Loading...
1996-11-20 /'"' OQJGliV/J.i/ "--- r. l QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 102-1996 Tax Map No. 12-1-11 Paul Thomas VanSchaick 1. Use Variance No. 94-1996 Tax Map No. 147-1-1.1, 1.2 James C. Kislowski 11. Area Variance No. 103-1996 Tax Map No. 111-1-25 James Grigsby 28. Area Variance No. 106-1996 Tax Map No. 48-3-49.54 Barbara L. Barber 35. Area Variance No. 107-1996 Tax Map No. 62-1-4.1, 4.2, 5 Glens Falls Independent Living Center 47. 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. ~ "-'"' {Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96} QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY DONALD 0' LEARY LOUIS STONE ROBERT KARPELES MEMBERS ABSENT WILLIAM GREEN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. THOMAS-And first on the agenda tonight is Use Variance No. 94- 1996 James C. Kislowski. MARK LEVACK MR. LEVACK-Jim's not here. I'm prepared to go forward, but if we could ask to be put back one. MR. THOMAS-You want to be put back one? MR. LEVACK-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. We'll jump up to Area Variance No. 102-1996. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 102-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA PAUL THOMAS VANSCHAICK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CLEVERDALE ROAD TO FIELDING LANE, FOURTH HOUSE ON THE LEFT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 12.5 FOOT BY 4 FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DOCK. RELIEF IS BEING SOUGHT FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-60B,la,5,b,5. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 12-1-11 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION 179- 60B,1,a,5,b,5 PAUL THOMAS VANSCHAICK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 102-1996, Paul Thomas VanSchaick, Meeting Date: November 20, 1996 "APPLICANT: Paul Thomas VanSchaick PROJECT LOCATION: Fielding Lane Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a 12.5 foot by 4 foot addition to an existing dock. The new dock is proposed to be built with a side setback of 6 inches. The required side setback for docks is 20 feet. The existing dock has a surface area of 563 sq. ft. With the proposed addition, the dock would have an area of 613 sq. ft. which conforms to Zoning Ordinance requirements. Cri teria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a dock addition on their property in order to protect small watercraft. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant may have the ability to use the existing dock to anchor and protect their watercraft. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 19 feet 6 inches of side setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? If - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) relief were granted, only 6 inches of natural shoreline would be visible at this location. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The applicant has stated that he wishes to construct this addition because it is difficult to protect his water craft from crashing on the shoreline. Staff Comments & Concerns: The ZBA may wish to consider what effect relief would have on the natural appearance of the shoreline. The ZBA should also keep in mind that granting relief could lead to future requests from other lake front property owners. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. II MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of November 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 12.5' x 4' addition to an existinq deck. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The WCPB denied this . application without prejudice stating that it would re-hear this application when information and feedback is obtained from the Lake George Park Commission. The WCPB also feels that this is overuse of the shoreline. II Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Is the applicant or his agent here? MR. VANSCHAICK-Hi. I'm Paul Thomas VanSchaick. Bill Black is my agent, and we are here to present, I think maybe a misterminology. In talking to both the Lake George Park Commission and also to the DEC, and I have pictures that I've taken to show you exactly what we're going to do. I would call this, instead of a dock, really, a seawall, and what it's going to do is to cover the rocks in front of our property. Over the past three years, we've had boats that have broken loose in storms and crashed up onto the rocks and have put holes in them. This past year we had three boats injured or really ruined. One was ruined, which was mine, and it had over 3,000 worth of damage. In the fall, the wind gets very rough. I had two ropes in the front, and both ropes snapped and it ran into the rocks and it was sitting there for three or four days before I came up on that weekend. If it had been a firm wooden platform or something to go into it, at least it would have bumped against that and probably not done the damage that it did by going up onto the rocks. Can I present these pictures to you? MR. THOMAS-Sure. MR. VANSCHAICK-We have four there. One shows the rock formation the way it is now, which has been natural since I've owned the property or it's been in my family, since the early 60's, and the other side has been finished off with the dock (lost words) piers go out into the water. This would go along the shoreline. So it becomes more like a walkway. Also in response to the meeting last week that was held, we went to the Lake George Park Commission, which they suggested we do, and I spoke to a Molly Gallagher. She went up and looked at the site plan. We also got a proposal on the same layout that you folks are talking on what we want to do with the Lake George site plan. I assume you've seen the layout of the craft (lost words), and her looking at the chart, thought it was not in her jurisdiotion, but she went out on Saturday and looked at Lhe In..'upet'Ly âUt.1 lâlkect Lo 1110 an Mondny morning in New York and ~tated that she felt it was no problem with the Lake George Park Commission, but suggest I go and see the DEC, which I did this afternoon. I talked to Mr. Walter Haines at the DEC earlier in the week and I said I'd be up Wednesday to file a petition and he said, fine. We gave him the drawings today. He filed the petition, and he said to us that it would be no problem, and that it would have no impact on the DEC. What we are looking at doing, it's a very small section of rough drop, if you can see from those pictures, and it would be comparable to the other side of the pier that you see in one of those other pictures. It's going to be all wood. It's not going to, when you think of a dock, I think people think of it going out into the water or an ilL" shape off the front, and - 2 - {Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96} it's not that. It's just along the seawall edge. So it would block the roughness of the shoreline. Is there anything you want to add, Bill? BILL BLACK MR. BLACK-Basically, what has happened, with the destruction of the watercraft is, and we've been very fortunate up to this point is that one of the units ended up completely on top of the rocks, completely submerged, and we were fortunate enough not to have a discharge of gasoline or oil into the lake, which some people use as drinking water in that a:t:ea, the Sandy Bay area. This is the fourth time that this type of event has happened, and again, with the north wind when it comes in, it can go anywhere £:t'01\\ a ;t;';lþpln to a crest of two feet and come right over the g..wAll in thAt area. So the rocks were put there to stop erosion of the banks, and there was no intention of it even touching the rocks, just adding the seawall at the corner of the dock and extending it to the side of the property, but eventually, if it continues, what will happen is there will be a discharge because the way the water comes into that Bay at times, it is substantial. It's amazing what it does do, and then we'd be dealing with the DEC again with the spill response. I think everything can be avoided. It's not going to give any more basic useable dock space. It's going to act basically as a seawall to act as some type of buffer. Instead of having a jagged rock or a riprap sticking out of the Bay, it'll have a smooth surface, and then this spring a boat did get loose and get into the other side that was all fabricated with wood, and there was no damage at all done. So that's why, that's what prompted this application. MR. VANSCHAICK-My neighbor who's on my right hand side, which is really the only one that would be possibly effected by this, I met with him, went over the design. He is not here tonight. He could not make it, but he had no objection to it. In fact, he thinks it will be a major improvement, and he is Ed Babbit, who is on my right hand side if you look out, and he has no objection to this addition. Also, it was brought up in your notes that it would maybe inspire the rest of the Bay to want to put some kind of protection around. I would have to say that almost all the way around, from our side up the other side, and up toward the boat yard, etc., has some sort of seawall, either be it cement or something like that nature, or even a dock area, which would continue right up from us, on the crow's nest and stuff like that, which has been put in along with their seawall. So I don't see where it's going to change the outlook of anybody else doing anything, and it's really being done primarily for protection, so we don't have things running into it and doing damage to the boats. We also could make it smaller, if that was an objection, in four feet. I mean, four feet is not very much. It's approximately the same size you see in the pictures, which is on the other side of my property, which is on the left side, and that was done 20 some odd years ago when the dock was reconfigured. MR. BLACK-I am also a land owner. I was noticed by the ZBA at this meeting. I'm also a land abutter, and again, as Mr. VanSchaick has mentioned, from Mr. VanSchaick's property up toward the Mooring Post, there is a concrete retaining wall that runs right at the shoreline, and it's basically a two or two and a half foot drop that protects the watercraft, protects the water from eroding, and it will stop at his next door neighbors, and I think that was put in, I don't think it was put in by the individuals as much as maybe the Army Corps of Engineers or something along those lines. MR. VANSCHAICK-That's been there for years. MR. BLACK-And all we want to do is basically use that same format without going to the expense and going into dealing with the water - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) and the DEC, and I think we can achieve the same thing without having to do any type of excavation, dredging or any type of construction in the water or altering the banks of the lake, and I am an abutter, and I don't have a problem. I think it's going to be beneficial. We do swim in that water. We do drink the water, and I don't want to see a boat with gas and oil coming out, because it will stay there because of the location of the Bay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do members of the Board have questions for the applicant? MR. O'LEARY-Yes. I'm looking at the pictures, and as you stand on the dock, looking toward the lake, what you want to do is kind of duplicate on the right what you've got on the left? MR. VANSCHAICK-That's correct. It happens to be the exact same size as four feet, but as I said, if that's an objection in size, it could be reduced but we're doing it for the purpose of that buffer. MR. O'LEARY-Some place here in the comments, I think it's Staff comments, it says only six inches of natural shoreline would be visible at this location. I'm not quite sure what that means by looking at the picture. MR. VANSCHAICK-Six inches represents the property line for the next door neighbor. I'd have to (lost word) six inches. I mean, that's the only thing that represents. MRS. LAPHAM-Where do you tie or moor these watercraft now? MR. VANSCHAICK-We moor them on the right hand side of the dock, looking out toward the water, and we tied it from the front post corner back to the shoreline, and we have a stake in the ground, metal post running into the ground, and we tied it at an angle, and the way the wind sometimes comes in, there's tremendous waves. I mean, they could be anywhere from a ripple to two feet in there bouncing, and we've had them, wave bounce of the rocks two or three feet during a bad storm, and basically the rope broke and smashed up on the rocks and nobody saw it. It was in the fall, so there weren't as many people around. So obviously there wasn't anybody to come around and at least give me a call, and it was sitting there probably, I think the storm was on a Tuesday and we got there Friday night. MR. STONE-You said your pwc? MR. VANSCHAICK-Right. MR. STONE-Are there others that don't belong to you? MR. VANSCHAICK-Yes. Bill Black has one parked next door to me, and there's one on my other side. MR. STON~-ThêY're not people who live on your property? MR. VANSCHAICK-They don't live on my property. MR. STONE-So do you have a marina permit? MR. VANSCHAICK-It's not a marina. It's just jetskis. MR. STONE-I think, technically, it is a marina. MR. BLACK-No, my skidoo was parked at Ed Babbit's dock. MR. VANSCHAICK-Ed Babbit's dock. - 4 - --...' -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. BLACK-It was not at Mr. VanSchaick's dock. MR. STONE-You have a boat in a slip? MR. VANSCHAICK-I have a boat in a slip, and I have two jetskis, one on each end. MR. STONE-Plus two others. I believe that's a Class B Marina. MR. VANSCHAICK-Okay. I don't. MR. STONE-That's fine. I just mention that it'. . Cl... B Marini. MRS. LAPHAM-But maybe, wouldn't whips or something like that. help? MR. BLACK-It might. I mean, I don't know. I mean, it could. I'm not sure if they make them for that, in that size. I mean, it's not a very big craft. MRS. LAPHAM-Because we've used whips for years for myoId Sunfish, and it works fine. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? All right. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WILLIAM HUNT MR. HUNT-I'm William Hunt. I own the property that's adjoining, next to his property. I received a notice. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You're on the east side of his property? MR. HUNT-Yes, I am. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. HUNT- I came here, one, because I didn't know what Tom was building, to be honest with you, and now I'm getting a different picture, and if I had been sent the plans, I might not have been here tonight. I thought it was going to be 12 feet out into the lake, and I would have been horrified at that, and that's what I thought. I had no idea, in the letter that was sent to me, the notice should have had a drawing so that I had understood and not wasted a lot of my time. You brought up whips for the crafts itself. I sank four boats in that same area over the last 20 years. So I know what he's talking about. Whips would look horrendous, to be honest with you. I have whips on my dock. I'm not thrilled with them, but they're there, and I've never taken them down because it does save the boat, but to see whips on that side, to be honest with you, it would bother me. This is more a protective measure, and if I had known that, I would have had a different feeling. I came here with a vengeance, to be honest with you, because I didn't want to see a 12 foot thing going out, and I still would like the plans, and there are neighbors that would like to see the plans themselves that I would like to come back and make a judgement on it, and that's only because I wasted my time. It is to save the craft, and these guys have saved my craft in the past. I'm not opposed to that at all. So, at this point, I'm not sure what to say. MR. STONE-You said on one hand, and on the other hand. MR. HUNT-Well, I think when somebody says they're going to put it 12 feet out, and, you know, I'm saying whoa, where is this thing going, and it's hard enough to get in and out, but on the other hand it is a very dangerous area, because I've sunk a lot of boats - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) in there, and they tell me I don't tie it right, I don't do this right or whatever, but this is a different plan than I had. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you have a dock? MR. HUNT-Yes, I do. MS. CIPPERLY-How far is that from? MR. HUNT-I'm the second one over from his, facing his property, I'm the second dock over. MRS. LAPHAM-To the east? MR. STONE-If you're facing north? MR. HUNT-No, to the west. MR. STONE-You're to the west. MR. HUNT-Yes. I'm sorry. I don't abut him. I'm the next one over, but I am along that brick wall, or cement wall that he commented on. I would still like to have a copy of the plan. So that I could at least see what he wants to do. MR. THOMAS-You can get that from the Planning Office. MR. HUNT-It's not easy to get here. You have to understand. I'm a long way away, and it's a drive, and I totally misunderstood what was happening. MR. THOMAS-Yes. As a rule we don' t send out plans and the application itself. We just send out a notice of the meeting, just a one page letter. MR. HUNT-Well, when you get a letter stating 12 by 4, picturing this thing going out passed where he is, understand what my concern is. and you I'm can MR. THOMAS-Yes, I could see your concern there, too, because if I saw a notice come through with a dock sticking out 12 feet, rather than going the four. MR. HUNT- (Lost words) because it's really congested anyway. I mean, boats are coming in and out all day. It's a very congested area. MR. THOMAS-Right. I've been in there. MR. O'LEARY-Can we show Bill the plan right now? MR. THOMAS-Yes, if you want. MR. HUNT-Sure. MS, CIPPERLY-If you ever get a notice again, question about what it means, feel free to call. to people. and you have a We do fax plans MR. VANSCHAICK-That's what I said at the beginning, too, I believe, that there was rumors (lost words) . MR. THOMAS-So, is that all you have? MR. HUNT-Yes, because I think most of the letters that you received were the comments that they didn't want to see the 12 foot dock go out, because if he got it then I'd want it and then everybody else would want it. - 6 - -' -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Anyone like to speak opposed? MARY SOCHIA MRS. SOCHIA-Mary Sochia. I also live two houses, two docks from Mr. VanSchaick. There's only two issues that I did not point out in my letter to you. The first is, the docks are a problem, but we also have I do not have a boat at the dock, but I do have access , d ' to bring in my paddle boat. My paddle boat was also datnRgt;'! wlth the cement wall. It got loose and it hit the cement wall. The cement wall is probably almost as dangerous. There are people, I think one of the issues that you brought up, it might open up just a lot of requests for doing additional things. That's my biggest point that you brought up that I hadn't really thought about. It's a very congested area. It's also, I'm wondering, if Mr. VanSchaick is going to move his jet boats, is that going to free up one half of his dock, and would he be adding an additional boat which would congest our area even more? See, right now half of his dock is used for the jet skis. If he moves them, is he then going to have half of the dock open for an additional boat. That would be one of the things I would like addressed, before he gets into this. Because if that means there's going to be room for an additional boat, then that's going to be further congestion. Because the way it looks to me, if you're going to move the jetskis that are there now, as you suggested, tie them up better, then are we going to now have another open area on one side of this dock that perhaps another boat would be added, which will only congest the area more. Those are my only two issues, and I hadn't considered them until I heard your address tonight, and if those two issues are addressed, then I would not have an opposition, but I would like those issues addressed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Correspondence? Would anyone else like to speak opposed? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Okay. November 15, 1996, to Christian G. Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, re: Public Hearing Notice on 11/20, variance application "Mr. Christian Thomas: Please accept this letter as my formal objection to allowing the variance requested by: Paul Thomas VanSchaick - Area Variance No. 102-1996 Type II As a long time resident of the area congestion on and around the lake has been a consistent and major problem. If the variance requested is allowed it will add to the problem of congestion in our area which already is overcrowded. In addition there could be a potential harm created to the environment. I formally obj ect to approval of this variance which will have a direct negative impact on my property of its close proximity to Mr. VanSchaick's property. Signed, William Hunt, Fielding Lane Home- owner 25 Deer Run Hollow Clifton Park, NY 12065-5885" II Memorandum , Town of Queensbury From Penelope Gregory Re: Vanschaick dock construction, date: November 18, 1996 "My problem with this construction is that it now opens the door for everyone to now add on to their docks. I oppose the construction for that reason." And it was received today. Okay. Mr. Christian Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, request for variance, please read obj ect ion into the record "Dear Mr. Thomas: I, Mary E. Sochia, being a close neighbor to the applicant have property on the corner of the Cleverdale Road and Fielding Lane, am opposed to Paul VanSchaick's request for a variance to construct a 12.5 foot by 4 foot addition to his dock. My objection is based on congestion to the area and the limited swimming area, and leaving less lake area to view and enjoy. Mary E. Sochia" And I think that is all. MR. THOMAS-Is that it? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. THOMAS-Would you gentlemen like to come back up and answer Mrs. Sochia's questions about the additional boat? MR. VANSCHAICK-We have no intention of adding any new boats than what we have their now. So, I don't see what any objection is. (Lost words) parking the boat is just for the protection of the boat against the rocks. MS. CIPPERLY-So where would you be tying the boats onto your dock? MR. VANSCHAICK-Virtually the same place. MS. CIPPERLY-You wouldn't be tying them to this? MR. VANSCHAICK-No, because if I tied them along that front, which is singular, what I call nylite seawall or a (lost words) it would just kind of bang there all the time anyway. It's not going to do you any good. MR. THOMAS-Do the Board members have any questions for the applicant? I've got one, why can't those watercraft be parked on the east side of the dock, of the existing dock, rather than on the west side? MR. VANSCHAICK-They could be. I have one over there, as we said before, at the dock. It is really too close to the dock next to me, because that was put in many, many years ago, and it's really encroaching on my property to some degree. So there's not much room there, and congestion is far greater on the left hand side of the dock than it is on the riqht hand side of the dock, and that's really the reason for it. MR. THOMAS-On the side you want to put this dock on, how far is the dock next door from that property line? MR. VANSCHAICK-From the property line, I would have to say probably six feet. MR. THOMAS-And on the other side? MR. VANSCHAICK-On the other side, it cuts over a little bit. It's probably, the end of it is very close. It's probably within four feet. MR. THOMAS-As you look north on the left hand side. MR. BLACK-That's probably six feet, seven feet. MR. VANSCHAICK-But at the base of the wall, it's very close. MR. THOMAS-So the dock, at the shoreline you're saying, is closer than it is going out? MR. VANSCHAICK-Y@ø, egine out, MR. THOMAS-How far would you say it is away from the pin at the shoreline? MR. VANSCHAICK-It's probably over onto my property line. MR. STONE-You're talking about the outside end, the end that's by the lake? MR. VANSCHAICK-No. I'm talking about the end that's in by the shore. The one that goes out into the lake, at the base of the dock, there's like an "L" shape. The dock goes out this way and then a wooden platform that comes over here to my property, and that is where the seawall goes out on that side, they have a - 8 - - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) seawall on that property, and that dock goes right to the edge of the seawall, which really goes over the pin of my property line. MR. STONE-It looked to me like the end out in the lake goes over the property line. MR. VANSCHAICK-It is, too, basically, the whole thing goes back, you're right. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? The only fly in the ointment on this one is Warren County has turned it down. In order for us to pass it, you have to have five positive votes. We are actually two memberf3 short. One member hAR reR1,gned And the other one didn' t show up tonight, for some reason or another. There's five of us here now, We can do two thingo. We OAn go ahead with this and do a resolution and vote on it, or we can put a hold on it for up to 62 days until the sixth member gets here. I really don't know which way this is going to go. I'm going to go through and let all the members talk, but keep that in the back of your mind. MR. VANSCHAICK-Can we attend again in the 62 days? MR. THOMAS-Well, within 62 days. Yes. At that time, we would do a resolution, vote on that, because like I say, if you don't get five positive votes tonight, it's shot down. That's it, but if you wait for the other member to get here, maybe if we're lucky have another member here and get seven, you know, that's two more chances that you may have to get it to pass. MR. VANSCHAICK-I think the County situation has been resolved. MR. THOMAS-Well, if the County goes through and changes theirs from disapproval to approval, well then all you need is four from us. MR. VANSCHAICK-Right. Now, does that get processed back through you again now, because I can't go directly to the County, I understand. MR. THOMAS-The County would probably send us notification if they change their mind. MR. VANSCHAICK-And how do we get information to them that the Lake George Park Commission finds there to be no problem and that DEC says they'll have an approval within five days? MR. THOMAS-Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-You have a letter from the Lake George Park Commission? MR. VANSCHAICK-I have nothing. She passed it on. I will call her tomorrow and have her send you one. I mean, because it's not in her jurisdiction, and it would meet the approval of the DEC. The DEC took one look at it today and said it should not be any problem, and I will have the positive responses in five days. ' MS. CIPPERLY-If you would like Warren County to take another look at it before this Board votes, you can get those letters to our office and we'll request that they review it again, which wouldn't be until December, the second Tuesday in December. MR. BLACK-And would we have to attend that County meeting? MS. CIPPERLY-If they have any questions about it, somebody should be there, either you or a representative. If there are questions that can't be answered, they'll either deny it again because they didn't have enough information. I have a question for you. You - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) said you didn't have to make this four feet wide, necessarily. Could you accomplish the same thing with a narrower? MR. VANSCHAICK-Three feet, two feet. Three feet would be fine. I mean, I'm open for suggestions. The main purpose is to make it cosmetically look good. Four feet happens to be the exact same size as the other side. MR. STONE-It's the 12 feet, Sue, that concerns me, not the four feet. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, not the four feet. MR. STONE-Twelve feet is along the shore. MS. CIPPERLY -Well, one thing that happens with a four foot is really, it gives you access. It's more like a dock, and I'm not saying anything one way or th,e other, because it's kind of confusing here whether this is a seawall purpose or a dock purpose, and it is, as you said, it's 19 and a half feet òf relief that he's asking for, but anyway, the procedure would be to get that information to our office. So I don't know whether you want to discuss this. MR. THOMAS-Would you call it a dock or a seawall? A seawall is no more than 18 inches high and I don't think there's a width in the Ordinance, as to how wide a seawall is. How high would this stick out of the water, above the mean high water mark? MR. VANSCHAICK-The highwater mark, it would probably out of the water by, what eight inches a foot? MR. THOMAS-I'd say we're looking at a seawall here and not a dock. MS. CIPPERLY-Would you like to table this and I can talk to? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think for a couple of reasons, we ought to table this, because we should get a determination, is it a seawall or is it a dock. MS. CIPPERLY-Especially if the width can be decreased. MR. THOMAS-Yes. If the width can be narrowed down, it would be more advantageous to you to call it a seawall than a dock. Does anybody on the Board have anything to say about this, want to say anything? MR. KARPELES-Not if we're going to table it MR. STONE-Not if we're going to table it, no. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Because like I said. MR. KARPELES-I think it was wise to table it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I think it is, too, but, like I said, this may be a seawall rather than a dock, and that fits a whole different criteria. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 102-1996 PAUL THOMAS VANSCHAICK, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: For determination as to whether it's a dock, a seawall or any other kind of structure that is in the Ordinance, and also to get another member or members of the Board present and up to speed, so that we can vote on this, and also to give the applicant time to get Warren County to reverse their determination of a disapproval. - 10 - -" - {Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96} Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So, up to 62 days. MR. VANSCHAICK-Okay. I do have one question though. How do I get back to the Board at the County, through your office, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Through Sue, right there, at the office. MS. CIPPERLY-I'll give you a card here. MR. THOMAS-She will be your "primary contact". All right. Lets see. MRS. LAPHAM-What are we doing now, the first one? MR. THOMAS-Yes, Kislowski. All right. We'll go back to Use Variance No. 94-1996, James C. Kislowski. OLD BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 94-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A JAMES C. KISLOWSKI OWNER: JACK LEBOWITZ SOUTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD, JUST TO THE WEST OF CORINTH ROAD, JUST TO THE WEST OF PINELLO ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ·OPERATE A RETAIL SHOWROOM FOR MOTORCYCLES, SKI -DOOS, AND OTHER SMALL MOTORIZED PRODUCTS; RELATED RETAIL APPAREL; SERVICE SHOP AND PARTS AND ACCESSORIES SALES. THE PROPOSED USES ARE NOT PERMITTED USES UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION, LI -lA. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-26. CROSS REF. SPR 69-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 147-1-1.1, 1.2 LOT SIZE: 1.30 ACRES, 0.44 ACRES SECTION 179-26 MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LEVACK-Is there any reason to believe he's not going to be here this evening? MR. THOMAS-Who, Bill? MR. LEVACK-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes, there is. He said he's not going to be here. Would you like to read the tabling motion on that? MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. "Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution TO: 'James C. Kislowski, Jr. P.O. Box 1303 Bolton Landing, NY 12814, Project For: James C. Kislowski, Jr. The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: October 16, 1996 Variance File No.: 94-1996 Use Variance Tabled "MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 94-1996 JAMES C. KISLOWSKI, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: For up to 62 days. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES:" Mr. 0' Leary I - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) Sincerely, Christian G. Thomas, Chairman Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals" MR. THOMAS-All right. about, you wanted? When we last left this, we were talking MR. KISLOWSKI-The residents wanted to obtain letters from my prior neighbors. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. KISLOWSKI-One of the people had come to me to find out even where I used to be located. MR. STONE-We also need a reasonable return. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. LEVACK-We have some more supporting financial documentation that if we can walk through, we can try to address that aspect of approval for relief. MR. THOMAS-All right. Well, lets do the walk through on the financial since that's the biggie in a Use Variance. MR. LEVACK-Okay. To begin with, my name is Mark Levack. I'm the listing agent on the property here that Jim is proposing for a motorcycle sales and service shop. I've provided the Board with listing contracts that show that the property we've had the property listed in the past, and that we were unsuccessful in selling the property. We have a closing statement here that shows a purchase price in 9/30/94 for $330,880 and the property taxes in '95 were $9,335. The property taxes in '96, $7,350. Insurance is $2,000. The real estate commission is $16,000, the maintenance on the property over the two years has been running an average of $3,000 a year. I guess capital improvements there with a new septic tank, septic field, parking lot wash out area that's been re-stoned. He put in a new electrical service, and also, too, there's a new bathroom that needs to go into the property, because it is without a bathroom right now, and that's $13,500. He has a depreciation expense of $22,000 and total real estate expense in excess of the asking price right now of $400,000. Even if you exclude the depreciation on the property of $22,000, clearly a $394,000 need to get a return on this, before we even get into the intangible expenses, which I think are very real and legitimate expenses, and we should give weight to them this evening, this person is not going to recover the money that they have on this property, and I think that that's probably one of the key criteria for granting relief from zoning, because there is an economic hardship here, but the other thing that I would like to put a lot of weight and emphasis on is the fact that this building has been vacant for over three years. 'l'he building is a wood frame building with a shingled roof on it. The way the building was constructed in the past, I have no knowledge of what thought went into site planning on this property and when it was approved. I've just been hired to try to find a purchaser or a tenant for the building, but the building does sit somewhat close to the road, that there is a limited amount of parking, but I think adequate parking, given the particular use of the property. Jim basically called me looking for a motorcycle sales and service shop location. We scoured the entire Queensbury market place and were unsuccessful in finding a location that's as ideally suited for Jim's business. The building was built as a retail showroom and had a shop area in the rear half of the building. It's exactly what Jim proposes to use for this - 12 - "-- - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) property as a retail showroom in the front of the building and a shop area in the rear of the building. So that's why we landed on this property and, you know, we felt that we were not putting a tenant into a building that was out of place. Things got a little bit ahead of themselves, and that's how Jim ended up in the building, and here we are having to catch up with that, but we're here certainly to answer any questions that you have on Jim's use. We're here to answer any questions as it relates to the neighbors, and I think that, again, I'd like to re-emphasize that the building has been vacant for three years, and I think that's long enough of a time period to prove economic hardship. I'd like to remind you that this is a lease. He is not buying the building. It's a two year lease, and the land lord has the ability to remove Jim after six months with 90 days notice. Jim haa no intention of buy lug this building and maki.ng i.t a (lo§t word) IODation. H@' g trying to get started in business in this community, and this is the most affordable, ideally suited location for him, and that's why we're here seeking a variance this evening. MR. THOMAS-When was that building built, do you know? MR. LEVACK-I don't. MR. THOMAS-Can you guess? JIM KISLOWSKI MR. KISLOWSKI-I think in late 1985. MR. LEVACK-That sounds about right. Early to mid 80's. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, I want to know who the applicant is. I saw data from the person who owns the property. MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. STONE-His name doesn't appear as the applicant. MR. LEVACK-I think it does, if you look at the application, it's a two fold application, with Jim Kislowski and Jack Lebowitz. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, the original one says the applicant is James Kislowski, and then it goes down to the agent, which is you, Mark, and property owner Jack Lebowitz, but it doesn't say they are co- applicants. It just says one's an applicant and one is the property owner. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's all they ask for is the applicant, the agent, and the owner, and Mark, I do believe, is representing, more or less, the owner and somewhat applicant. More the owner than the applicant, or SO/50? MR. LEVACK-I don't think it really matters. MR. THOMAS-Or referee. MR. LEVACK-Jack Lebowitz, the owner of the building, certainly understands that I'm here representing his best interests and trying to get him a tenant here this evening, and I can speak as though I were the owner of the building and making a case for the economic hardship, this evening. MR. STONE-How much relief is the owner going to get if Mr. Kislowski rents the building? I don't see that number here at all. He's trying to show a hardship. He's not showing me how much he's going to be relieved of that hardship. - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. LEVACK-We can tell you what Jim's paying in rent on the building if that helps. He's paying $350 a month in rent. There's no other location, plus the work that Jim is putting into the building, which basically comes up to a total of about $6 a square foot, plus plowing, plus electrical, plus maintenance on the building, and for a wood frame building of this size, that price is in line with the character and quality of this particular building, with the limited parking that it has. I mean, there is space being rented out there for $2 a square foot right now. We can show you leases. I think the point is that the rent is a fair market rent of the building and the use that that building is going to have. MR. STONE-Are these numbers on all of the buildings? This $330, was that the kitchen building? MR. KISLOWSKI-That's next door. MR. LEVACK-The $330 was for all the structures when he ended up buying back all the structures. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-How about for just this structure? We went through this with the Mooring Post. He had to break everything out because Mr. Brock did that. He included everything. He had to break it all out to include things. What we're looking for is just this structure, and all the other numbers that go with it for just this structure. MR. STONE-What we're talking about is that structure. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You're not asking for a variance for the other buildings on the lot. It's just for this structure. MR. KISLOWSKI-Could I ask then, why, if we're asking for a variance change just on that one building, how come the people on the opposing side that aren't within 500 feet are notified? MR. THOMAS-You're asking for a Use Variance, a variance on the use of that building, not an Area Variance for the property. MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. That's what I'm saying. MR. LEVACK- If we could take a minute to work this, because it really is an extremely important issue here and this person is without a place to do business. I think I can quickly calculate the total area of buildings that occupy that and then we could do some simple division and come up with what relief, but it's a little bit like comparing apples and oranges, because there is no asking price on this one building. This one building could not be sold off independently of the other buildings because it would be a nonconforming site, so, you know, when we give you information on $400,000 that this person needs to recoup in order to make this work, he needs to get all these buildings rented, and this is simply one step in that whole process. MR. THOMAS-Well, you're not asking for all the buildings on that property, for a Use Variance on all the properties on that building. You're only asking for this one. MR. LEVACK-Right. Okay. MR. THOMAS-And if somebody else wants to come in for one of the other buildings, well we're going to see you right back here again, or that person. MR. LEVACK-How come this wasn't the procedure that the Kennel Club needed to go through to get a Use Variance on it's portion of the - 14 - '--' -..-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) building across the street? I mean, there was no consistency. I was here getting that variance. That variance was granted because everybody liked the use of the building, and I think that's ~eally what this issue should boil down to is, does the use f~t the building? Can he make this all work as neighbors? Again, I'll work through these numbers, but that wasn't what the Kennel Club had to go through across the street. MR. THOMAS-Well, every variance application is taken on its own merit. MR. LEVACK-Right. It just seems that this one's been put through some extraordinary scrutiny because of the fact that there's motorcycles involved. MR. STONE-That's not true. A Use Variance, this Board has become very sensitized to Use Variances. I wasn't on the Board when they really got sensitized. MR. LEVACK-Again, I'll work to whatever degree we can work to try to prove an economic hardship on this building, being vacant for three years. It's a 2,000 square foot. MR. KARPELES-I wonder if it makes sense to go through all this, because we have to meet all the criteria, and we haven't determined whether this meets the rest of the criteria. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, it's a start, though. MR. LEVACK-You have to vote your conscience to determine whether we've proved it or not. I think, again, the urgency that I'm trying to react to here is that this person is was without a place to do business, and we thought. MR. KARPELES-We have four criteria we have to meet. MR. LEVACK-Right. I believe we can meet those four criteria. MR. KARPELES-Well, I'm saying I that we can meet those criteria, isn't met, then it's rejected. through this if it's going to be wonder whether the Board agrees and if anyone of those criteria So what's the sense in going rejected anyway? MR. LEVACK-I think the other ones are easy. I think that the other criteria is the easiest argument that we can make here this evening. The financial criteria is something you're telling me I have to break down to this individual building. I think I can do that for you right now. As far as the other criteria, if you want to work through all those first, I mean, look at the permitted uses that are available in Light Industrial. Is this building adequate to handle a freight terminal? No. Is it adequate to handle extraction of sand, stone and gravel? No. Is this building adequate to house a restaurant? Absolutely not. How about an enclosed batch plant, a building supply lumber yard, similar storage yard? No. I mean, I could go down through every single one of these uses and say that this building is not adequately, this building is not adequate to handle these permitted uses in the Light Industrial zone, and I think that, again, this building has been vacant for three years. 