don't get them, we just assume that there's no comment. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. LAPHAM-If they were against it. MR. KARPELES-That's good that they're not against it. That's fine. MR. THOMAS-We don't know, really, what's going on. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. HILTON-The only other thing I would mention, if it's the Board's wish to table this item, the Use Variance, today was the deadline for May submissions. Tabling it for 60 days, what would probably happen is we would hear it some time in June. MR. THOMAS-Well, if we heard it in June, that's when most of your members are around anyway, June, July and August. Well, you would know by August, probably or September, whether you were going to go through with it or not, or you were going to get the support from the members. How long does it take to order the thing? MR. LAPHAM-The financing has to be put in place. There's a lot of work to be done. I'm sure John, it's John's project. I'm just filling in for him. He's also the one who contacted all the neighbors. I wish he was here to tell you exactly what they said. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, maybe tabling it would be better. MR. LAPHAM-I was kind of expecting that it would be tabled. How long are you telling us? MR. THOMAS-Up to 60 days. MR. KARPELES-We don't even have a proper agent form. We shouldn't even be listening to him. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because we don't have the right agent form, but it's going to be tabled anyway. MR. KARPELES-See, the wrong agent is listed here. MR. THOMAS-You're not John Buecking. - 30 - '- -....."I' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MRS. LAPHAM-You're not John Buecking. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We could take care of that, just sign another form. If we table it, John Buecking will be back for the next meeting. So, if the meeting is in the first meeting in June, which would be the third, when's the meeting in June, June 17th. MR. HILTON-As far as the agent, the owner listed on the application is the Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. HILTON-I'm just wondering if either John or anyone associated with the Tennis & Swim Club could act as owner. MR. THOMAS-As agent? MR. HILTON-Well, as owner, because if they come in representing the company, they're acting as the owner of the property. I don't think the agent form comes into play here, really, but either way, if you table it, and John shows up in June. MR. THOMAS-Do I want to table it with the public hearing open or closed? If you're going to re-advertise the Area Variance. MR. HILTON-We're going to re-advertise the Area Variance. MR. THOMAS-You might as well re-advertise the Use Variance. So, I won't even bother. I'll just table it right now, without even opening 'the hearing. MR. HILTON-Well, that's going to be extra cost to the applicant. If you leave the Use Variance open. MR. THOMAS-All right. If I leave the Use Variance open, but you don't have to re-advertise it. MR. HILTON-If it's left open. MR. THOMAS-If it's left open, but it should be re-advertised, like Bob said, you know, because of ramifications are not explained in the paper. That's another thing, too. Would you write that down as a note, that they should take a copy of the paper, out of the legal thing in the paper, when it's advertised, and throw that in the folder, too. MR. HILTON-In the file. MR. THOMAS-So we know that it was in the paper. When I was up in Lake George, we used to have to get a signed affidavit from the newspaper that it was published. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Well, lets see. We're going to table this one, with the public hearing open. MR. LAPHAM-Approximately June 17th? MR. THOMAS-Well, it would be the, what is it, the third Wednesday in June. MR. HILTON-Right. I don't have a calendar. I'm sorry. MRS. LAPHAM-I think I have a little calendar here. Yes. The third Wednesday in June is the 19th. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that's probably when it would be put back on the agenda, because all the May ones are closed. - 31 - ',,---, .-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. HILTON-All the May ones, today was the deadline. MR. THOMAS-Today was the deadline. So if we throw this back on for June 19th. MR. HILTON-It'll either be the 19th or the 26th. MR. THOMAS-Or the 26th. Hopefully you can be the 19th, because we haven't, have you taken any applications for June? MR. HILTON-We haven't taken any applications yet. The only thing that would prevent it from being on the 19th is if we had such a large amount of applications where we had to balance out each night. It's too early to say, but we'll let you know in advance. MR. THOMAS-So it would either by the 19th or the 26th. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. THOMAS-So, what I'll do now is open up the public hearing on Use variance No. 26-1996. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CORRESPONDENCE MR. THOMAS -Two let ters . There's no date on this let ter . It's addressed to Mr. Stephen Lapham, regarding the Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club Platform Tennis Courts "Dear Steve: The vacation week prohibits me from attending the ZBA meeting, so I must send my written thoughts on the matter. I am a resident near the Tennis & Swim Club, of which I am a member, and, am familiar with platform tennis courts and am perfectly comfortable with their being in my neighborhood. I understand their use to be mostly on weekends and a little in the evenings in the winter months. I understand the lighting set up to be a non-glare directional down onto the courts' surface, and that two courts, which can accommodate no more than eight players at a time, will be used discreetly and respectfully by members only, as the rest of the club has been properly used by members for the last 30 years. I wholeheartedly recommend the project and think that they will not at all distract from our neighborhood. Sincerely, Daniel O'Keeffe, M.D." Another letter addressed to Mr. Stephen Lapham, regarding Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club Platform Tennis Courts "Dear Steve: Our family will be out of town the week of the ZBA meeting, so this letter will represent our sentiments on the matter. We are the closest residents to the Tennis & Swim Club, of which I was once a proud member, and am familiar with platform tennis courts and am perfectly comfortable with their being in my neighborhood. Where the Club proposes to site the courts on their property, over on their far easterly boundary, is well concealed from my house and in full consideration of all the neighbors. Further, I understand the lighting setup to be a non-glare directional down onto the courts' surface, and that two courts, which can accommodate no more than eight players at a time, will be used discreetly and respectfully by members only, as the rest of the Club has been properly used by members for the last 30 years. I wholeheartedly recommend the proj ect and think that they will not at all distract from our neighborhood. Sincerely, Julie (Mrs. Joseph) Bowe" MR. THOMAS-I'll leave the public hearing open, and I will call for a tabling motion. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 26-1996 GLENS FALLS TENNIS & SWIM CLUB, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: For a period not to exceed 60 days, so that the applicant can - 32 - '-/ ......,,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) provide a proposed driveway relocation plan, and a letter from DEC stating their position on this matter. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it's tabled for a maximum of 60 days, and try and squeeze it in on the 19th of June, if possible. Okay. MR. HILTON-Yes. Now, do we also have to at least table the Area Variance. I know we have to re-advertise. I don't know what the Board's done in the past, though. MR. THOMAS-I don't ever remember being here and not having a variance that's been on the agenda read. We could open it and then table it with no public comment. I don't see why we couldn't open it. MR. HILTON-I don't think you can open it because the Use Variance hasn't been decided, and this is an expansion of a. MR. THOMAS-Yes, nonconforming use. MR. HILTON-I think, if there were members of the public here, and you informed everyone that you were tabling it, then they would know that it was being tabled, and because the public hearing wasn't opened, we're bound to re-advertise. MR. THOMAS-All right. So I would go along with, just let it lay. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Not do anything with it tonight, and then have it re- advertised. All right. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. THOMAS-And that'll be re-advertised for the same night, the Use Variance and the Area Variance right after it, and' in the notification in the paper, where the Area Variance is concerned, because that's being re-advertised, I would also see if you could put something in there to let the public know that the Use Variance will also be heard that night, before the Area Variance, if they could put some kind of note in there, a note in there saying that the Use Variance has been tabled. The public hearing has been left open, and will be re-heard on June, whichever day it is, the 19th or the 26th. MR. HILTON-Okay. In order to let the public know that the Use Variance will not be advertised. MR. THOMAS-Right. I think that would be fair enough to everybody. Anything else? MR. LAPHAM-What additional fees will be incurred by the Club? MR. HILTON-I'm going to have to, after the meeting's done, if I don't have your number already, take it and give you a call tomorrow. I'm not sure what we charge for our, it's a base fee that we charge, I think it's the application fee, to cover our advertising, but I would have to give you a call tomorrow and let you know exactly how we're going to handle this. So, I'll just let you know tomorrow. - 33 - -- "- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/96) MR. LAPHAM-I want to make it clear that the brochure that I gave you, that is not the lighting system we're going to use. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. LAPHAM-That's an inappropriate lighting system, because that's fluorescent tubes that go all the way around. MR. THOMAS-Right. That's what it shows in here. MR. LAPHAM-There will be six directional. So I will supply some kind of. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I was going to say, if you could bring something in, in the June meeting, to show what the lighting's going to be like. MRS. LAPHAM-Is it going to be like the ones at the Country Club? MR. LAPHAM-I can't remember what kind of lighting they have in there, to tell you the truth. It's been so long since I've been there. MR. KARPELES-I don't remember, either. MR. THOMAS-I don't even get into the Country Club. MR. LAPHAM-I hope the chain's down. MR. KARPELES-Okay. I'll just walk in. I just figured the chain was there for a good reason, to keep me out. MR. THOMAS-I'm going to put this letter, on the Chrys Variance, back in the box with a note that says, put in to the Chrys Variance. MR. HILTON-Okay. That's fine. MR. THOMAS-Any more business before the Board? I make a motion we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christian Thomas, Acting Chairman - 34 -