Loading...
1996-04-17 o R I (j I N1l '--.. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 70-1994 DISCUSSION ITEM Joseph Rodriguez Tax Map No. 92-2-2.58 1. Use Variance No. 12-1996 Tax Map No. 109-4-2.1 Washington County SPCA, Inc. 5. Area Variance No. 21-1996 Tax Map No. 6-2-1 Michael C. Chrys 14. Area Variance No. 22-1996 Tax Map No. 6-1-2 Michael C. Chrys 31. Area Variance No. 24-1996 Tax Map No. 8-5-14, 17 Joseph & Rita Laraia 46. Area Variance No. 25-1996 Tax Map No. 98-1-5.21 Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls 56. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD rAND STAFF REVISIONS,. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS 'MiNUTES (IF ANY): AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID M'INUTES. ~ ì .0; ~ ,"if '. '. t /,j j ,~, !. L;.T '., ¡ . ; -~. Ii L -/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APR ILl 7, 1 996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY BONNIE LAPHAM ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT WILLIAM GREEN PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: DISCUSSION ITEM: RODRIGUEZ REGARDING SUBMISSION OF NEW AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1996 FOR TWO LOT SUBDIVISION ON THE NORTH SlDE OF ZENAS DRIVE AT EAST END. AT THE DECEMBER 14, 1994 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING AN AREA VARIANCE (FILE NO. 70-1994), REQUEST BY JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ, 40 ZENAS DRIVE, OFF DIXON ROAD WAS DENIED. THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO SUBDIVIDE A 0.67 ACRE PARCEL IN AN URBAN RESIDENTIAL 10 ACRE ZONE, CREATING A 20.645 SQ. FT. LOT WITH AN EXISTING DUPLEX, AND AN 8,391 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING LOT. SECTION 179-17 REQUIRES 10,000 SQ. FT. FOR A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, AND 20,000 FOR A DUPLEX, SO RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THIS SECTION. TAX MAP NO. 92-2-2.58 AN AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ZONING OFFICE FROM JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ FOR REVIEW AT THE MARCH 1996 ZBA MEETING CONCERNING THE SAME PROPERTY AS ABOVE. THE ZBA NEEDS TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO REHEAR AN APPLICATION FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS REQUESTED ON DECEMBER 14, 1994. THE ZBA DISCUSSED THE ABOVE ITEM AT THEIR MARCH 21, 1996 MEETING. NO DECISION WAS MADE, NO VOTE DONE. ZBA NEEDS TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION AT THEIR APRIL MEETING. MR. CARVIN-Is the applicant present? Mrs. Rodriguez? What's the story, George? Was she notified? Okay. MR. HILTON-I think she was, I can only assume she was notified. I didn't send out any notifications myself, and this is a discussion i tern to see whether or not the Board even wants to consider a variance to create a nonconforming lot. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. Okay. Does everybody on the Board remember this particular application? I don't know who was here and who wasn't here the last time. Mrs. Rodriguez applied for a variance back in, I think, and I'm not sure of these dates. I'm looking at the record. It looks like December of '94. She was looking to create, I guess, one conforming and one nonconforming lot, back in 1994. She's asked us to review this. I think when she came before us here the last time there was a question about the actual lot 1 ine, whether she had one lot or two. From a reading of her deed, it indicated, at least preliminarily, that there were two lots there. Is that correct, that these were lots, and I don't know if Staff has had an opportunity to review that. Are we looking at one lot already, or do we realistically have two lots? MR. HILTON-There's one, and the Rodriguez's are trying to create two. One would be conforming. One would be nonconforming. So - 1 - ---/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) that is, right now, one lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, in other words, the issue that was raised the last time has been resolved, that we are looking at a single lot, that there is not two lots currently in place? MR. HILTON-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. Okay. Refund via voucher on 4/2. It looks like she withdrew the application. MR. HILTON-No. We were going to, and then we. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've got a refund $50 via voucher. MR. HILTON-Right. We stopped it. Jim stopped it. We decided to 1 et t he Board d i scust' th i s as ad i scuss ion item to see whether or not you wanted to,consider a variance to create a nonconforming lo~. This is a very similar application to what was before you, I believe, in 1994. So it's the Board's discretion as to whether or not they want to even hear it. I f you don't, then we would go through the proceedings of returning the money. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everyone on the Board understand what the applicant is requesting? Are there ~ny questions that I might be able to address, seeing as how the applicant is not here? MR. MENTER-Essentially, the only difference we're talking about is that it's clear now that it's one piece of property, rather than two? MR. CARVIN-That's correct, and what Mrs. Rodriguez is obviously asking is for us to reconsider our denial back in 1994. Actually it's a new application. She submitted a new application indicating a difference in lot lines. In other words, she's not asking us to r econs i der the December dec is i on, but she has submi t ted a new application, and it really is up to this Board to determine whether this is a significant change from the denial of 1994, and that, essentially, is the crux of the matter. So having reviewed, hopefully, the Rodriguez file, does anyone have any comments or thoughts with regard to Mrs. Rodri~uez, whether this is a significantly different application, warranting a new, or is this, in essence, the same application that was denied in 1994? MR. FORD-I'd like a point of clarification from the Staff, because I hear what Fred just gave us as the charge, focusing in on the Rodriguez application. However, fröm Staff I believe I heard that their issue they wish us to consider is whether or not we wish to consider this as in essence, a test to determine whether or not we want to entertain a nonconforming, and,approve a nonconforming lot. MR. HILTON-I believe that the Board has the ability to determine if an application is substantially similar to previous applications, and if they are, then the Board I~as the final decision as to whether or not, they even want to hear it. I think in this case we're looking for your determination as to whether or not it is substantially significant, and if you feel that it is significant, if you wish to go ahead with this ap~lication at all. MR. FORD-Thanks for that c 1 arif i ca t i on, because it's different than what I heard b~fore, not that you differently, it's just I heard it differently. slightly said it MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. she's proposing. I'm no t sur e I h a v e w hat was pro p os ed, 0 r w hat - 2 - "- ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. MENTER-Do we have the minutes there? MR. CARVIN-I have the minutes from the '94. MR. MENTER-I'd like to see the motion to deny. MR. CARVIN-Well, the motion to deny, actually, I would like to go maybe right back to what I think the net difference is, and I'm trying to find if she has submitted a new lot line. Yes. All right. Essentially, this was what she submitted in 1994, and as you can see, she was requesting 20,645 on what l am going to refer to as Lot A, and 8,391 square feet on Lot B. Now the issue that came up last week was whether she actually did have two lots here. That's been resolved. What she currently is requesting is a 19,000 square foot on what, again, I would consider Lot A, and roughly a 10,000 square foot on Lot B. In 1994, Lot A was a conforming lot. Lot B was a nonconforming, and what she has done is just re-altered this, so now that Lot A is the nonconforming and Lot B is the conforming, and I think it's up to this Board to determine whether there is a significant change on these two applications, or is this, in essence, the same application, just re-worded? MR. FORD-We're dealing with the same total square footage? MR. CARVIN-It's the same lot, same situation. MR. FORD-It's just being reconfigured, the line's being drawn in the different way? MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. FORD-With the net effect being the same? MR. CARVIN-Well, the net effect is that you have. MR. FORD-A conforming and a nonconforming. MR. CARVIN-Yes. The net results is that we still end up with two lots, one conforming, one nonconforming. MRS. LAPHAM-Would this be like less nonconforming than this would have been? MR. CARVIN-Well, okay, or is this conforming or is this less conforming than that one. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, exactly. Because you have 20,000 square a duplex, and so now we have the 20,000 for the duplex and 10 for the single. So maybe there's a lesser percentage? what she's trying to accomplish? It's still the same. feet for you need Is that MR. CARVIN-It still comes out as far as the same spot, I think. Now the motion to deny reads as follows: "Motion to DENY Area Variance No. 70-1994. Joseph RodriRuez, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 0.67 acre parcel creating two lots approximately 20,645 square feet and 8,391 square feet. I think by the granting of the variance that an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood arid would be a detriment to nearby properties. Also, by granting of the proposed variance, it would have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and that the alleged difficulty is self created. There has been a number of neighborhood comments regarding the safety and health issues related to the unique siting of this property and lack of snow removal due to the fact that the road T's in the subdivision." And as I remember that particular application, there was some - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) public controversy becausê what is not necessarily being shown completely is that this is a "T" junction here and that this road ends here, and that the snow does accumulate and it does pose and interesting problem as far as access for this second lot, and that was discussed in I 94. That was the motion then. 1'm asking for the Board's opiniort, as to whether this is a different application in whieh base we would hear it on it. merits or if, in essênce, thi's is the same appli'~a!tion, just re~worded, and I'll start with you'; Tom. I mean, I 'don't know what you're feelings are on this. Is'this anew application or an old application rust re-hashed? " MR. FORD-It's atloId parðel,an"old apþ'lication with a new coat of paint', and I do not wan tto hear it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I don't think it's enough difference to warrant hearing it again. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave? MR. MENTER-No. Nothing in the proposal would ohange any of the concerns in the motion. I would agree with these guys. MR. CARVIN-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree with the other Board members. It sounds the same thing, as Tom said, with a new coat "of paint. MR. CARVIN-Chris? MR. THOMAS-In ,the old application, one lot was 8391. The new application,. one lot is 19,036 and the other lot is 10,000 square feet. This is in a UR-I0 zone. So th,ey need 10,000 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Or 20,000 for a duplex. MR. THOMAS-It's ,not a duplex. It looks like it's going to be two single families. MR. CARVIN""The 20,000 was going to be a duplex, as r remember it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CARVIN-But what she's dbne is she's reduced the 20,000 down. MR. THOMAS-No, it's the same application, just different lines. \ ¡ ! , MR. CARVIN-Okay. motion. would coneU!J" with that. I would ask for a MOTION TO, NOT ACCEPT THE CHANOES TO THE. 1994 APPLICATION AS BEING SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO HEAR A NEW APPLICATION ON THE SAME PROPERTY. , Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: That the proposed application is not 'significantly different, than the one that was made in 1994,i and 'thêrefore this Board does not wish to entertain the new motion. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green - 4 - \.......- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does Staff understand what our position is? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. USE VARIANCE NO. 12-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA LC-I0A WASHINGTON COUNTY SPCA, INC. OWNER: JOHN H. SULLIVAN COUNTY LINE ROAD, APPROX. 3 MILES NORTH OF DIX AVENUE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. APPLICANT SEEKS A USE VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN, ANIMAL SHELTER ON SUBJECT PROPERTY. TH I S REQUEST REQU I RES REL I EF FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-19D. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 109-4-2.1 LOT SIZE: 26.62 ACRES SECTION 179-19D RICHARD JONES & JEAN GRANT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-Now, this is a situation that we heard, I'm not sure I remember the exact date, some time in March, was it? MR. THOMAS-March 20th. MR. CARVIN-For anyone who is here for the SPCA, let me kind of bring you up to speed as to what is happening. In the March 20th meeting, we had a no decision. We had a six member Board. We had three for, and three against, and what that, in essence is, is a no decision. It starts the clock running for this Board, that this Board ac~ually has, I believe, 62 days to render a decision. Now I will emphasize that the public hearing is closed. We are in the decision making process. Now the first thing that I need to do is that we did have one member missing during the March the 20th meeting who is present tonight, and that's Mr. Karpeles. Now Mr. Karpel es has been prov i ded with all the i nforma t i on that was presented, along with the minu~es of that March the 20th meeting, and I will ask Mr. Karpeles if he feels comfortable and is fully versed in rendering a decision on this particular application? MR. KARPELES-Yes, I think I am. I would I ike to ask a few questions, but I have read all the minutes, and I feel that I'm versed as well as anyone else on the Board. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, the procedure is, we, as a Board, can ask specific questions of the applicant. I would ask if any questions are asked of the applicant, that they address the questions alone. Now if during the course of the questioning, that there is new or pertinent information that this Board feels that it needs to develop, or if this Board feels that information that is being presented is significant enough to warrant an opening or a re- opening of the public hearing, I will move to table this until we can properly advertise the public hearing, because this has not been advertised for a public hearing, because as I said the public hearing is closed. All right. Does everybody on the Board understand where I'm co~i~g from? Okay. So you can ask ques~ions of ~he applicant, ahd I will, 1s the applicant present? If you would come to the microphone, sir. BeOause at this point, unless there is some new, specific information that this Board is going to develop, we should have all the information to render a decision. Does everybody understand that? Okay. Now, Bob, you said you had a couple of questions of the applicant1 MR. KARPELES-Yes. I'm wondering, how do you decide what pets you're going to take and what pets you aren't going to take, or what animals you're going to take? MR. JONES-My name is Richard Jones. the SPCA. That might be better represents the SPCA. I'm the architect working with answered by Jean Grant who JEAN GRANT - 5 - ,- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MRS. GRANT-I'm Jean Grant, Treasurer of the Washington County SPCA. The question as to what pets we decide to take or not take, what animals, we take in cats, dogs, puppies, kittens. They can come in from Washington County or outside Washington County. Even though it's called the Washington County SPCA, we serve the tri-county and beyond. We d~ not limit where animals come from,and they can also be adopted :to any,where outside, within the County and outside the County. If we hav~room for ~he animal, if the animal is healthy and not aggressive and adoptable, we will take the animal in. In th.e situation where the animal may be very aggressive or very, very sick, we would recommend that it be taken to an atea veterinarian or humanely euthanized. We are a private nonprofit. We are not a County shelter. The €ounty does not fund the Washington County SPCA. Therefore, we feel that we have a little more control of what animals we take in, that we do take in. We aren't as selective as the other organizations are as far as what animals we take in. MR. KARPELES-Well, one of' the things I'm concerned about is we're su¡)posed to weigh the benefit to the community, as opposed to the benefit to the applicant, or the detriment to the conmunity, also, and I'm wondering, with a name like WashinRton County SPCA how does a Warren County resident know that he is welcome there? MRS. GRANT-Forty percent of our donations, and approximately 40 percent of our animals come in from Warren County. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but I'm just a normal Warren County resident. I don't know that. I don't donate anything. MRS. GRANT-Well ,theycall to inquire. We try to give out lots of i n for ma t ion. ' MR. KARPELES-Yes, but'if I'm looking in the phone book and I see the name "Washington County SPCA", I don't think I'm even going to call it. MRS. GRANT-Well, if you call the Warren County SPCA, they will probably suggest that you go to the Washington County SPCA. We work with the Glens Falls Animal Hospital very closely, and that's where they house the Warren County animals, and i'f you are from Warren County, yqu do have a Warren County Humane Society, and if they don't have room, they wi 11 often suggest that you call the Washington County SPCA, and we would 1 ike to change our name someday, but currently it is the Washington County SPCA. We work with the Warren County SPCA. MR. KARPELES-See, I just don't see how I could consider this a bênef i t to the communi ty, and my cOrTl11uni ty is Queensbury, and Warren County, as long as it's got,a name like Washington County SPCA. MRS. GRANT-And we want to change the name, eventually, because people think that W'e' receive County funding, which we do not receive County funding, and we want to change the name, perhaps the Foothills Humane Society, something to that effect, but we can't change it right now, as we're trying to fund raise to get the money to build a new shelter. :1 MR. KARPELES-Unfortunately, the variance is coming up right now, and right now is when we've got' to make our decision. MRS. GRANT-Well, again, we have a great deal of support from the Town of Qu'eensbury, from its res idents, financially, and the animals come in from. MR. KARPELES-So I would think that you would want' to change that name. MRS. GRANT-Well, we can't do that right now because it's a legal - 6 - '...... --" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) process. MR. KARPELES-I don't understand that. Why is that? MRS. GRANT-I think our lawyer, if he was here, could probably better explain to you that for us to change mid way our name, we've been talking about it right now. We haven't taken the steps to do it. It's a big legal proceeding. It involves the IRS. We are a nonprofit. We are listed with the federal government as a nonprofit, New York State Charity Bureau, and it's an involved process, and again, people right now donate to the Washington County SPCA. If we were to change our name mid way, there may be some confusion, and we really want to wait until we get our new building. We have over 1600 people who write to us and donate to us, and right now we have about 400 people who are in contact with us. They respond to us. They vote. They' r e vot i ng member s . They're nonvoting members. There's supporting people. We do a lot with public relations, and I don't believe that the Town of Queensbury, those who do support us, at least the 40 percent, as a matter of fact, a great deal of òur money comes from Warren County and Queensbury. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but I'm not concerned about those people. I'm concerned about the poor guy who's got an animal he wants to get rid of. MRS. GRANT-Then he calls the Warren County Humane Society, who in turn, if we have room, we can take it in, but I don't know how to explain it to you. The Warren County SPCA very often refers people to the Washington County SPCA. We take in animals. MR. KARPELES-Is any preference given to the Washington County animals? MRS. GRANT-No. There is not. If we have an empty cage, and we have room, we will take the animal in. We do not have preference from one animal to another. MR. KARPELES-I've got a note here to contact Mr. Wil,lard. He can be reached weekdays ,at the Scotia shelter by calling (518) 374- 3944. I had ever intention of going down to. visit the Scotia shelter. So I called Mr. Willard. I called him several times, and all I got was an answering machine. MRS. GRANT-What time did you call? MR.KARPELES-The first time I called at quarter to ten, and, the answering machine to call back after ten o'clock. So I called at 10:30. I got the same message. MRS. GRANT-Perhaps they're very busy. It's a 1.3 million dollar shelter. It holds over 100 animals and they're very busy, and I apologize, but this should not be a reflection on what we're trying to do right here. MR. KARPELES-No, but I had every intention of going down there and visiting the place, and I thought I would make a decision, but I didn't go down because I wasn't going tö go all that way and then discover I couldn't see it anyway. MRS. GRANT-We have pictures of the Scotia shelter. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think I'm at the mercy, now, of somebody who might have visited there. So I don't know if anybody visited here or not. Did anybody from this Bo.ard go down? MR. FORD-Yes. - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MRS. GRANT-Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. FORD-You're welcome. MRS. GRANT"" I really i appreciate that. informative. I hope it was very MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom, what was your impression? MR. FORD-First of all, I also called. I did get a receptionist, and the gentleman was not available, and I found that with mY work schedule and their schedule there, that I was unable to get back there at a -time when I could tour the facility, but I did go and I made a visit,and I talked with someone who was there, a member of the staff and providing, she was heading up an obedience class, and would have taken me through, but that really was, I had heard a lot about the facility. Youihad presented good information. That was not a first and foremost in my mind. I was a.nxious to see it. It's an attractive facility and I understand the one being proposed is very similar, and I was i,nterested in appearance. I was interested in the critical issue of the impact on the neighborhood, and that is a bit different type of neighborhood there than we're tal k i ngabout her,e. ' So, in terms of the facility, it's a good facility. It is ~otally state of the art, and it is good in that regard. I want to editorialize a little bit, too, because a great many of the letters that we all received praised the work of the SPCA, and I wa:n:t to echo those comments. I am pro-SPCA. I believe in the work. I support that work. It is a wonderful organization for all of our communi ties. Pro or con SPCA is not the issUe here. The issue is a variance, and we must look at the criteria that are established fot granting a variance in tha.t particular neighborhood. So going back to what I found there, there was only one neighbor within view of the shelter. Across the road, there's a railroad yard, and you go quite a distance down the road before you come to a business that was not open at that time. So I went up the road and through the woods I could see a neighbor who lived at approximately, as best I could estimate it, 250 to 300 yards from the facility. I went there and talked with that lady and found that she had been a ,lifelong ,resident of that house. She had lived there long before'the original facility was built, I believe back in 1952' shesai d, and she remarked Jat how much better thi s new facility was than the old facility. She really was impressed with that. I asked her, at this distance from the new facility, can you hear dogs barking, 'and she said, oh yes, but she said it's so much better than the old facility~ but yes, I can hear dogs barking. I said, what about odor. She said, there is an odor, but it isn't nearly as bad as it used to be in the old facility. I looked for another neighbo'r to go and see, and this was it. MRS. GRANT-May I ask a question? Did you ,walk around the facility and the outside at all? I mean, I've been there. I've been within 10 feet olthe build1'ng, and I cannot hear barking dogs, if they're inside 'barking. MR. FORD-Yes. I did. MRS. GRANT-I mean, you faintly hear them. MR. FORD-Yes, I did, and I could hear them, and all, I'm reporting to you what the only neÍlghbor within sight 01£ the facility told me, Jean. She's been a lifelong resident there. I assume, if she hears dogs barking at thati facility, she's not going to lie to me. She was pro-facility. She was not anti-SPCA or anti-facility. She was singing their praises, but in answer to the odor question and the barking question, it was a'ffi,rmative on both cOunts, and her house, if we're going to compar,e that to the Queensbury Avenue site, there are at least three, and possibly four, within the same distance to the proposed site, three or four famfly homes. - 8 - '-- -J' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MRS. GRANT-I've been to the site at least eight times. Again, I don't live down there. I've never smelled anything outside. I have never heard barking dogs outside. When I'm inside, I cannot hear any C-130's taking off from the airport. I don't hear the trains, nothing at all. Obviously, she's a lifelong resident ther e, but agai n all the times I've been down ther e, I've never heard the dogs barking, and I've walked around the building, in back as well. MR. CARV IN-Okay. Well, I 'm go i ng to remind the Board that the Scotia SPCA building is not applying for a variance here, that we have to judge our decision on the information that has been presented. I think we should take Mr. Ford's comments to heart, but I did not get an opportunity ~o visit it, and I'v~ got an idea in my mind on how I feel on this, and I'm going to caution the Board that we have, as Mr. Fo.rd has indicated, a set criteria for the granting of a Use Variance. Are there any other questions of the applicants? Bob, are yo~? MR. KARPELES-I think I've got mY questions answered. MR. CARVIN-Okay. My biggest concern, other than the name, is the residents hearing barking dogs, and there's no question in my mind that this resident's house was closer than the houses of the people that would be adjacent to this facility that they intend to build. MR. FORD-No, she was further away. She was further away than at "I eas t thr ee, and pos s i bl y four of the res idences that woul d be related to the proposed site. MRS. LAPHAM-When was the Scotia facility built? MRS. GRANT-I believe about three or four years ago MRS. LAPHAM-I was wondering if there was anything more state of the art that could be accomplished to minimize noise. MRS. GRANT-This is a model shèl ter that's used throughout the Country. The director has spoken at national conferences. It's a state of the art building. It's used throughout the Country as a model. The Humane Society of the United States and the American Humane Society uses this as a model. MR. FORD-And it's a wonderful facility. There's no getting away from that. It's attractive, and that was a concern that had been raised at our previous meeting. MRS. GRANT-And 1.t is a factor, because the design of our building is a smaller version. It's not the exact same building, but the features are identical, as far as the mechanics of th~ building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you have any questions of the applicant, Bonnie? Have you got enough information? Is there anything new or relevant that you would wish to open up the public hearing for? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave, any questions of the applicant? MR. MENTER-Yes. I have onequestion~ What government regulations or inspections or requirements are necessary to meet on an ongoing business? Are there inspections, and if so, who does them, of this type of facility? MRS. GRANT-The present s Lte" where we are now, we've never been inspected, but OSHA would inspect. MR. MENTER-OSHA would not be for sanitation. - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MRS. GRANT-Well, for health, employee safety conditions and health. OSHA, and possibly the New York State Agriculture Markets, that division would come in to visit. Being Queensbury, the Building Depar tment woul d be into i nspec t.' Even though it's a nonprof it, I would assume the Fire Marshal would be in to inspect. MR. :MENTER-But there's no separate set of guidelines that you re äwareoJf that would regulate specific operations, this type of fabLlity' on' a County or State basis'" "or anything fike that? MRS. GRANT-I'm not aware of any. " MR. MENTER-That's the,only question tha:t;;Ihave. MR. CARVIN~Okay. Do you feel that you hàve sufficient information to rend~ra~ecision, and are there any new or unusual items that might r'equirei, or you would want to: have a public hearing opened? MR. MENTER-No. MR. CARVIN-'Okay. Bob, any othserquestìons? MR. KARPELES-No. MR. CARVIN-Do you feel you have enough information to 'render a decision and aT~ there any'n~w items br information that you feel warrant opening up a public hearing? ' MR. KARPELES-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom? MR. FORD-I would¡ in fairness, like to~ I've read everything that we've had presented to us, but I 'venot had the opportunity to fully digest this document that was presented to us just before the meeting started, and I would like an opportunity to do that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, then I'll come back to you. Is everybody familiar Iwith this? There~ s been an awful lot of documentation that's been p~~~ented, and I don't think that there's anything new. I think this :is just an explanation and pretty much answers to many of the questions that have already been' raised. So, I'll come back. Chris, do you have any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-No, I'm all set. MR. CARVIN-And you're comfortable that you have enough information? MR., THOMA'S-¥es, I am. MR. CARVIN-Is there new information or items that you feel warrant opening up a pubJic heaiing? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to indicate, for the record, that we have; received a lot öf corres'pondence that has aome in' after the public hèaring. This information and all of these letters will be put on file in the applicant's file, and I ,will read the last names and all of them, asifar as I know, at'e; I'm assuming, in support of this particular app1ication, and all of them are dated, or postmarked, afte:r the closiRg of the public hearing. The last name is Bayer, dafed March 21st; As'plund, dated April 3rd; LaBlanc, dated April 4th; Santasiero, <dat'ed!April 3rd; Durkee, dated April 4th; Morris, dated April 3rd; Fuller,dated April 3rd; Riley, dated April 5th; Warnken, dated April 4th; Pontif'f, dated April 4th; Sweet, dated Apr i 14th; Schumacher, Apr i I 2nd; M i tche 11, dated April 2ád; Hughes, dated April ,4th;: Wilson, dated April 8th; - 10 - '-- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) Shepard, dated April 3rd; Merrill, dated April 8th; Cardinale, dated April 2nd; Penn, dated April 6th; Herman, dated April 6th; McCraig, dated April 10th; Porcaro, dated April 7th; Allen, dated April 9th; Bennett, dated April 11th; Devine, dated April 3, 1996; Warnken, Maryanne (different letter), dated April 4th; Cardinale, dated April 2nd; Jenkins, dated April 6th; Swantko, dated April 4th; Sullivan, dated April 12th; Villano, dated April 11th; Londrigan, dated April 15th; Cronquist, dated April 11th; Wasserman, dated April 17th; Giannetti, dated April 12th; Brown, postmarked April 10th; Muller, postmarked April 11th; Foley, dated April 11th; Rourke, dated April 11th; Koenig, dated April 9th; Hall, postmarked April 8th; Loffler, postmarked April 8th; Nancy- Juckett Brown, postmarked April 10th; Stewart, dated April li5th; Foley, dated April 10th; Hansen, dated April 8th; Garrett, dated April 4th, and as I said, all of these letters will be on file. If I have read somebody's name here who is here this evening and they are not in support, otherwise, I believe all of these letters are in support of the SPCA. If I am incorrect, I would appreciate anyone correcting me. MRS. LAPHAM-I received four others, and I don't think you read them in. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What are the names? MRS. LAPHAM-April 3rd, Terrio, and mine are all in favor, too. John Cochran, June, April 4th, Devine. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I have Devine. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, and Cronquist. MR. CARVIN-And Cronquist I think we've got. Okay. So there's two additional. Okay. If you would pass those forward, the first two, I believe. MRS. LAPHAM-Cochran and Terrio? MR. CARVIN-Right. Okay. Now, in addition, I know I have received two phone calls, one from Deruchio, and the other, I'm afraid I don't remember, but I know Deruchio I received a phone call. I don't know, does staff have any record of any phone calls coming in? MR. HILTON-I don't have any records. MR. CARVIN-Okay. As said, these are just for informational purposes only. These were all received after the public hearing. I know of the ones that I've read, I did not find any new or significant information that would warrant opening up a public hearing. Okay. So, I'm going to ask the Board members what their feeling and position is on this, whether we have a consensus one way or the other, and I'm going to start, I think, with you, Chris. What is your feeling? Or does somebody have a motioh they feel strongly one way or the other? MR. THOMAS-I'm sticking by my original feeling that there's too much neighborhood opposition to this, and I think we have to take the neighbors feelings into this, over the building of the SPCA. J'd like to state for the record, I am not anti-SPCA. I don't own any animals, but, to me, there's got to be some other plac€that this facility can be built. I mean, I know that they stated for the record, that they've looked at 16 or 18 different places, I mean, in all of Warren and Washimgton County and northern Saratoga County. There's got to be some place di fferent, where the neighborhood wouldn't be objectionable. MR. CARVIN-Again, I would ask you to, if you base a decision, to , - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96f base it upon the items that are relevant to either the passing or denial of the Use,Variance. s~ y6u feel that an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood would be created? MR. THOMAS~Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Tom? Again, I apologize, Tom. Did you! find -anything significant in the additional information? MR. FORD-I'm almost through with it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I'll come back to you. Bob, what is your feeling? MR. KARPELES-Well, I more or less agree with Chris. I don't feel that a facility like ~his should be built in a residential area. I don't think there can be anything more annoying than a barking dog when you're trying to sleep, and I'll reiterate that I would not app~ove this variance or. variance anywhere else ás long as the name is Washington Coun'ty. I think it has to be more descriptive of the type of people that it's going to serve. MR. CARVIN-Okay. feeling is that neighborhood? - Again, there Bob ,I wou Id ask, in other words, your would be an adverse effect in the MR. ·KARPELES-Ithink there would be an adverse effect on the neighborhood in grantih~ this. , MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you think that the land can be used as zoned? MR. KARPELES"'"I think that you could find a use for it. I don't know as you could 'use it, it, could be used as zoned, but I think that a nonconformingusestha t would be more desirable could be found. MR. CARVIN-Okay.; Dave? MR. MENTER-We 1,1 , in my view it clearly meets the reasonable return oriteria. I thihk 'a use as zoned 'is 'a near impossibility. Hardship and uniqu¡eness is certainly there; but the big stumbling block is the e,ffec t on the charac ter of' the neighborhood, and I think it's, while I agree, you know, the organization I support, I just think that the organization may need to go to 20th place, because these people don,'t have, any place to go, and I think that's what we're he~e for, 'to protect people when their neighborhood is going to be changed. So I would be in favor of denying it, based on thá.t. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM"'Well, I'm now of a mixed mind. I still feel strongly that the owner of the property can claim significant hardship, and has the right to try to sell his property if he so desires and it's not useful as:zoned. I don't think he would find a buyer. I would hope th:àt the next particular buy~r, the next 'time we're here, isn't somebody less desirable for the neighbors, but based on what Tom has said, I have some reservations, at this point, because of the barking'. I mean:, I own dogs, anö:theY'can'annoyme. So while I probably am sti 11 in favor, I am not qui te strongly in favor as the last time we met. i' MR. CARVIN-'-Okay. Tom? MR. FORD-I went to Scotia wanting so much to find reasons to be supportive of this application, and when I drove in that parking loti, I said, this is going to be all right. If thèseother criteria are met, in terms of the impact on the neighborhood, - 12 - "'--' -.-;' (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) visually, it's a positive impact on the neighborhood. So that was the first impression I had. However, my positive feelings toward the SPCA or the view of that facility are no more in keeping with the criteria that we have to apply then it would be appropriate for me to say, but that's a fine doctor who wants to put a facility in there. It's not the quality of the doctor or the dentist or the SPCA. We have to look at, among other things, the return on the property for the owner and the impact on the essential character of the neighborhood, and that's where I found the negative impact. I can't support it. MR. CARVIN-Well, ,I first want to state that I am certainly not an t i - S PCA . I h a vet 0 be h 0 n est wit h you, I'm not tot a 11 y f am i 1 i a r with all the fine work that the SPCA does do. I have been brought up to speed very rapidly in the last few weeks. However, I know when I first heard this back in March, and I guess this is, as I indicated back then, this is probably one of the hardest applications that this Board is confronted with, because we do have a neighborhood that is undergoing a change. I don't think we can put a real tag on it. It's not truly residential. It's not truly light industrial. It does have some unique problems because it is in conjunction with the airport. The FAA has placed some severe hardships and limitations to the use of that property, but I also have to we i gh, I gues s, the cur rent neighbor s ther e, and 1 have thought long and hard about this, and as this Board probably was surprised to hear that I was in support of this application in March because, historically, 1 tend to"be a very conservative when it comes to residential areas. ,I find my voting record is .that I am very reluctant to put uses other than residential in residential areas. I'm not totally convinced that this area is going to be overly affected by placing the SPCA there, but I think that there will be a change that will be cr,eated. I ·have some concerns, I think, about the noise, although 1 think that the SPCA has indicated a very viable plan. I guess I'm more concerned about the abandoning of animals, although that's not anything that the SPCA has any control over, and certainly is making efforts to resolve that type of situation. I think this Board has thought long, and hard with regard to this, but 1 find myself, I think, coming back to my original stance of being a conservative as far as residential areas are concerned. 1 think that i,f the SPCA can put a fair ly large building there, that there also is. the possibility that a residential unit can be put there. So I'm of the opinion that the applicant, or the land owner, in Bonnie's case, still might be'sble to generate a posi ti ve return from the use of that property as zoned. So I don't think that they've been precluded from capitalizing on that property. I do think that the lot is unique. I mean, there's no doubt about that, but it's certainly not so unique that a residential unit can't be put there. Our third item is, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. I think that this is what this Board has been grappling with. I think this Board, if I'm getting a reading, does feel that there's going to be a change in the neighborhood there, by putting the SPCA buJlding there. The alleged hardship has, not been self-created, again, I guess I can look at this in that it is a self-created, that there may be other spots, I think that's what some of the other Board members have been all uding to, that might be more appropriate to your use, and of course our biggest one is the minimum variance necessary to adequately address the unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the heal th, safety and welfare of the corrmunity. 1 think that's the one that we all are grappling with, is this indeed the minimum variance necessary, and I guess, having said all of this, that 'I would be in favor of denying this application. If there are no other questions or corrments, 1 would ask .for a motion. MR. FORD-You basically have covered all the necessary points of a motion. - 13 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO DBNY:USE VARIANCE NO. 12':'1996, WASHINGTON COUNTY SPCA. INC., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by D~vid Menter: The appl icant, is proposing to construct an animal shel ter on property- that is currently zoned SR--IA and LC-I0A, and animal shel tel's are not 1 isted as petmi tted uses in ei ther of these Cfistricts. I don't believe the applicant has shown: that a reasonable return is not possible if ~he land is used as zoned. Even though this lot is located near the Warren County Airport and is 'directly south of a Light Industrial lA zone, and the FAA has restrictions on, th·is property, I don't beliéve it would be impossible for a single family development to be placed on this parcel. I believe-that this property is unique because of many of the FAA restrictions, but more importantly, I think that there would be an advet'se effect on the ~ssential character of the neighbbrhood. To emphasize the poirit of this, we have had a number of residents indicate their objection'to the project, and even though this is an area that is undergoing a change, it still, at this point, is a residential zone, and unfortunately I do not feel that this would be the minimum variance necessa~y to address the hardships that the applicant is indicating and at the same time protect the character of the neighborhóöd'and the health, safety and welfare of the corrmunity. Duly adopted this 17th day of Ap-ril, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Fotd, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mrs. Lapham ABSENT: Mr. Green NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1996 TYPE II WR-IA CEA MICHABL C. CHRYS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE RIGHT SIDE OF ASSEMBlY POINT ROAD, APPROX. 0.4 MILES NORTH OF INTERSECTlON WITRNYS ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO CAR GARAGE>: ON A VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE SETBACKS IN SECTION 179-16(C). ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 6-2~1 LOT SIZE: 0.09 ACRES SECTION 179-16C MICHAEL CHRYS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-1996, Michael C. Chrys, Meeting Date: April t 7, 1996 "PR03E.CT LOCATION: Assembly Point Road PROPOSED PR03ECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant is proposing to construct a two car garage on a vacant piece of property. This garage would not meet the front, side and rear yard setbacks required in Section 179-16(C). CRITERIA, FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: This would allow the applicant to construct an 840 ~quare foot two car garage on this pro~erty. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: The applicant may have the ability to move the proposed garage ~en more feet off the side property line. This would remove the need for side setback relief. Relief would still be required from the front and rear yard setbacks. 3. IS THIS RELIEF 'SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The relief is 50% of the requirement. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOß OR COMMUNITY? It appears that the proposed garage would not have any negative impact on the neighborhood. Addi tional conment may be provided at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF CREATED? No. Due to the dimensions of this lot setback relief would most likely be - 14 - "'- -" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) necessary for any structure that would be built on this property. PARCEL HISTORY: This .09 acre vacant lot was purchased by Mr. Chrys in July of 19,95.' STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS:, Currently t his lot i s 1 i s t e d a s a s e par ate lot wit had iff e r en t t a x ma p number than the lot across Assembly Point Rd. which Mr. Chrys also owns. Technically a Use Variance is necessary for this garage because garages are listed as accessory structures not primary structures. A Use Variance would not be required if the applicant would agree to merge both lots that he owns into one prior to a building permit being issued for any garage to be built. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At 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 two car garage on a vacant piece of property. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recorrnnendation to: Disapprove Corrnnents: Since it does meet any setbacks based on the development policy and regulatory ,measures that are in place by the Town of Queensbury." Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-I'm going to ask Staff if they would refer to Warren County that this is one of the reasons that people request variances, and it's not necessarily a reaS9n to deny an application because they can't meet the compliance, because in that case, all of these get turned down. Were you at the Warren County meeting? MR. CHRYS-You're not allowed to speak~ MR. CARVIN-I realize that. Ls this really what they said, that you were not in compliance, so therefore they turned you down? MR. CHRYS-Yes. One of the women on the Board was the only corrnnent, and she said, you don't meet the setback requir~men~s on any of these sides or any of the property lines, and therefore I move for deni aI, it was seconded, and that was the end of it.' ,. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, what that does is that puts us in a unique posi t ion, because j;nl!p;rder ¡for us nJ approve this Use Var iance, you need what they call a super, maj.or i ty ,and that is five members out of a seven member Bo:ard. So, if I find that we, under normal circumstances, w'e only ne,ed f,our positive votes or four negative votes to make a d,ecis:ion, butt because Warren Countyha.s,turned;¡this down, as I said, you need to have five to approve, four to deny. If I find that, on a straw poll of this Board, that you are not going to come close to that, if there's not a consensus one waY or the other, I guess is what I'm try ing to say, then my recorrnnendation to you would be to table it until such time a.s we get a full Board, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. I just want you to understand. I can pretty much tell you, this month, to get a full Board ios; going to be a.lmost impossible. Qkay. Does anyone have:anyques t ions of ;the applicant? MR. FORD-Yes. With regard to the observation by the Staff, what is your reaction to making a single lot out of the two, and therefore not requiring a variance? MR. CHRYS-I don't have any problem with making a single lot out of two. I bought them separately at,different times, as is 'Opted if you look closely at the dates. To merge the two into one Jot~ I'd be in favor of. I don't see any reason' not to, but I don't have any plans not to. The only reason they',re separate is that, I purchased them separately, because I have parking (lost words). So that wouldn't be a problem. MR. FORD-With that intent. MR. MENTER-It still requires the area. - 15 - ----- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CARVIN-It would still require an Area Variance, though. MR. HILTON-Area' Variance. MR. CHRYS-I'd sti11 have a setback requirement that couldn't be met, because I'd be on 'the road, on somebody else's property. I ha~e,by ~he way,' tried to purchase other ~roper~y, and was flatly denied on my attempt to do so. So I don't have an alternative at th is po in t . MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand what Tom is referring to? MR. KARPELES-I don't knìow. Whièh two lots aré we talking about? MR. CHRYS¡.iI have a survey. I f you look closely, the hatched 1 ines are act'uall y, the deeds were such that the ' hatched 1 i ne would describe ;both'deeds separately. So it was actually sold twice. They overlapped. MR. CARV IN'""Does S taf f have any fee ling about thi s? My per sonal feeling is that I think Mr. Pord's on the right tra.ck here. I think I'd rather be tackling an Area Variance than a Use Variance. MR. HILTON-Right and actually, right now they're listed as the same, and a garage is not listed as a primary structure. I think at one time these were one lot, befo~e the road went through. Now they just happen to be two. If we get some kind of merging that takes place when Mr. Chrys, if in the event he does come in for a building permit, if you approve any variance, if we have a merged Ib1, it's one lot, then we can use it as an accessory structure, and we would only be requiring that he receive setba~k relief this evening. MR. CARVI'N-Wel'l, we don',t have an application for setback, do we? MR. HILTON-No. This Area Variance is the variance for it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This is the setb~ck. MR. MENTER~So we can just address it and ignore the uie issue, at this point. MR. HILTŒIHAnd if yo-u take action on this, ifat the time Mr. Chrys comes in' for a bu i 1 ding permi t and' has not proven them to be merged, then we can't proceed. We dan't issue a building permit, and he would be required to come in for a Use Variance. MR. CARVIN-What's the Board's pleasure on this? Has anybody got any thoughts on this? Which would you druther? MR. MENTER-I think it makes sense that, given that, to address the area issue with the assumptiòn that he'á going to pursue combining the parcels before he goes to build, and if that d~esn't happen, we have to deal with the use issue, or he does. Either he doesn't do the project or he comes back for a use. MR. HILTON-I believe you also have the ability to put it in your motion. MR. CARV IN-Yes. We can èond it ion it. Welt, I've got some conditions'that I've already writ~en down. So~ it will prob~bly be conditioned. You can almost count on that, but I'm just debating whether we want to really, I think the merging of thé lot makes more sense. MR. PORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? - 16 - '\...,...-, ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. KARPELES-Well, I've got a ques t ion for Staf f . Th i s 20 foot building line, is that what the setback should be, 20 feet from those, and what is the setback supposed to be from th~ road? MR. CHRYS-I' 11 answer this on memory. The setback from the road is supposed to be 30 feet~ The setback from the side line is supposed to be 20 on one side and 30 on another, and that could be flip flopped either way, and 20 in the rear yard, which would allow me, without the variance for the setback, to put up (lost word) structure. MR. KARPELES-From the road what is it, again? MR. CHRYS-From. the road it's 30, from the ,rear it's 20, and from the side lines it's 20 on one and 30 or more on the other, and that could be on either side. It doesn't depict a side preference. With those setbacks currently, I couldn't build any kind of a structure there, which is why I need the relief. MR. CARVIN-So there's no way you're going to make the 30 feet front, right? MR. CHRYS-No. MR. CARVIN-However, I think Staff has indicated that you could meet one side requiremen~ of 20? MR. CHRYS-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-So we would only need relief from the front and one side, is that correct, George? MR. HILTON-Well, actually my intent was if the garage were moved over 10 more feet, you'd have 20 on one side and 30 on the other. There probably would be no need to grant side setback relief. You'd only be looking at the front and rear yards. MR. FORD-Just the front and rear. MR. MENTER-Both of which you'd probably be closer to, at ~east certainly the front. MR. CHRYS-The only reason that that was actually set, that geographically preference, was that there was room in pulling off the road to get near the garage. MR. MENTER-The entrance would be on what side? MR. CHRYS-The entrance was going to be on the road side. That was the only reason for that, but I could nleet those requirements. MR., CARVIN-If memory serves correct, that's pretty much an open lot behind you, this here? MR. CHRYS-That's correct. It's open, and it's a man made drainage area back there for several of the properties, but it's wide open. It's landlocked. It's not buildable. MR. CARVIN-Okay. George, would we be better served to get this back further than 16 feet of fthe, road? I mean, I'd rather mov:e it back because there doesn't appear to be any conflict there. MR. HILTON-That's up to you. If you think that the corrmuni ty would be better served to grant that relief. MR. CARVIN-I think from a safety perspective, also, because that's right on a curve. - 17 - --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CHRYS-Th~t's exactly right, I think from a safety 'perspective, in terms of safety, so they could pull off the road, and not be protruding out. MR. MENTER-I have a question for you. You bought this in July. What ~as thecortditionof that piece ðf prOperty irt July when you bought it? MR. CHRYS-It was actually, I've had it graded ôff. There was a couple of tires in there. Everybody used it as the conmunity dumping site for foliage, leaves, grass, tree stumps. MR. MENTER-It looks like a ,lot of fill has been put there. MR. CHRYS-It was just a surfacing that was done.- MR. MENTER-Just the way it's trenched all around, it looks like it could have been a lowland that was just filled in. MR. CHRYS-Not in my ownership of it. Nothing's been altered, in terms of any flows. If you look real close, there's some water behind it, and there's a culvert out by the road, and there's also, if you look far enough, I tried to find out where thewat~r was all coming from, theré's a cut-vert draining from another piece of propert;y, facing the lot to the right. Thete' s a: culvert on the ground, 'i t t S pouri ng: ou t OT the back ar'ea. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? MR. THOMAS'-The only question 1. have is you're asking for ari 840 squar e foot garage., Is ther e arty reason you cou Idn' t make it smaller, so you could make it more conforming? MR. CHRYS-That was just a standard garage that was taken off a set of plans for 'a reasonable two car garage. If y'ôu feel that something should be slightly altered from that. MR. THOMAS-To me, if you made it small er, you cou 1 d be mor e conforming, because 840 i~uare feet is a good size garage. The law says you can have a 900 square foot garage, but that you could make into a three ca~ garage. MR. CHRYS-If you could give me a square footage that is reasonable. MR. CARVIN-How t~ll is this garage going tobe1 MR. CHRYS'""Just a standard 10 foot,' or 8 foot , and then the roof. MR. CARVIN-Single story? MR. CHRYS-Single story, yes. MR. CARVIN-No loft? MR. CHRYS-No loft. MR. THOMAS... I 'm not going to give you a figure or anything, but would you consider a smalfer garage? MR. CHRYS-Yes,1 would consider it. If I had to cut it 1'00 square foot somewhere, I'd just take a foot off each dimension. I've got a facility there that's really, has no foundation under it or anything like that. So there's no real storage. Sô I'm trying to get some storage as well. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That's all I've got. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm just looking at, you know, yoú've got - 18 - - -../' (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) a 28 by 30, with the 30 coming ou~ toward the road. Could we .make it the other way, have the 30 toward the back lot? MR. CHRYS-Sure, that's not a problem at all. MR. CARVIN-Becausethat;would pick up another two feet off the road right there, just by turning it. MR. CHRYS-Therefore, down. could actually slide it a little farther MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? case, I'll open up the pub Ii c hear i ng . In that PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK WEINMAN MR. WEINMAN-Is it possible to see a set of plans? MR. CHRYS-Sure. MR. WEINMAN-My parcel is directly next to this. I'd love to see a site plan. We've talked with the neighbors, and we have some ideas. We had some ideas that might be different than, the plan, I'd like to discuss. I would, like to have done it be:fore we even got here, but just to see a set of plans would be very helpful for probably everyone in the area. MR. CHRYS-I could tell you, if this makes you feel better, one of the things that I '01, going to do is the same facade as the house, that kind of log cabin-ish appeal. It's not going to be a nonconforming structure from a visual, aesthetic point of view. MR. WEINMAN-What I'm most concerned about is, how are you going to enter this garage? Are you goiog straight in, or are you coming around and in. MR. CHRYS-I was coming straight in off the road. MR. WEINMAN-Why can't you turn the whole, building and come around our property and make a swing, turn the building this way, then you woul dn' t have to back ou t into the road so much. I mean, that seems logical, instead of backing straight out into the road, coming to the side. I think it just would make a lot more sense. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Could I have your name for the record? MR. WEINMAN-My name is Mark Weinman. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. CHRYS-My entrance to it is not really that critical. MR. WEINMAN-Well, it's just a very narrow lot, and I think it would be just too close to the road, the way, like I haven't seen a plan yet. Basically that's what I came to see, a set of plans. I '01 not opposed or for it until I see some kind of plan. I haven't seen anything. I don't think any of the neighbors have. MR. CARVIN-I can show you what he's proposing, which is what we're dealing with. MR. WEINMAN-Okay. MR. CHRYS-That's why I set it off here, so that I could pull straight in and not the end of the road. MR. WEINMAN-You only have 16 feet. mean, if you park a car here, - 19 - \..--" ...,./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) without pUlling irttothe garage, you're basically right out in the road. I MR. CHRYS-I've got no problem with coming in this way. It doesn't make any difference tomé. So~ if that's mo~e satisfact6ry, that's the only opposition, my answer to you would be yes. , , MR. WEINMAN-I would feel more comfortable with thàt way. there's some other neighbors here, if they want to speak. feel much more comfortable if you would come in that way. I know I would MR. CHRYS-I don't have any problem with that. MR. CARVIN-Could you demonstrate to the Board here what you've agreed to? MR. CHRYS-Okay. I guess what I'm agreeing to, what the opposition and the concern is that you may be backing out into the road, and regardless of what the setback is, it could be somewhat hazardous. I mean, I've got to back out' either way. It's actually a longer way, to back out',i but what tie's say ing is to ',enter it through the side. MR. CARVIN-Can you maybe bring it up here? Because you've got an excellent v'iew, but we don't. MR. CHRYS-Okay. Currently, the doors would be in the front. I didn't even þut' any doors in there, but currently the doors were planned to be put in the front of the facility. So you'd come right in off the road, and what they're saying is ~e'd prefer me to enter to the right of the garage, and enter to the side. So I'd be coming in like this, andiit just makes a real'longer drive. MR. THOMAS-If you spin it around, like Fred said, it wou'ld be the same thing. MR. FORD-You tnay be able to have room enough there for aback out turn around, 'so you actually can drive out onto the road. MR. MENTER-It's pretty tight. MR. WEINMAN-The only other concern I was having, as far as the facade, you ·say you were going to match the log cabin. MR. CHRYS-Right. MR. WEINMAN-As far 'as, there wete qui te a few trees that were there before. Are you going to have anytandscaping type, that you were going to do there? MR. CHRYS-I could give you, I mean, I plan to landscape the whole properti. If you liVe in the neighbÞ~hood. MR. WEINMAN-I've been there all my 14fe. MR. CHRYS"-It's kind 'of been abandoned, and my whole idea here is (lost WOI'ds) 'since '62. I used to li'Ve at the Top of the World. I just moved down, got' a place by the water. So I have a whol e landscaping plan for that entire property. MR. WEINMAN-I would just like to see some more greenery come back up. I mean, if you're familiar with the area, John McCall was there, and he clear cut everything, and it just disturbed the whole neighborhood. ' MR. C~RYS-I dbh't have any ~ro6lem with putting as many, you know, even t~ a point of hiding it. - 20 - ~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. WEINMAN-Because I know a couple of the neighbors behind were concerned that, well, they're going to look out their windows now and see a garage. I mean, if there's some trees and stuff put in. MR. ,CHRYS-I would have no problem with that. MR. WEINMAN-I'm really not opposed to this building, as long as it looks decent. MR. CHRYS-If you want to make it contingent upon a landscaping plan, too, as well, that's okay with me. MR. WEINMAN-That's my only concerns. MR. CHRYS-Thanks for your conunents. MR. CARVIN-Any,one els,e wishing to be heard in opposi tion? Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. A letter dated April 15, 1996, addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding Michael C. Chrys, Area Variance Nos. 21-1996 and 22-1996. "Gentlemen: My wife, Rosemary L. Davidson and I own property located to the south of the subject property (Tax Map No. 61-1-10). We have read the letter from Edward G. and Norma B. Baertschi, dated April 12, 1996 (copy attached) and concur in every detail contained in said letter. We have the following comments: AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1996: a. Size: 1. The lot shown on the tax map as 45.76 x 104 X 23 x 115. The lot is obviously too small to build a house. A dwelling house is a permitted use and a garage is a permitted accessory. It follows that a garage must be on the same lot as a house. In this case ther e is no hous e on the lot and therefor ether e can not be a garage. 2. The lot is too small to build a garage. Such a building can not be conveniently located on the lot. The setback restrictions are for a particular purpose and were set in place after much thought. To very the setback restrictions to build a garage would be an abuse of discretion on the part of this Board. b. Location: 1. The lot is located on a very narrow roadway, to wit: Assembly Point Road. There is a restricted speed limit on said roadway, which unfortunately has not been enforced although several complaints have been made to the law enforcement agencies. Residents of the area, including children and elderly people, like to walk up and down the roadway. 2. The lot is located on a curve, which has limited visibility, and presents a serious traffic hazard to other vehicles and persons walking on the roadway. Most of the traffic going north speeds by our property (in excess of the posted speed) and applies the brakes upon entering the curve.' Any vehicle backing out of a garage located on the subject property would be at risk. c. Ecology: 1. It appears that several trees have been removed from the subject property. I wonder how many more will be removed. Does this comply with the purpose of the Zoning Regulations '~oprotect the delicate ecological balance of Lake George'? James A. Davidson" There's another part on here, but that pertains to Area Variance No. 22-1996. A letter dated April 12, 1996 "To Whom It May Concern: In regard to the notices of publ ic hea,r ing concernin.gthe, construction of a two car garage and the relocation of a dock owned by Michael C. Chrys, we strongly request that this letter to be read publicly at the hearings. We would have certainly been at these hearings, however, we will be out of town at our son's wedding and therefore unable to attend. We ask that the following personal and environmental impacts of the requested construction be considered. In years past, this was a rural area and is now congested ,with buildings. More and more trees are being removed and blank areas made. Our view of the woods has been taken away by the removal of trees and now we are asked to look out ata garage which would cut off visibility from all 0 f our nor thern windows. Even though there is a, 20 mi 1 e per hour speed I imi t, th i s ar ea has a hi gh number of young ch i Idr en - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) crossing the road and a garage so near the road would 1 imi t visibility for drivers aAd endanger lives. Several y·ears ago a variance was denied Robert Wall in this approximate area because of safety con~erns and the criticalenvirdnmental consequences. Due, to drainage from an adjacent swamp at Brayton Lane which f lows into Lake Georg'e, this area has been a buffie!r which absorbs much of the runoff before it gets into the lake. It is also a habitat for various wildlife. In addition, it is our understanding that a garage is not allo'wed on property unless a home is on the same lot. Most Sincerely, Edward G. Bae:rtschi Norma B. Baertschi" A letter dated April 13, 1996, "To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in regard to the public hearing scheduled for April 17, 1996, concerning the construction of a two car garage and relocation and replacement of a dock owned by Michael C. Chrys. I am unable to attend the hearing, but would 'like this letter publicly read in my absence. As a longtime resiident of the area in which this construction is being reque;sted, I am strongly opposed to the establishment of a two car garage on the piece of property outlined in the notice. I am concerned about the environmental impact and safety issues such construction would create. A building so close to the road woul d obs trU'ot the view bf dr i ver sand ther eby endanger lives. The continued clearing of land ahd increasing construction of buildings close to the lake jeopardizes wildlife and the lake itself. I have lived in this area for a long time and I am increasingly concerned about the high rate of construction and traffic on what was once a quiet and safe road. The rural character of this area is rapidly being compromised, much to the despair of those who have lived here and cherished its natural beauty. Sincerely Yours, Eunice Wilkes" A letter dated April 16, 1996 "Dear Members of the Zoning Board: This is in reference to Area Variance No. 21-1996: the request of Michael C. Chrys for relief of setback in order to build a garage on Assembly Point Road. I ask that you'deny this request and I will state my main objection: The environmental worth of this sensitive area has already been severely damaged by the removal of a number of mature as well as young trees making a significant difference in the amount of runoff that can now make its way' to the waters 0:£ the lake. In addition, Mr·. Chrys, has withôut concern, filled a wetlands area. Although small this area was, and what is left of it, continues to be a critical area as a buffer zone protetting the lake from runoff. This area was made even more critical when the land just to the northwest became completely defoliated wi th the cleve 1 opment of the McCall proper ty. I urge you to deny thi s request for setback relief in order to continue to protect our lake. Damage has already been done; however, granting relief will allow a garage that will impact the environment even more with a foundation and a roof where no absorption can occur, thereby oreating excessive stress on the remaining areas of natural growth. If the Town of Queensbury could in addition request the area already filled be denied blacktopping it would add a small step toward preserving our lake. Sincerely yours, Florence E. Connor" A record of telephone conversation on 4/16/96, Time:' 2:07 p.m., between Cheryl Lamparella and Maria Gagliardi, Planning Dept., Sub j ec t : Chrys Var i ance "She has been wal ki ng in the area and there area lot of people that walk in the area. There is also a sharp curve near' that area! Right now, peo.ple are able to see cars coming fast around that curve, but a structure there might block the visibility around that curve and create a dangerous situation!" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there any other public comment, either for or against, any public ~omrent at all? MR. CHRYS-I just want to comment on some of the opposition. Obviously, the size of the lot, first of all, that's shown on the tax måp~ is smaller than what actually is being surveyed, whirih is shown· on my map. There is a hazard wi th th,e cars, that's one thing that's a concern to me and anybody who lives in the area, and the - 22 - ,-. ,......,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) one neighbor who was here tonight. There was a boat trailer parked out on the road, partially on the road, partially on that land, the entire summer last summer. It was not mine. My cars and other cars in the area are often parked along the road which is, in my opinion, more of a hazard than would be an off site situation. I certainly agree with the ecological concerns. Certainly, as I said, I would submit what would be an acceptable landscaping plan, but that curve there is not a severe as some people are nlaking it sound. I think if people do ',the right thing and conform to the laws, in terms of speed, that structure~ there's a house next to it, is not going to protrude out any farther than the house next door, and with the parking and congestion in the summer. It's not the structures that are of concern, really, it's the boat trailers, the Cars that are parked up and down that area. There's not enough off site, off road. As far as the blacktopping is concerned that somebody mentioned, I have no intentions of blacktopping it, that's something else you could put in as ,a ~ontingency. I don't agree with blacktopping, as far as ~he environment's concerned. It would not be heal thy. Any runoff that does exist there now is, as I said, man made. It's pretty obvious. The shrubbery and things like that] that would be put back, to make that environment look as nice as possible, would certainly be, you know, I would be for that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other comments? Any other public comments? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-No questions. MR. FORD-Before going further, I'd just like to get some sort of a determination on the actual dimensions that we're going to be referencing. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, Chris, did you have any thought? you had indicated maybe a smaller garage? I know MR. THOMAS-Yes. If he spins the garage around so that the 30 foot length is along the road and along the back property line, and maybe pushed it toward, if we gave him a var iance to push it toward the back property line, a little farther away fro,m the road, I think we could get it farther back off the road, without increasing the size of it. MR. CARVIN-I think if you turn it and give him a five foot, I don't know if that's what you're thinking. I mean, that would put it back another seven feet. So that would be almost 20 feet, 21 feet off the front. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and still maintain the same size. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-But I like the idea of spinning it around 90 degrees, so it's not driving or backing out onto Assembly Point Road. MR. CHRYS-I think that was a good suggestion. I would agree. I'd like to have a turn around (lost words). MR. THOMAS-But as far as the land to the rear, I mean, that's mostly swamp land back in there, and I don't see any building going on in there. MR. CARVIN-Well, somebody had referenced, now you said that you, they'd referenced that there had been some filling going on in. You're saying that there has been no filling. - 23 - -./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CHRYS-Let me try and clarify that a little bit, and I do have pictures of what' that site looked like. It was more shrubbery there than anything else. There are still, if you look closely, a few dead trees, one, it's my understanding that, and I checked this out before I even had the shrubbery removed, but' I mean, the shrubbery was a direct result of dumping. It really came from the ne ighborhood dump: site over thér e t wni ch peop 1 e who hàve 1 i ved there would certainly agree with. I'll be interested to see where they put it now, (lost word) starting to clean it up. What was removed there was not anything that was so significant, and was more than 75 feet off the lake, was not any thing, that, A" wouldn't have had to be remov~d for this, and it was unsightly. I mean, it was truly an unsightly situation, and that's why when people would park along there, myself included, they had to be parked partially on the road. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, the trees are one issue, but somebody had referen¿ed that there had been some filling into the wetland? I think that there is a drainage field that was referenced. MR. CHRYS"'None of the dràinage was disrupted. The drainage, if you go out there and look, is 'e'xactly as 1:t always was, and it comes out of one culvert and swings around and goes under another culvert. There was some·dirt put in theret but not to any great degree. If you look at the lot next door, it's the same kind of paper, if you will. I'm hot going to deny that there wasn't some. MR. MENTER-How many yards would you say? MR. CHRYS-If I had to guess, again, I might be way off base here in guessing, but I'd say a couple of hundred yards. MR. MENTER-But "you: didn't call somebody and say, bring me 50 yards of fill? MR. CHRYS-No. In fact, what I wanted to do' is, depending on what happens here, is I want to get a lawn in there, so it can be maintained. I'd want it to be part of ~he other parcel. MR. MENTER-Does.that culvert inlet, the drainage area, prettyrnuch correspond with the boundaries of this piece of property? It seems to go out and then, on the side anyway. MR. CHRYS-Yes. It goes right around and on the site, and if you walked up, and it sounds like you did, and I actually got my boots on and walked around there and found the cuI vert, because I couldn't figU're out where the water was coming from, and in my opinion, I don't know if I really like the drainage coming on there like that, but it's existing, but it comes from houses up the block that feed into a culvert, and I don't know if they're coming out of their cellars, off their roofs, oI"what, but of course there, I mean, there's a culvert that goes alongside the road and it eventually, I'm sure, ends up in thE# lake, but that ·hasn' t been altered. That flow still is exactly how it has be'en,good or bad, that's the way it is. MR. FORD-Could we follow that up with a question of the lifelong resident there, who's also a builder? Can you address' that culvert issue? MR. WEINMAN-It's been there as long as I can remember. DOUG BAERTSCHI MR. BAERTSCHI-My name is Doug Baertschi. I've also lived around the lake in the summer time. That whole area there has always been swamp land. That's not water cOining off of it. That's not rain water coming off the highway. It's always been swamp land. Where - 24 - ""-, -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) the cui vert is, that ,was f.illed many, many years ago. On the south side of where that was filled, it's also complete swamp land. It's always been that way. MR. MENTER-Has there been a change? MR. WEINMAN-It's always been there. I was born,there. It's always been there. MR. BAERTSCHI-It's an old culvert, if you look at it. obvious that it's been existing since. It's very MR. WEINMAN-At least since Doug's parents house was built, I mean, that's 30 years. MR. MENTER-But what I'm getting at, Doug, is, has this specific piece of proper ty, has th i s changed as be i ng any val ue that it might have had, in terms of drainage or anything? Is it raised up and unusable now? MR. BAERTSCHI-No, I don't think so. Part of that swamp land has been filled in, but it hasn't, I don't think, altered anything as far as the flow of the water. My only concern, before, was with, there are a lot of kids. I have two small kids. He does. They're constantly running back and forth from my parents' house to his house, and my only concern is the bend right there, like everybody else has stated in the letters, people don't abide by the speed limi t . MR. WEINMAN-That's the real problem. MR. BAERTSCHI-If they would abide by the speed limits, I don't think there'd be any, I mean, a lot of people have to back out of the i r dr i veways all along that road, and it's dangerous, jus t becaus e of the speed. I th i nk if they pu t up 010 r e speed limi t signs, they'd (lost words). MR. WEINMAN-I agree with that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. KARPELES-No, I don't have any. MR. MENTER-No. MRS. LAPHAM-I just want to comment that I wouldn't have a problem with thi~ particularly if we followed through with the landscaping plan and the applicant agreed to merge the two lots. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-11m not in favor of the two tax maps, because while this is smaller than a building lot, and it probably, staff will correct me, all, kinds of things need to be done before anyone could do anything with this. I've seen horror stories go on at the lake where, because you have two tax map numbers and you have two deeds, you have a precedent for two lots, and before you know it a house of some sort's going up there, with a septic system. So, I wouldn't want to see that. MR. KARPELES-I wonder if you made that one isn't part of the lot, actually, so that permeability. lot, well, the road doesn't affect the MR. CHRYS-It used to be, and then when they built the road from the front, or from the lakeside. MR. KARPELES-But if you took that and looked at it all as one lot, I wonder what the permeability would be there. - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96)' MR. CHRYS-The permeability, çurrently, on this, lot is 78%. MR. CARVIN~Wellt if we took a look at the whole one, I mean, it's going to be well within the ~ealm. MR. CHRYS-Yes. I think it's way ahead. MR. HILTON-I think it's above the requirement. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave, did you have any thoughts? MR. MENTER-No. Well, yes. I don't have a problem with it, really contingent upon the side entrance. I'm not so sure about moving the building. lean see rotating it 90 degrees and perhaps putting it toward the back boundary line. I'm not sure about moving it south, though. I don't think that's going to have a lot of benefit, because you're going to be coming closer to the road the further you move south, and you're also going to be limiting his space to be able to turn around and to. pullout. That was my only concern there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I tend to agree with some of the letters that were written. 1 think that we're putting an awful lot in a small lot, and I think it's indicated by the amount of setback relief that is required. I think it's excessive. MR. CARVIN-Do you think this could be mitigated by combining the lots, in other words, if this was a single lot? MR. KARPELES-Idon't see how it's going to help it any, as far as the setbaçk ~elief is concerned. MR. CARVIN....Well, no, he would 'still need the setback relief. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. CARV IN-But, I mean, he wou I'd be ent i tIed to a garage . I mean, it wouldn't be just a freestanding garage. MR. KARPELES-I don't think that would change my opinion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're basically against it? MR. KARPELES-I'm against it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. çonditions? I'm assuming that, Dave, you're for it, with MR. MENTER-Well, with conditions, and under the understanding that we'd be combining the lots. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and, Bonnie, I'm as'suming you're for it, with condi tions? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, the same ones that Dave just mentioned, plus the landscaping. MR. CARVIN-Okay. 1 want to get a straw poll here to find out if we're going to have a problem with the County or not. Tom? MR. FORD-Basically, I'm for it, with certain contingencies, and that would be the combining of the lot, the turning of the garage, and I would feel much more comfortable with a smaller structure. I don't think we need a structure, in regard to whether we turn it one way or another way. - 26 - '-- -./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CARVIN-Well, give me a figure. MR. FORD-I'm not good at getting proportions of buildings, but I don't know what you need for a good two car garage, but I don't think you need that space. MRS. LAPHAM-The average two car garage is usually 24 by 24 or even 22 by 24. So this is 20 by 30. MR. CARVIN-Chris, are you fori it with conditions? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I'm for it wi th the condi tions. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bonnie's indicated, what, 24 by 24? MRS. LAPHAM-Is the average two car garage, with enough room to put two cars and a lawn-mower and bicycles. MR. CARVIN-Does that comply with .Y.Q.Y.L feeling, 24 by,24? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CHRYS-If we're going to turn it sideways, I would comply with the width narrowing of 26 or 24 at most. MR. CARVIN-Well, somebody give me a figure here. MR. CHRYS-I mean, that nl0ves us farther away from the road to some degree. MR. KARPELES-I don't think any of us know what this is going to look like when we get through here, what the relief is going to be or what the dimensions of the building a~e going to be. MR. CARVIN-Well, we've got a 28 by 30, at this point. MR. KARPELES-Well, I've heard 22 or 24. MR. CHRYS-Twenty-two would be way too $rn.all, but I' II propose a figure of 25, make that significant change, in the width, contingent upon turn i ng it 90 degr ees so that the longer par tis along parallel. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So the 30 would be along the rear property line? MR. CHRYS-Yes. In other words, the length would be, the longer part, the narrow part, if we're turning it 90 degrees, we're going to have the long side. MR. CARVIN-Well, you're looking at a 25 by 30. MR. CHRYS-Right. The 30 would be along the back property line, and the 25 would be perpendicular to it~ which would give it another three foot away from the road, and reduce the square footage significantly. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we would have 21, and we'd still be 10 feet off that back property line, because we're dropping it from 30 down to 25. MR. FORD-What would 24 by 26 do for you? MR. CHRYS-The 30 length is somewhat difficult for me to change. MR. CARVIN-That's a lot of depth. MR. MENTER-That is substantial depth for a two car garage. - 27 - (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CARVIN-It's pretty deep. MR. CHRYS-Candidly speaking, as I said, I was going to use it for some storage, water craft. I think that's a pretty significant reduction, if I make it 25 by. MR. FORD-But if you look at it the Qtherway, it's a pretty substantial increase over the typical two car garage. MR. KARPELES-That's 130 square feet, 25 by 30. MR. CHRYS-Right. said? I guess you're allowed 900, is that what you MR. THOMAS-Nine hundred. The Town Ordinance says he can have a garage up to 900 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Well, if we give him a 25 by 30, that's 750, and that's a drop down from 840. So that's 90 square feet . MR. THOMAS-Yes, 90 square feet off, that's almost 10%. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. CHRYS-I would agree to that. MR. CARVIN-Are y'oucomfortable wi th 25 by 30? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I'm comfortable with 25 by 30. MR. CARVIN-Tom? MR. FORD-No. MR. CARVIN-Now remember, we ve got to get fi~e votes, or four votes to turn it down. MR. CHRYS-What would you be comfortable with? I suppose I could reduce it t~ 28 by 25. MR. FORD-A 24 by 26 would be too small for you? MR. CHRYS-"I think it would be a little,small. A 24 by 26 would be, I think by the time you got your vehicles in there, I wouldn't have much room for anything else, other tHah a lawn-mower. I drive a truck, as a lot of people do up there. I spend a lot of time up there in the Winter. I think it would b~ a little tight with my truck if I bad to reduce it to that. MR. CARVIN-Well, a 28 by 25 is 700 square feet. So that's a drop of 140. MR. FORD-What's your reaction to 25 by 28? MR. CHRYS-I'll reduce to 25 by 28. I can live with that. MR. CARVIN-Twenty-five by twenty-eight? MR. THOMAS-I was good at 25 by 30. MR. CARVIN-Dave, 25 by 28? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. ,CARVIN-Bob? MR. KARPELES-No. - 28 - v -..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bonnie, 25 by 28? MRS. LAPHAM-I don't have a problem with that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. I'm for it with conditions, and here would be!!lY conditions. Number One, that the lots be combined. Number Two, that the garage is no higher than 16 feet, at the highest point. Number Three, that there's no hard surface, blacktopping, cement, and I'll use the term "hardsurfacing". Because you've indicated that you have no problem with just crushed gravel. MR. CHRYS-Totally understood. Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'd also refer this to the Beautification Committee for more input, as far as landscaping is concerned. I guess I'd leave the setbacks at 10 feet, because we're picking up five if he reduces, now. So I> think that's 21 feet. I think that's a fairly reasonable distance, and I'd also have no windows. Because, I'll tell you, I'd be concerned about glare coming around that corner, because of the unusual curvature there. I think, ,irom a safety perspective, that if you have no windows, that would prevent any reflection or any glare. MR. FORD-Windows on the back side? MR. CARVIN-Well, it's easier to say, no windows. MR. FORD-It's nice to have a little natural light coming in there some place. MR. CAR V IN-Well, we could put windows on the back side, if you want. I didn't say I was inmlOvable. I think, on what would be the south side or the west side or the north side, the only side would be the east, in other words, along that back property, I suppose, would be okay, but on three out of the four, I think we want to be very careful about that. What do you think about that, George? MR. HILTON-I have no problem with that. I guess I just would like some clarification on the setbacks that we are granting. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I was going to say, I want to be real careful on these setbacks. When you measure, or whoever goes out and measures it, I want to be very specific that I don't really want to crowd the turnbulls there, and I don't certainly want to get into any kind of Critical Environmental Area, and I would assume that we'd want to be careful of the soil out there. I mean, if there's been fill, I'm assuming that we'll be able to build something there that doesn't sink and settle. Will that be addressed by the building? This doesn't go to site plan or anything. MR. HILTON-This doesn't go to site plan, just building permit. MR. CARVIN-Does staff measure those? MR. HILTON-The setbacks? Well, when Mr. Chrys, if he comes in for a building permit, we'll look at the plot plan and make sure that it complies with the variance and any of the zoning codes. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but do we do an on-site inspection before CO? MR. HILTON-I'm not sure if John goes out and looks at these or if Dave does, but I think we do an on-site inspection. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there a CO that has to be issued for something like that? MR. HILTON-I'm not sure. I don't think in a situation like this - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) that there would be'. MR.CHRYS-Normally, with the Building Department, they just look at the p'lans', because they have a foundation locat ion i nspec t ion, when they1fe ihspecting the foundation. At that point, they determine if you're ,on t'he Ii ne or of f the ì in'e, and if fOT' some reason you're not, you have to move it, and as far as Certificate of Occupancy!, because it's not an occupied dwelling, with the garage, I've never seen or heard of such a' thing to the best of my know I edge ~ i MR. CARVIN-So we didn't really center it onto the lot, right? We really can't center it beéause that would put it closer. So I guess that's probably the best spot for it. MR. MENTER-You want to give him as much space as possible, too, because it does get very t1ght on th~t lòtto turn around, and it would be a safety advantage if you were able to at least do a turn. 'MR. CARVIN"-Yes. proposed here. All right. Then we can go with the setbacks as Okay. Then I'd ask:fora motion. MR. FORD-Just one question, for anybody who knows. I've already admi tted I don "t know about proportions of bui ldings. Does a 25 by 28 structure,'does that give you appropriate rise for roofs and pitches and sof'orth? Is that within the realm of, it's going to look gQod and do what it's supposed to do? Okay. Thanks. : ' MR. HILTON-I would just like to have the Board clarify. The plan here shows 16 feet of front setback. Now if you're going to be 28 by 25, you're granting 21 feet would be the new setback? MR. CARVIN"-Right. MR. HiLTON-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Now, 16 feet, that's the standard for a single story garage. Is that correct? MR. HILTON,... I don"t know. MR. CHRYS-That's my'uAderstanding. the truss, yes. You're talking to the tip of MR. HILtON....l;haven't'run into this yet. MR. CHRYS-Usually that, 'or less. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR.. HILTöN":The maximum height requirement for the district is 35 ; fee::e:1 ' ¡" ( I' : MR::',CARVIN-B'Ut ttfat' s' not for a garage. I .:;}t " MR. ''HILTON.lRight, but' t'm just saying', for a!'y strudture~' you're fooking a1 a!mogt ha1 f of' that. . MR. CARVIN-Okay. Has anybody got a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1996 MICHAEL c. CHRYS, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adopti6~,'~econded by Thomas Ford: Who's proposing ~o oorii~r~ct a two car garage on a vacant piece of proper ty recent l'y purcnh's:~d by htni. The garage would need reI i ef from front, side and flear 'setbacks required in Section 179-16C. Relief required would be nine foot relief front setback, ten foot - 30 - '- -.../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) each for side and rear setback on the side being the north and east boundaries of the property. This project would allow the applicant to construct a garage which. is not located on his property currently. This. property, was purcnased separately;; ;from, the adjacent dwelling, and a requirement of this variance ,would be that the two properties be combined, as one, thereby eliminating the need for a Use Variance because of an accessory structure being ~he only structure on, this property. This appears to be the best alternative to his problem of no garage, and having adjusted the size of his proposed building, the relief would not appear substantial relative to the Ordinance and the area. The applicant agrees to construct a 25 by 28 foot building no higher than 16 feet in height. The 28£<;>,ot length would be along the east boundary running north and south with the entrance to the garage being on the south, allowing them a turnaround, as opposed to being on the west, which would require that the cars back directly out ont9 the road. This structure would not apPear to have any negative effects on the neighborhood or community, and while the need for a, garage itself may in a sense be self-created, the solution of purchasing and combining properties to relieve this seems a prudent one. This variance is also contingent upon the applicant inst,alUng no hardsurfacing, i.e. pavement or concrete, as a driveway. Also a contingency is that no windows be installed on the road side of this new structure, that windows only be allowe~ on the eas~ side, to eliminate the possibility of glare. In addition, we would recorrullend that this project go before the Beautificati.on Cprrrnittee for review, and that any reconmendations by the Beautification Committee be followed by the applicant. At no time would this structure be used as a residence. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-I just want to make sure that I understand the motion, and that Staff understands what we're granting. We're granting that, the first item is that the lots have to be combined,; the structure's no higher than 16 feet, that there's no hardsurfacing. It cannot be used as a residence, the area is no largep than 700 square feet, which is a 25 by 28, windows are only allowed on the east side, and we will, hopefully, strictly enforce the 10 feet side yard, rear lot setbacks, and that we're granting nine fe,Ett of relief from the front. So he should be no closer than 21 feet to the road, at the closest point, and sending it to' the Beautification Committee for their input as far as landscaping. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Green AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1996 WR-IA CEA TYPi! MICHAEL C. ŒRYS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LEFT S IDE OF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPR<>X,. 0.4 MILES NORTH OF INTERSECTION WITH NYS ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE AND REPLACE A DOCK WHICH I S PA~TIALLY ON ADJACENT NEIGHBORS PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SHORELINE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 179-60(B)(5)(b)(5). CROSS REF. ~PR .3-96 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN ÇOUNTY PLANNING, 4/10/96, TAX MAP NO. 6-1-2 LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES SECTION 179-60(B)(b) MICHAEL CHRYS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-1996, Michael C. Chrys, Meeting Date: April 17, 1996 "PROJECT LOCATION: Assembly Point Road PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WlTB THE ORDINANCE: Applicant is proposing to relocate an existing dock onto his property. The dock currently is about 11 feet over, his property - 31 - (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) line. The applicant is proposing to bring the dock to his property line. This action would require relief from the shoreline regulatiöns in Section 179-60(B) (5) (b) (5) which requires that docks be setbac'k 20 feet from adjacent property lines. CRITERIA POR CONS'IDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: This would allow the applicant to relocate an existing dock: onto his property. 2. PEASIBLE ALTERNATrVES: There do not appear to be any alternative which could 'provide a ìesser amount of reli'ef. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The current setback required is 20 feet, the applicant is proposing a: setback of 0 feet. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? It appears that the 'pÍ"oposed dock would not have any negative impact on the neighborhood. Additional conment'may be provided at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIPFICULTY SELF-CREATED? No. The current , 10 cat ion 0 f the doc k i s 1 1 fee t 0 v e r the pro per t y 1 i n e . T his acti<)'n' would move the dock onto his property. PARCEL HISTORY: This property was purchased by Mr. Chrys in June of 1995. STAPF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The eX'isting'dock is currently 11 feet over the property line. This action would be an improvement to this existing condi tion. SEQR: Type II, no further aëtÍon required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of April 1996, the above application for an Area Var iance to rèlo~ate' and replace a dock which is partially on adjacent neighbor's property. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Reconmendation to: No County Impact Conments: If this was a new construction, the WCPB wôuld look at this differently, but there will be no change to the structure with its relocation." Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Yes. Where is this going to be relocated to? MR. CHRYS-I've got, I thought they showed the new location. What exists now, I'm encroaching on the neighbor's property approximately 11 feet. The property was purchased by me. She, at one point, ownèd it, or it was in their family and there was a divorce there and that's how this all came about, where the husband owned one piece, the piece I purchased, and she owned the other. The dock is part of my purchase, is 100 þercent mine, but it's over on her yard slightly, 11 feet, but as part of the purchase agreement, the usage and the ownership is mine. What I wanted to do is to ~ake it lessccumbersóme in the future. I have a difficult time getting banks approval because of that, and there are other things that have come along. People come along (lost words) hazards along the encroachment, is I wanted to take the structure, again, it has the same facade as the house, and I had (lost word) house movers come in and see what they could do to move the whole structure over, and keep the whole structure intact, but it would involve moving the crib 11 feet. So what I'd be doing, to answer Mr. Karpeles' question, is, do you have this sheet does everybody have that sheet? This is just what the dock looks like if you cut the top off it. I've got a transparency here, and all I'm doing is, if you see, this is where the property line is. I want to take the exact eXisting structure, as it is, and it's like this, and slide it over to the property line. So it's right on the property line. Not that it matters, but here's the iron pipe, which is the 11 foot encToachment, and I've got a moving company that can lift, you know, they move houses up there. They'll, lift the whole structure as it is and slide it over, but it's going to require me to move the crib to do It. MR. CARVIN-Is there any way that you could move that so that it would be incompliance, in other words, continue to move it over? MR.CHRYS-If I continued it, it would be, if you look at the size - 32 - .. ',- -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) of the, I mean, the real CQncern 1 have, I could leave it th~ way it is, and I'm really, I guess because I wanted to rebuildwh,at's there, which is somewhat a little bit deteriorated, but not bad. If I move it over to where it's 20 feet, it's going to be right in the middle of my property and block all my views. I mean righ;t now it actually obscures some of her view, and when I move it, 1:t will obscure some of my view if I go to the zer,o lot line. If I gp to a 20 foot, if you look at the size of that structure, it's about 40 feet, which would be nonconforming today. If I moved it all the way to where it was a 20 foot¡setback on either side~l -it wºutd be r igh tin the middl e of the proper ty, and I'd have a: totall y obstructed view, becauße this is actually a little boathouse here. I.t's an enclosure. So if I mO.ved it here, I coulqn't even see through it. It would just be blocking. MRS. LAPHAM-Wouldn't it be nonconforn1ing anyway, because it would need, it's only 87 feet of shoreline. Don't you need more shoreline for a dock? MR. CHRYS-It is nonconforming now, as it exists. MRS. LAPHAM- I mean, no matter what you do, it's go i ng to be nonconforming. MR. CHRYS-Right. All I'm trying to do is correct a boundary line problem, and I could do it pretty easy, in the fact ¡that it's, if I wanted to repair some of the dock, I could do it all at one time. MR. MENTER-So tQis wouldn't be here. This is nothing. This just happens to be the way it is. MR. CHRYS-Yes. That's where it was. MR. CARVIN-So there's going to be absolutely no addition, no alteration. MR. CHRYS-There' s absolutely no change to the structure whatso,ever. It's identic.al. MRS. LAPHAM-An entire crib wilL be moved, so there wòn"t be any obstructions in the water? MR. CHRYS-No. If I didn't move the crib, I wouldn't ,be able to pull the boat in. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, if you move it far enough, and build a new crib. MR. CHRYS-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-And then leave the old one there, and that's. MR. CHRYS-The amount of the movement, be an obstruction in the water. couldn't do that. It would MRS. LAPHAM-Right. MR. CHRYS-It would be unusable, I'd render myself unusable, is what would happen. MR. KARPELES-How many cribs are there? There are two, o~e on each of these docks? MR. CHRYS-Ther e' s three cribs, as i tex is ts, one here, two, and three. MR. KARPELES-And you're going to move all three of them? MR. CHRYS-I'd have to move all three. Actually, when I .move this - 33 - '-- (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) over the 11 feet, this crib is actually part of the new crib, and this crib is part of the new one. So these are 12 foot in between here. So when I move that 11 feet, I'm going to be one foot, so I'm really moving one crib, is what it amounts to, but the boundary, right now, is encumbered, arid it's been a problem. My n e i g h b 0 r w ill bene fIt mo r e t h a n me . That's j us t the rea 1 I t Y . She's a nice, lady. MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant? understand what he's proposing to do? Does everybody MR. FORD-When I hear no changes, but then I hear some upgrading or modifications or' something of that nature, it just kind 'of raises a red flag .for'me.. Could you elaborate môre on what your plans are in terms of strtlcturalmodi fications, shorIng;' up differences in heights or widths? MR. CHRYS-I'll be glad to. The way it currently exists, I would keep the identical geometrIc dImensions. It currently has an ~nclosure as part of thè~. It's like a half a boathouse o~t there, whi chagal n matches the facade. It's a Imös t a log cabin type facade. I've got a mov i ng 'company that 'actuall y , Ii fts the who 1 e structure and will slide it over, which is the boat cover for the roof on top of the boathouse, and the structure itself. So they'll lift it and slide it over. I'm not building a new structure. I'm not tearing that one down. I'm rebuilding it. I'm not putting any additional windows in. There aren't any windows. I'm not altering the size of the docks. I'm not making them longer or wider. It's virtually, if you took a picture of ït and came back a year after it was moved and took a picture, it would be the same wood, as far as the structure is concerned. The only thing that I would be upgrading; 'at all would be the decking of the cribs, which is what it needs now. They woul d be on the new cr i bs, and then they'd slide right over on top. I'm not adding anything. MR. FORD-Tha~k you. MR. CARVIN-Just a question of Staff. Is this dock, under normal circumstances, conforming, or is there anything unusual? Is this an oversized dock, an undersized dock? Is 11 feet a norm? Do we have any criteria for what a dock should be? MR. HILTON~Well, without researching, I'd have to reseatch it. One question l had, and I'd like to bring up to Mr. Chrys, and I just actually thought of this, this survey of your property, does it extend out into the lake at all? Like, do your property lines actually go out into the lake, or do they end right before the shore? Becaúse I have a"concern, in looking at this, that if you move the dock over to the line somehow if you extended your neighbor's property line into the lake, you'd still have a portion of their line that would be, your 'dock would be over their line still. MR. CHRYS""I don't know the answer to that. What's the law governing, I thought right at the waterline it's still your own land. Is that not true? MR. MENTER-Well, these that continue out are written such that the boundary line would be continued out into the water. MR. CHRYS-So based on what you're question, it would, in the water, it would still be an encroachment. It would be an encroachment on her usable land of shore, but, yes, if I go to that z~ro, it's an improved situation automatically for her, but to answer your question, if that's the way the law is, that it's an imaginary extension of your boundary then I would still be, because it's on kind of an angle, I would still be slightly encroaching. Somewhere out into the water I'would be encroaching on what would b~ your - 34 - '~ -.../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) theoret i cal boundary 1 i ne of the wa ter. MR. HILTON-Right. just wanted to clarify. MR. FORD-Isn't that something, if you're going to all the expense of moving it. MR. MENTER-It may be the same problem down the road as it is today, legally for you. I don't know. MR. FORD-Yes. It might be 11 inches today instead of 11 feet. MR. CHRYS-Yes. I guess I don't know how much it would change. My biggest concern with moving it at all, from mY perspective is the fact that I think it diminishes my views of my property, ~o some degree. It just unencumbers the boundary line. I'm making a bad situation better. I don't want to make it to the point where it's a handicap for me, and it would be if I continue to move that farther. I mean, I could conceivably meet your new setbacks. If I did that, it would be plop in the middle of my property wi th virtually very little on each9.ideand a totally obscured view, because that's a solid boathouse without a window or anything. So, I mean, given that contingency, not moving it at all would be my choice. MR. MENTER-Well, I think the ,point is, it mayor may not make a difference as far as what we do, but the point is if your original goal was to clean up the legal mess of being on somebody else's property, you may, in effect, n<;>t be doing that. I think that's the point. MR. CHRYS-Well, you may be correct in that. I don't know. I could j us t tell you from my ex p e rie nee ( 1 0 s two r d ) t hat par tic u 1 a r property, the water portion of it never came into effect, and I would guess that a great deal of the property is because of the unusual configuration of the shoreline, that a great deal of the properties have that problem. I don't think that problem is as much of a concern as the lanØ problem, but I agree, that could conceivably be, possibly, (lost words). MR. CARVIN-How wide is this portion? MR. CHRYS-The width of each do,ck? They're e i gh t footer s " and the middle ones are four. MR. CARVIN-You'd have to move in, and I'm just doing a rough, in order to make that come out right, you'd have to corne in about eight feet off that iron pipe, and I think you'd be 100 percent on your property. MR. CHRYS-Eight feet off that iron pipe. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm just kind of extending this line, and I'm using parallels, and it comes out pretty c.lose to the width of one of your docks, if that's about eigh t feet. So" if you slide your dock over eight feet, you should be 100 percent, now again, I don't know how much eight feet, it would just move everything over eight feet. MR. CHRYS-You're saying move it an additional eight. a total of, like, 20 feet. It would be MR. CARVIN-No. What I'm saying is that you're going to move it to here, which is 11. MR. CHRYS-That's 11 feet. MR. CARVIN-So you're talking about 19, 20 feet. - 35 - "..- --" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CHRYS-Yes. So' I'd have to move it an additional eight feet, which would be at nineteen to twenty fe'et of total movement, and that would move it right, you know, it' would just obscure my whole view. There's a big porch right here 'you can see, and it would, I m~an, that's the best part of the house. I mean, it can be done, but. MR. CARVIN-If this is to scale, you're going to lose most of it already, I would gue~s~ MR. CHRYS-I'm going to lose 11 feet. I mean, additional eight, as some here are estimating, twice as much. i f I mo v e i t the I'm going to lose MR. CARVINJWell ,you could always lower down the boathouse, I suppose. I don't know. MR~ CHRYS-I'd be hurting myself to try and correct it. ~ MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. CHRYS"'"I think what I'm proposing has 'no negative impact at all. It has a positive effect. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, any other questions, corrments? I'm going to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK WE INMAN MR. WEINMAN-I have two. I just got one in the mail today. I got this one last week. One says to reloca~e and replace a dock, and this one over here just says move. MR. CARVIN-I think you can throw the repla~e away, because we're going to just move it~ We'te not going to replace it. MR. WEINMAN-Okay, because it was rather confusing to me when I got the two diJie:rent 1 et ters here. My bnl y confus ion was the two different letters here, but 1 know the w~ole situation he's going through. ' MR. KARPELES-I think where the confusion comes in is you are actually creating a new crib, right? MR. CHRYS-That's correct. MR. KARPELES-You're just relocating on top of that thing. You're removing one crib completely and creating a new crib. MR. CHRYS"'"That's correct. MR. WEINMAN-But you're not enlarging the dock at all, just moving it and replacing ihe surface? MR. CHRYS-Exactl'y. MR. CHRYS-And do you sèe this as a positive for the neighborhood? MR. WE INMAN - It' s de fin i t e l' y po sit i ve for J e a 11 n e . I t de fin i tel y is. DOUG BAERTSCHI MR. BAERTSCHI-I know that, on behalf of my parents, they don't have a.hy objections, as far as moving an existing dock, as long as it doesn't become any larger. I can sympathize wi th Mr. Cnrys' - 36 - ~ .-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) position because, growing up there, 1 know what has happened with the neighbors and how that split up has created kind of, something that was joined in one family was separated into two or three. The only problem Mr. Chrys might have, I know because my parents ran into the same situation. They had a dock on Assembly Point that was there for 45 years. Somebody bought the other property, got variances, then had it surveyed and the property line went to the low water mark and cut the corner of the dock off, and that's our first project in the spring is moving that over,. MR. FORD-I was there and saw it. MR. BAERTSCHI-That's something, if your property line is out at an angle and cuts off the corner of your dock, two, three, five years from now somebody comes and buys the next door neighbor's property, you might be in the same situation that we are. MR. CHRYS-One thing is, when ,I purchased that property, that was part of my purchase of that dock. So in theory, or in reality, 1 own the land, the boundary jogs over and out, at least contractually. I don't know what they call it. It's not imminent domain, but the fact that it's part of that, and the way that it's written up contractually, that boathouse belongs to that parcel. MRS. LAPHAM~It's probably in your deed. MR. CHRYS-Yes. MR. FORD-Well, if that's the case, then why move it? MR. CHRYS-I don't have to move it. That's why I said, if I had to move it to obscure my view, 1 wouldn't do it. I'll be candid and tell you that I'm moving it more for my neighbor's sake ~han mine. I have no real reason to have to move it. I think it would be less cumbersome in the future for my kids or whoever inherits things, and for her children. 1 mean, she's had a real tug of war. I don't mean to ge,t into a. personal thing, and I don't know her, really, other than when I met her during the (lost word), but it's been a real tug of war as to what's going on, and that's been one of the problems, and I have heard about it on other parts of the lake, and it just would make the boundary questions a lot easier to deal with in the future. I think it's more of a future type thing than a hear and now, but since it's got be repaired, I'm just trying to do it with the neighbor's interest in mind as well as future financial situations. As I said, I can't think of a negative impact here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Letters? MR. THOMAS-Yes. A letter dated April 15, 1996, it's the second part of the letter that was read from the last variance, "Area Variance No. 22-1996 1. The subject of docks is very delicate. In this area there are a large number of them and unfortunately several owners have seen fit to rent space to non-residents.! Not only does create dangerous conditions on the Lake, but ,it also adds to the dangerous situation on the roadway. The number of boats on the Lake has increased dramatically in the past few years. To create a situation which would encourage more increase would not be wise. Based on the above and also based on the lack of showing of HARDSHIP my wife and I request this Board to deny both applications. James A. Davidson" Part of a letter dated April 12th, "As to the variance to re-locate and replace a dock, we would approve the same size dock that currently exists. Due to variances given others to construct new docks in this small cove area, more docks have gone in, some of which are rented to strangers. The new construction has caused danger for children swimming in the area. We have been lifelong residents of this area and feel increas~ngly di scou raged and saddened by the cont i nuous cons t ruc t i on whi ch - 37 - -/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96)' compromises the natural beauty and resources of Lake George. We hope you will take our concerns under serious consideration. Most Sincerely, Ðdward G. Baertschi Norma B. Baertschi" "Concerning the relocation and replacement of a dock, I am not in favor of construction that would increase the size of the present dock. The cove area where the dock is located is becoming more and more congested with large boats and I believe further construction would become a hazard to swinuners, particular ly to small children swimming in the area. I have lived in this area for a long time and I am increasingly concerned about the high rate of construction and traf f icon what was once a qu i et and safe road. The rural character of this area is rapidly being compromised, much to the despair o'fthose who have lived here and cherished its natural beauty. Sincerely yours, Eunice Wilkins" And that letter was dated April 13th. A letter dated April 16, 1996 "This is in reference to Area Variance No. 22-1996: the request of Michael C. Chrys for relief from Shore Line Regulations in order to relocate and replace a dock which is parti;a.lly on adjacent neighbor's property. My concern regarding this request is one of congestion. I would assume the reason for the overlap of the present dock onto h~ighboring prop~tty is because in the past the adjoining property owners shared the use of that dock. I f this is a fact, the adjacent neighbor no longer sharing the present dock, will need to build a new dock of their own. 'If the present Chrys dock is replaced with a structure equal to the existing structure there will be two large boat slips at Mr. Chrys' 'property and an additional significant dock on the adjoining property. Therefore, I would ask that you base your decision in reg~rdst6 the size of the Chrys dock on safety: the safety of swimmers and watercraft in a congested area. Sincerely yours, Florence E. Conno'r" MR. CARVIN-I still don't understand the Connor letter. What's she saying? MR. THOMAS-Shè"s saying if that dock is shared by, the two properties, that if Mr. Chrysmoves his'ovér onto his property that she'll be entitled to build another dock on her property. That property, does she have a dock of her own on that property? MR. CHRYS-No. MR. THOMAS-She doesn't? So she'd be entitled to build a dock on that property. MRS. LAPHAM-Well does she share that dock, now, with you? MR. CHRYS-No. She doesn't have a boat. Her son has brought one up occasionally. MRS. LAPHAM-But basically if she doesn't own any part o,f the dock or isn't allowed to use it now, (lost words) where it is. MR. THOMAS-She's entitled to a dock. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know. Was it joint ownership? I mean, maybe ther e' s a cl ause in her deed that says she has a r i gh t to the same use òf the dock. MR. CHRYS-I mean, I can verify that that's not true. MR. MENTËR-Well, it does raise an interesting point. There is now the potential for adding a dock there. It's something to consider. MR. 'CHRYS-It does raise a: point. I guess that kind of concern comes up for any parc'el up th'ere,' right? MR. FORD-Conceivably', she could utilizè the crib that you were intending to destroy to use for a portion of her dock. - 38 - \---..., -.-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CHRYS-I guess, conceivably, you could do that. MR. THOMAS-If he didn't destroy it, it's there existing. her property. It's on MR. KARPELES-Well, are you intending to destroy that crib? MR. CHRYS-I was planning on removing it. Yes~ MR. CARVIN-Do you currently rent? I notice the letters that were written all have indicated. MR. CHRYS-I've never rented anything, and unfortunately, I still actually own a couple of docks in Harris Bay. I have a place at the Top of the World. MR. CARVIN-Do you know if the previous owner, I mean, I'm wondering where this concern came up. MR. CHRYS-I think that's probably just a concern of the neighborhood, maybe. I don't know anybody who's renting a dock to anybody that doesn't reside at the residence. MR. THOMAS-That's a concern all around the lake. MR. WEINMAN-The Shaffer's do. MR. CHRYS-I'm not aware of anybody who does. MR. WEINMAN-That's the only one 1. know of. I know we don't. MR. CHRYS-Yes. mean, it wouldn't be mY cup of tea. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else from against? Any public comment at all? then I'll close the public hear~ng. the public, either for or Seeing none, hearing none, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right, Ladies and Gentleman, any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-Well, I'd like to get back to what we were talking about, how you extend the property line off shore into the lake. In the Ordinance, it says, well the line runs on-shore where it meets the lake, or at right angles to the mean highwater mark, whichever results in a greater setback. So, if that property line ran into the water and came into a pie shape in front of Mr. Chrys' dock, what the Ordinance says is, where that property line hits the mean highwater mark~ they could swing it to right angles. MR. CARVIN-So what you're saying is that we could conceivably bring it this way? MR. THOMAS-Yes. This property line here could come this way, instead of going this way. It seems to me the Ordinance says if you go that way, whichever results in a greater setback. If it came this way, it would result in a greater setback. It's just a point, more or less. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but if we fe dealing with a zero setback, which line do we use? MR. THOMAS-We'd have to use the right angle one, becaus~it would parallel the dock, okay, rather than having the existing property line extend through the dock. Where it was zero at the shoreline, 40 feet out could be two or three feet over. - 39 - '~ --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. MENTER-It would necessarily be parallel to the edge of the dock. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MENTER-Because it's perpendicular to the shore. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I don't think that was the case in the Baertschi's there, the one that this was' identical to theirs, because they had. I twas i dent i cal. 'The i r dock had sat ther e for 40 years. 0 MR. THOMAS'-I don't remember that variance. MR. CARVIN-That wasn't more than a year, last year at some point. MR. FORD-Yes, less than that even. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. FORD-Last fall. MR. CARVIN"':And it's probably not a quarter of a mile up the road, if that. MR. BAERTSCHI-That piece of property came down to the water like this, in a pie shape, and then his neighbor's property line just continues out. MR. THOMAS-The Ordinance says, at a right angle to the mean highwater mark. I'll read the entire Section. It says, "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 I ine runs onshore where it meets the lake or at a right angle to the mean high-water mark, whichever results in the greater setback." So, to me, if that was coming in pie shaped, one of those lines hit the water, it would bring them out perpendicular to the shoreline, and shoot them out that way. MR. KARPELES-Well, that wouldn't resul t in a greater setback. They're saying whichever results. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it would because if it's going in the docksi1s, you know, three feet over from the and that same axis coming down through is going through as you go out into the lake, but if you swung angles to the shoreline, then it would just parallel that would result in a greater setback. like this, and property line, to cut right that at right the dock, and MR. KARPELES-It would result in necessitating a lesser setback. ,;) MR. CHRYS-A lesser setback. MR. CARVIN-Because what would happen is that you would have to come over, and then they would take it f rorn here . In other words , the docks there would be here, but here's your setback, but the dock still has to fall on a zero. MR. THOMAS-You must be reading that wrong. To me, that's what it says. MR. FORD-We'd have to research, someone's got to research where that highwater mark is. MR. THOMAS - 1 79- 60 B ( 5 ) ( b )( 5 ) . bottom. It's on Page 18023, down at the - 40 - "--' --../' (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. MENTER-I read it the same way you read it. MR. FORD-So we're looking for the greater of the two. MR. MENTER-The more forgiving measurement is the one you use. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So if you swung that property line at right angles, that would be more forgiving. MR. MENTER-In other words, in this case you would not follow the axis of the original prope~ty line. You would turn it to a right angle to the shor,e which would send it, in this case, out like this. Instead of following this line, you would go to a right angle with the shore, which would take it like that, which would then parallel with the edge of the boathouse, theoretically. MR. HILTON-If I understand this correctly, what we're doing, if we take the line down to the lake and then make it perpendicular to the shore, what you're doing is you still have a zero setback at the shor e , r i gh t where the dock woul d meet the, and then the extension, your setbacks would actually increase as you went out into the water. So we'd still be granting the zero setback, because at that one point, it's zero. MR. THOMAS-The extension of that line out into the water would not cross the dock. MR. HILTON-Right. Exactly. MR. FORD-The further out the dock you went, the further it would separate from the property line. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. THOMAS-See, if you have a piece that's wider on the lake, that goes away like this, well that's going to be a greater, as you go farther out on the lake, it's greater. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MENTER-So the question is, what happened with the other dock, but it seems pretty clear. MR. THOMAS-I don't remember that other dock, I really don't. MR. CARVIN-Well, it was identical to what this situation was. MR. BAERTSCHI-,If that's the case, the way that you see and read it to be, then how is .Q.!!L next door neighbor cutting off our dock? I mean, our dock always on our property. MR. CARVIN-And it seemed to be, tha;t .was the determination that came down from a higher authority, too. Didn't you take that to the Lake George? MR. MENTER-Is the dock perpendicular, to the shore? ,Is it not perpendicular to the shore? MR. CHRYS-It is perpendicular. MR. CARVIN-It is. MR. FORD-But truly, if you stand on that line and look down at the pipe and extend that line out, it cuts across the dock. MR. BAERTSCHI-That's just what I'm saying. That dock should not be moved. - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CARVIN-That'srightt if it's right on the·property line. MR. FORD-I would be interested' in how you formed that right angle. At what pointt where do ýou draw the originai straight line from which you then pùt' your T square on it and get your right angle? MR. THOMA~-Where the property line meets the mean high-water mark. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think we have a question here that we don't have an answer for tonight. MR. MENTER-Lets define how this bears on our decision here. MR. CARVIN~Wellt I think it bears a lot, myself. I think if we're going to move itt I want to move 'it all the way. I mean, if we're going to r'esolve something, I want' it resolved all the way. I meant if the line goes in at an anglet then we're not 'resolving anything. We still have the same situation, that part of that dock sits on the other property. My feeling is in this particular case, it's either an all ór nothing. Either the whole dock gets moved over onto his property, wherever that property lirieis, ~r it sits where it is. MR. FORD-I concur. Right now it's something thát could be handled legally between two land owners, and I can't be a part of something that is going to grantsomé kind of a variance that conceivably, in years to come, we've granted a variance whereby his dock isn't totall y on his proper ty. Ther e can't be any ques t ion about that. MR. CHRYS-Can I ask the Board a ques'fion? If yoû appro~e it as Fred has suggested, and I do have to go to some other authorities on this, obviously, well, let me put it this way. Ii you approve it ~hat way, then that means in a worst case scenario I could do that. That doesn't mean I have to do it; right? MR. CARVIN-No. I meant if what you re saying is that you have a right to use that dock as it exists, we can't take that away from you. MR. CHRYS-I understand that. MR. CARVIN-But I think the whole thing, nowt if what Chris is maintaining, 1 mean, if you could move this over and that line, I meant there's no' interference wi th your: dock, as far as being on so~ebody else's property, fine, that's What you're asking. MR. CHRYS-Right. MR. CARVIN-But there is a question whether that angle domes out, in which case, you'd have to move it over an additIonal X number of feet to get the whole dock on your property. MR.CHRYS""Okay" Can the verbiage be' such that you'd move it so it's totally on my property, out to the wat~rt unless it's deemed by interpretation to be physically correct that a right angle from the high water markt that's the first I've ever heard of that. MR. CARVIN-Again, I think that that is one solutfon, but I think the other ~olution is that I think'Mr. Baertschi, because of the similarity here, I think he has an interest in finding out what the actual ~uling is. MR. BAERTSæF-I was under the impression, now I didn't come to the meeting. I didn't sit in front of the Park Cormnlssion, but I was under the impression, from what my parents told me, that Shaffer.'s property line went 'to the low water márk. MR. CARV IN-Well, as I remember t that' s'your parents, right, I mean, - 42 ... ~ ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) it seems to me that we were only talking about five or six feet on the end of that dock. I mean, 90 percent of that dock was on their property, and we ,were talking, quite literal¡y, about a pttle pie shape on the end, and I am sear ch i ng the back 0 f my mi nd, and I think that was a determination that came down from on high. I think that that was thrown into our lap because somebody else had determined that that line had gone through it, and there was a couple of lawyers involved in that, if memory serves correct. MR. BAERTSCHI-Yes, I'm sure that John Schaffer, and my parents had a lawyer involved. MR. CARVIN-There were a couple, in fact, the lawyer had indicated that this was the path of least resistance was to get the variance. In fact, I think, that that had been legally explored, now that I'm thinking back ,through my memory, and that's why they came in for the variance, because otherwise they would have had to go through a whole bunch of other loops and hoops. Now that's not to say that their interpretation was correct, but I ~hink here's ¡our. choices. I mean, A, we can try to.come up with a verbiage, or, B, I thin¡k we can table this until we get a kind of determination. MR. KARPELES-Well, if he moves it as far as, he wouldn't need a variance, would he? MR. CARVIN-Well, yes. He needs a variance, from the setbacks. MR. CHRYS-Prom the 20 foot I do. MR. KARPELES-He can't comply? MR. CARVIN-No. MR. KARPELES-I thought you had enough lake front· so you could comply. MR. CARVIN-I don't think he can comply. He's only got 87 ~eet. MR. CHRYS-I could conceivably comply with the, like said originally, with the 20 foot setback, and put it right in the middle of my view. I don't know how my neighbor on the other side would feel about it, because I'd get closer to her side, too. I mean, that's the other concern. If there's a, .verbiage that could be utilized, I'd go along with moving it to where the end of the dock is down, my property line as it extends out into the water. MR. CARVIN-I'm going to kind of run this, because we'r.e running out, these meetings end at eleven. So, we've beat this to death. I think I want a d,ecision from this Board. I mean, do you want to table this? Do you want to move this? MR. HILTON-The one concern 1 would have is that if there have been other determinat¡ons in the past, and now we're making a completely di f f er,ent determi na t ion than wha t has been made in the pas t , I would feel, personally~ uncomfortable with that. I don't want to tell the Board how to vote on this. MR. CA~VIN-My feeling is that I want an interpretation on this particular situation,'because we have based our decisions in other cases, and one very recently, on one set of premise, and I'll tell you, mY fee li n g i s t hat i f 0 u r p r em i s e i s cor r e c t, that w ~ h a vet 0 go with the extended lot 1 i ne, then I wou 1 doni y be comfor tabl e moving this whole thing all the way over. Now it may, it still may only be another eight or nine feet, and we're s.till giving you quite a bit of relief, because maybe you can come into compliance, and this Board is obligated tp grant, minimum relief, the most minimum relief is that if you could put that dock into compliance, I mean, that would be the minimum relief, if you could put that - 43 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) right in the center. View is not a criteria for relief. I mean, that's just not. We've had other cases where that has been the case. So, I ;mean, if we're going to grant min'imum relief, I want to know where 'it is, otherwise, if he's going 'to move the dock, bring it totally into compliance, if 'he can. So' I would move that we table this to ßet this thing resolved. That is a motion. MOTION TO TABLE. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1996 MICHAE.L C. CHRYS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for'its adoption, seconded by David Menter: Until wè get this resolved. Tabled for 60 days. Duly adapted this 17th day of April, 1~96, by the following vote: MR. HILTON-If r :may interrupt'-for a minÙte. I'm not sure, Mike, if you had indicated whether you would ¡ße wi 11 fng to move it in the extra eight feet to make it in compliance, assuming that the line would be extended out through the ~ater. MR. CHRYS-YeS. I mean, that's why I aisked you. I can always come back. If I leave it that way, where you grant me the minimum relief and I come in to where that line is in' compliance with that extension, if the interpretation, through my researöh, turns o~t to be differently, can I come back to the Board at that point? , MR. CARVIN-I'd rather, I've never been of the opinion of granting blanket relief, either ors. MR. FORD-What we're talking about, really, is trying to determine what maximum relief is, hot minimum reli'ef. Because you're getting maximum relief, and we're just trying to determine how many inches it's got to go, one way or the other, as to where the property line is. MR. CHRYS-Okay. MR. HILTON1.My' thought was just that if you would be willing to move it in the extra eight feet and live with that, then we wouldn't have to table you and look at this kind of determination from a higher. MR. CHRYS-Igü;essI'l1 accept that. MR. HILTON-You don't have to. I mean, we can research it. I just wånted to h~ve it clarified for myself, what we were going to do. MR. CHRYS-As' long as I know I don't have to do it, which I why I asked you that, and they said no. I'd say, yes, okay, I would agree to that. MR. HILTON-All right. Well, I just wanted to have clarification for myself, ~~rsonalíy, that's all. MR. CARVIN-Well, in other words, we're going to grant, okay. We were going to go from zero. So now wê"re only going to grant relief of 12 feet, is that correct? Because he's go~ to bring it at least eight feet. MR. CHRYS-That's correct. MR. HILTON-Right, granting relief for 12 feet, if you so choose. MR. CARVIN-I'm not quite sure we're going to open a can of worms on that, because eight feet is eight f~et. Because theri he'd have to come back, if he finds it at zero. MR. HILTON-And if you'Fe uncomfortàble with this and you want some - 44 - -.-' '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) clarification, you have that opportunity, and we will research it. MR. MENTER-I, personally, think it makes more sense to table the thing. I know you don't want to hold off, but you could, end up being at the iron pipe, theoretically. MR. CHRYS-Yes. You're right, I could possibly. MR. MENTER-I mean, that's a concern that ,we would like resolved. MR. CHRYS-I don't know how you can make it so it,'s comfortable for you, but I would agree to whatever you're saying the setback relief is based upon an extension of that northern line, and I may decide just not t~ move it, bu:t at .le~st I've got a determination that I can take home and discuss family and figure out whether I want to move this now. that way it's right all ,the way around. relief, property that way with the At least MR. HILTON-Understanding that time i& 'an issue h:ere, ;we have a meeting next week, and I think if we got a clarification for the Board, and got some kind of determinÇi.tion from Jim, we could possibly hear this next week, and then you still have to go to site plan. Th,at would be the first meeting in May. 1 don't know if that works with your schedule or not. MR. CHRYS-That would work with my schedule. I don't have a problem with that. MR. CARVIN-Do you guys want to table this? MR. FORD-You'~e got a motion and a second to table. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-I want to just ask one question. I may be way off base in my interpretation, and it may not have anything to do,with this at all, but you said when you bought it, in your purchase contract ~as this dock, and it's in your deed that you own the dock. MR. ÇHRYS-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Doesn't your deed say that you own any of the land that it's attached to, or just the part before the 11 feet? MR. CHRYS-ln theory, and agai n I'm not ao attorney, so I cion' t know, but when 1. look at this, and the way I purchased it, my property line goes to that iron pipe. It goes across the back of the dock, there,and then out into the water. I mean, that's the way it was purchased. So if I move that at all, it's my understanding that my property line is still imaginary in that same place. I'm not giving that back, so to speak. MRS. LAPHAM-So if that's the case, you don't need to do this at all. MR. CHRYS-I really don't need to do it. MRS. LAPHAM-And there shouldn't be any problem wi th resale or lenders, if that's the case. So wouldn't it be cheaper or more sensible to just look at your deed?¡ MR. CHRYS-I mean, ¡. tried to (lost word) and it came up as a problem. MRS. LAPHAM-Maybe you could get an att,orney that could, but it wasn't a problem the first time you financed it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I think we've g,ot a motion to table this - 45 - ~.... -./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/9~) application. I'm going to re-open the public hearing, so we don't have to re-ad~ertise. Sol 'II leave the p~blic hearing open, and we w n I tabt e thi s. 'Our mi nimum tabl i ng procedur e ' is 60 days. Unfor tunatelY', I thi nk next week we're goi ng to have a I ight Board. We're orily going toÌ1ave I think, at best, probably four members next week, nèxt Wednesday. In fac t, we'll have to discuss tha t late'¡., but if we can get it on, I mean, if they' want to ta'ckl'e it, then they can tí:1ckle' it, but they may want to continue to table this unti 1 next month. So I don't want to promise that th~Fe':rt be any dec i s ion next week '.' MR. HILTON-Well, I could talk to Jim tomorrow and, hopefully, I can get some kind of clarification from him! MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, then I'm going to table it for our normal tabling, and if we can, you know, the first available opportunity we'll get this ré-sbheduled, bûtas I sa'id, I just do~'t want to leave the impression that this thing will be on next week.: ,:' , MR.THOMAS'-I'll bet Mr. Baertschi would like to find Qut,too. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I would think so. MR. CHRYS-Yhank you for your time. MR .CARV IN.J.Okay'. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Menter, Mr. Katpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1996 TYPE I I WR-1A CEA JOSEPH &. RITA LARAIA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LEFT SIDE OF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, NORTH OF SUNSET LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A PRIMARY RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING LOT. RELIEF IS REQUIRED FROM THE SETBACKS IN SECTION 179-16(C) AND THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179- 16(A). ADrRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 8-5-14, 17 LOT SIZE: '0.23 ACRES 0.29 ACRES SECTION 179-16(C), 179-16(A) CHARLIE JOHNSON; REPRESeNTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24~1996,Joseph &. Rita Laraia, Meeting Date: Ap'ril 17, 1996 '''PR03ECT LOCATION: Assembly Point Road PR.OPOSED 'PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant is proposing to remove an existing dwelling 'and replace it with a new 1706 square foot home. This home would require relief from the s'ide yard setbacks in Section 179-16(<:'). According to SectIon 179-76(E) this lot and thelo't which it adjoins to the west are consideredohe lot for zoning purposes. The lot to the west already contains an existing dwelling. Construction of this proposed home would require relief from Section ;119'-16(A) which allows one principal structhre per one acre with1n the WR-IA zone. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN EA.'. 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: This would allow the applicant to build a new single family dwelling. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: The new home could possibly be placed more in the center of the lot. If the northerly si'de setback were in'creased to 15 feet the new structure would be mo~e centered in the lot. One of the side setbacks would be conforming at 20 feet, and a lesser amount of relief would be needed for the other side setback. 3. is THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL R8LATlVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The current - 46 - --.../ "- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) side setback required is a total of 50 feet with a minimum,oi 20 feet on one side. The applican~ is proposing setbacks of 10 and 25 feet, totall ing 35 feet. 4" EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? It appears that tþis proposed d\\(elling woµld not,have any negative impact on the neighborhood. Additionàl corrment may be provided at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF- CREATED? This lot is a nonconforming lot with a width of 67 feet. Any çonstruction on this lot would require setback relief. PARCEL HISTORY: Both properties have been owned by Mr. and Mrs. La,raia since the mid 1970's. STAFF COMMENTS AND CQ~CERNS: By increasing the side setback to 15 feet the distance between the proposed home and the property to the north would be increased. This would then require relief for this, side setback whUe the other side would have a conforming setback. SEQR: Type I I, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting p¡Í the Warren County ,Planning Board, held on the 10th day of AprU 1,996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a primary residence on an existing lot. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove COTl1l1lents: Based, on, density, which the WCPBBoard believes that there is an over-crowding of the area and the fact that the septic system is not specifically up to Code yet. It seems like an awful increase in the size of the structure for the size of the parcel." Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, once again, Warren County has b.'roken new ground. They have turned this down. I'm sure you're familiar with the super majority situation. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-When Warren County turned this down, did they give any spec if i c reasons, in other words, any c r iter i a other than the density issue? , MR. JQHNSON·...¡, had a conf 1 i ct and I coul dn 't at tend, and. ßiljlce we couldn't speak" I didn ~ t feel there was a loss for my presenCe. So I wasn't there. MR. CARYIN-DoesWarren Coµnty have any criteria li4erwe dO,io the granting or denying of applications? I ( \ ~ MR. HILTON-I'm not sure what their set criteria are, but I know they're just looking at whether or not it has a County impact. That's the thing they should be looking at the most. , MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I feel that this is a situation that's very arbitrary and capricious, as the lawyers would use those terms. We have sent, quite literally" ,hundreds of similar applicat~ons to Warren County, and not once have I ever seen, one come,,back based on a dens~ty issue. MR. HILTON...,Well, we've had a few of these lately where we've had some concern over, what Warren County has said, and in one form or another we're going to be addressing them. MR. CARVIN-Again, hopefully I'm expressing the concern of this Board wjth regard, and I certainly don't want to impose or infringe upon Warqm County and their rights andpI'Jiv.j,.!eges" but· we· would expect at least some sQrt of consistency from them, or at least g~ve us some idea of what their c,riteria is. I mean, because what we're getting back is awful, awful sketchy, and if I was to turn down ·an application, or if this Board was to turn down an application on something like this, it would be overturned in a minute. MR. MENTER-They pr~bably do have different criteria"but they also - 47 - ,.~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) have different, they're looking out for different interests. MR. CARVIN-Different formats, yes. Ok~y. Are th~re any questions of the applicant? Does everybody understand what the applicant is proposing to do? MR. MENTER-I have a question, I think. Could you clarifr, these are two separate lots? MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. MENTER-The septic is the same owner? MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. FORD-They're one lot for zoning purposes? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. FORD-So we consider them one lot. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. If they didn't adjoin, they'd be separate, but because they touch with that five feet in cormiton, they're considered one lot. MR. MENTER~How old is that septic? MR. JOHNSON-I got some information. ¡it was installed in 1985, and I've got some information here from the contractor who installed it, the materials and labor. So it was done in Au~ust of 1985. MR. MENTER-Does that service both structures, both? MR. JOHNSON-I do not know if it services, but the bne on that faces Honeys~~kle L~rie, I'm assuming it db~s not, but I can't be sure. MR. MENTER-What's the use of that structure? MR. JOHNSON-It's a small cabin, seasonal, and they rent it out in the summer to friends and family. MRS. LAPHAM-Is that all 'you're talking about removing, or are you talking about removing th~ structureoh the other block? MR. JOHNSON-The structure that's going to be removed is on the lon~, narrow side. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. It's going to berernoved and: replaced with the 1700 square foot home? MR. JOHNSON-Right, and (lost word) I've been, hired to help them design the hom~, but I have a picture of wnat they started with when we began all of this, and I could pass it out. I can't promise this is what they will build,but this is the information that we began with. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. MENTER-That front section is''garage, on the drawing here, that 16 foot? MR. JOHNSON-No, no. The garage is in the back corner. What that front 16 foot is a deck ~rea. I've been trying to pick up what's shown on this floor plan. All I did with this floor plan is I added a garage for the rear of it, thinking of trying to incorporate some garage space. Without hav i ng that def i ni t i ve design, I just tacked on 24 feet for the length of this, and that gave me the footprint for the future garage, if they were to do - 48 - -.i ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) that. MR. MENTgR-I see, so that 60 includes the garage. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. CARVIN-All right. So the garage will be actually in the back of the building? MR. JOHNSON-Right. Yes. MR. CARVIN-Do you know how high this building will be, approximately? MR. JOHNSON-I don't, but anticipate this around 25 scaled house. the maximum is to 30 feet high. 35 feet. I It's about would a cap e MR. CARVIN-But again, you can't say specifically if this is the actual footprint or the plan. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. Thei r intent is to bui Id a three bedroom year round. That's about as much as I can give you. MR. KARPELES-What happens to this septic tank? Does anybody determi ne whether it's adequate or not? I mean, to me it woul d just seem that a septic tank that was built for two summer camps would probably not be adequate for a summer camp and an all year round house. MR. CARVIN-Well, unfortunately, the way our Ordinance is written, that unless ~he system fails, there is no review. MR. JOHNSON-What the, septic system is, is two 1,000 gallon ¡concrete tanks with approximately 250 feet of tile. Two hundred fifty )s in excess of average, it's about average for an average two bedroom home for Queensbury. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but that's servicil1g the two buildings, though, is that correct? MR. JOHNSON-Potentially, yes, and I have no idea what the other building, probably two bedrooms at most. MR. CARVIN-I think that they're addressing that under the new Ordinances, aren't they, George, I think, as far as the septic? I know it was being talked about, that any construction would have to bring the septic into compliance. MR. HILTON-Right. Yes. MR. CARVIN-But I'm correct that that's not the way it is right now. MR. HILTON-Not right now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I have one. Staff has indicated that if you moved the ,house 10 feet to the I¡>outh to get a 2.0 foot setback on, the north property line. How would that effect the driveway coming in, and the garage in the back? MR. JOHNSON-With the 10 feet of (lost words). I, thought it wa.s 15 and 20. MR. THOMAS-I think yo,u were looking for 20 on one side and 25 on the other. - 49 - '"--' -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. HILTON-Well, no, 15 on the north side. MR. THOMAS-You're looking for 15 OJ1 the north side. MR. HILTON-And then you'd have 20 on the south side. MR. JOHNSOl'f-And that's not a problem. MR. CARVIN-So you're moving it five feet. MR. HILTON-It puts it a little more centered on the lot. MR. JOHNSON-I 'think 15 feet is the minimum in the new reg's now, too. MR. HILTON-I'mriot'sure. MR. THOMAS-That's the only question l had. MR. CARVI~-Anybody else? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE WOODRUFF MR. WOODRUFF- I 'm not opposed. I 'm: a neighbo'r. Myriame is George Woodr uff. I'm the ne i ghbor to the 'nor th, the adj'acent lot to the north of this proposed location. I'm just conèerned about the driveway would be on the north side, is that correct, of this? MR. JOHNSON-No. The driveway is going to stay on the same side. MR. WOODRUFF-It's going to stay on the same side. MR. CARVIN-'The same side. MR. WOODRUFF-Is it a full basement? Is there a basement under this b u i l.d i n g ? MR. JOHNSON-'Right now, 'if's just built on piers. basement. ¡There's no MR. WOODRUFF-There isn't ~ny basement. MR. JOHNSON-Probably, most likely there would be a basement in the new one. MR. WOODRUFF-In the new house. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. WOODRUFF-The garage is underneath, is that correct? MR. JOHNSON-There's no garage there now., The garage won't be under. MR. WOODRUFF-The driveway wö'uld stay in the same spot, and the garage would be und~r th~ house. MR. JOHNSON-No. It would be to the rear of the house, but on grade though. MR. WÖODRUF'F'-'Okay . That's theonl :y questions I have. I jus twas under the impression, when I looked at this, that I thought the driveway was going to be on the north. MR. CARVIN-On your side. Okay. - 50 - '\",.- -..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. MENTER-You're about six feet, right, or maybe ten? MR. WOODRUFF-From ,t,he ,1 ine? objection, possibly the size of sized house. Probably 10 the house. or 12. It's a t, I have' no fairly "good MR. CARVIN-Well, I was just going to ask, what is the size of your house? Because I know that the Carte house looks to be pretty good size, and your house looks to be pretty good sized. MR. WOODRUFF-Yes. It's a two story. It's an old house. Square footage, it's hard for me to r eall y, I don't recall the square footag~ of the house. It's approximately about 40 feet across and 40 or 50 feet deep. It's a two story house. It's an older house. MR. CARVIN-Forty by fifty is probably somewhere in the high three thousand to four thousand. MR. WOODRUFF-There's a lot of porch on this house. MR. CARVIN-All right, and to what this one will be? and 5. So you're talking your garage. that, I'm assuming, would be comparable Well, you're talking lion the first, probably 2700, and thai's ~ot counting " MR. JOHNSON-The little xerox, it's a 1700 square foot nouse. The footprint thë¡1¡t I drew includes 400 square feet ,of garage, roughly. So about a 1300 square foot house. MR. FORD-What's going to go in over the garage? MR. JOHNSON-It maybe a one story with just a roof over the garage, or there may be a bedroom over there. MR. CARV IN-All right. Well, I'm concerned about, the cellar. I mean, is this going to be one of these, you know, it's a two story house with a third stoxy underneath, because of the slope of the land there? MR. JOHNSON-Well, typically what happens when they do that is they're just sloping the property and you can have a walk out basement. With this property, once you come up to where the house is going to be, it's level. So there wou,ld be really no potential for the walk out. I mean, you could always finish it. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm more concerned about the walk out. MR. JOHNSON-I would say it could happen, but it's probably n9t in the cards. This is going to be a retirement home. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, that seems to be a fairly flat piece of property, there. MR. MENTER-I don't know that there's room to do that. think there's room to do that. I don't MR. CARVIN-No. I don't think it would be a significant situation. Okay. All right. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. MR. CARVIN-No one else? hearing's closed. Seeing none, hearing none, the public PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Bonnie, I'll start with you. - 51 - -- ...-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MRS. LAPHAM-I don't think I have anything at this time. MR. CARVIN-All right. Dave, any questions, comments, thoughts? MRS. LAPHAM-I'was thinking about what the Staff was saying, about moving, centéring it more. Because I'm"always uncomfortable, more comfortable wIth the less nonconforming that we càn get, to the point that maybe you could even (lost word). That was the only thing I wa~ thinking. MR. CARV IN-Okay. Dave?' MR. MENTER~Well, I agree. I definitely like the idea of moving it. Mr. Woodruff's fairly close. The :Cartes are extremely close, actually, over on that side. MR. CARVIN-I think the house sets quite a ways. I think that, the Carte house, as I looked at it, I've got to believe that that's a good 25, 30 feet or more, from the property line. MR'. MENTER-In essence, I don't have a real problem with it. It's an usual septic s'ituation there. I 'm'a' little uneasy with the two buildings going to thé one septic system 'and thepo'tential of that anyway. I think the; house that's there de'serves' to be iMproved, and I think he has aright to do that, and, I think it's going to require some setback relief. I don't think this house is out of line, b~t again I'm not sure what can be dohe from oUr standpoint with regard to that septic, but other than that, I don't have a problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I guess if the neighbors, don't obj ect, 1 don't object, but I tend to agree with 'Warren County'. I think that we're exceptions to these setba~ks continuously, and wHy do we have the setbacks, to keep it from getting so over populated, but as I say, if the neighbors don't object, I don't object. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom? MR. FORD-Well, I do. I think it's pretty clear tha1thère are two structures on the property currently, and we have an opportunity to change that. We've seen other instances come 'before this Board where there's a real question about whether there was one or two residences on a single piece of property,i and we've gone a direction there, and I see no reason for not' ~ttempting to rèmedy this. I think there's far too great an increase in the square footage of this proposed structure over the existing one, and share the con c ern Ò f the ''0 the r m'emb e r s 0 f the' Boa r 'd 'f e 1 at i vet 0 t he sin.le s~ptic system. i ' MR. CARVIN-Okay. Chris? MR. THOMAS-The" only potential problem 1 see is like Bob said, is tha t septi c sy s tern. Other than that, if they move that house five feet td the south, the new zoning, if it goes through, since this lot IS '67 'feet wide, wouldn't have to' be 20 feet,' and you would be 15, but I think it would be' an improV'ement to the area. No objections from the neighbors. It's just that that septic bothers me a little bit, but. MR. JOHNSON-If I could provide some clarification on which units are served by: the septic system, would t'hat he,lp aflay s'ome of the cohcerns of the Board? MR. THOMAS-I think it might. MR. MENTER-Depending on what the an'swer was. - 52 - '-.. -....;;- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. FORD-There's also one additional question, wh,en you're finished, Chris. MR. THOMAS-The only other problem I could see, if they decide to sell off that lot that sits back on Honeysuckle Lane, and the s e p ti c s y stem's sit tin g 0 v e r ,t he r e, and the set won e i g hb 0 I' s ,g e t into a fight, and he says, hey, I 'm cutting ¡the pipe off right here, what do the applicants do? MR. JOHNSON-Well, I think probably if that were to take place, there would be some sort of an easement written into thedeed~ or the original owners wouldn't sell, for that very fear, but I'm not a r.eal estate attorney. I'm not sure that could happen, but that would be what I would suppose would happen. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Maybe it won't happen this year, next year, but 10, 20 years down the road, that's the only thing tlJat really bothers me is that septic system. MR. FORD-I think to be consistent, we have, hereto for, been reluctant to approve new construction not knowing precisely what we were approving, and we don't know precisely., ,You're saying this is whati;hey started with. We don 't know thati t' s going to be this struc,ture, or it ,may resemble it, or it may not. That's another con6ern 1; have about moving it to~ight. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I'll back Tom,up on that one. We don't, know, really, what it's going to look like. This is a nice picture, right here, but it could turn out to be something else, in, th~ ¡;ame footprint. MR. HILTON-You could require site plan review. MR. C'ARV IN-W;ha t 'di ff.erence d.oes it make as long as over the 35 feet? ,I mean, that's what he's allo~ed. granting relief from the side, we're granting relief, for that footprint. it doesn ',t go I mean, we' r e specifically, MR. THOMAS-Yes. We don't know how high it's goin~ to be. MR. CARV IN-Well, it can't go any higher than 35 feet. j , MR. THOMAS-That's true. MR. JOHNSON-You can certainly set some, limitations, but ",architectural rev iew is only, I think, recommend~d or suggested. it's not part of the variance application criteria. I know you have concerns for aesthetic quality of the neighborhood, I can understand that. Maybe in cònjunction with 'some of our septic concerns, I could come back with a more definitive, talk with some builders, come back with some more definitive information on what the character of the house is going to be. MR. THOMAS-Now what happens, like we were talking before, with all thes.e other lake front properties, there's all the glass in the front.. Even thOl~gh this does sit 110 feet back; we're very conGerned about glass on the front of all these two and three story buildings that have. been going up. MR. FORD-This, conceivably, could fit the footprint aind ,be within the 35 feet and still go three stories. MR . CAR V I N - Well, I t h ink a 35 f 00 t s t rue t u r e the rei s go i n g to tower over any of the other existing houses, because of where it's sitting. I mean, it's up on a hill, and it will look very, very large. I don't have too many problems with this. 1',11 be very honest with you. I don't have quite the concern about the dual lot situation that you have Tom. I mean, I'm not discounting that, - 53 - .J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) because they are, in essence, two lots, and they're only being considered for zoning purposes, and I think both t~ose.lots could be self stiffiêient in their own right. So, I mean, if John Q. Publfc owned ~hat other lot, we would still be looking ~t a single lot here that would be eligible for a house. So I don't think we can justifiable say to the applicant that you can't tear this down, or if you tear it down, you have to build uþt'he other house, because it's an adjoining lot. You might feel that way. I don't feel that way. I think that this lot is a much larger lot than a lot of the lots that we tend to he lòoking 'at,;and I don't quite see the' density issue that Warren Cdunty sees. I 'älso have to agree with ßob. I know where Bob's coming from, in that we have a use issue where we are taking part time residences and converting them into full time residences,and I do have a èoncertf with the septic. However, I can't do anything about it under the current guidelines, and I think that the Town is moving 'along that, and I think the Town realizes that we're moving in this area, and they ~ant to address that septic situation, but unfortunately, I can't do anything about that at this point. A month from noW it might be a different story, and I think that there is a lot of expansion, but I think that this one probably is a betterplari th~n a lot of them that I've seen. I also share, I think, Tom's concern that I'd like to see a little bit more definitive floor plan. MR. JOHNSON'-I don't see that as being a real hurdle, and even in the course of the next week, if we could table this and then come back for review in that time frame. MR. CARVIN-Well, you're going to have a problem here because of Warren County. I~ean, next week we're góing to b~ lucky if we have four people. I think if I put it to a v 0 t et 0 day, you m i g h t get four votes, but I doubt very much you're going to get five, and again, that's just a gut feeling th~t I'm havihg he~è. MR. JOHNSON-And the issues are going to be archi tectural characteristics, and information on,the septic, b~tter information to answer your ·concerils, correct'? MR. CARVIN....Yes. If1we Were to table'this, are there mitigating circumstances here that would allow us to move òn this in a positive manner, can we grant minimum relief here, or what would be the criteria for minimum relief, that this Board would like to see? MR. JOHNSON-This construction isn't going to happen until the fall. So a 30 day de layÌ s not 'a big deal for the applicant, and give them the time period they need to get their design in order, so that they can feel comfortable presenting something (lost words). MR. CARV tN-Okay .¡ MR. THOMAS-I have a question for George. Isn't this a greater than 50 percent expansion? MR.. HILTON.;..No, because they're taking down ·the original structure. They're not adding on to that original. They're ·stà.rting fresh with a new. MR. THOMAS-I thought if the new structure was 50 percent or more of the origirialstructure, that alsô 'was part of the variance process? MR. HILTON-That's if you're adding on to an existing structure. MR. THOMAS-If you're adding on? Okay. MR. FORD-I was confused on that r~ferencing abbut ~he substantial current s truct'ur e.' as well. That's , ' increase over the what size I was of the - 54 - '- -./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, just remember" we can limit them, even though the Code says 35 feet, because they're tearing this down, ,and I think this is a nonconforming situation, is it? MR. HILTON-The lot is nonconforming. MR. CARVIN-Yes, the lot is nonconforming, that we can actually reduce that down to a manageable number, if"we so desire, but I think that, from what I'm hearing is that I think we ought to get more additional information. Is that what I'm hearing. MR. FORD-I think we ought to know what we're approving. MR. THOMAS-That's right. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I 'mhear'ing that we'd like to have some kind of assurance on the ~eptic. MR. JOHNSON-Do you foresee the new zoning being adopted within 30 days (lost words) septic system? MR. CARVIN-I think that's a very good question. I don't have a hard and fast answer for you, because I think we started the process µnder the oldguideli~es, and I'm not quite ~u~e if~ MR. JOHNSON-Well, my only concern is to fit a septic, which isn't a huge (lost word) issue, but to tit the septic on the site, the house is going to have to slide cioser to the lake before ypu get enough area in the back. MR. CARVIN-Well, the, other thing, remember, is that they're reducing the lake setback from 75 down to 50, and you've got 110 here, so the only thing that you may hf\ve is an a~chitectural problem because the further down the hill you come, the more exposed that third story might, become, so you get a walk out. MR. JOHNSON-The nice thing about this lot is they kept the houl)e so ,far back from the water. MR. CARVIN-Yes. because it sits and the south, siz,e, and this those others, I !!!y. feeling. That's why I don't have a real problem with it, up on the hill so far, and the houses to the north both the other houses seem. to be of pretty good ¿ne, as l~ng as it doesß't become much larger than think would probably fit in pretty well, but that's MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1996 JOSEPH&. RITA LARAIA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: , , For additional information from the applicant regarding the septic and we would certainly like a more definitive architectural design with probably some pictures. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: MR. JOHNSON-I think in the application you usually r,ecormnend the front elevation. MR. CARVIN-The front elevation. MR. HILTON-What is the status of the public hearing, just for? MR. CARVIN-I'm going to leave the public hear~ng open. S9 we'll leave the public hearing open so we don't have to re-advertise. - 55 - '-- '-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) AYES: Mr.M'enter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Laþham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green MR. CARVIN-All right. Now our normal tabling procedure is 60 days. MR. JOHNSON-We havet'hat long to get 'back? MR. THOMAS~Yes. MR. CARVIN-Just work with Staff and they' 11 get you, hopefully, on the schedule. AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1996 TYPE II RSC-25A PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF AVIATION ROAD, OFF EXIT 19, I -87 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO USE THE PARKING LOT' OF AVIATION MALL FOR A CIRCUS ON JULY 20 & 21, 1996. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIRF FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-66(C). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.21 LOT SIZE: 40.81 ACRES SECTION 179-66(C)" BILL SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-1996, Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, Meeting Date: April 17,1996 "PROJECT LOCATION:. Aviation Mall, Av iation Rd. PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant proposes to holda circus in the parking lot of Aviation Mall on Saturday July 29 an'd Sunday July 21, 1996. As a part of the Town Qf Queensbury's Transient Merchant Law this event is required to comply with the Town's' zoning requirements. The amount of parking required by the Zoning Ordinance for this siteis269~ spaces. . The mall curre~tly has 3032 space~ on site. This event would take up 376 parking spaces in the mall's parking lot. The total number of spaces availabl~~uring the circus would be 2656 spaces. The d iff er ence between the number of spaces required a~d what will be provid~d is 40 parking space~. Relief is required from the parkin,g requirements of Section ,,179-6~(C). CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: This would allow the circus to be located at Aviation Mall for a two day period. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There do not seem to be any alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The current parking requirement for the mall is 2696 spaces. A total of 2656 spaces will be provided during the two day event. 4. EFFeCTS ON' THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? It appears that this event would not have any negativèimpact on the neighborhob'd. Additionål cornnent may be provided at the public ~ear~ng. 5. IS THIS DIFFlaJLTY SELF-CREATED? Aviàtion MàÜ currently has 3032 parking spaces on site. This twd d~y e~entis' k special efent that would only create a deficit of 40 parking spaces. PARÇEL'HISTORY: This parcel is the site of theA~iation Mall. STAP~ COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Since the par,king requirement for the mall will only be 40 spaces short during this event staff doès not häve ~ny major corícerhs with the granting of this Area Variance. SEQR: Type II, no further action requir~d." MR. THOMAS-"At a rr'u:!etingofthe Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of April 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to use the parking lot of the Aviation Mall for a circus ON July 20 & 21, 1996. was reviewed; and the following action was taken. 'Reconmenda:t' i on to: No County Impact" 'S i gned by Li nda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. - 56 - "-' J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CARVIN-O~ay.. Qoes everybody understand what the appl icant is proposing? Okay. I have a question of Staff. The par~ing sp~ces, 2696, that's the minimum that the Mall needs? MR. HILTON-The minimum that the Mall needs. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and that is based on what? MR. HILTON-The gross leasable area of the Mall. five per thousand. Let ~e,double check that. thousand square feet of gross leasable area. I believe we're at Fi~espaces per one MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, if the Mall wanted to build, and I don't know what the area the 376 p~rking spaces cover, but I'm just going to use a figure of, I don't know, how big's the tent" I mean, 2,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet? If they were to build a store for 3,000 square feet, howmapyadditi()nal spaces would th~y need? . "'" / !. ¡''> MR.. HILTON-,As,tor¡e of how many square f"eet? MR'. CARVIN-Well, if the tent's 3,000 square feet, whi,ch is probably ,a, small tent. MR. HILTON-Well, if you have five per thousand, fifteen new spaces. J MR. CARVIN-How big is 376 parking spaces? I mean, I want to know how many areas. MR. THOMAS-A parking space is, what, 10 by 20? MR. CARVIN-Ten by twent~. MR. THOMAS-So that's 200 square feet. MR. HILTON-Our Ordinance requires 9 by 20. ,MR. THOMAS-So it's 9 by 20. So that's .180 square feet, times 376. MR. CARVIN-I COme up with about 67,000 square feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes" about 67, 68,000 square feet of parking space. MR. CARV I\\I-Wel I , if we w~re to bui,!d ~ st0re"we would, need 376 spaces, right? MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. CARVIN-All right. So add 376 to 2696. MR. THOMAS-,Yes. /h~;) 'I:. MR. C~V,IN-All right, 3,076, and they're going to go down to 2656. Rig ìt? .so my figure is that they actually need, they're' losing 1420 parking plap~s, not 40. What I'm saying is th~.tì\ye're putting a circus th.ere that's going to pull in more peopl~. We need more parking spaces" and ,we're ,not just losing 40. We're actually, we I re I Qs.ing a ,req,Ui If~.