Loading...
1996-06-26 ----., ,,~1 R , GIN A L QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 43-1996 Tax Map No. 8-5-6 John E. Kelly, III RaYmond & Etta Mc Casland Mary G. Brown 1. Area Variance No. 42-1996 Tax Map No. 90-7-20 3 . Area Variance No. 41-1996 Tax Map No. 106-2-13.3 7. Area Variance No. 48-1996 Tax Map No. 128-4-1 Curtis O. Condon 11. Area Variance No. 45-1996 Tax Map No. 3-1-17 John J., Jr. & Alice Lynch 15. Use Variance No. 46-1996 Tax Map No. 110-1-13 Timothy F. Barber 20. -- THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. jAV\'a\fl~ --../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 1996 7:00 P.M. OF APPEALS MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY WILLIAM GREEN ROBERT KARPELES BONNIE LAPHAM DAVID MENTER PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARVIN-First, is anyone here for the Wheeler Area Variance? Has anyone come in for that particular? Okay. That was improperly advertised. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOHN E. KELLY,..-III OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 241 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 9 FT. BY 13 FT. DECK TO BE CONSTRUCTED OFF THE FRONT PORCH OF AN EXISTING HOME. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS OF SECTION 179 - 60 . ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 8-5-6 LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION 179-60 JAMES KELLY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-1996, John E. Kelly, III, Meeting Date: June 26, 1996 "APPLICANT: John Kelly PROJECT LOCATION: 241 Assembly Point Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant is proposing to construct a 9 ft. by 13 ft. deck to be constructed off an existing single family home. Relief is being requested from the shoreline setbacks listed in Section 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to construct a new deck. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not Seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking shoreline setback relief of 8 feet. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? A pre-existing porch on this property is already about 67 feet from the shore. This application would not encroach on the shoreline setback any further. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant is seeking to construct a new deck that would be the same distance from the shoreline as the existing screened in porch. Staff anticipates no negative impacts associated with this variance request. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 9' x 13' deck off front porch. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? Does anyone have any questions of the applicant? In which case, I'll move to the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant, anyone? Okay. What do you think, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-It seems pretty clear cut. A deck is less intrusive than the screened porch. It's probably better. MR. MENTER-This is going to be in addition to the screened porch though, right? MR. KELLY-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. KELLY-There's an existing screened porch. This is going to follow the same line down the hill. It's going to be off, parallel to this. MR. MENTER-Right. I really couldn't see any problem with it. I don' t see any negative effects. I think it will benefi~ the applicant quite a bit, actually. MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with this. It's no closer to the lake than the existing porch. It looks good to me. MR. GREEN - I was just curious about the steps. Do we count those in the setback or not, because those seem to be coming out further than the deck. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. I think normally you're supposed to, but I don't know that for a fact. MR. GREEN-That was my only thought, but other than that, just to get the numbers right. MR. CARVIN-Those steps are only going to be, what, one or two steps, are they? MR. KELLY-There's two steps. So they should be probably two feet closer to the lake than the existing deck. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Chris, any comments, any thoughts? MR. THOMAS-I've looked at this. I've looked at the map. I'm measuring it now, and I've added it all up, and I can't find where that deck is any closer than 78 feet to that lake, including the road front. MR. MENTER-Going by the survey there? MR. THOMAS-Going by the survey. MR. CARVIN-I guess I can assume that you don't have a problem with this. MR. THOMAS-I don't have a problem with this. MR. CARVIN-I don't have a problem with it either. I'll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1996 JOHN E. KELLY, III, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: 241 Assembly Point Road. Applicant is proposing to construct a 9' - 2 - ',,---, -.-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) by 13' deck on the front of his building. Eight feet of relief is required from the waterfront setback, in order to construct this deck. The benefit to the applicant in the use of this deck would appear to outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The size of the deck would preclude it from being a structure that saw a lot of traffic. Therefore, there wouldn't appear to be any negative effects on the surrounding community. In fact, it would fit in with the community fairly well. It would encroach no further than the current structure on the setback, and there do not appear to be any feasible alternatives for the applicant in erecting a deck on the lake side of this structure. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1996 TYPE II SR-IA RAYMOND & ETTA MCCASLAND OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF PEGGY ANN ROAD AND LADY SLH'PER DRIVE, 36 LADY SLIPPER DR. APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL AND 7 FOOT HIGH FENCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 179-67B2, 5 AND THE FENCE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 179-74B3. TAX MAP NO. 90-7-20 LOT SIZE: 0.61 ACRES SECTION 179-67B2, 5 SECTION 179-74B3 RAYMOND & ETTA MCCASLAND, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-1996, RaYmond & Etta McCasland, Meeting Date: June 26, 1996 "APPLICANT: RaYmond & Etta McCasland PROJECT LOCATION: 36 Lady Slipper Dr. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicants are proposing to construct a swimming pool and 7 foot high fence to be located in front of the pool. The maximum height for residential fences listed in the Zoning Ordinance is 6 feet. The swimming pool is proposed to be located to the side of the house in what is technically the rear yard due to this home being located on a corner lot. Pools on corner lots are required to be located behind the architectural main entrance to the home. The applicants also propose to locate the pool 8.2 feet from the principal structure instead of the 10 feet required by code. Relief is being requested from Sections 179-67B2, 5 concerning the location of the pool; and Section 179-74B3 which states that residential fences cannot exceed 6 feet in height. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a pool and a screening fence for the pool on an area of the lot that would not require removal of trees and vegetation. 2. Feasible al ternati ves: There do not seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 1 foot of relief for the fence, and 1.8 feet of relief for the location of the pool next to the principal structure. The applicant's request to locate the pool next to the structure instead of behind the home is not substantial relief due to the wooded condition behind the home. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? This corner lot has an area of trees behind the home which limits where a pool can be located on this lot. Staff Comments & Concerns: This plan to build a pool and screening fence in the proposed location is an acceptable alternative to building in an area that would require the removal of a number of trees. - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) This proposal could probably be seen as safer than locating a pool closer to Peggy Ann Rd. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. " MR. THOMAS-And we have no correspondence from Warren County Planning. MR. CARVIN-Does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? Any questions? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've got one. I've read it about twice, and I still don't, back here where it says, "The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of Variance", down at Number Four it says, "Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance", and down on the second line it says, "56 feet from east property line. Second pool doesn't protrude further." Is that what that says? MRS. MCCASLAND-And, and the. MR. THOMAS-And. I'm sorry. It looks like a 2. You're right. It is an A. -- MRS. LAPHAM-My only question was, I'm confused. When I went to your house, I saw a pool, but here it says proposed pool. Is the above ground pool staying with the fence, or is that pool coming down and you're putting in another pool? MRS. MCCASLAND-No. That is the pool. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. So it's the fence in front of it that we're talking about? MRS. MCCASLAND-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, anyone? MR. THOMAS-Why can't you move it 1.8 feet to the north, to get away from that building, so you can have 10 feet from the building? MR. MCCASLAND-1.8 feet to the north would put us, there's approximately three birch trees that are right there. MR. THOMAS-Are they that close? MR. MCCASLAND-They're actually, yes. MRS. MCCASLAND-They're close. MR. CARVIN-I have a question. On your map here you show some sort of structure, 4.9 feet. MR. MCCASLAND-That's an air conditioning unit. MR. CARVIN-That's an air conditioning unit? MR. MCCASLAND-There's a little air conditioning unit that sits just out there. MR. CARVIN-Four feet? MR. MCCASLAND-No. It's 4 foot 9 and a half inches from the pool. That little square is the air condition unit thing, little. Are we looking at the same thing? MR. CARVIN-I'm just trying to get the measurements here. So you're talking about three feet. - 4 - ~ '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes. Those units are 30 by 30, 30" by 30", and they sit away from the building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions by anybody? MR. MENTER-Yes. The pool's existing, right? MRS. MCCASLAND-Right. MR. MENTER-The best location on this map would be parallel with the front of the house there, run straight out, right? MRS. MCCASLAND-Right. MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-I just have a question on the height. Why do you need seven feet as opposed to six feet? MRS. MCCASLAND-The pool has a two foot walk around like deck thing, and then it has a fence, like a safety guard rail, whatever. What is it called? - MR. MCCASLAND-It's a safety height fence around the top of the pool. MRS. MCCASLAND-So instead of bringing a fence up and having a foot and 14 inches or something of it showing above the fence line, I just went to the top railing of the fence, of the actual, whatever structure of the pool. This is where you walk, and then there's a fence line, a fence that comes up higher. So I just went to that top, figured if you're going to cover it, cover the whole thing. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The eight feet, is that to the deck, or is that to the pool? MR. MCCASLAND-That's to around the deck, where the deck arms come down from the top of it, and it goes from the house to those deck arms. MR. CARVIN~Yes. You're eight foot, two, is that to the deck or to the pool? MRS. MCCASLAND-That's to the first structure of the pool. MR. MCCASLAND-Right. MRS. MCCASLAND-You know how you have rods or whatever they are. MR. MCCASLAND-The arms that come down. It's to those arms. MR. CARVIN-To the deck, because the deck is two feet? MRS. MCCASLAND-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Because that was one of my questions, is there going to be a deck around the pool? MR. MCCASLAND-Yes. It's two feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anybody else have any other questions? Okay. If there's no other questions, I'm going to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT - 5 - -/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-What do you think, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with it. I went up there and looked at it, and I can see the logic in putting the seven foot fence there. I think it'll look a lot better than a six foot fence would. I don't see the objection to being a foot closer or two feet closer to the house. It looks okay to me. MR. MENTER-I tend to agree with Bob. I think the fence makes sense. I think a foot and a half location of the pool is a small issue relative to moving the pool. MR. GREEN-When I first looked at this, I said, geez, why can't we move it a foot and a half, but after seeing it up, I have to go along with Dave. I kind of hate to get into this cart before the horse, but as far as the fence is concerned, I think it makes sense. MRS. LAPHAM-I agree with everybody else so far. MR. THOMAS-I'm fine with it. No problem. --- MR. CARVIN-I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1996 RAYMOND & ETTA MCCASLAND, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant is proposing to construct a swimming pool and seven foot high fence, to be located in, technically, the rear yard, due to this home being located on a corner lot. The pool also is proposed to be located 8.2 feet from the principal structure, instead of the 10 feet required. Relief is being requested from Section 179-76B2,5 concerning the location of the pool, and Section 179-74B3, which states that residential fences cannot exceed six feet in height. The applicant has shown that the benefit to the applicant would be placing the pool in an area where no vegetation or tree growth would be taken down. The fence would benefit the applicant, in regard to the fence, would allow better screening of the pool, due to a railing around the deck. There does not appear to be any feasible alternatives that would provide less relief, due to the tree growth and vegetation on the site. It does not appear to be substantial relief, 1.8 feet of relief is needed for the location of the pool, and one foot of relief is needed from the fence height requirement. There's been no public comment against the proposed pool location, and I feel there's no other negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Due to the fact that the lot is a corner lot with a great number of trees, it does not appear to be self created. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: NEIGHBOR-Excuse me. street. I do oppose this, and I do live across the MR. GREEN-Well, we had the public hearing. We asked for public comment, and nobody said anything. NEIGHBOR-I know, but you said that there's no opposing. MR. CARVIN-There wasn't any. MR. GREEN-You had your chance. NEIGHBOR-I know, I just came in. I'm sorry. - 6 - '-" '-.-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. GREEN-I'm sorry. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we've had a motion and it's been seconded. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-I'm sorry that you weren't here. We did go through the mechanics. NEIGHBOR-I came in, and I heard you saying the pool. MR. CARVIN-I'm sorry. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1996 SFR-1A MARY G. BROWN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GARRISON ROAD, SECOND HOUSE ON LEFT FROM CORNER OF GARRISON AND GLEN STREETS. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE REAR OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-20C. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 106-2-13.3 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION 179-20C BOB RUGGLES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-1996, Mary G. Brown, Meeting Date: June 26, 1996 "APPLICANT: Mary Brown PROJECT LOCATION: Garrison Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing single family home. This addition would require relief from the side yard setback listed in Section 179-20C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a new addition to an existing home. 2. Feasible alternatives: Depending on the floor plan of the home and location of the septic system the applicant may have the ability to construct the addition to the east of the existing deck. This would eliminate the need for any setback relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 5.5 feet of side setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Further comment may be provided at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The septic location and existing floor plan of this home located on a legal nonconforming lot may make it difficult to build an addition that would not require relief. Staff Comments & Concerns: This addition in its proposed location appears to be a reasonable request that would not adversely effect the neighborhood. The board should determine whether or not this addition can be built in a different location on the lot. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a bedroom and 1/2 bath addition to rear of house. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact." Signed by C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Does everybody understand what the applicant is requesting? MR. RUGGLES-I'm Mr. Ruggles, Bob Ruggles. - 7 - ------ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. CARVIN-Staff has indicated the possibility of building it on the other side. Is there anything that you'd care to comment or address with regard to that? MR. RUGGLES-Well, I don't think it's possible, in this particular case. First of all, you mentioned the septic system. There's public sewer there, and water. There's no involvement with the sewage system, individual sewage system, but on the other side, it would be on the east side, it's not feasible according to the floor plan of the house. This lady is I think 84 years old, and she does require help all night long. She wants to build a bedroom on the first floor, which would be off the kitchen, where this lady will be spending most of her time is in the kitchen, and she wants a bedroom off the kitchen with a half bath for the person that stays with her all night long. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and what's on the east side? MR. RUGGLES-The other side is the bedroom that the lady uses, and in between that, I have a floor plan of the house if you're interested in seeing it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. ---- MR. RUGGLES-This is a house that I built several years ago. MR. MENTER-So the kitchen right now is behind the garage? MR. RUGGLES-The kitchen is behind the garage, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-On the other side of the house would be more her bedroom and bath? MR. RUGGLES-It's her bedroom and bath, yes. This is the floor plan now. We would like to put this bedroom right here. We need to come out the four feet. We've got at least 100 feet from here, maybe more than that, 125 or 130 feet from here to the next house, and we'd like to come out just even with the garage, but the lot, the way, the angle this way makes it sit about four and a half, four to four and a half feet too close to the line when we come out to this point here. MR. CARVIN-Is there a window or something you're going to turn into a door? MR. RUGGLES-We're taking the sliding patio door that goes onto an existing deck, taking the patio door and we'd like to put it over here, go in the end of her living room. I just did this today MR. CARVIN-So it doesn't really make it feasible to put it over here? MR. RUGGLES-It's not feasible. She just can't do it. That's all. We'd like to do it this way. This is what we're coming off here, going four feet this way. This would be a bedroom with a half bath, and then we would like to put the deck here, and then put this door that's here, put it over here and she'd have this deck. This is actually not effecting anything, as far as setbacks or anything else. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but what I don't understand is why do you have to come out this four feet? MR. RUGGLES-Because we don't want to loose this window in the kitchen, you see, that's over the kitchen. It's the only window in the kitchen here. MR. KARPELES-That's looking out over the deck? - 8 - '-' '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. RUGGLES-This is looking out. I don't want to hide that. I could come, we'd much rather, believe me, I'd much rather come this way. I've got no problem coming this direction, but I can't move that window. MR. KARPELES-That's all it is, right. I do have, this guy, he hasn't given me anything in writing, but he's all for it, this man that lives next door. I have a letter of approval from these people, and a letter of an ownership of property in the back here. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. So you mean Joyce Thompson over here? MR. RUGGLES-Joyce Thompson. I've got them from Joyce and David. MRS. LAPHAM-The people in the back, they don't care? MR. RUGGLES-They're all for it. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions of the applicant? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - MARK RADLOFF MR. RADLOFF-I'm the guy next door that is directly affected by this. My name's Mark Radloff. I live 4 Garrison Road, and where this addition is taking place, I have two pieces of property that were subdivided when the gentleman who originally owned, it owned the property, died, Mrs. Brown got one of them and put that house up. I don't know which piece of property it affects, but the main reason I was coming here tonight was because of, I know it was surveyed, and we're talking 15 and a half feet on the property line, with the 20 foot setback. Is that correct? MR. MENTER-Fourteen and a half. MR. RADLOFF-We're going to be 14 feet from my proposed property line. MR. KARPELES-Right. MR. RADLOFF-I don't have a problem with that, given the conditions. Explained on the condition that if something occurs in the future, I'd be given the same courtesy. That's my only concern. MR. MENTER-It's not a courtesy. MR. RADLOFF-I'm just saying, given 15 feet, 15 feet, I don't see how it's going to impact me, and like I say, I don't know which piece of property really impacts, because there's two parcels there, where it comes in, and my only other concern was the wording in the variance, reasonable accessibility. Is that something to do with the ADA Act? MR. CARVIN-I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. MR. RADLOFF-Well, on the variance application, on the notice that I received, reason for reasonable accessibility, was that? MR. CARVIN-I think that's for here. In other words, that we've provided reasonable accessibility to this building for handicapped folks. MR. RADLOFF-Okay. MR. CARVIN-It has nothing to do with the application. - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. RADLOFF-Okay. No, I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-I have a question for Mark. That wall that's there, how high is that? MR. RADLOFF-Which one? MR. THOMAS-There's a wall that runs right down that property line. MR. RADLOFF-That was put up by the previous owner, Herbie Brown, Wetherbee, and Mrs. Brown, they put that up together. It's about a foot, foot and a half high. MR. THOMAS-That's all it is. MR. RADLOFF-In fact, that wall is not on the property line. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it sits on your property. MR. RUGGLES-It sits on his property. MR. RADLOFF-My property line is actually about two and a half, three feet over. The property line actually is concurrent with the big wall coming off the street, and that's where it runs. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It looks like the wall starts on her side, that corner. MR. RADLOFF-There's a stake out there, and that really is the property line. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It shows that wall back there where the addition's going about two feet in on your property. MR. RUGGLES-That wall is on Mark's property. MR. THOMAS-That's all I've got. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No Correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? No other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Anyone have any questions of the applicant? What do you think, Chris? MR. THOMAS-I don't have a problem with it, because of the existing layout of the house, precludes the addition going over on the east side. So it has to really go right where the applicant has asked, and I don't think it's an unreasonable request. The room is fairly small. It's just a small bedroom with a small half bath in there, and a new deck. Removing an existing patio out there, putting on a new deck and a new room, I have no problem with it. MRS. LAPHAM-I don't either. MR. KARPELES-No problem. MR. GREEN-I think it's fine. MR. MENTER-Yes. I have no problem with it if the Board feels that the benefit of maintaining the window outweighs the detriment to being closer to the property line. I would agree with that. - 10 - ~ --/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. CARVIN-I don't have a problem with this either. I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1996 MARY G. BROWN, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing single family home, and this addition would require relief from the side yard setback listed in Section 1 79-20C. This relief will allow the applicant to build a new addition to an existing home, and there do not appear to be any feasible alternatives that would be satisfactory. I would move that we grant the applicant 5.5· feet of side setback relief. There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and the neighbors appear to be in support of this construction. This request would not adversely effect the neighborhood, and would appear to enhance the value of the property. The benefit to the applicant would far outweigh any adverse effect it might have on the neighborhood. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, ~ Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. RUGGLES-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1996 TYPE II MR-S MHO CURTIS O. CONDON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF VERMONT AVENUE AND LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DWELLING. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-79A2. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 128-4-1 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION 179-79A2 CURTIS CONDON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-1996, Curtis O. Condon, Meeting Date: June 26, 1996 "APPLICANT: Curtis Condon PROJECT LOCATION: 143 Luzerne Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing single family home. Because this property is zoned MR- 5, this expansion requires relief from the expansion of a nonconforming structure requirements of Section 179-79A2. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefi t to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a new addition to an existing home. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? This plan is for infill construction that will not decrease any setbacks on the property. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? This single family home is a pre-existing nonconforming use within the MR-5 district. Any expansion of this home would require some form of relief from the zoning ordinance. Staff Comments & Concerns: The proposed addition is infill construction that will not reduce existing property setbacks. Permeability will be well above what is required by the zoning ordinance for this district. Staff is supportive of this request - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) for relief. SEQR: Type II, no further action is required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for an Variance for the construction of a two story addition. reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation No County Impact." Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Does everyone understand what the applicant is proposing? Any questions? held Area was to: MS. CIPPERLY-On the application form itself, when it says building square footage, it also includes the garage, there's two garages and things like that. The existing house was 600, if you look at the drawing, the existing house is 600 square feet, and the addition is 1056. MR. CARVIN-I just have a question on the pool. from the house? Is that 10 feet MR. THOMAS-I measure eight and a half. MR. CARVIN-Are you going to have a problem with that, Staff? I mean, do they need relief from that? MS. CIPPERLY-I wasn't aware that the pool was part of the variance application. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying, will we have a problem with that if we grant this variance? MS. CIPPERLY-Maybe they could move the pool two feet out. MR. CARVIN-According to their plan, it looks like they're building a proposed deck. So it looks like, that's why I'm saying. I don't know. I mean, if it's only eight and a half, and we need 10. MR. THOMAS-Well, is there any problem moving that pool back a foot and a half? MR. CONDON-No, it's just the labor. MR. THOMAS-Drain her down and move her back. Throw the deck out another foot and a half. How far does it have to be from that septic tank? It has to be 10 feet, two, doesn't it? MR. CARVIN-I think so. Okay. Well, the Board should take into consideration that we have an eight and a half foot distance to the pool. So you may want to condition that, if there is a motion. Any other questions of the applicant? If not, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-What do you think, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I just have one quick question for Staff. Sue, what was the, the existing house is 650 square feet, isn't that smaller than, what is the smallest size that the Town allows? MS. CIPPERLY-800, for a single family home. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. So this is already almost 200 square feet smaller than what we. - 12 - '-' '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. CARVIN-Yes, but it's probably pre-existing. MS. CIPPERLY-Right, it pre-exists the Ordinance, but it would bring it, the expansion would help bring that up to our. MRS. LAPHAM-More conforming. I went out and visited the site. I didn't have a problem with it. MR. GREEN-I have to agree with Bonnie. I'm a little curious if we could do something maybe behind the garage or behind the existing house or something. MR. CARVIN-As far as? I'm not following you. MR. GREEN-Putting an addition there, rather than going the other way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-They've got the septic over there. MR. GREEN-Is the septic in yet? -- MR. CONDON-We're going to take the old septic out and put a larger tank in, because it's going to require putting in a larger tank. I need like a 1,000 gallon tank. MR. GREEN-The leach field and all isn't there at this point? MR. CONDON-No. That'll all be new. MS. CIPPERLY-So you made a choice as to which garage you wanted to attach the house to? MR. CONDON-The other one is more like an oversized, like, woodshed where we do, I've just got like a table saw and what not in there, but the garage itself is where we park our cars. We have a newer garage in. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That existing 17' by 23' garage, that was the original garage when the house was built, was it? MR. CONDON-Yes. MR. MENTER-How long have you owned the property? MR. CONDON-I think it was around' 83. My grandmother owned it. It used to be my grandmother had bought the place, and it was a one family place when she lived there. MR. THOMAS-So you built that garage? MR. CONDON-Yes. I built that garage, in like '87. about '82, '83, and built the garage in '87. I moved in MR. MENTER-Yes. The location of the addition makes sense to me, and I also think it'll be an improvement. The only issue I would have would be the location of the pool. There's no sense in creating another problem. So I would go along with this, with the stipulation that the pool not be closer than 10 feet to the structure, existing or proposed. MR. CARVIN-I just had a thought. If this was a jacuzzi, would we still require a jacuzzi 10 feet, I mean, because the deck is attached to the house, which is attached to the pool. How would one consider that? MS. CIPPERLY-A jacuzzi, pools are covered by the State, there's a - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) State code especially for pools, where there isn't one for jacuzzi's. MR. CARVIN-Relative to distance from houses or structures? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that's a State mandated 10 feet, then, is what you're saying? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It's just a thought. Do you have any comments or thoughts, Bob with regard to this? MR. KARPELES-No. I kind of like the location of it, too. I think it makes sense from there. What are we really granting relief from? MR. CARVIN-50% expansion of the house. MR. KARPELES-50% expansion, is that it? .-- MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-I don't have any problem with it. It looks okay to me. I think it will be an improvement. MR. THOMAS-No problem. MR. CARVIN-All right. I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1996 CURTIS O. CONDON, Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Located at 143 Luzerne Road. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing single family home. Because this property is zoned MR-5, this expansion requires relief from the expansion of a nonconforming structure requirements of Section 179- 79A2. The benefit to the applicant would be it would allow him to build a new addition to this existing home and give him more living space. There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives. The relief is substantial in that it's a 50 percent relief in the expansion of a home, but it does not decrease any setbacks on the property. There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and there was no public comment concerning this application. The difficulty was not self created as the home is located in a pre-existing nonconforming use that was in the MR-5 district, and any expansion in this zone would require some sort of relief from the Zoning Ordinance. I would condition the granting of this variance with the stipulation that the pool must be moved back to it's proper 10 feet from the structure. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-Is there any question on the motion? Does Staff understand what we're granting? Does the applicant understand what we're granting? Okay. You're going to have to move the pool. It's got to be at least 10 feet. Sorry about that. MR. CONDON-That's all right. I'll be 10 feet. I'm not moving it twice. I'll move the house first. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin - 14 - '--' -..-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1996 TYPE II WR-3A CEA JOHN J., JR. & ALICE LYNCH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 14 HIGHVIEW ROAD, OFF OF NYS ROUTE 9L APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING CONSTRUCTING A 1,150 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND DECK TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-79A2. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 3-1-17 LOT SIZE: 0.59 ACRES SECTION 179-79A2 JOHN CAFFRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-1996, John J., Jr. & Alice Lynch, Meeting Date: June 26, 1996 "APPLICANT: John & Alice Lynch PROJECT LOCATION: 14 Highview Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing single family home. This expansion is more than 50% of the original structure and requires relief from the expansion of a nonconforming structure requirements of Section 179-79A2. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to add on to an existing single family home. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? This addition will not conflict with any other section of the zoning ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? This 528 sq. ft. addition is proposed for a building that has an existing nonconforming rear setback. Staff Comments & Concerns: With this addition, the overall square footage for this home would be about 14% of the entire lot. It appears that this addition would not effect adjacent property owner's lake views. As proposed this building would conform to the height requirements for this zoning district. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct an addition to the rear of the house. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? MR. KARPELES-No, I don't think I do. Is he looking for a variance for the deck, too, or just for the other new addition? Does the deck need a variance? MS. CIPPERLY-The deck is existing. MR. KARPELES-There's a note, proposed deck, stairs and porches, yellow, a good share of this, 30' 6" by 16' 9". MR. CARVIN-In other words, he's indicating a new deck, proposed deck and stairs and porch, but he's 130 feet back. So there really shouldn't be any problem with that. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. The deck is part of the living space, and it meets all the setbacks. MR. KARPELES-So all he's looking for is this. - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. CARVIN-Fifty percent expansion again. MR. KARPELES-Yes, right, but there seem to be two different areas. Well, maybe you're going to get into that. Are you going to tell us about that? MR. CAFFRY-Sure. I'm John Caffry, the attorney for the LYnchs, and this is Mrs. LYnch here with me. Just one thing I'd like to clarify. There's a typo in the application, where it says the existing green area is eight percent of the parcel, that should be 81%. Even after this, it's going to be 76.4%, but I did want to point that out. When I spoke to George Hilton in the last day or two, he said that the deck did not require a variance in any way. We're showing all this just so you can see the whole picture, but the variance is only from this 50% rule. We don't need a variance from any setbacks or anything else. It's essentially the same thing as you just reviewed for the other one, except the lot's bigger and we don't have a pool. We have a lake. The pictures I just gave you are photos of the current existing situation. The top one is the view from the street side. The bottom one is from down by the dock, or the middle one. The bottom one is a view from the house area down toward the lake. MR. CARVIN-I know when I was out there, I was, and I guess I was, again, drinking heavily at the time. This has not been built. Correct? I mean, this is, because I looked at the house, and I looked at the diagram, and I said, gee, this is a done deal, but nothing has been? MR. CAFFRY-No, no changes have been made since the last addition was put on several years ago. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So really all we're looking at is just that kind of the light blue area that you've got on the color coded? MR. CAFFRY-Aside from the new deck area, there's actually two separate additions. One is kind of light blue, between the deck and the existing house. The other is kind of a bay window over near the wooden stairways there. It just sticks out about five feet from the house. MR. CARVIN -Okay. applicant? Does anybody else have any questions of the MR. THOMAS - Yes. I've got one of John. Why did you gi ve us pictures of the house in the winter time? Couldn't you find one in the summer? MR. CAFFRY-That's what the architect sent me. MR. THOMAS-Boy, I'm freezing now. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions of the applicant? MR. KARPELES-What is this new addition? It looks like it's got a fire place in it. Is the fire place part of the new addition? ALICE LYNCH MRS. LYNCH-Yes. MR. KARPELES-It's going to be a family room, or what? MRS. LYNCH-It's going to be, yes, a family room with windows overlooking the lake. MR. MENTER-There's a deck right there now, right? - 16 - "--' ---" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MRS. LYNCH-There's a small deck that goes off of the great room, the purple room. MR. MENTER-That makes sense. MR. CAFFRY -That existing front deck area that's kind of cross hatched in brown, that would be subsumed into the house, basically, but that's already pretty well covered over. By doing that, it doesn't increase the square footage of the footprint. MR. CARVIN-You're not going any higher than the existing house? MR. CAFFRY-No. The addition would be two stories, but it wouldn't go any higher than what's there now. I think you have some elevations to show that. MR. CARVIN-I know when I was out there, the deck that your existing steps, for those who are not color blind, I guess it's the red striped. Is that going to be replaced? MRS. LYNCH-Yes. There'll be railings on the sides and all of the leveled areas, clapboard. .-- MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're just replacing that, because I noticed it was kind of in. MRS. LYNCH-Bad condition. MR. CARVIN-Right. MRS. LYNCH-We've just moved in, as of June 17th. So, yes, we have things we'd like to do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. KARPELES-That proposed paved area, is that just a walkway between the garage and the deck, or what is that, that upside down "T"? MR. CAFFRY-Yes, this right here. MRS. LYNCH-That back structure is like where the, actually, I don't know what that is, to tell you the truth. MR. CAFFRY-I think it's just additional sidewalk. MR. CARVIN-It just says paved area. MR. KARPELES-Yes, that's what I would assume it is. MRS. LYNCH-That is the back of the garage. MR. KARPELES-So it goes from there to the deck, I guess. MR. THOMAS-I think that white square in there is the fire place chimney. MR. KARPELES-Maybe it is. It probably is. MRS. LYNCH-No, because the fire place is going to be inside that blue. MR. KARPELES-Okay. I see, it says brick walk and steps. It's a brick walk and steps. MR. MENTER-Yes. That's a planter area, that white square there. MRS. LYNCH-Okay. - 17 - ----' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. KARPELES-Okay, that's a planter area. We got it. We got it figured out. MRS. LYNCH-The back of the house faces the lake. The front of the house faces 9L. MR. CAFFRY-Sometimes it's confusing around the lake. Some houses have two fronts. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? MR. GREEN-What are the dimensions on your bay window there? MR. CAFFRY-About five by ten, maybe. That's just a rough guess. MR. GREEN-And then I guess the basic reason for the initial addition was just to give you some more room downstairs? MRS. LYNCH-The kitchen's very small. We'd purple area and make it into the kitchen. living area. So we needed to put on a living the kind o{ kitchen I want. like to take up the That takes away our room so I could have MR. GREEN-Sue, according to my figures, we're about 60 fee~over the expansion? MR. CARVIN-No. I think you have to go from the original building, 36' by 26' . MR. GREEN-That's what I did. Well, I took 936 feet of original structure. Half of that is 468. The proposed new addition is 528. That's 60 feet difference. Did I do that correctly? MR. CAFFRY-Not really. The existing addition more than doubled the size of the house, and this rule must not have been in place when that was done. MR. GREEN-Right. I'm going with the original structure of 936 square feet. Half of that would be 468 square feet. So that is your allowable 50% expansion, and you're proposing 528 feet. MR. CAFFRY-Yes, but you're overlooking the 1200 foot addition that was put on in '87 or '89. MS. CIPPERLY-The Code reads that no enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50% of the gross floor area of the single family dwelling immediately prior to the commencement of the first enlargement or rebuilding. So the way you're looking at it, Bill, is right. MR. GREEN-That's why we're here. MR. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. GREEN-So we're 60 feet over? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. GREEN-You just said your bay window was 5' by 10'. There's 50 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, comments? MR. GREEN-I was just saying that removal of that bay window would pretty much eliminate the need for a variance, or it would greatly reduce it. MS. CIPPERLY-On the other hand, it doesn't look like there'd be any place to eat in the kitchen, if it wasn't there. I think that - 18 - '-- '--" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) looks like that's what the purpose of that is. MRS. LYNCH-Right, that's the eating area. MR. CARVIN-And I'm not quite sure that that's the right interpretation either. I'd have to really mull that over, because what you're saying is they could keep adding, under 500 square foot additions 17 times. I'm just saying that I understand where you're coming from. MR. GREEN-Well, if you're here for a variance for expansion of greater than 50 feet. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I think because they've had one expansion of greater than 50 feet, that any expansion would almost mandate whether it was 10 square feet, because I think it has to be on an aggregate, and again, that's not to be construed as an interpretation, but I think we want to be very careful in looking at it from that aspect, because lets face it, if that was the case, then everybody would just keep it under 500 square feet. They'd wait a month and build another 500 square foot. MR. GREEN-I see your point wholeheartedly, but I. --- MR. CARVIN-And I think we'd have to take a look at total expansion, and again, I mean, they're not here for an interpretation, but I understand where you're coming from and I don't quite agree with it. I don't have a problem with it either. MS. CIPPERLY-On the other hand, Fred, if you counted the addition in one place, you'd also have to count it somewhere else. If you wanted to count that as your square footage, people could keep coming in and doing additions based on a larger. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. I think that, again, it's not an interpretational thing, and I certainly don't want to get off on a tangent here. MS. CIPPERLY-This has never been our favorite section of the Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-No. I mean, that's why I'm treading carefully. Thank you for those comments. MR. GREEN-I really don't have a problem with it so far back from the lake, but we talked about minimum relief. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well taken points, and unfortunately I don't have an answer for you, and I'm sure that at some point, this Board may have to come up with an answer. Having said that, I'll move to the public hearing, if there's no other questions. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any additional questions of the applicant? How about you, Bill? MR. GREEN-As I said, in general I don't think it's a bad project. It's going to make the house possibly more liveable for them. I was just trying to look at minimum relief. MRS. LAPHAM-I don't have a problem with this. I think it's a well thought out project. It's not close enough to the lake to impact it height wise, and as I walked around, it's not going to obstruct - 19 - '-.-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) anyone else's view of the lake. There's enough trees so that it won't glare at you from the boat. MR. MENTER-Yes. I think, of the Ordinance, I think despite the application of it, I think the spirit of it is to control certain types of growth that may happen and to give you a mechanism to do that. I don't see any problem with this. I think we've performed that. I think the lot's big enough. The proximity to the lake is fine. It's not going to effect the area whatsoever, and I think it's fine. MR. KARPELES-I agree with everything that's been said. it's going to be darn nice, actually. I think MR. THOMAS-No, I have no problem with it. I agree with Bonnie that the house sits far enough and high enough from the lake, and there's enough trees shading it, that the glass on the front will not effect the view from the lake. As everyone knows, I'm a big opponent of a lot glass close to the lake. MR. CARVIN-I don't have a problem with this. I think this project fits this lot pretty good. So, having said that, is there a motion? ~ MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1996 JOHN J. JR. & ALICE LYNCH, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Grant them relief from Section 179-79A2, which states that no enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50% of the gross floor area of such single family dwelling or mobile home immediately prior to the commencement of the first enlargement or rebuilding. The benefit to the applicant would be they would have a larger home and a bigger kitchen. There do not seem to be any other feasible alternatives. The relief is not substantial from the Ordinance, even though it is a little over the Ordinance. It will not have any effect on the neighborhood or community, and the difficulty is self created, but because of the expansion, where it is occurring, does not have any difficulty on the property or the neighborhood. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford USE VARIANCE NO. 46-1996 HC-1A TYPE: UNLISTED TIMOTHY F. BARBER OWNER: JAMES & WILLIAM BARRETT 437 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING USE A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AS A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WHICH IS A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-23. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-13 LOT SIZE: 1.73 ACRES SECTION 179- 23 TIMOTHY BARBER, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-A letter dated February 1, 1995, addressed to Mr. william Barrett, regarding Spill Number 9402504, Barrett Truck Center, Glens Falls, Warren County "Dear Mr. Barrett: I have reviewed the January 15, 1995 progress report for the above referenced site, prepared for you by Northeastern Environmental Technologies Corp. The recommendation to continue with quarterly groundwater sampling and analysis is acceptable to this Department. Treatment of contaminated groundwater and in-situ soils is not - 20 - '- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) required at this time. A report should be forwarded to this office following each well gauging and sampling round, and should include current contaminant plume and groundwater gradient maps, plus a brief reassessment of the site's conditions. The soil sample collected from the biocell on November 29, 1994 meets TCLP Guidance Values for parameters measured using EPA method 8270, but exceeds TCLP Guidance Values for parameters measured by EPA method 8021. The soil is still considered contaminated and treatment should continue. When you feel the soil is no longer contaminated, another composite sample must be collected and may be analyzed using only EPA method 8021. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Suna Stone-McMasters Env. Engineering Technician I" STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 46-1996, Timothy F. Barber, Meeting Date: June 26, 1996 "APPLICANT: Tim Barber PROJECT LOCATION: 437 Dix Ave. PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to use a commercially zoned property as a construction business which is classified as a light industrial use. The proposed use requires relief from the uses allowed in Section 179-23. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? A reasonable return for this land may be limited by environmental conditions at this location. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? The environmental conditions at this location may be different than those of other properties in this area. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? This area contains uses of similar intensity and would not be adversely effected by this proposed use. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? The Zoning Board should determine if this property can be used for the permitted or site plan uses for the current zoning designation. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: It appears that a hardship exists at this location that could prevent a reasonable return if used as zoned. The board should address all tests listed in Section 267-b of Town Law before taking action on this application. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for a Use Variance to rehabilitate the existing structures. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Does anyone have any questions of the applicant. Does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? MR. MENTER-How long have you owned that property? MR. BARBER-The Barrett property? There's a contract for purchase now. My name is Tim Barber. MR. KARPELES-What is this down at the bottom, this site plan? It shows three, they look like tanks here? MR. BARBER-No. systems. Those are cross sectional views of trench/leach MR. KARPELES-Where are they? MR. BARBER-They are up in the northeast corner of the property, by the mound. - 21 - "-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. KARPELES-They're in this area that says planning, test pit? MR. CARVIN-Test pit, up in that area? MR. KARPELES-Is that these? MR. BARBER-Yes, it is. That's a cross section. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess, Mr. Barber, your current business would be allowed in a Light Industrial. How would you describe your business? MR. BARBER-Our nature of business is, basically, we design, engineer and construct municipal, commercial, industrial facilities. Basically, I'm sure most of you are familiar with Jim Weller. Our business has a lot of the same characteristics as his. We deal with a lot of clients throughout New York State. Most of our equipment is throughout New York State to the majority of the time. We have a lot of clients that use the Warren County Airport. This location, that's one of the reasons this location's pretty attractive to us. It's right around the corner. Most of our clientele comes to our offices to see, One, that we exist, and just to see kind of who's going to be responsible for multi million dollar projects for them. That's why it's real important to us to have a nice location, and if any of our equipment is back at our shop, appearance wise and mechanically, if it's used, it's painted. If it's new, it's in new condition. That's the image that we proj ect . Because we do work throughout the State as design builders, and that's what attracts a lot of clients. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is this site being anticipated to be used for repair of equipment or anything like that? MR. BARBER-No, it's not. No. We do none of our own repair. We have some leased equipment which is leased through Catapillar in Albany. They do all the repair services for us, on the site or at their shop. There'll be no heavy equipment repair at this site. There will be periodic preventive maintenance type work, but nothing to the extent of heavy repair. MR. CARVIN-Okay. When you say preventive maintenance? MR. BARBER-Maybe change the oil in a truck, maybe put new tires on one of the trucks. Small stuff. Typically, we don't even do that, but that may occur. MR. CARVIN-Okay. station? That building is, what? Wasn't that a gas MR. BARBER-Heavy trucks and Hertz rental trucks. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, Hertz rental sticks in my mind. MR. BARBER-And you all have this map, I assume. They had cars and trucks all throughout this property, into the corners and allover it. They utilized, basically, the entire site, from square inch to square inch. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. KARPELES-Is this going to be your home headquarters or? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-And how many people will be working out of there? MR. BARBER-There's a staff of six office personnel that work out of our headquarters, and then there's several superintendents and - 22 - '"-" -.../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) project managers that work out of various job trailers throughout the State. MR. KARPELES-So you're saying about eight people working there? MR. BARBER-About eight people. MR. KARPELES-And all this other land is going to be used for storing equipment or what? MR. BARBER-Basically. As I said, most of our equipment is typically always on our job sites. We do occasionally have a forktruck come back, a small hydraulic truck crane, sometimes is in the yard, maybe a tractor trailer, at certain times, but basically everything is delivered to our sites, material wise, and equipment usually goes site to site. MR. CARVIN-How many vehicles might be the maximum that might be on site, in a unusual situation, I guess. MR. BARBER-And unusual situation? On an unusual situation, if we didn't have any work, we'd have the possibility of nine trucks, pick up trucks, a tractor trailer, a small truck hydraulic crane, back hoe loader, a couple of fork trucks, stuff like that, but if that happens, I'm in big trouble. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, what would you consider a normal number of vehicles? MR. BARBER-Normal? Maybe a couple of site superintendent's trucks in the yard, just the office staff, occasionally a back hoe is in the yard. The tractor trailers usually park at the shop, because that is deported from the shop and returns there during trips. We're at Hudson Falls right now, but we're assuming this is the shop. That's why we kind of had, we need the property line chain link fenced, for security reasons, one, and we put in the trees and fencing just to shield it and give a border to our adjoining neighbors. That was our intent with that. Now, would you know how long this property has been for sale, as a Highway Commercial? How long has it been on the market? MR. BARBER-This property has been for sale for, it's been on and off, I don't know how long it's been advertised, but Barretts have been wanting to sell it for a number of years. Most recently when they built their new headquarters over on Quaker Road, I'm trying to think, maybe January or sooner, they put a For Lease or For Sale sign on it, and so it's been on and off. They've had no potential buyers. There is one potential buyer that is holding up our sale at the present time. It's a taxi cab company, and that's what would go in there if we're not there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? MR. MENTER-Has it been listed? MR. BARBER-Yes. It's listed with Mark Levack. MR. MENTER-Since January? MR. BARBER-I'm not quite sure of the date. The neighbors could tell you more than I could. Possibly sooner than that, but there's a rather large environmental problem on the property. It's what's referred to as brown property. So it basically does not attract any clientele to take on that responsibility whole harmless clause to the previous owner, and that's what they're after to get. MS. CIPPERLY-Could you tell us where the spill was? - 23 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. BARBER-The spill is located in the front easterly part of the property, where the new green areas are proposed. There was gas tanks and a fuel island in there once upon a time. There was excavation done in '94, I believe. It took out about 50 or 55 yards of fill and deposited them up into the northwestern part of the property. Now that fill has not really been taken care of in the manner it should be. It's just sitting there. That really has to be either turned to let the volatiles evaporate or it has to be incinerated and sterilized. Up in the northwesterly corner, it's just, that 50 or 55 yards has been sitting there unattended to. That's one of the problems with the property. That needs to be either irrigated and fumigated or sterilized, and the front portion to the property, where we have new green areas proposed, has ~o be dug up, more fill extracted, DEC monitoring that whole situation, that fill taken to the incinerator and then replaced with new, fine granulars and then a green area planted over that so that any more volatiles can evaporate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. instituting? Now is this something that you will be MR. BARBER-Yes. - MR. CARVIN-Or is this going to be instituted by whoever the previous owner was? MR. BARBER-No, no. This is all on our shoulders. Part of the sale contract, in which scared off any potential buyers was whole harmless to the previous owner, meaning when we sign a contract on this property, that relieves the previous owner of any responsibilities to the legalities of the brown areas. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I know this Board, I don't know, a few months ago, over at King Fuel, they had to put in some kind of a, correct me if I'm wrong, don't they pump water in? MR. BARBER-Monitoring wells. MR. MENTER-No, it wasn't wells. It was an aeration system MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, you pump in. MR. BARBER-Yes. That's a more economical approach than having the soil incinerated at a temperature of 2,000 degrees. I have a facility where we can readily take this material, which isn't a big expense to us, meaning NuTech. So I'll take the option of extracting the material, loading it into liner dump trucks, and taking it to the facility. Then I'm totally rid of the problem. I don't have to wait for the aeration process to take effect, and basically have a lot of government agencies testing the property to see if it conforms. We've done a lot of extractions. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? public hearing. All right. I'll open up the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL DUELL MR. DUELL-I just have some questions I'd like answered. I'm representing the South Queensbury Fire Department for one. My name is Bill Duell from the South Queensbury Fire Department. I'm also a resident north of this property. We have some concerns with the corner. It's a dangerous intersection at best. We've had a number of accidents there in the last 10 years with fatalities. I'm looking at the sign here, in the shrubbery, and I'm concerned with the height of the shrubbery for viewing up Dix Avenue. The sign is right directly in line with the cars sitting there at the - 24 - ',--, '-'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) intersection looking up Dix Avenue to the west. When the sun's shining there, you can just barely see without anything there. with an obstruction, it's going to be a problem. We've had good luck with Barretts in the past. They've always parked their cars back off the corner. We don't have a problem with them, and I would hope that we could have that same working relationship with Mr. Barber. The number of construction and pieces of equipment that's going to be located on the site is another concern, and I think there should be a limitation to that. We had a variance issued to Mr. McLaughlin down at the corner of Quarry Crossing and Dix Avenue, with a limitation of 15 vehicles. As most of you know, there was 60 vehicles there most of the time. So it was a direct violation, but nothing was ever done. So we'd like to assurances. How late is work going to be performed at the site? That's another thing. We have people living right next door, and they need sleep. So are we talking regular working hours, or are we talking two o'clock in the morning? MR. BARBER-There's basically no work that's really performed at our headquarters, other than maybe equipment going in and out, maybe some small supplies going in and out. They would be done during regular business hours, typically between the time of eight to five, you know, within that realm. _ MR. DUELL-I'm familiar with Tim's dad, and he does work like his father does, and they do upgrade businesses and they make them look real nice, but I'm really concerned with the sign and the height of the shrubs. MR. BARBER-The shrubs, Bill, we can eliminate those. I put those in, basically, for my site plan review, to get enough green area and show vegetation. We did look into the Ordinances, and also DOT language and law, as to what you can place there. You'll notice, on the print, there's a 35, I think this is Queensbury's limit, 35 foot, and these, I believe they're a burning bush. Yes, they're a burning bush. They're 30 inch high. They can be eliminated if they're a concern. We'll put some flower beds out there. I would like to see some small low lying vegetation in those grass areas, if it's permissible, but I do understand the hazard of that corner. There have been a lot of accidents. The sign, that can be placed further up the strip, if necessary, into this area. That's just a proposed location. We have no problem with that even being up in this general vicinity away from the corner. I do understand what you're saying with the sun. I noticed that the other day. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Staff, this would go to site plan, would it? MR. BARBER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, and a lot of those concerns, if you went also, if this gets approved, this will also have to go through the Planning Board, where that specific type of location of things is addressed. So if you would show up for that meeting, too. You'll get a notice for that also. MR. BARBER-I basically just want to tell the Board and the people, I basically put this print together, we had our people put this together, to show everybody what we're doing, so that there's not any surprises. We're not a Scotty McLaughlin outfit. We wouldn't be able to perform the business we perform if we had that kind of equipment in our yard, and I fully understand what their concern is about the look of that equipment down there. MR. DUELL-The other question I have is going from commercial to light industrial, what impact would that have for future places moving in there? Say Tim expanded beyond that place, would that revert back to commercial, or would it stay light industrial? - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. CARVIN-Well, if it was the same business, it would be allowed to continue, as long as there wasn't a discontinuance. MR. DUELL-But if something else went in there, it would have to revert back to commercial? MR. CARVIN-Something else, then it would revert, they would have to come in for the variance. MR. DUELL-Okay. MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, it's not a blanket variance to all the things that are under light industrial. So we're not changiRg the zone. We're just allowing this business to come in. Once that business comes in, it would be allowed to continue forever, as long as there was no discontinuance for 18 months or longer. If it was discontinued for 18 months, then it would normally revert back to the zone. MR. DUELL-Okay. Based on all that, I guess I don' t have any problems. Just for the record, that's not County Line Road, it's Queensbury Avenue, Town of Queensbury. -- MR. MENTER-I have a question for you. One of the things that we need to be concerned about is whether the property is of value as it is currently zoned. MR. DUELL-I don't know. Jim's had that For Lease sign up for I'd say over a year and a half probably, two years, and there's only been, I know the guy that's got the taxi cab company, and he's the only one that's been interested in it, other than Tim. MR. BARBER-It's more so the brown area problems. Being a contractor and able to do these extractions for the State and all, it keeps our costs low. If we were not a contractor involved with contaminated extractions, we would not be able to afford this. There'd be no way. That's the big problem with the property, and I know that, if we didn't, there is a problem that's holding up our sale of the land right now, I'll share with the Board, it's called Notice of Pendance. The taxi cab guy lost out on his option, and that's when we stepped in the door. So he is presently taking legal action against the Barretts to try to hold up the sale to us to put his taxi cab company in there, which does fall under the commercial zone, I believe. MR. CARVIN-I don't see taxi cab. MS. CIPPERLY-I think what happened there was Jim Martin said that because it was formerly an auto related leasing type business, that the taxi cab would be very similar, if it were continued within 18 months, of course. MR. BARBER-And I have to wait for that action to cease and the judge dismiss it, but we do have our purchase contract on record at Warren County. So, if he succeeded with Barrett, he'd have to come through us next, but in the mean time, I have a triple net three year lease tied to our contract with this property, so that the other party pretty much. MR. CARVIN-Well, let me ask you this. If the taxi cab company were to come in, he would be responsible for cleaning up the site also? Is that what you were saying before? MR. BARBER-No. You can, as long as the State does not push the issue, you can leave that contamination there and hope that it does not spread, but down the road, as the laws change, this contamination may cross the road into neighboring properties, and this contamination that was put up in this northwest corner, which - 26 - '----- --.,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) I don't think was a good idea, because it's high, and the volatiles will tend to leak down, may cause future problems with neighboring borders, and then that becomes a major liability for whoever owns the property. MR. DUELL-When they put that up there, all they did was put some poly under it and put some bales of hay in front of it, and that isn't, that's not taking care of the problem. MR. BARBER-Right. DON DUELL MR. D. DUELL-I'm Don Duell. I live two houses up on Queensbury Avenue, and I can't understand anybody wanting to put a place on Dix Avenue when you've got all this industrial up here on the Airport Road. I just can't see, with the traffic, that intersection, I got creamed, totalled my car, by somebody coming down, passing the light, due to the fact that all this stuff around here, on every corner. Why anybody would want to have all that traffic and put up with it when you've got this nice place up here. --- MR. BARBER-I understand your concern. We're trying to lessen that factor by putting, I don't have a scale on here, but about 35 feet of green area, to limit the encroachment of vehicles toward the road areas. MR. D. DUELL-But like my son said, the other place down the way, they had a variance, but it just didn't work out, and there's just too many. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess what I'm hearing from Mr. Barber is that under the worst case, or at least under the normal circumstances, we're talking maybe a half a dozen vehicles. Is that incorrect? MR. BARBER-I mean, those are typically pick ups. There will be a couple of 40 foot job trailers in the yard occasionally, tractor trailer boxes, the same design and look that the neighboring freight company has in the yard, because we use tractor trailers to haul our stuff around the State, box trailers, and there will be a miscellaneous backhoe that might be in the yard, that's not being used on a project, but even our service outfit is set up so that there's no down time, because our sites are so far from our home office, typically. They go to the site, service the machine, and then the machine goes someplace else. So that we don't have to back haul back to the shop. It doesn't make much sense. MR. D. DUELL-It seems to me that Mr. Barrett ought to be responsible for that contamination. MR. BARBER-Yes, he is responsible. MR. D. DUELL-I mean, no matter who comes in. MR. BARBER-Well, not necessarily. Legally, if people like us sign off on a whole harmless, that washes his hands of it. If you put in the contract that he still had liabilities, that could go on for endless amounts of years, and he may have a potential lawsuit down the line. We are accepting that liability, but we're going to clean it up. That's why we're accepting it. MR. D. DUELL-I just don't like light industrial around my house, that's all. I'm sorry. MR. BARBER-I think, Mr. Duell, you'll find that, unfortunately, construction falls into light industrial, but the impact that we will have as a "construction company" is very minimal. We're more, this facility is more for designing and engineering facilities that - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) we build abroad. We're not a heavy excavation company that has 100 pieces of equipment in our yard. We're not a sewer contractor or anything like that. MR. D. DUELL-My son is from the new breed. I'm from the old breed. When I built there, there wasn't even commercial. It was all residential, and I just, you know, you get out in the country but yet you're in the city. MR. CARVIN-I appreciate your concern, but I'm just looking at one of the allowable uses is a farm and construction equipment sales and service. So, you could have. MR. BARBER-We could reposition our company, call ourselves design professionals and start an equipment leasing firm, and not have to go through this, but that's not the way we operate. This is what we are. This is why we're here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there any other public comment? KAY WATERS MRS. WATERS-I'm Kay Waters, and I live right next door to/Where Barretts were. There was supposed to have been a buffer area at the time. I never got it. They plowed snow up near my trees. I never liked the Barretts that well. Okay. I want to make sure I have a buffer. I want to make sure it's cleaned up where they left their mess. I also want to make sure of their septic tank. I never heard too much about the Barretts, but Tim Barber was good enough to tell me that they were going to do something over there. Those are some of the complaints. MR. CARVIN-When you say a buffer, I guess, whereabouts are you located? MRS. WATERS-I am right there. MS. CIPPERLY-She's to the north of the property, I believe. MRS. WATERS-I'm the first house. MR. CARVIN-To the north, okay. MRS. WATER-57 Queensbury Avenue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-And there should be a 50 foot buffer between this kind of use and a residential use. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that where the zoning line runs is right along that property? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. WATERS-I was supposed to have that when Barretts were there, and I came up with pictures of cars and things that were parked there, and it didn't do any good to fight city hall, so I forgot it. MR. CARVIN-Well, that, unfortunately, sounds like an enforcement situation. So I don't have an answer for you. MS. CIPPERLY-But this new project would need a 50 foot buffer, for which I think he would be asking for relief. If this got approved tonight, he would have to get an Area Variance as well for that 50 - 28 - '--.- -........r"; (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) foot buffer, and he has reflected some amount of buffering on the plan. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So what you're saying is we may not have seen the last of this. MR. BARBER-I have an application in for an Area Variance and a Site Plan Review, dictated on this print. This is what I'm proposing, all the way through to the Area Variance and Site Plan Review with the mound system over by Kay's home, with the trees and the grass area. It's going to be about a five or six foot mound with six foot trees on top of it, and then there's going to be trees against the border, and we're going to run a fence on our back side, . along our building, to kind of shelter that. It's a cement block building. We want to kind of shelter that a little bit, so that from the road front you see the greenery and the shrubbery. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but that we can address under the Area Variance, okay. MRS. WATER-will they be cleaning up that mess the Barretts left there? ~ MR. BARBER-Yes. MRS. WATER-Those barrels and everything that my son looked at when he was up here for one night. There's quite a mess. MR. BARBER-Yes. We plan to start in on the property, probably within the next couple of weeks. There's another box trailer up there. There's a lot of debris that's left behind by tenants that had storage boxes there. We need to clean all that up. MRS. WATERS-Barrels. will the trucks be in there at night, after nine o'clock? MR. BARBER-You mean operational? MRS. WATER-Yes, noisy? MR. BARBER-No. You may get, I'm not going to say that if we have a Project Manager come in from Rochester or something, he may zoom into the shop at after hours. There's nothing I can do about that, but, there'll be no construction or material handling of that such nature. MS. CIPPERLY-There won't be any trucks idling, tractor trailers or that sort of thing. MR. BARBER-No. MRS. WATER-I can't think of anything else at the time, but I'm right on the border line, and I want to make sure that the septic tank is in there. MR. BARBER-Yes. Presently the existing septic is hugged up against that, Kay's line. The present septic is a disaster, and we need to put in a new one. They had port-a-jons at the former facility, and there's a surry hole in the middle of the existing offices that they used to pump out. It needs a whole new system. MRS. WATER-There's a lot of things that I didn't know was going on over there. MS. CIPPERLY-There's a lot of things we didn't know were going on either. MRS. WATER-But I'm going to say one thing about them. It wasn't noisy. I think that's it. - 29 - ---" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. CARVIN-Any other public comment? ELIZABETH DUELL MRS. DUELL-I'm Elizabeth Duell and I'm strictly against it going into the light industrial. I think there's enough places around that we don't really need more light industrial. There's lots of places up there for it and there's lots of places down on Dix Avenue, and there's just too much commotion on the corner, and if we're going to have fences and everything, and you're living there. It's your home, and it just isn't, in my estimation, it isn't a feasible place to put this kind of an operation. MR. BARBER-But I do have to say that equipment leasing, equipment sales company can go there, and they can line the property up with bulldozers and tractors. That's not our intention. Our intention is to limit the exposure of vehicles on the corner. That's why we have, I don't know if you've seen this? MRS. DUELL-Yes, I did. MR. BARBER-With the green areas and the shrubbery. We're basically putting the chain link fence in to limit our liability fromrkids climbing on our equipment, playing on stuff like that, but I think you'll all find, when it's said and done, that we're a quiet, neighborly company, and we're not a typical. People think of construction and they do think of a Scotty McLaughlin that puts all that equipment there. MRS. DUELL-Right. We've been through it, and we were through it with Hertz. Hertz, we went ahead and went with the variance when Hertz asked for it, and then he did a lot of things that he wasn't supposed to do, but then once it's in there's no way to reverse it, which is too bad, because if you try to go to the Town, it's pass the buck from this one to that one to that one, and you never get anywhere with anything. So, I know you have to make a living. I understand that, but I hate to see something like that go in on the corner. I've lived there most of my life, and I just don't want it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess what I'm hearing is more Scotty McLaughlin, that type of operation, is that what your biggest concerns are? MRS. DUELL-Yes, and then when Hertz was there, they were only going to have a certain amount of cars. Then they started selling cars. They had them come in on trailers. They have a boat there now. They sold boats, and there's a lot of junk that's still left there that people still have to look at. MR. CARVIN-See, the boats were an allowable use. MRS. DUELL-He took that in on a car sales, I think. MR. CARVIN-See, commercial boat storage, repair and sales. I mean, you could have, for lack of a better term, a marina there. I don't know why that's an approved use there, but it is. MRS. DUELL-No, I don't either. that boat on a sale. I have no idea, because he took MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, see, according to the Ordinance for that zone, which is Highway Commercial, one of the allowable uses is a commercial boat storage repair and/or sales. So you could have, the only marina that I know is the Mooring Post. MRS. DUELL-Right. Not down on Dix Avenue. - 30 - '"---" '--" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. CARVIN-But I mean, you know, you could have a Mooring Post sales office there I suspect. MRS. DUELL-That's all I have to say on it. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Again, I appreciate your concerns, and I'm hearing that Mr. Barber is saying that hopefully that's not what this is going to evolve into. MR. BARBER-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-I guess that's what I'm hearing. public comment? Any correspondence? Is there any other MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Last call. Okay. Then seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant? All right. - MS. CIPPERLY-One question I have, and it's really more of a site plan, but it takes that visibility/site distance question, can you move your fence back a little bit from\the Dix Avenue property line and still? MR. BARBER-The fence line stops, from the corner, you're talking? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I don't know how much of a problem it is along Dix Avenue. MR. BARBER-There should be no problem where the fence is located now. Again, that fence is probably, lets see, probably 150 feet from the corner. The dark line is the property line that you may be referring to. MS. CIPPERLY-But even over further along Dix Avenue, I know that as you're driving west on Dix Avenue and you're coming to the curb there, and sort of a lot of things going on. I just, maybe our fire company person, would that be a problem, having a fence right on the? MR. B. DUELL-How far is it up the hill, Tim? MR. BARBER-It's probably, one of these gentleman had a scale. I could scale it. I could tell you exactly. From the corner, the fence is 180 feet. MR. B. DUELL-That should be far enough back off of the road. MR. BARBER-Our property line is back far enough off the road, I think. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This large area here, parking vehicles in this area? I mean, tractor trailers, I'm just wondering. would you anticipate because when you say MR. BARBER-A tractor trailer will probably be parked in that little nook behind where the building juts out. MR. CARVIN-In here? MR. BARBER-Yes, because we have to plug that in at night, in the winter time, for the heaters. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm seeing fence here, and then down this - 31 - -.-'. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) way, but I'm assuming that there must be some access. This is not fenced here. MR. BARBER-Right. County Line Road. There's an access over off of what I refer to as I guess it's Queensbury Road. MR. CARVIN-Well, what I'm saying is, you've got a main yard gate, but I mean, is this the edge of the blacktopping or paving? MR. BARBER-No, no. That's a four inch PVC scheduled 40 line that's going to a new septic tank. That is a graveled area. That's a graveled area right now, this whole paddock that we're looking at, the large area. MR. CARVIN-This whole area here? MR. BARBER-Yes. All the way up through. That's all existing gravel, except for that northwesterly corner where they put the contaminated fill. That's clay loam mixture with weeds. MR. CARVIN -Okay. volunteer. Well, who wants to start? I'll ask for a --- MRS. LAPHAM-When you say design and staff cars and State people, what you refer to would be more clerical and engineering, drafting designing? MR. BARBER-Exactly. MRS. LAPHAM-So they'd be, like, cars, normal passenger cars and small pick ups? MR. BARBER-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-And they'd be there eight to five? MR. BARBER-Right. Actually, our office staff works, the designers and such come in to work at seven and work until 3:30. Clerical works from anywhere from eight to six, eight to five, somewhere in there. MRS. LAPHAM-And not weekends? MR. BARBER-No. Occasionally my brother Tom or myself, we're usually there every Saturday, doing paperwork. There's usually maybe a project manager or someone catching up on some paperwork. So there'll be weekend use. MRS. LAPHAM-And they would arrive in a passenger type vehicle? MR. BARBER-Yes. None of that personnel goes even into our shop. It's strictly office personnel. MR. CARVIN-If there's service on the equipment, will it all be done inside or would there be occasion to work on them outside? MR. BARBER-No. As I said before, it's not economical for us to have a heavy mechanic on staff. So we don't even do any major stuff, but changing tires or maybe changing oil, that would be done in that back quadrant, that long leg of that building there, inside. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So you wouldn't anticipate any outside repairs, clanging? MR. BARBER-No, not unless we had some tire or something blow on a trailer and we couldn't move it. Then we'd have to, obviously, repair it outside. - 32 - '-' --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MR. CARVIN-Again, I know that some heavy equipment is repaired outside. You would anticipate any repairs and any service on these vehicles would be done inside then? MR. BARBER-Right, and we don't have a real large, we're not excavation contractors. We have small dozers, small excavators, small truck hydraulic cranes, small shooting boom forktrucks. It's all small stuff. MR. CARVIN-Where do you currently store some of this material if you have to? MR. BARBER-To tell you the truth, I'm over in the old Piscatelli Steel's building in Hudson Falls, and we haven't had a piece of equipment there since last May. We've been fortunate enough to stay real busy. We have a lot of equipment in Rochester, a lot of equipment down state, and it goes typically from site to site. Tractor trailers are usually the only thing in the yard, and when we run out of equipment, we lease it from Catapillar, and they take' it right to the site. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? How about you, Bill? What do you think? ~ MR. GREEN-Well, I've heard nothing but good things from Mr. Barber tonight, and emphasize the neighbors have had a bad situation down the road from them, and they don't want to get into that again. I honestly feel I don't think we're going to have that problem, and I think it's a perfect candidate for the site, simply because he has the ability to clean up that soil, relatively inexpensively compared to someone else having to do it. So, I think, just listening to Mr. Barber and the type of clientele and the type of business he's doing, he's obviously going to have a neat site, just to impress the clientele. MR. MENTER-Well, I think it's about as good a fit as you can get for a nonconforming use on the property. You can never really control what happens down the road with this type of a thing. Any intentions can change as business changes. That's something that we have to consider, and I am a little bit uncomfortable, or I'm not totally convinced, that we've been shown that it can' t be utilized as zoned and return a reasonable return. However, given the allowable uses for this property, and the detriment that they would be to the neighbors, clearly I think that the benefits outweigh the problem, and I think that there has been evidence and testimony as to the unmarketability of this as zoned. So I would go along with this, at this point. MR. THOMAS-I'll agree with Dave on that point, and I'll take it one step further, that it seems that Mr. Barber is going to have an office building in there. He's going to have six to eight people, with a clerical staff and drafting staff, people like that. So that would partially fall under, I would say, an office building, which is allowable in that zone. So part of that business is going to be something that would be allowed in that zone anyway. So I have no real problem. I like the idea of cleaning up the property, getting rid of that brown soil in the back there, the buffer zone between the neighbors. I think Mr. Barber's going to do a bang up job on that property if he gets it. MR. KARPELES-I agree with what's been said. I think we're very fortunate that somebody's going to come in there and clean up that stuff. That can be deep pockets kind of stuff for somebody, and I agree with Chris. It looks to me like most of the use is going to be conforming, actually, and the part that isn't conforming is less objectionable than some of the allowed uses. So I'd go along with it. - 33 - --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I basically feel like Chris. I think some of the allowed uses in this particular area sound awful, and that we're fortunate, and if all is followed through that's presented here tonight so that the neighbors don't have a problem down the line (lost words) . MR. CARVIN-Yes. I want to make sure the Board keeps the Area items separated from the Use. We're looking at the Use. The Area, I mean, there's been a mixture here tonight. I mean, I've had different concerns. So we really want to take a look at just the Use issues. I understand where Dave's coming from as far as the demonstration of, I don't know, for lack of a better term, economic hardship, but I think because of the unique situation wit~ this property, it being a contaminated soil, that it almost eliminates a lot of the approved uses right up front. I would find it hard to believe that restaurants or hotels or motels are going to be in a real rush to build there. Yet on the other hand, some of the indicated uses of the property, auto repair and body shop, especially the farm and construction equipment sales and services and the boats and so forth, I haven't heard Mr. Barber indicate things that are dramatically different from what is allowed in there. I do sYmpathize with the neighbors. I know what the Scotty McLaughlin situation turned into. I can only go on the testimony of what Mr. Barber is telling us, that we're not looking at a high intensive use. I mean, I've only heard a number, I think maximum, maybe a dozen vehicles, and correct me if I'm wrong on that. MR. BARBER-We do have more construction equipment than that, but I'd be much surprised if it was all in the yard at one time. Frankly, I'd be in big trouble, as I mentioned before, and I think when the neighbors and all do see our equipment and do see that it's very orderly, it's very neat looking. There will not be stuff haphazardly placed throughout the yard. It will be lined up so that it'll be very presentable when it is in the yard, because we, again, will have customers from allover the State and beyond coming to our facility and judging us on engineering and building their projects, as to what they see, and they're certainly not going to come to a place that's a mess, and in disorder, and allow that person to take on the responsibility of a couple of million dollars worth of work for them, but that's our whole point. MR. CARVIN-I guess I have just a question of Staff. This taxi cab thing, I guess that kind of bothers me. I'm not quite sure if we grant a variance here how that's going to impact. MS. CIPPERLY-That really wouldn't have any bearing on. MR. BARBER-Yes. That has no bearing. MS. CIPPERLY-I would like to make a comment, as a person who uses Dix Avenue every day, and it was nice to get rid of the Scott McLaughlin conglomeration of things, and the Hertz place had a tractor trailer that said "Hertz" on it, that was the size of a billboard, and I'm glad to see that that is gone, and I think we're basing, or you may be basing a lot of what your thinking is on the fact that Mr. Barber has a good reputation and appears that he's going to do a good job with his site, and I have no reason to believe that he wouldn't. Somebody asked the question before about what would happen if he moved out, and previously, other cases, you have limited Use Variances to a particular company or that they would have to come up for review or something if another, if it changed hands. What I see here tonight is that we're basing a lot on Mr. Barber's earnestness and his plan and I don't think you can guarantee that a subsequent owner would be quite as careful. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I heard what you're saying, and having read some of the law books, I'm not quite sure. I don't think we're wrong in what you're suggesting and what we have done in the past, but my - 34 - "-' -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) understanding of that is that I think we have to be very careful in the utilization of that, because there are court cases, just to give the Board a little insight here. Variances go with the land, and the courts frown on individual variances, where we actually caveat a variance to an individual or a business. Now that's not to say that that doesn't happen, but I know, as a general rule, the courts do not look favorably on that. So I want to be cautious. I know we've done it in the past. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. happening to that I've been looking forward to something nice corner. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think that's why I'd like to try to keep it to the Use, and I think one of the gentlemen over here who asked what happened, and the only answer that I have there is that once a use is approved for a site, that that use continues to that site, whether Mr. Barber, now if Mr. Barber sells his business to another like business, they would not have to come before the Board, unless there was an 18 month lapse. MS. CIPPERLY-But I think you ought to be careful in describing exactly what his business is. --- MR. CARVIN-Well, that's why I've always been, we've got to be very careful in the definition "business", but it is pretty certain that under the light industrial for example, and I'm just taking a quick look at the light industrial. If a television and radio station wanted to come there, just because he is light industrial does not allow a television and radio station to establish there. They would have to come before the Board to get a variance. Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. It's not a zoning change, it's a Use Variance. MR. CARVIN-It's a use issue. It's what the use of that property can be used for. So, although I do know what you're saying. I mean, in the past we have, in one particular case that I can think of, we have really given the variances to the, not to the owner, ironically, but to the folks that were leasing it, and it was kind of an interesting situation, but I won't go into that. MR. BARBER-I can just say that both my brother Tom and myself own this business and own the property. We're both young. We both live in Queensbury. We have no intentions of moving out or going out of business to what we know and do. So, chances are, we'll be there for a lot of years, hopefully. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So again, now remember, the difference between a Use Variance and an Area Variance is that when you look at your Use criteria, the applicant has to demonstrate all of them. Whereas with an Area Variance, they do not necessarily have to demonstrate all of them. So, if there are no other questions, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 46-1996 TIMOTHY F. BARBER, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: The applicant is proposing to use a commercially zoned property as a construction business, which is classified under the Light Industrial use and the siting of this particular business in a Highway Commercial zone requires relief from Section 179-23. I believe the applicant has demonstrated that a reasonable return is not possible as the land is currently zoned, due to the fact that there are and is an ecological, environmental problem with the property, which makes it unattractive for many of the approved uses. This environmental condition is unique to the area, in that it is located on this particular property and is not common to the whole district or the neighborhood. I also feel that if we grant this variance, that an adverse effect would not be created on the - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) essential character of the neighborhood, as that the area does contain other uses of a similar nature, and I feel that by the granting of this relief that this would be the minimum variance necessary to address the unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant, and at the same time protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. I think, upon consideration, that by the granting of this variance as indicated by Mr. Barber, his willingness and ability, because of the type and nature of his business to render a very good solution to this ecological and environmental hazard. It certainly makes the benefit to the community a very good thing. I think that his willingness to clean up this area certainly goes a long way in helping the health, safety and welfare of the community. I think the Board is also sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors, with regard to this proposed use, but the applicant has indicated that the intensity of the use should not and is not and would not be as intense as some of the allowable uses. The applicant has also shown a desire, has indicated a willingness to work with the neighbors with regard to their concerns, especially in the areas of hours, buffering, visibility, sewers, septics, and the general condition and improvement of this particular lot. Now, I realize that many of these are issues that will be addressed at site plan review, but as I said, I think that these go a long way~ in mitigating the minimum relief. So I do believe that this is a minimum relief situation. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. BARBER-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Do you guys want to do some minutes? We haven't done minutes in a couple of months. CORRECTION OF MINUTES February 28, 1996: Page 13, Mr. Carvin at bottom, "I still think the issue resolves, sib revolves; MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 1996 AS AMENDED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE - 36 - ''"-, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) ABSTAINED: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham March 20, 1996: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 20,' 1996, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles March 21, 1996: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1996, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles March 27, 1996: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 1996, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE April 17, 1996: Page 7, middle of page, Mr. Karpeles, ever sib every; Page 12, middle of page, "I think that you could find a use for it. I don't know, cross out "as you could use it". I don't know that it could be used as zoned MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 1996, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Green April 18, 1996: Page 21, second line down, it says, is there an adverse, sib "effect" on the essential character MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 1996, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. ,Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/96) Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Green On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman -- - 38 -