~t, ~ igure of at leas t 1400. MR. MENTER-Because if this was being put out in the field, wjth no parking spaces. MR. CARVIN-You're losing the ones that are already there, plus you're increasing another area, and I'm just saying tha1, you're increasing the need~ MR. HILTON-Le;ts assume ,that you take the square footage of what's underneath this tent. What did we determine that to be? - 57 - '-" -' (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CARVIN-About 67,000 'square feet, almost 68. MR. HILTON-67,000 square feet underneath the tent? MR. CARVIN-Well, if my math is roughly èorrect, I come up with 67,680, and I'm not saying my math is ~orrect. One par~i~g space is 1~0 square· teet. MR. THOMAS-67,680 square feet. MR.' CARVIN-Well, th'at' s what that' tent wi 11 cover. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. SMITH-One parking space is how big, 180 square feet? MR. CARVIN-One hundred and eighty square feet. MR. THOMAS-Twenty by nine. MR. HILTON-But then how much of tha't new area, lets assume it's a store, how much of that new area is going to be gro~s leasable, as opposed to gross size? MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying, how many people are we in there? going to stuff 1" , MR. MENTER-t'he fact is that there's a difference there. MR. HILTON-Well, yes', and what 1 did in my corrments was just i;;tate that, you know, gi ven the amount o'f actual Mall sq'uare footage' that is out there, we're only going to be short 40 spaces. MR. CARVIN-Yes, the Mall will be, but what about the parking for the circus? MR. HI J}rON - R'ï g h t . I, , MR. MENTER-But it's a whole new Highway Commercial use, which is the same, has the same parking requirements. MR. HILTON-But then, if you apply those parking requirements, though, how much of the circus is going to be gross leasable, as opposed tò taking up the entir~ area that it will take up? MR. CARVIN..JHow'many people are going to attend the circus? I mean, what, conceivably, is the maximum number of people that this circus, 5,000? MR. HILTON-Well , given that the parking's' based on gross leasable area in this distr'ïct',; I think you"kind of have to go by that, as , , " : " , ' " ( opposed tO,how many people will attend, or how many. > "I" , MR. FORD~Ho.Many performances? MR. SMITH-Four performances. MR. FORD-Two per day, matinee and evening? MR. SMITH-Matinee and evenin~. MR. tARVIN~An awfu1lot of p~opr~ in even 1es~ parkirg places. MR. FORD-And do we know what the potential seating c~pacity is? , MR. SMITH71 can't answer that question for you right ~ow. MR. FORD-Not even approximately? - 58 - "'--' '-'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. SMITH-I would say that they can probably put about 1200 people, 1500 people in there, considering three, four people coming in a car. MR. HILTON-I also think that you may be apsuming or taking into ,consideration that the Mall would be to capacity, that there would be, you k~ow, all the shoppers and all the parking spaces that are prov i ded fill ed. I mean, I don't know. I don't have any of your figures as to how many people you attract to the M~ll on a summer day, you know, July weekend, but to me, I think you have to take that into consideratipn. I don't ~now whether or not that Mall is going to be completely filled or not. MR. MENTER-How can you take that into consideration? MR. CARVIN-On a Saturday and Sunday? MR. MENTER-What if applicants asked you that same question? You've got to consider that I'm not going to be busy all the time. MR. FORD-You know wpa t. wi 11 determi ne it? If it's drrÎ zz Ii ng out, they'll be pa~ke~ all the way to Aviation Road. MR. HILTON-Right. Exactly. MR. FORD-Without the tent. MR. MENTER-If you talk about gross leasable fl()or space, and trying to fit that into this size space that we have, it's a tough thing to do, but. t~e density is really quite, it's really pretty dense, people in there, sitting in the stands that they have. It's going to be at lea'st, it\s going to translate to at least a total of that being gross leasable floor space. MR. CARVIN-And this may be just the tent. I mean, what about the auxiliary vehicles that the tent came in, the animal cages, the tractor trailers. I mean, when a circus moves, it's }~st. not the tent. I mean, you're going to have a lot of these parking places taken up by these auxiliary vehicles~ MR. HILTON-Right. Unfortunately, we 'don't have any requirements for spectator events such as this. MR . CAR V I N - No. I'm jus t say i n g t hat Aviation Mall is coming from, and I ~iting a circus right in the middle of thing that you could be doing. i I can appreciate where the just am not positive that your parking Jot is the best MR. FORD-I have another issue related to that. Has consideration been given to placement of the tent in the southweßtern qµadrant? I know, for visibility's sake, for all the tourists coming up and down Aviation RO,açl and so fo,r,th, you're requested placement, would be most appropriate, but for several reasons, including pedestrian safety, of people attending the circus" that so~~þwestern quadrant might be more appropriate. MR. CARVIN-Where are you talking here, Tom, down here? MR. THOMAS-Over behind J.C. Penney. MR. SMITH-We can't go near J.C. Penney because of lease restrictions, and they won't give us a sign off on it, which is why we chose the space that we chose. MR. KARPELES-That's J.C. Penney, the southwest? .. ! MR. SMITH-Correct. We went to the Manager of J.C. Penney. was our first choice, was back there. That - 59 - -- (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 4jI7j~6) MR. THOMAS-How about out behind Sears? MR. SMITH-It's pretty tight back théi~. MR. THOMAS-Plus it's on a slope. MR. SMITH- Ì t' s on a." slope. There's a There's some storage irailers back there. I ring roa.d back there. It's not a.s big. MR. C~RVrN-Yd~'v~ neve( done th1* before, have you? ;MR. SMITH":I've done this befor'emyself, not on your township, but in 1981 to 1984, down in Long Island at all of the retail centers. The cênter' I'm 'talking about had 2500 parking spaces. We did it as a cha.r ity th i ng for the Li ons Cl ub' !in our area, wh i ch I was a member of, and it was during a. Saturda~~ Sunday, when the market I was running, it was an indoor flea market, was at fuft swing, and it didh,'t really,' cau's·e, it filled our þarking lot, no question about it. It didn't cause us any major,any strains'or anything like that. Some people dropped their kids at the circus and went in anddiditheir normal shopprng. We've' had ft, in other Malls, I coul d show you our por t fo 1 i 0, and it has never caused us any problems. I,,; MR. CARVIN-(}ka'ý!,' Well, I was goi'~g to say, I think that's a very good q~~sti9n, Bob; , ., MR. KARPELES-Yes. What's the purpose? Is this to draw people to the Mall? MR. SMITH-Yes. W$ll; you know,we are,in the Malljenterbdnment, maybe, per se, bUsiness, '¡'mean, we have' a:ntique shows. We have car shows. i We' 'just 'had' a boat show," W(:/ have baseball card shows. We had tot of kfas i~s'id'e. We had puppet shows. Different types of juggling acts. We do things to entertain the public. It's part of a marketing or advertising technique to bring people to the area. MR. KARPELES-So the store owners are in favor of this. MR. SMITH-Sure. They look at it as a plus. J.C. Penney is in favor of it. He jusi doesn't want it in his lot. He has plenty of room for it. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's going to force the cars back there, and that'll force them to come through his store. So why wouldn't they? I mean, y'oh know, I'm not' 'a marketing genius, but I can figure that one out. MR. SMITH-On our end, as far as the c'ircus being there, we're aware of liability issues, and we have already beefed up~ecurity for those two days. We will have' extra s eçur'i ty but on the r î ng road. Wew ill 'probaþl y doUbf e , if not triple the manpower that we normally have on Satúr'day and Sunday, for our liabi'lity reasons out in ,the pa~~ing Jot~ MR. FORD-I still have real éal~ty cohberns aþout it being located there,~nd the potential for dumping 500, 600 cars out onto Avia't'ion or' having them try to get in'fórperformances, and it's so closefo the ~ntrance, and I ä~preciate·the fact that you wanted to back in that other quadrant. MR. SMITI·f-Btit when y<;>u corne in the entrance, you do have one section whith 1s ~~par~ted by'ari island. So it's kind of isolated from 'the entranceways. You" v~ got that whole J .C. Penney parking lot. You' have a: whole, upper J.C. Penney parking lot that we had to in'stall' for J.C. Penney, which nobody ever parks in, even at Christmas 1'ast yeart'here' Wére il0 cars at our bus i es t t'ime that - 60 - '---' .J (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) we're parking in that upper lot. MR. FORD-And you will have" in terms ,of secur,ity, yoti¡will have people directing that traffic to diffe~ent locations? MR. SMITH-Sure. We will coordinate with the circus people. We've already talked to them, and the whole transition is tç&et people in and out as safely and as quickly as possible. MR. HILTON-The ol')lyother thing that U, like to add, as, far as the parking goes, is th~t, and I can undeistand your calculations. It makes sense tome that, you,know~, if you h~d all those extra people and you're taking up that extra sPace, where do you put their cars. The only thing lean say is ~hat if there was no difference of 40 spaces, if the ap~licÂnt' met the parking' requirements, they wouldn't even be here for the varfance. Th~y would just come in for site,plan review. So, in determining our parking requirements for the circus, coming to this ,area, we just took the overall si te < ',. ',',! and calculated how many they'd be missing and how many they needed. MR., ,CARVIN-I think your calculat,ion is wrong. I mean, ï'f the):' were building. " MR. HILTON-Well, I'm just going by what the Ordinance tells us our parking requirement is, and that's how we get our calculation, and if they had the 40 spaces, if there was no difference between,what they'd be taking up and what they needed, they wouldn't be here for this vafianc~. MR. MENTER-Doesn't the Transient Merchant Law state that the parking needs to be, the parking for that transient merch~nt, ~eeds to meet the Code for itself? Forget th,e fact that it's in an existing parking 101., Maybe it's in a fieJp ,so¡;newhere, "þorde'red by woods. The ques t ion 1's, do Yjou have enough roqm,. or enough park i ng spaces for that merchant ~r event? MR. CARVIN-Is this the same circus that, historically, hasbe~n at Fireman's Field, or is this a bigger one? MR. SMITH-I'm not familiar with the one at Fireman's Field. MR. CARVIN-Well, there's a smalJ circus that comes through, it's a circus. guess MR. FORD-Which circus is this? MR. SMITH-This iS,Clyde Beatty and Cole Brothers. MR. CARVIN-No. This one is, I can't think of what the narne of it is. It's a much smaller organization, if memory serVeS correct. MR.SMITH-dn their bena¡f, as I said, l'v~ße~lt with them for four years. They were in and out and very or~erlyandnever even knew they were there. They did all the repaiis'on the parking lot. MR. FORD-I have a question on the contingency plan. We've all seen and love to see it, as I mentioned earlier, a drizzlingday, a damp day, and we all have seen that parking lot full. What is the contingency plan if we were to have weather like that, taking up a lot more spaces because of the tent, and trying to get an additional 500 cars. ' MR. SMITH-Well, I can only speak from being on the prem;ises both through the Christmas season and Saturday and Sundays . I think you've seen the front parking lot filled, but I don't thir).k you see the back parking lot filled, behind J.C.Penney, behind Caldor, behind Sears. There's a lot of parking that is back there that's not utilized because everybody comes in :the front and that's - 61 -- -- - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) basically where they firs't, initi'ally, go, unless thefr destination is the back end of the Mall. So, I don't think that even having this there wquld fill it, as I did not see it 100 percent full at any time, right up 01\ Christmas Eve this past year, at our busiest time. So, yes, 'it w~ll create parking, but 'I think that the parking spaces that we'have theie can handle the necessary parking. MR. CARVIN-Georgè, these parking spaces, this count, the 3,032, is that, I know ~hat they took an awful lot out. There was a question there, along ~his J.C. Penney side, be¿ause of the way the road curves. There were parking spaces there that really nobody could ever us e becausé; of the tra.f f i c f low. I mean, is:tha t part of that 3 , 0 ° 0, 0 r is' t hat I es s t h a,' t ? MR. SMITH-I don't bel'ieve that that's part of the 3,032. MR. HILTONl..The 3,000 that we hav:e indicated is from the most , recent, I guess they rezoned the property in the'past few years. I'm not sure of the exact date, but on that rezoning plan, there were 3,032 parking spaces indicated. MR.'CARVIN"-Well ,'l' think within the last year or so that they have reduced, they'.e redrawn those lines, ~nd I don't know if that's an accurate figure again. So I'm not even sure they have the 3,032, if you're going ba'ck more than a year or so. MR. HILTON-Well, again, we're just going by the information that the applicant provided. MR. SMITH:":\V'e came outiwith 3,032 with the J.C. Penney expansion, the recent one that was built. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what I'm saying is that that was, is that coming .off thes'i te þlåh? MR. SMITH-I don't believe so, but I would not be 100 percent on that. You're talking ahotlt the area adjacent to the~nrthway that goesarourid th~ building? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-What I'm saying is that this road, along here there were parking places that'were counted iIi'the original count that have since been taken ou t, that they're no longer par t of the coun t because, and I thi nktha t th i s"wentto the Planning Board. I think there was': an amendment tò the site IHàn~ and t don't know what figure you' féus i'ng. \ MR. HILTON-I'm using one directly from the site plan that we had. MR. CARVIN-The orikin~l? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think that's been adjusted. I think that that's not an aCC\lra të f fgur e. r còuld be w'ròng on that, but I don't thi nk 'they've gbt th~ 3,000. Î th i nk they've los t a number because what was happening was people were driving over the parking places because that was the roadway, and I vaguèly remember them coming back and requesting relief from their site line, and this is going back probably about á year or ~o ago. Well, we 'have a number of questions: here. I'm gOing 'to opEm up the public hearing. , ' PUBLICHÈARINGOPENED MR. CARVIN-I'm g()i'ì)gto leave the public hearing open here because I think, do we have any questions? - 62 - ~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. MENTER-Did you come up with anyt~ing, George, in terms of how that's worded? MR. HILTON-What I have, and I'm reading just directly from the Section 160-5(C) "The Transien1; Merchant/Transient Merchant Market I icense requirements shall comply wi th the Town of Queensbury zoning requirements for use, area and parking." With a 100tnote that says, "Edi tor's ,Note: See Ch. 179, Zoning." MR. CARVIN-Well, I think if that was to be plopped dow~ iri a field some place, they'd be required to have, if they've got 67,000 square feet, how many spaces would they be requiI:'~d,?, So, I mean, I think you have to add that to the minimum number of at least 2656, which puts them up considerably, and I'm not even sure these numbers are correc~. I have a feel¡ng that we've got even a lesser number, and I just have a problem wi th the safety, heal th and welfare of the community. I think that putting a circus right out in front there is going to be a real problem. MR. THOMAS-Yes, traffic. MR. CARVIN-I think traffic. I can see the rubberneckers coming up and down Aviation Road and seeing a big tent there. I mean, it's bad enough during the Balloon Festival when they have a ball¿on out there, and so I have a real problem with this. MR. THOMAS:-It's too bad , they couldn't put it in that back corner. It really is. MR. CARVIN-Ooes anybody want to table this for" additional information, or has anybody got a feeling one way or the oth~r on this? MR. FORD-As much as I would like to s~p,port it, 1.' ve got tÇ9 many safety concerns about it. I don't think it's in the right place. MR. CARVIN-Okay. thes e? I mean, information? I Do you think the applicant can mitigate some of should we table it? Is there any additional MR. FORD-He's in the best position to know. MR. KARPELES-I don't see what good tabling it's going to c;fp. I think we ought to vote on it. I agree. I think that it~s, ¥pu're sacrificing all those parking spacE¡!s, and þringing in additional parking. If we were right in the first place, with the parking that's required, then there's not going to be enough parkins there. We're creating a dangerous situation. , . MR. MENTER-Yes. think he'd be hard-pressed concern, given what there is to work with there. reason not to move it tonight. to answer that I don!t see any MRS. LAPHAM-Well, to be consistent, we just turned down (lost words) we turned down the Pizza Hut's apPlication based.on the fact , they did not have enough parking to accommodate all the business they would attract with the, new addition, the deck that 'they wanted, ,and so we would be opening 1;0 that same situation, even though,it is only for two days. MR. THOMAS-Well, to me, if the applicant coulcl get some contingency parki ng, such as toe GI en Sq,lI,are Plaza down ove,r the bank, and maybe add that in 'temporarily for the two days, to add to his parking space, I don't know, is that sometl)ing that's feas,ible? If he could get the management of that mall down there at Glen Square to agree. I know that insurance would prob,q,bly be a hassle" and stuff like that, but there's probably another two, or three hundred spaces down there. - 63 - '"'-' - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) MR. CARVIN-I think I'd have a tough time with that, too, because that was something that the Pizza Hut had offered with the next door neighbor. MR. THOMAS-Yes, wi th the next door ne,ighbor. MR. HILTON-My first thought on that would just be, how do you direct the people to that patking 'lot without? MR. SMITH-I think 1't 'would 'probably open up too many q1:.testions for my company with people walking across the way. MR. CARVIN-A~ a liability. J :' MR. SMITH-It's really compounding the situation. You're saying that this tent in your eyes is going to take up 67,000 square feet? MR. CARVIN-You're say'ing that. I'm not' saying that. MR. SMITH-Båt'~d on your.calculations: you're saying we're short how much parking? MR., CARVIN-Well, assuming that the numbers, and this is just an 'approximate, 1'm saying that you're comi:ng up short by about, over 1400. I'm saying fHåti the m'lnimuln p'a'fking shóuld be a figure of approximately 3,076, and you're saying,:'when you plop the tent down, that'yòu're going to'have a maximum 'of 2656. MR. SMITH-Okay. I would only askthat:we could"have a chance to, I was handed this tonight,a~d1)ust have to apologize because I was not involved in it, "and the fpePson who was going to handle it took sick this' afternoon and asked me to còmethe meeting tonight. So 1'm 'a little bit short on answers. I do work at the Mall. I'm a Leasing Agent. If there's informatton you need from us, I think we can make it work there. There's not a lot of money involved. MR. HILTON-One concern I had about, if we tabled it this evening, and look' fórmore infor'mation, I think there's sometime constraints here wi th the Transient Merchant Law, because lets assume that a variance is granted. Then it has to go to site plan review. Then fr6m site plan r'eview a recommendation has to be made before the Town Board for the Transient Merchant, you know, to approve the Transient Merchant hearing. I think that has to take place 60 days before the date of th~ e~ent, and if yo~'re looking at having July, you're looking at the end of May. ,MR. THOMAS-Well, you're looking at May 20th. MR. HILTON-Right.' MR. SMITH-The letter that was sent to Cole Brothers tells them that they have to respond by May 19th. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. CARV rN~Well, am I hear i rig that, th i s Board moving this? is comfortable in ", . MR. MENTER-I had one other question. I'm sorry. You're name is? MR. SMITH-Bill Smith. MR. MENTER-Bill Smith. Okay. ArS y6u the agent or no? MR. SMITH-The Agent is Mike Saltser. He's the General Manager of , the' Mall . MR. CARVIN-We don't even hav'e an Agent here. Do we have an Agent ~ 64 - ~ '-. ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) document? MR. MENTER-See someone has to be assigned as Agent, if the applicant is not here. MR. HILTON-Well, the applicant is the Pyramid Company. MR. MENTER-We need his permission for you to represent him. MR. H.ILTON-The. applicant is the Pyramid Company. , , 11 MR. SMITH-I work for Pyramid Company of Glens Falls. MR. MENTER-I understand all that. speaking here. I'm just talking technically MR. CARVIN-All right. If somebody has got a motion, I'd entertain a motion, if you're comfortable moving it. I MOTION TO DENY AREA, VARIANCE NO. 25-1996 PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for i t,sadoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: iJ For the reasons that this circus would certainly bring addi~~onal people to the Mall, and it would çletract f,rom the existing par'king spaces, or take up. the space of the e?Cisting parking spaces, in addition to bringing additional people to the Mall, and it would create a situation where we do not have enough parking, a dangerous situation. People would probably be parking down Aviation Road and walking back. It might be a fire hazard getting fire trucks in and out. So I think that this definitely would have a negative effect on the heal th, saf ety and we I far e of the ,corrmuni ty, and the re lief would ,be substanti~l relative to the Ordinance. It would create a deficit of 420 parking spaces. , Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 1996, by the foil~wing vote: MR. KARPELE~-It would create a deficit of, how many parking sf),aces did we say? MR. CARV IN-We 11, my f i gur e is approx ima te 1 y 14,20. I take it back 420. MR. KARPELES-420 parking spaces~ MR. SMITH-That's a big difference from 1420. MR. CARVIN-420, 3076 down to 2656. So that's a difference of 420 parking spaces, but that's still assuming that these numbers are correct, and I'm not positive that these numbers are correct. MR. SMITH-But that's a big difference. MR. CARVIN-Well, I had said 14, it's 420 spaces is what, not 40 spaces is the difference the applicant is requesting. So I think that the relief that they're requesting of 40 parking spaces is a big difference from the 420 that we come up with, which r,epresents not quite 20 percent, which would be 50. So we're probably talking about 19% of the 2656 spaces. MR. KARPELES-Well, another way to look at it is it's ß9ing to bring in 1500 people, and 3 people per car, that's 500 s~aces thai are required, and we're already 40 spaces short. So that's 460 spaces. So it comes out about the same. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, there's a motion on the floor, and there's a second, okay, and I'm going to have to close the public hearing, because we're in the motion. So I'll close, the public hearing. - 65 - '~./ ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/96) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green MR. CARVIN-A final item of business, next Tuesday, I'd like to recommend Chris be Chairman, because we only have four, or next Wednesday, we only have four members, and assuming that the four folks show up, and I would ask anyone who can make that meeting to please make it, and if there's no problem, I would move that Chris chair that meeting next Wednesday. MR. KARPELES-That's fine. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Chris, is that okay with you? MR. THOMAS-Fine. MR. CARVIN-All right. Now, do we have Salvador? MR. HILTON-No. He will be off until May because of a publication error. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we really only have a couple of cases, got three or four. , we ve MR. THOMAS-It might be a short night. MR. CARVIN-Well, hopefully, because we'll make up for it next week. Okay. If there's no other business, meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman - 66 -