'I'd like to get down to the issue of, is this an acceptable use for this building, and have we proven an economic hardship on the part of the applicant. I think we can prove that here. MR. STONE-But you just summarily went down this list and you said, restaurant, no. Of course it could be a restaurant, if it wanted to be a restaurant. Restaurants are put in all kinds of places. MR. LEVACK-With other buildings crowding it on every side, with the - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) parking as limited as it is? The answer to that is no. building could not house a restaurant. This MR. STONE-That's obviously your opinion. I'm not sure I agree. It certainly could be a warehouse for enclosed storage of goods and materials. I mean it could be. MR. LEVACK-It was built as a showroom, not as a warehouse, and the other thing is, in Light Industrial uses, if you look at the market place seeking these properties, they're seeking high based space. This is a low base ceiling. I is not adequate for storage. MR. STONE-That's not the way you said it though. I'm not saying I disagree or agree. I'm only asking the question. You just went down this list, and I would agree, it's not good for extraction of sand and gravel, obviously, but when you just jump over restaurant and jump over a warehouse and jump over a laboratory, I don' t think you can just jump over these things. MR. LEVACK-Well, I'd be happy to spend as much time and discuss the current market pool of perspective tenants that are looking into each one of these individual criteria and say whether or not there's even availability of tenants to take over this property, and this individual building. I've gone through this list, and I mean, I think more than anything that parts of Corinth Road are not zoned properly. I mean, do you see a freight extraction terminal on Corinth Road? Do you see batch plant on Corinth Road? I don't think so. I think the zoning is not proper for Corinth Road. That's not what we're here to argue this evening. We're here to argue the merits of an economic hardship, which I feel we can make that point very clear. I think the fact that it's been vacant for three years, in and of itself, should be a case for an economic hardship on this space. MRS. LAPHAM-Mark, from your brokerage files, have you had any offers, any interest, anybody that would want to do anything on this property? MR. LEVACK-We've had one offer to purchase this building, and if we had this building listed for $400,000, this building is not going to sell at $400,000, and I'm not going to get into saying that I think it'll sell for whatever, but it'll sell for less than what the person has into it, and therein lies the economic hardship. MRS. LAPHAM-How have you publicized it? MR. LEVACK-It's been listed in the Multiple Listing Book. It's been networked on a direct target market networking, which is primarily how we sell commercial real estate. There's been a For Sale sign on the property, For Lease sign on the property. This property has been marketed adequately, and it has no takers. It is an odd property. The property, the site has small wood frame buildings that are built on and bunched on that were probably very adequate for the cabinetry manufacturing business that it housed earlier, the storage of those cabinets that it housed earlier, but Lldl:l I:IptHJltléJ Lul1ûlug WCUJ à :t:'oLal1 uhowr.oom for. flooring. They did retail flooring there, and the reason why we're here is because Jim is going to sell some retail items, and therefore he needs a Use Variance to be put into that location. Again, I think this is, with the relief from zoning that's being sought here, in my opinion I think is extremely minimal. I think greater relief has been granted by this Board on other, much more controversial properties and locations. This person is selling light equipment sales and service. Right down the road there's heavy equipment sales and service. If we were to put a truck sales and service company in here, it would be a permitted use. What's the difference? The difference is he's selling motorcycles, and the neighborhood has a problem with motorcycles. That's been the controversy on this - 16 - - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) project. We have letters, support letters, this evening that we'd like to read into the record from Webb Graphics, a very prominent employer in the area that supports this Use Variance of this property. We have Bill Buckingham of Loggers Equipment supp~y, says this is crazy. This is ridiculous. Of course we support ~t. We have a letter here this evening from Matt Lebowitz who owns the West Side Auto, says, you know, we've got a junk yard right down the road, they have a problem with a little shop for motorcyc~e sales and service? We have a support letter from West Mounta~n Deli here this evening. We have another support letter from I believe a property owner at 375 Corinth Road. I spoke to several other people that weren't able to COffiØ up with a løtter here thie evening to support it, but everybody I've talked to certainly doesn't have a problem with the fact that this business would be housed at this location. Didn't feel the need to get all these people here this evening in front of the Board because we do have letters, their signatures small support affidavit. Again, every step of the way I believe we've proved that the relief from zoning is minimal, that there is an economic hardship on the building, that this building is unique to the situation and that nine out of ten of these uses aren't adequate for this building. This person that's going to occupy the building is ideally suited for it. We did look at the market to find out what else was available. We came up with nothing, an we're here. We need to fill these vacant buildings, this economy is eroding. The real estate value is eroding, and the Town of Queensbury's tax base is eroding. When a building is assessed for more than you're going to sell it for, the taxes needed to be reduced, and unless we fill these properties, that tax base is going to continue to erode and continue to erode and we're going to have a Washington County scenario on our hands, and it's a trend that's happening right now. This use works for this building, and I'd like to get back to proving economic hardship on this particular building is we want. Like I said, it's a fair market rent that he's paying for the building and it would, at least for this building, start to give a return to this property owner that's been vacant for three years and hasn't been able to locate a tenant, a suitable tenant for the property. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for either Mark or Mr. Kislowski? Why don't you crunch those numbers and I'll open up the public hearing. MR. LEVACK-Okay. MR. KISLOWSKI-Should I give you these letters from myoId neighbors? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We'll read them later. MR. KISLOWSKI-The people said, the phone numbers are there. You can reach those people at home tonight. Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll open up the public hearing. I think I left it open, the public hearing the last time. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ROLAND AKINS MR. AKINS-Roland Akins. I live on the Corinth Road. My property adjoins this property, and I'd like to ask if you are aware of the situation, you're aware of where my property is? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I do believe you're on the corner? MR. AKINS-My property is to the west, and comes right up probably within 10 or 15 feet of his building. It's to the south of the lot, too. It goes right around. I've got 27 acres in there. He talks about a hardship. What kind of a hardship would be on me as - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) a residential. I'm all residential. Whether it should be or not, that's what it is. At some point, we've owned the property for 25 years. We've paid taxes on it. The taxes have raised. I think the road frontage there, I've got six, seven hundred, about seven hundred feet I guess. It's assessed at $25,000 an acre, I think, for frontage. At some point we've got to sell that, get rid of it or do something or develop it. At this point the only way we can go is residential. I wouldn't gamble on other uses that could go in there. A bike shop, I wouldn't want to gamble. I don't think any of you people, if you owned it either, would want to buy a house in there. You'd look at it, with a bike shop. I respect the views of this Board. I've been before them before. Several years ago my daughter was just getting started and I wanted to get a mobile home variance up near my house. My residence is to the west of my piece of property. At that time we were turned down. I'm glad of it. At that time they said they turned it down. I don't think any of you people were on the Board at that time, to protect my land. I'd like to have you people take a close look at it. Value wise, this is three or four hundred thousand. If I have to sell it to a developer, the value's going to be (lost words) . MR. THOMAS-Okay. Akins? Do members of the Board have questions of Mr. EMILY AKINS MRS. AKINS-I'm Mrs. Akins, and there is a sign out in front of the shop, used cars. MR. KISLOWSKI-Ma'am, that sign doesn't say used cars. Cycle Service. It says MRS. AKINS-Did you take it down? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes, I did. MRS. AKINS-Okay. That's all I wanted to know. MR. AKINS-Besides there are other concerns. We have had a lot of problems with motorcycles. I don't know if we're going to have a problem with the shop. He has very little room, if anybody's going to tryout a motorcycle. I really haven't, we talked of large bikes last time, $10,000, $12,000 bikes. I haven't seen any of them around. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to speak opposed to this application? FRANK & CAROL USHER MR. USHER-My name's Frank Usher. This is wife Carol. I live next door to the proposed bike shop. (Lost words) the pole line, my home. Over the years, if you check back, I'm probably one of the biggest callers to the Sheriff's Department of motorcycles along the pole lines. Just the last couple of years it's stopped because of a combination of the cooperation of the police and Niagara Mohawk, put up barriers and erected signs. It's been cut down. We've just gotten rid of them, now all of a sudden Queensbury's going to turn around and allow them to do it legally, and it' S against the law, and I've been here, like I said, going on 40 years, and I don't know what else to say. I foresee what's going to happen, but I keep getting told it's not going to. It's going to. I know it is. They've got to test them out some place. The road next to me is a dead end strip. Where else are they going to test the motorcycle? MRS. USHER-I'm Carol Usher. It's just that this property as stated it was vacant for three years. I'm not quite sure if it was three - 18 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) years or not. My son-in-law worked at the cabinet place there, and I don~t think it's been three years. MR. LEVACK-Two years and ten months. MRS. USHER-Well, I know it was under three years. Just the same thing my husband said. We're retired. We're home all day long. The noise of the motorcycles coming out of the shop, let alone trying them out, along the pole lines or the dead end street next to us, it's going to be loud. The next two neighbors in the back work nights. They sleep days. They would be here tonight but they couldn' t make it. We gave you our petition. We have more names to be put on it. The letters that Mr. Kislowski is giving you tonight are companies or whatever you want to call it that are quite a ways down. Corinth Road is a long road. These are quite a ways down. If there's motorcycles down there, it's not going to bother them at all. It's the neighbors right up next to it that it's going to bother. MR. USHER-When we first moved up there, it was residential all the way through. Ever since (lost words) residential is gone. (lost words) the trailer court. Now I opposed that, too, but I got nowhere. MR. USHER-Back then when they wanted to put the trailer court in, there was no zoning. We took it to court, of course. We lost and the trailer park went in. We're asking for your help tonight. MR. THOMAS-Do any of the Board members have any questions for the Ushers? MR. USHER-Well, the only question I have. I don't see what hardship has on this property being granted or not being granted. The whole thing comes down to your going to change this zone for an individual in this area or you are not. I don't see what all this hype about this building sitting there not being rented. That's not my fault. MR. THOMAS-Well, we're not going to change the zoning, we would, if we do pass this, grant relief from the existing zoning laws, but we are not going to change the zoning. The Town Board is the only one that can do that. MRS. USHER-If he leaves, does it go back to what it was before? MR. THOMAS-That's right. Acre. It'll go back to Light Industrial One MR. USHER-Thank you. MR. STONE-I have a question. You said that within the last couple of years with the cooperation of Niagara Mohawk and the Sheriff's Department, there has not been motorcycles up and down the right- of-way, Niagara Mohawk? MRS. USHER-It isn't completely solved, but it's a heck of a lot better. MR. STONE-I was out there and I noticed it was well signed and it was well, big heavy stakes. MRS. USHER-It's not like it used to be. We certainly don't want it back again. MR. STONE-I understand that. Granting it doesn't necessarily mean that that's what will happen. MRS. USHER-Thank you. - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? MR. KISLOWSKI-I'd like to address the Ushers. MR. THOMAS-Well, you can do that after everybody gets done. You can come back up, you've got the numbers for us and whatever else you want to add on. Mr. Brewer. TIM BREWER MR. BREWER-Yes. Tim Brewer, Candleberry Drive. I'd like to state that I am opposed to it. It seems to me that most of the emphasis tonight is on the money part of the variance. Mr. Karpeles brought up a good point. I think we have to make sure that it meets all the criteria and not just give emphasis on the financial hardship. If, in fact, you do consider this and decide to grant this variance, I would like you to consider restrictions, to the extent that if motorcycles are ridden out of that shop and onto pole lines or anywhere in that area, that this variance be revoked. He sat here last week or last month, whenever it was, and pretty much promised us that that's not going to be the case. Well, I'm asking this Board if you do, and I'm hoping that you don't grant this variance, that you consider that restriction, and if that is the case, I don't think you'll have a problem. The improvements I think, Jim, I think he's making the improvements to improve his business, and I think he kind of jumped the gun. I don't think it's this Board's problem that he went in there ahead of the time, to grant the variance. I mean, Mr. Levack is his agent. He knew he had to get a variance. He should have got ten the variance before he invested the amount of money and went in there and started the improvements that he's made. I also like to emphasize last month he talked about car sales. The sign has been out on the building, or the sign pole, car sales. I want that eliminated from this application, which I think he did say he was going to do. I'm really opposed to car sales. I think it's going to change the character of the neighborhood. Whether Mr. Levack agrees with me or disagrees with me, I, personally, think it is. Motorcycles or four wheelers still do ride down there, and I think if he sells them, people are going to want to try them. Just recently, Saturday night. Two of them right in my back yard stuck, couldn't get out of there. They didn't know where they were. It was dark. I just don't approve of the motorcycles, four wheelers there. I'm sure if he wants to go into business he could find a place where there is a zone that would allow this. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else wishing to speak opposed? correspondence there. Read the MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Anything that's new. MRS. LAPHAM-I was going to say, didn't I read this correspondence last time? MR. THOMAS-Yes, you did. MRS. LAPHAM-Thank you. Okay. 11/8/96, To the Town of Queensbury. " I, Tony Zarillo, was a neighbor of Jim Kislowski' s motorcycle shop for 2 years on Foster Avenue. He was a good neighbor. There was never a noise problem from him, or his customers. He was very helpful when my snowblower broke down last winter, he repaired it at no charge. That is a good neighbor. If you have any questions, call me at 374-3241. Tony Zarillo" 11/12/96, To the Town of Queensbury "I, Ginny and Vern Vogel resided next to James Kislowski's shop, on 1679 Foster Avenue, Schenectady. James cleaned up his whole shop area and never caused any noise problems as long as we lived there, 12 years. James was a very good - 20 - '- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) neighbor and quiet. 341-3708 Mrs. Ginny Vogel" "To Whom It May Concern: I, Bob Teibout, was a neighbor of Jim Kislowski's Auto & Cycle Shop on Foster Avenue in Schenectady, NY for a number of years and never had any problems whatsoever with him, ,his shop or any of his customers. If anyone should have any quest10ns, please feel free to call me at 341-5205. Thank you. Bob Teibout" MR. THOMAS-That does it? MRS. LAPHAM-That does it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mark? MR. LEVACK-I'd like to, first off, address a couple of comments that were made this evening. I agree with the statement that was made this evening that this Board, it's not this Board's responsibility or problem that Jim jumped the gun and got in there. What happened was Jim and I were working together. I introduced Jim to this building, along with some others that ultimately didn't work. Jim took it upon himsel f to go meet with Mr. Lebowitz. They put the deal together, and then I was put in the position of having to sweep up after that deal to some degree, but we're not asking you to give that any special importance or favoritism, we also ask that you don't hold it against us, that this deal got ahead of itself and got in this building prematurely. The property is consisting of six buildings. I can show you a little bit of a diagram here. It's pretty much to scale. This building that Jim is proposing to use is 1500 square feet. The other building adjoining it is 1,000 square feet. The majority of the improvement dollars that are in this structure are in these two front properties. This building, this building, this building, and this building, are basically all very rough, uninsulated properties. So that would give the majority of this property's asset and value to these front showrooms. Okay, and if we're working off a number of $400,000, in addition, I mean, I would argue that this person has an investment of $450,000 because I think his time is worth something, and there are some intangible assets that could add value to it, but even if we said that 2/3rds of the value of this property is in the front buildings, the more renovated buildings, the more improved buildings, to get a return on that investment of $300,000, you need $30,000, cash on cash, to get a 10% return on the investment. That's a reasonable rate of return. If we take the $300,000 that this person would have to get out of those two front buildings, divide that by the 2500 square feet that those buildings consist of, that's $120 a square foot that they would have to, that that space is worth, in other words. If we take the $30,000 a year that equates to a 10% cash on cash return on their investment, they divide that by the 2500 square feet, we're left with an asking price of $12 a square foot that this person has to get t~ be able to get a reasonable return on their property. This lease is not that number, but it's better than zero, and I think this lease represents an opportunity for this landlord to get what is considered a reasonable rate for this property and begin to get some cash flow into the building. So maybe I'm missing something out of, what do we need to do to prove the economic hardship, but I mean, clearly on this particular building itself, if you even want to break that down and say $150,000 for this front showroom or $15,000 cash on cash for that front showroom and divide that by the 1500 square feet, we'd come up with $10 a square foot. This lease, as I said, approaches a $6, $7 a square foot range, and if you add all the other maintenance items and figures that Jim is going to be contributing to the building, I think the lease shows that it's somewhat approaching a reasonable return on that space. I think that property owner is entitled to the ability to get that reasonable return. Another thing that we should point out here this evening is that we're all neighbors. We're all residents of the Town of Queensbury, and we all want to work together to live and to conduct business. Jim came here this evening with some - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) preliminary support and indication from the Town of Queensbury Staff department that they didn't see a problem with the use, and that they would work with us to try to make this work, provided we were able to support you with the documentation that it would take to get through the Zoning Board of Appeals. Jim has been over there working, not open for business, saw somebody riding his motorcycle down the power line, called the Sheriff's Department and the Sheriff's Department came up and met with him. Jim gave a description of the bike, and you know, when Jim says they're not going to be riding motorcycles on the power lines, he means they're not going to be riding motorcycles on the power lines, and any restrictions that this Board would like to place on that, if there's so much as one customer takes off and rides down the power lines, then you would revoke his Use Variance, Jim is 100% agreeable to that. I should also point out that Jim, in an effort to be neighborly, reached out to one of the neighbors to try to get a little support on who to call or how to handle this motorcycle situation and got a very cold response. So I think Jim's put forth the olive branch to work this thing through, but the individual that he spoke to was not responding in the same way. We're here to answer everyone of the questions so that we can prove that we can meet all of the criteria that are necessary for granting relief from zoning. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for Mark? Does anybody have any questions for Staff? No one? All right. I'll start down there with you, Lou. What do you think? MR. STONE-I have very mixed feelings about this thing. I mean, I see the need. I think there is certainly a financial hardship for the owner of the property. He~s got $300,000. He's going to get $4200 a year. That's 1.2%. So he's certainly not getting a very good return, even if he can use it the way Mr. Kislowski wants to use it. I hear the neighbors. They certainly have been sensitized to the idea of the motorcycles are noisy, that motorcycles aren't nice to have around. I recognize that, but I also hear the applicant saying, if one motorcycle goes down the power line, that I have something to do with, that one of my customers, revoke my variance. That's very compelling to me. I see a man who wants to try to run a business and wants to run it as a good neighbor. I think with the proper conditions on it, I'd probably go along with it. MR. THOMAS-Don? MR. O'LEARY-Well, there are two problems. One, of course, is the Use Variance. The other one is the financial hardship situation. Mr. Lebowitz is the man who has to make the case, and Mr. Levack is making the case for him. There is considerable public opposition to the Use Variance. It seems like there's considerable opposition to the Use Variance, at least from where I'm sitting, so that it makes me look even harder at all the criteria, and going back to the financial criteria, in absolute terms, there may be some difficulty, but in relative terms, I don't think it's tremendous financial burden, and I don't see that this represents a major solution to that. So I, too, have mixed materials, but unlike my associate my mixed feelings are leaning much more toward voting against it. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, when I look at the criteria for the Use Variance, is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? I realize there's a hardship on this thing, but I am not convinced that it could not be used as zoned. Is the alleged hardship relating to this property unique? I don't see where it is unique. It's similar to every other property in that area. Is there an adverse effect on the essential character of the - 22 - "--." .~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) neighborhood? I think the neighbors are better judges of that than I am, and they seem to feel very strongly that there is a negative impact on the neighborhood. They're willing to take a chance on any other uses that that property is zoned for. Is this the minimum variance necessary to address the unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant? I don't know about that. So I guess I'm leaning against it. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Well, I have mixed feelings also because of the public comment, but I'm leaning more the other way. I looked, and I really do think that Mark has presented a substantial financial hardship to the owner of the property, and while this is like trying to put your finger in the dike, it's better than nothing, as you had stated. Any property that has been vacant with no offers and no interest at all as properly zoned for three years, that's been properly exposed to the market, there's a financial problem there, and to look at the others, reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned, it doesn't seem so, because we haven't had anyone that has come before us that, or that would need to come before us that would already be there. Adverse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood? That's the one I have a little problem with because motorcycles can be noisy and obnoxious. However, we do have these letters that give Mr. Kislowski a very good character reference, and I don't know if it's the minimum necessary, but I do think that there's been a sincere effort made to show us that there's a hardship and that he wants to move into the community and run a nice, clean business. MR. THOMAS-I'm leaning toward what Bonnie said. I think Mark did a very good job with the financial end of it, but that's only one of the four. As far as unique, yes, this is unique because those buildings are existing and they were built back in the early to middle 80's, and it was built as a "showroom", small retail business, and as far as altering the essential character of the neighborhood, it was built as a retail business, so it was already there, and the alleged hardship has not been self created. It existed. The buildings existed as they are. It's just that when zoning changed, it excluded those, because I don't believe that was Light Industrial before 1988, that area. I couldn't tell you what it was, but I don't believe it was Light Industrial. I'm leaning more toward granting the variance with a lot of restrictions on it. MRS. LAPHAM-Can I just add one more thing? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-What I've noticed is it seems on Corinth Road we've had more and more people come before us because they can't use the property as zoned. I mean, Mark brought up the point with the Kennel Club. They've had Curtis Lumber, and several others, because the owners can't seem to deal with the zoning that is on that property. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that is true. MR. STONE-Can we issue a Use Variance for only this business and until this business goes away, I mean, it doesn't stay with the property? I thought Use Variances went with the property? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We can condition the variance that as soon as Mr. Kislowski closes the door, the variance goes away, and it reverts back to the Light Industrial One Acre zoning. Having said that, I'm open for a motion. MR. LEVACK-Can we have an opportunity to discuss a few more items with a couple of the Board members? - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes, go ahead. MR. LEVACK-I guess I'd like to concentrate my discussions toward Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Karpeles because they seem to be leaning away from our vote here this evening, and obviously we're trying to¡make an argument that gets a favorable vote here this evening. If you could maybe once again summarize your major concern with this. Is it because of the neighbor opposition or because the applicant hasn't proven the economic hardship, or that it would be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or it meets the other criteria that's needed, or are you concentrating on the detrimental aspect to the neighbors, and the noise? MR. O'LEARY-Well, from my point of view, nothing is absolute. Everything is relative, and we have different interests here. We have Jim's interests in getting the business up and going and the client's interests, and we have the neighbor's interests. Sø it's not black and white. MR. LEVACK-Understandable. MR. O'LEARY-It's not absolute. It's not easy. Everybody þas a different opinion. In my opinion, I don't think that Mr. Lebowitz has a severe financial handicap, visa vee the real estate market in general. You're talking about his inability to get a "fair" return, but there are a lot of people in the real estate market today who are in the same boat. I don't see his situation as being unique, as it's been pointed out. So I don't see that it's a unique, nor is it a severe financial burden, and on that aspect, I'm not convinced. Also, with regard to the opposing interests, I'm impressed by the number of people who showed up at the last hearing and at this hearing to show opposition to the use that they. MR. LEVACK-Are you also impressed with the number of people and the amount of tax revenues that those businesses produce for this community, and the number of people that they employ for this community and their attitude toward getting this property used and a vacant property off of this corridor? MR. O'LEARY-I know only what you say about them. MR. LEVACK-Right. Well, we have names and signatures. We certainly didn't forge them. They are in a form letter. We produced the form letter. We went out to solicit that support and we got that support. MR. KARPELES-They're not on this Board. We are. MR, LEVACK-Right. I understand, but I mean, we're getting back to the neighborhood situation. It isn't just the neighbors and their needs that are at stake here. It's the property owner, his ability and right to get an economic return on this property, Mr. Kislowski's right and ability to do business in this Town in a building, you know, our argument is that we feel it's the most adequately designed, priced, and well located building for his business. If he were around a neighborhood that was zoned Highway Commercial and they said, well, we have a problem with this because it's motorcycle sales and service and it's going to create too much noise, it wouldn't be any different. Mr. Kislowski would be working with them as cooperatively and in communication with them as much as he would on this property. The zoning in this corridor is a special problem for the Town of Queensbury, and it's this Board's position or it's this Board's responsibility to figure out what's fair and what's right for both parties, and Mr. Kislowski has come here, and I even heard one of the members opposing this this evening say that, with conditions and with stipulations. They're willing to work it out and they're willing to make this - 24 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) thing work. Well, he said if you do zone it, that we would want stipulations and restrictions on it. So, again, there was some consideration at least given to the option that this might be zoned favorably for Mr. Kislowski's use this evening, but I'd, again, like to point out that if the building is vacant for three years and that doesn't represent an economic hardship or a special economic hardship, I don' t know what does, and as far as Mr. Kislowski's ability and willingness to work with these neighbors, he is 110% committed to being a good neighbor. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think Mr. O'Leary covered that. There are an awful lot of properties in Glens Falls and Queensbury that have been vacant for three years or more than three years. MR. LEVACK-So how many years does a property need to be vacant? MR. KARPELES-Yes, but that doesn't make it unique. MR. LEVACK-It's unique to this building. I mean, how many years does a building need to be vacant before it's deemed an economic hardship? I mean, we should hope to think that these buildings don't stay vacant three months or six months. That's not the case out there today. Here's the list of properties available. Here's the list of tenants for buildings. Not everybody is going to rent their building, but when you do have the opportunity to put the right tenant in the right business in the right building, and make fair and common sense of the whole thing, I think we've done that. I think we've done that. MR. KARPELES-Well, the real opportunity is to place them in an area that it's zoned for. MR. LEVACK-It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist, but I say that's Jim's argument, but Mr. Lebowitz's argument is I have not been able to find a single tenant or a single buyer in three years. I need to get a reasonable return on my property. This lease helps me do that. This is why I am here in front of you asking for relief from the zoning, and I don't believe this is a major stretch. The corridor allows for heavy equipment sales and service. There's a Logger's Equipment Supply building with as many or more neighbors right behind it. They start diesel trucks in the morning. They run these. They've got to take them for a test drive. They've got to take them up and down the road. They've got to work on them. They've got to start them out in the parking lot. It's no different. This is not a stretch. Well, I'm asking for a motion from any of the Board members, one way or the other. MR. STONE-Well, I'll try. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 94-1996 JAMES C. KISLOWSKI, Introduced by Louis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: - 25 - "'- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) Applicant is proposing to operate a retail showroom for motorcycles, ski-doos and other small motorized products, related retail apparel, service shop and parts and accessories sales. Currently, the proposed uses are not permitted uses under the current zoning designation of LI-1A. There's four criteria that have to be considered in granting a Use Variance. One, Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? Evidence has been shown by Mr. Levack that the owner of this property, Mr. Lebowitz, has not been able to do anything with the property from an income standpoint for two years and ten months, and at least Mr. Kislowski's use of this building would return a small amount of money for Mr. Lebowitz's investment. Number Two, is the alleged hardship relating to this property unique or does it also apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? It appears that the hardship in this particular case is unique to this particular LI-1A zone in the area. Is there an adverse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood? The buildings have been in existence for two years and ten months. They previously housed a permitted use which also provided some noise impact and other traffic impacts. I don't believe that this business will provide any more adverse effect than that. 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? I believe that it is. In addition, in granting this variance, we should be guided by the purpose as stated in paragraphs 179-26 defining Light Industrial zones, and I quote a portion "Highway oriented and research businesses need opportunity appropriately located near maj or highways from which they receive their materials and to which they dispense their products". It seems to me that selling motorcycles certainly needs a highway to show how the product can be used. In granting this variance, we would place certain restrictions upon it, to the effect that this Use Variance goes only with the life of the business as conducted by Mr. James Kislowski, and expires the moment that he gives up that business or moves away from the property, and secondly, the applicant is on notice that any confirmed use of the Niagara Mohawk right-of-way by one of his customers constitutes an automatic retraction of the variance. That there be no car sales on the property by Mr. Kislowski. The hours of operation were stated as eight to six Monday through Friday, excluding Thursday. Thursday would be eight a.m. to nine p.m. Saturday would be eight to two, and no retail sales or repair on Sunday. I would limit the number of vehicles outside to probably five, be it motorcycle, four wheeler, snowmobile, whatever, vehicles for sale out in the front. Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-I would limit the number of vehicles outside to probably five, be it motorcycle, four wheeler, snowmobiler, whatever. MR. STONE-You mean vehioles for sale? MR. THOMAS-Vehicles for sale. MR. KISLOWSKI-I would only be able to display that many outdoors? MR. THOMAS-Outdoors, because you stated you had indoor store room. MR. KISLOWSKI-Right, I do, but that would fill up very quickly. The bikes that we do repair during the day time will fill up the shop and we'll need some place to put those during the day. MR. THOMAS-How about out back? MR. KISLOWSKI-There is no real out back to my place. - 26 - ;----/ -.... (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. THOMAS-It seems to me there was. MR. KISLOWSKI-There's a loading dock that is (lost word) angle that is directly behind my building and then it starts with the next building after that. MR. LEVACK-Does it make a difference if he takes these motorcycles in at the end of the day? MR. THOMAS-I don't think he's going to leave them out laying around at night. MR. LEVACK-So you want to limit the number of products he can display out in the parking lot? MR. THOMAS-Yes, out in the front. The ones that are in there for repair will probably be kept on the side toward the back. MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-But I'm talking about the ones For Sale out front. I would limit that to five across the front, for display, For Sale, and your repaired ones, well I know you can't keep them all in the shop. Once they're fixed, they have to go outside, but then again, too, they'll be picked up within one or two days. MR. LEVACK-There's plenty of room in the rear (lost word) to store any vehicles, but the maj ori ty of his equipment is all stored inside. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but you also said you had the showroom floor because the flooring outfit that was in there before had a large one. MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-And I imagine it's mostly seasonal. You're not going to be selling snowmobiles in July, nor are you going to be selling water craft in February. MR. LEVACK-That's acceptable. MR. O'LEARY-I'd like a clarification on one thing, Mr. Chairman, from yourself or the Staff. Use Variances can be given a life that ends with the tenant of the property? MR. THOMAS-Yes, they can. Yes. I'm trying to think of which one we did it for. MR. O'LEARY-There's one I can remember. MS. CIPPERLY-I was just trying to remember the specific case. I do have some comments on your motion, though. First of all, you have to do the Short Form EAF, because this is an Unlisted Action. I'm a little bit hesitant on this provision of not having any of his motorcycles go down the power line. It becomes an enforcement action problem to prove. A neighbor will call up and say, one of his motorcycles went on the power line. I can see that becoming an issue. I'd also just like to mention that this will have to go to site plan review, where maybe some more can be done with the site. I think it's also worth noting that Mr. Brewer, who spoke against this application here tonight is a member of the Planning Board. I would hope that he would exempt himself from those proceedings. MR. THOMAS-In my eyes tonight, Mr. Brewer was a citizen of Queensbury, not a member of the Planning Board. MR. LEVACK-In our eyes, Mr. Brewer was a little far from this - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) property to comment on noise. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm just talking about site plan review. MR. BREWER-(Lost word} on noise, and I'm not a little far away from the property. MS. CIPPERLY-I was just addressing the site plan review situation. So we need the EAF done before. AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Green MR. THOMAS-Well, we have a three to two vote. We need four. We need a majority. It's hung. I imagine if we went the other way it would hang also. So now what do we do? MS. CIPPERLY-It's a No Action. MR. THOMAS-It's a No Action. So we have 30 days to make another motion and hopefully get Bill here. So right now it's hung, another motion will be made within 30 days. It may hang again, we don't know, but that's all we're going to do is another motion. There will be no more public hearing. MR. LEVACK-Does that motion have to be at a meeting? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it does, because it has to be in the public record. MR. STONE-Can we get that typed up specifically for that meeting? MR. THOMAS-Yes, the motion. If we can just get the motion, all right. So there's no action on Use Variance No. 94-1996. Another vote will be taken within 30 days. AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1996 TYPE II UR-10 JAMES GRIGSBY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BOULEVARD AND PHILLIPS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE. RELIEF IS BEING SOUGHT FROM SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-17 AND THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LISTED IN SECTION 179-67,A,1. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 111-1-25 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION 179-17, 179-67,A,l JAMES GRIGSBY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 103-1996, James Grigsby, Meeting Date: November 20, 1996 "APPLICANT: James Grigsby PROJECTs Corner of Boulevard and Phillips Ave. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a 24 foot by 24 foot addition to an existing garage. The addition, which has a proposed setback of 19 feet, would not meet the 30 foot front yard requirement of the UR-10 zone. 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 garage addition on his property. 2. Feasible alternatives: The location of other structures and the septic system on this property limit where a garage addition could be built. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 11 feet of front yard setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative effects are anticipated with this relief request. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The width of this corner lot and the location of other buildings on this property make it difficult to build this addition - 28 - ~ --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) elsewhere on the lot. Staff Comments & Concerns: The square footage of the existing garage and the addition would both be under the 900 sq. ft. requirement in the zoning ordinance. Staff anticipates no negative impacts with this request. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. II MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of November 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to . construct an addition to an existinq qaraqe. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything you'd like to add to the application or tell us about? MR. GRIGSBY-It's 24 by 30 feet. MR. THOMAS-It's 24 by 30? MR. GRIGSBY-Right. It's changed. MS. CIPPERLY-I think that may exceed the 900. MR. THOMAS-That makes it 720, and the existing one is 12 by 18, which is 180 plus 36. That makes that 216, which makes it 936 square feet, which is 36 feet over what the zoning calls for. Is there any way you can knock 36 square feet off that? MR. GRIGSBY-Cut back to 28 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes. If you drop it back to 28 feet, that would come under the 900, and that would be one less thing. On your sketch here you show 19 feet on the side setback. That shows it off the, is that 19 feet off the edge of Phillips Road? Does your property line go right down the edge of Phillips Road? MR. GRIGSBY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I'm trying to find a scale on here, on this other one. MRS. LAPHAM-I. was looking at this one, too. MR. KARPELES-I'm confused. Where's the 11 feet? Eleven feet of relief? MR. THOMAS-Yes, relief needed because it sits on a corner. He has two front yards and no side yard. I don't see how that can be 19 feet off the side setback when the property is only 50 foot wide. MR. STONE-I paced it. It is. MR. THOMAS-From the edge of the road? MR. STONE-From the edge of the road to the wall. MR. THOMAS-But is, in reality, the edge of the road the property line? Because, you know, if you take this drawing here, it shows 50 feet across the front, 20 feet, that building would be sitting halfway across the lot, and it doesn't. MR. STONE-Well, yes. You take the 27 in back of the proposed garage to the lot to the west, you've got 27 plus 24 is 51, plus 19 and 70. MR. THOMAS-I see this lot's going to be 50 foot wide, right? MR. GRIGSBY-It's 50 foot. - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. STONE-Not according to your drawing it's not. MR. KARPELES-How can it be? MR. THOMAS-Because when we give relief here, we've got to have everything accurate. I show that being about three feet off the property line, that back corner, the northeast corner, where the new garage and the existing garage come together. MR. KARPELES-Well, the existing garage is over there. MR. STONE-Well, it is 19 paced off from the edge of the road. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but the edge of the road is not the highway boundary, according to this map here, and I do believe that northeast corner pin was in there when I was out there on Sunday. MS. CIPPERLY-If you measure the 27 from the other property line, and then you have 24 with the garage, that's already 51. MR. THOMAS-And I'm measuring from the new garage over to the west property line at 22 and a half feet. MR. STONE-We also have, if you look at the house itself, it's listed as 42 feet from that same roadway to the house. The house is 20 foot wide, and it's got 4 more feet on the other side. Are you sure your lot is 15 feet? MR. KARPELES-Well, the map says 15 feet. MR. THOMAS-According to a measurement, it shows that that southeast corner of the house is 25 feet off the east property line, and the front is four and a half feet of the west property line. I mean, it shows four foot on his sketch here. MR. KARPELES-That shows 64 feet across, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It does measure 50 feet across. I don't know if this drawing was reduced or not, but it does measure 50 feet on a 20 scale. MR. STONE-Yes. There's a couple of numbers in question here. The 27 on the west side is certainly in question, forgetting where. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I measured 22 and a half feet on that one. MR. STONE-From where you thought the garage was going to be. MR. THOMAS-Well, where Mr. Grigsby's got 27 feet written for the side setback, from that west property line to the proposed garage, I measured 22 and a half feet. MR. STONE-From what? MR. THOMAS-From that property line to the edge of the garage, where it says 27. MR. STONE-Yes, but that garage isn't there. MR. THOMAS-Well, where it's proposed, and then you add 24 to that. It's 46 and a half, and that's three feet that I measured off this other map, over to the other property line. So that would add up across. So instead of being 19 feet of setback, it's only three feet of setback. MS. CIPPERLY-In fact, if you use this one square as five feet and just count the blocks along the front property line, you've got three too many blocks. There should only be 10 blocks. So you're - 30 - -- ...-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) right. It's about five feet, I think, between the garage and the property line. MR. THOMAS-Like I say, I measured three on this other map, and I don't think it's been reduced. I do believe this is a one inch equals 20 scale. That's what everything scales out at. All right. What do we do from here? Change that 19 to 3 feet, and that means he needs 27 feet of relief. MR. KARPELES-Well, you're saying the 27 is wrong, too? MR. THOMAS-Yes, that should be 22 and a half. Okay, and this right here is not 19. It's three. Because Mr. Grigsby's property line is not the edge of Phillips Avenue. It's in 15 feet, 16 feet. MR. STONE-Is this a three wide road? MR. THOMAS-I couldn't tell you. MR. STONE-I mean, it's dedicated. So I just assumed. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I did see the pin in that northeast corner, and that's set back a ways. MR. STONE-I saw the pin. MR. THOMAS-It had a red ribbon around it. MR. STONE-Yes, I saw it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Now that we've gotten that all taken care of. MR. O'LEARY-I'm still missing a half a foot, Mr. Chairman. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Well, 22 and a half, 24, and it's probably three and a half, yes, 3.5 instead of 19. I'm trying to measure the width of the lines here, because that addition does sit back on that northeast corner just a little farther than on the southeast corner of the addition. Do you see where I mean? You see how that sits back just a little farther than here. This is probably three and a half. This looks like about three. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. KARPELES-Do you agree with us on all this? MR. GRIGSBY-Well, I simply measured from the edge of the road, exactly where the property line is, I'm not sure of that. I don't know what stake you're talk~ng about, but there is. MR. THOMAS-Yes, there is a pin, as you go up Phillips Avenue. MR. STONE-The northeast corner, up Phillips. MR. THOMAS-Go up Phillips, between you and your neighbor behind you. MR. STONE-Behind where that old car is, it's in that area where that car is. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It's in the brush there. MR. GRIGSBY-You're not talking about the post that they put in for - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) the drainage ditch? MR. THOMAS-No. There's a pin in the ground. It's got a red ribbon tied around it. MR. GRIGSBY-There's some stakes down there with a flag on them that the Town put in. MR. THOMAS-Well, they probably had to identify the property corners before they put any kind of drains in there or any kind of culverts. Is that strip behind you, is that a road? MR. GRIGSBY-No. It's a right-of-way, unimproved. MR. THOMAS-An unimproved right-of-way. Do you know who owns that? Do you own it, it's a 15 foot? MR. GRIGSBY-I own half of it. DuFour owns the other half of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that's what this seven and a half foot easement for Town drainage is? MR. GRIGSBY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do any of the Board members have questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, I have a couple of questions. You say this is a garage? MR. GRIGSBY-Yes. MR. STONE-Where is the door going to be? MR. GRIGSBY-On the back side. MR. STONE-On the back side, facing north? MR. GRIGSBY-Facing north, right. MR. STONE-So you're going to have to put in a driveway or something to get into it? MR. GRIGSBY -To that road in the back. The other garage is going to be open so I can go through the existing door. MR. O'LEARY-How do you get to the new garage, off Phillips Avenue? MR. GRIGSBY-Off Phillips, yes. MR. O'LEARY-And you get to the old garage? MR. GRIGSBY-Off of Phillips also. MR. O'LEARY-Off of Phillips also. Okay, but you'll have to cut a new driveway? MR. GRIGSBY-On the back side, yes. There is a road way in there. I drive in there all the time. MR. STONE-I have a couple of questions. One, it says on your drawing, it says garage and proposed garage addition. On this other map it says shed and addition. Is this a garage or is this another shed? What's it going to be used for? MR. GRIGSBY -That was, the surveyor wrote that on there. It' s always been a garage. It's always had a garage door. The shed that shows on that map there is not behind the garage. You've been - 32 - -- -- {Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96} down there. You know that. MR. STONE-Yes. Well, there's two sheds on the property. There's a garage and a shed. MR. O'LEARY-But the eight by ten shed's not there anymore. MR. THOMAS-Yes, the eight by ten one is gone. MR. GRIGSBY-Yes. It's not behind the garage. MR. STONE-No, It's over on the other property line, near the western property line. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. STONE-Can we have this many buildings on the lot? MR. THOMAS-Well, the applicant's entitled to have up to 900 square feet of garage, and he's also entitled to have a shed. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So he's entitled to have what he's proposing. The only thing the applicant needs is setback relief from that front yard on Phillips Street. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I should know this, where is that? MR. THOMAS-That's in the Definitions in Section Seven. MR. O'LEARY-Is that attached? I mean, can you have two separate garages, a total? MR. THOMAS-No. square feet. You can only have one garage, no more than 900 MRS. LAPHAM-But if they're attached like this? MR. THOMAS-If they're attached like that, that's considered one building. Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? MR. KARPELES-Well, I just wonder where he got the 27 feet. Did you actually measure it off from the property line? MR. GRIGSBY-I measured it with a ruler and what I assumed was the line. It's hard to be exact. MR. KARPELES-So you could be off four and a half feet. MR. GRIGSBY-Whether that's the actual property line or not. MRS. LAPHAM-Plus if you went to the edge of Phillips, that would add more footage, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Anymore questions for the applicant? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. THOMAS-Okay. you think? I'll start with you this time, Bonnie, what do MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I was looking, and the area is fairly congested, but on the other hand, the applicant's entitled to the garage, and he doesn't have an abutting next door neighbor to this addition, and there has been no public comment, so I think I could probably go along with it. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, when I drove by there, I couldn't see any objection to putting this garage in that location. It looks like the existing garage is not offensive at all, and I don't see where the new one would be. So I have no objection to it. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE- I don't have any obj ection. Have we agreed there's going to be 24 by 28 and a half? MR. THOMAS-The applicant says yes. MR. STONE-So it's going to be 900? MR. GRIGSBY-Twenty-four by twenty-eight. MR. STONE-Twenty-four by twenty-eight. Okay. I mean, I think you did say that car that's in the back is going to go in the garage? MR. GRIGSBY-Yes, it will. MR. STONE-That certainly is an improvement as far as I'm concerned. MR. THOMAS-Don? MR. O'LEARY-No objection. MR. THOMAS-No. I don't see where there's any other place on this property that this garage could go, and with the property being only 50 foot wide and with the existing septic system and leach field, this is the only place it could go, and without any neighborhood objection or any public comment, I have no problem with it either. We have to do the Short Environmental Assessment Form. MS. CIPPERLY-I think this might be a Type II. You don't have to do it. MR. THOMAS-Is it a Type II? We don't have to do it. MS. CIPPERLY-Thank you for remembering, though. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1996 JAMES GRIGSBY, Introduced by Donald O'Leary who moved for its adoption, seconded by Louis Stone: Approving applicant's proposed construction of a 24 by 28 foot addition to an existing garage. The addition which has a proposed setback now, I believe, of three and a half feet, would not meet the 30 foot front yard requirement. The relief would allow the applicant to construct a garage for additional space. There doesn't seem to be any other available location on the property. The applicant is also seeking 26 and a half front yard setback relief. No negative effects on the neighborhood are discerned. The difficulty is not self created. That's the only place on the property that the additional garage space can be put. There has been no adverse public comment. - 34 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-I just have one more question for the applicant. How high is this garage going to be? MR. GRIGSBY-It's going to be 16 feet. MR. THOMAS-Sixteen feet, and that meets the criteria. feet's the maximum, right for a garage? Eighteen MS. CIPPERLY-Outside of Waterfront Residential zones, we don't have a limit on garage height. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we don't have to worry about that. I thought maybe it got changed in the rules and regulations. MS. CIPPERLY-The maximum height of a building in that zone is 40 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, okay. AYES: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green MR. THOMAS-The application building. I take that back. is granted. Site Plan? Go ahead and start MS. CIPPERLY-He needs a building permit, and when you come in for a building permit, you're going to have to have a more exact drawing, as far as where that property line is. MR. THOMAS-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 106-1996 TYPE II SFR-1A BARBARA L. BARBER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND MAID MARION WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO FOUR LOTS. THE FOUR LOTS WILL CONTAIN DUPLEXES WHICH WILL NOT MEET THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE ONE ACRE PER DWELLING UNIT REQUIRED BY THE SFR- 1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-20. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 38-3-49.54 LOT SIZE: 5 ACRES SECTION 179-20 DANIEL BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 106-1996, Barbara L. Barber, Meeting Date: November 20, 1996 "APPLICANT: Barbara Barber PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner Bay Rd. and Maid Marion Way Proposed proj ec t and Conformance wi th the Ordinance: The appl icant is proposing to subdivide one lot containing 4 duplexes into 4 separate lots. The new lots would range in size from 1.11 acres to 1.79 acres. The present zoning of the property, SFR-1A, requires a density of one unit per acre. Under the current zoning a duplex requires a lot size of two acres. This subdivision proposal does not conform to the density requirements of the SFR-1A district. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to subdivide a lot with 4 duplexes. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives are limited due to the fact that these duplexes which conform to the zoning designation they were built under (SR-30) exist on what is now SFR-1A property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) seeking density relief for buildings which are presently built. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative effects are anticipated with this relief request. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The existing homes were originally built on one lot. The applicant seeks to split that lot into four separate lots. 6. Staff Comments & Concerns: All of the proposed lots would be over one acre in size. The applicant is seeking a small amount of relief from the density requirements of today's ordinance. The setbacks conform to the standards of the SFR-1A district, and staff anticipates no negative impacts with this request. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of November 1996, the above application for an Area Variance for the subdivision of one lot into four lots. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BARBER-Good evening. My name is Daniel Barber, on behalf of my wife. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything you'd like to add to the application? MR. BARBER-We built these units in 1986, and then in late '87, and we conformed to all zoning at the time, and we're not asking for anything more. All individual buildings are individually mortgaged with different banks, okay, in the other part Sherwood Acres subdivision, two family also. Individually mortgaged. We met the zoning in '86, '87. I do not know how it got on the same tax map. I didn't even know that, we pay so many taxes, until a few months ago, and (lost words). We're not asking for anything more than what we did, legally, under the Code in '86 and '87, just asking for them to be what we thought they were and what we met in the zone at the time. I see several neighbors here on Nottingham Drive here, concerned about this. I know most of these people, I know all of them very well. Nobody spoke to me at all that I could address their concerns, and I have a whole subdivision around it called Loxley Knolls at the present which is zoned Single Family, SFR-1, went through the Planning Board a year ago and got a new road in there, etc. Now it does not effect any of that land that we are asking for nothing in that (lost word) nor would we. We can't do it anyway. You'd have to go through the Town Board. We're just asking, because this got on the same tax map, all different mortgages, okay, different banks. If we defaulted on one mortgage, for example, we'd lose all the parcels. That's how it would go. It's not logical how this happened. We're not changing anything on the land that was there in those days, and I think the concern is that we would do something, a precedent going into all the properties that we have, which we can't do, we would not do. There's several people across the street, Dr. Sheehan who's a dentist, who I didn't realize was going to be in opposition, because those people I know didn't say anything or call me, and there's one individual here who lives across the street in favor of, Dr. Sheehan who has a very expensive home right across the street on Lot Two of Loxley Knoll is not concerned. It's under construction right now. It's a $250,000 house, and the Toomeys that live right basically across the street are not concerned, and we could address those people being here. That I s basically what it is. We're asking for nothing more than what was granted in ' 86 and '87, just to break them on the lines that are deeded. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So these lot lines between Lots A, B, C, and D were just drawn in by you? MR. BARBER-Well, no. These were all drawn in, originally, the lines, they've been changed a little bit by Tom McCormack, but none - 36 - --- --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) of the property has changed, okay. It's all the same piece. It's just that he's remodified them for like duplexes. We put the new road in last year, duplex two and three has a common driveway, that kind of thing there because the terrain leading up to the, you people were there I'm sure, but as I put the new rock walls there, and to meet the requirement from the Town Highway Department, etc., we had to cut a 12 to 14 foot cut there. So, I mean, the best way to do that was a common drive, okay. So there is a little bit of changes like that kind of thing, but all the land is as it was from the very beginning. MR. THOMAS-Did the Staff look at these maps and measure it for setbacks? MS. CIPPERLY-That I don't know. I didn't review this. The main reason it's here is because you've got a double unit on each one acre lot. So it's really a density. MR. THOMAS-It's a density issue, but there's also, I think, we have to address setbacks. I don't know, would we, because of the zoning change? This was the original. MR. KARPELES-They've got the setback lines. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that's in the '82 Ordinance. Now the setback on a, in an SFR-1 Acre zone is. MS. CIPPERLY-Thirty on the front. MR. THOMAS-Thirty on the front. MS. CIPPERLY-And I believe it's 20. MR. THOMAS-They've got 36. I was just wondering if anybody in the Staff looked at the setbacks to make sure. MS. CIPPERLY-I couldn't tell you whether George measured those or not. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The side setbacks are 20 and 30. MR. KARPELES - Done by a 1 icensed surveyor. They should be accurate. MR. THOMAS-No, just on Lot A was the one that, I didn't know if all the setbacks, but it looks like they're all there. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? MR. O'LEARY-Chris, what, in the Staff comments, was the sentence, the setbacks conform to the standards of the SFR-1A district? MR. THOMAS-They're stating that the setbacks are correct. It meets or exceeds the setbacks for the SFR-1 Acre zone. That's why I asked Staff if they went through and measured it. It must be George did. MS. CIPPERLY-Why were you wondering? Does it measure differently? MR. THOMAS-No. I was looking at that Lot A, that garage against Bay Road. I measured it, and it's more than the 30 feet required. I take that back, it's just the 30 feet required. MS. CIPPERLY-So you're saying the survey map doesn't appear to be accurate? MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's what I'm saying. MR. STONE-He's drawn in, Chris. - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes, he's drawn in the 30 feet, but I'm measuring that from that property line back to where that setback line is. I measured 24 feet. MR. KARPELES-You can't scale these things. You get into a lot of trouble doing that. We've got it. It says a licensed, stamped surveyor, and he says it's 30 feet setback, plus. MR. THOMAS-I take that back. You do lose some when you start reducing these things, don' t you. Any questions for the applicant any more? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AL OUDEKERK MR. OUDEKERK-My name's Al Oudekerk. I live at 936 Bay Road, right across from where they're going to be building. My wife and I have absolutely no objection with the building there. In fact, all his buildings have been (lost words) . MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. oudelkerk? Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak in favor of? MS. CIPPERLY-I think one thing ought to be clarified is that there won't be any new buildings. This is just dividing up lots to go with the buildings that are already there. MR. STONE-We're granting nine tenths of an acre, .89 tenths to .21 tenths of an acre. MR. THOMAS-Yes, from .21 to .89 acres relief. MR. STONE-Yes, that's the relief we're granting. MR. THOMAS-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-So all we're changing, if I'm not mistaken, is ownership, really? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-I mean, instead of Barbara Barber owning all of these lots, there could be four separate, or there will be four separate owners. MR. STONE-Mr. Barber would like that to happen. MRS. LAPHAM-But, I mean, that shouldn't change the liveability of that neighborhood. MR. THOMAS-No. None of the buildings are going to change. The only thing that's going to change is the ownership of the buildings, and because they're duplexes, the Ordinance says that you need two acres, and there's less than two acres per lot here. That's the only thing they're looking for is relief from that part of the Ordinance. Anyone else like to speak in favor? Opposed? LINDA HIGGINS MRS. HIGGINS-My name is Linda Higgins, and I live on Nottingham Drive in Sherwood Acres. Some of my neighbors and I have written a statement about our feelings concerning this. We're concerned with two things. We're concerned with request for relief from zoning, which concerns the density in Section 179-20. We're also concerned about the subdivision of one lot into four lots, which will continue duplexes that will not meet the density requirements. I feel it is the responsibility of the applicant to honor the law - 38 - '-' -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) which was set forth two years ago on the 24th of September or thereabouts in '94. This area, including Maid Marion Way, in that general area along there is what was approved two years ago as an SFR-1A zone. We are concerned that any change in the law will set a precedent, which may allow more subdivisions into less than SFR- 1A zones, specifically the undeveloped lots on Maid Marion Way. We feel that further subdivision will endanger the privacy that we have become accustomed to. We wish to continue to live in the neighborhood which has won the acclaim of Mr. 0' Connor ,speaking on behalf of Mr. Barber during the meetings we've had concerning the Zoning Ordinance that was passed two years ago. He spoke of the neighborhood as the neighborhood with flavor. We understand that during the same discussion, Mr. 0' Connor stated that he didn' t have, quote, any difficulty with satisfying staff at the time of final submission because all of these lots are in excess of one acre. That's on page 30. On Page 34 of those same minutes, Mr. O'Connor also states that it's not the intention to have two family on here, and that was in reference to Maid Marion Way subdivision. A request is now being made by the applicant to subdivide the lot which is contiguous with Maid Marion Way. I understand there are duplexes on that lot, but we feel that this would be setting a precedent. A variance for any of these lots in our neighborhood would detract from our lifestyle in Sherwood Acres, as many of us feel a lot of the duplexes are (lost words). We don't feel our home values have gone up as homes in other neighborhoods have, at the same rate. My home was re-assessed (lost word) years ago and as far as I'm concerned, based on what our real estate appraiser told me, they're still assessed at the same value. We are opposed to any subdivision or construction of any multi-unit dwelling for rental usage, and there's 22 signatures. There were a lot of people who were unable to sign because they were out of town, or a lot of them were attending an open house. We feel that we are being encroached on. We just don't want any changes in the zoning laws any more. MR. THOMAS-As far as that statement there, changing the zoning laws, we are not changing the law itself, okay. We are granting relief. We're not altering the law. We're granting relief from it. Technically, it's not an altering. It's granting relief from it. These buildings exist as duplexes now. There's not going to be any physical change in the property or in the buildings or anything like that. MRS. HIGGINS-We're concerned that we have a one acre lot, and it's going to be divided into four parts because the Town is making the variance to allow that. Now I have land up behind me, part of this Maid Marion development. MR. THOMAS-This Loxley Knoll subdivision? MRS. BIGGINS-I'm right up next to where the circle comes around. MR. THOMAS-Yes, where it says Higgins, at the very top, right next to Mallincones. MRS. HIGGINS-Yes. I'm concerned that once a variance is given to this area, that it's going to be something that's very easy to attain from now on. I'm afraid that there's going to be more than the one family. MR. THOMAS-Your fear is that maybe Lot 9 of Loxley Knolls will become a duplex, or anyone of those 10 lots that are in what they call the Loxley Knolls subdivision? Those lots there appear to be just over an acre each, right around about that. MR. BARBER-Yes, some are 2.2 acres on the south side. MR. THOMAS-Okay. This is an SFR-1 Acre zone. If Mr. Barber wanted - 39 - {Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96} to, and he got permission or an okay from the Planning Board, he could take that two acre lot and subdivide it into two one acre lots, but he can only put a one family home on each of those one acre lots, or, if he wanted to, he could put a two family home on the two acre lot. No, I take that back. No, I'm wrong on that one. MR. STONE-He could put two family on two acres. MS. CIPPERLY-Not in an SFR. MR. THOMAS-Not in an SFR. MR. STONE-I'm sorry. MR. THOMAS-That's what Mr. Turner referred to as the "Holy Zone". No, not in an SFR, but he could take that lot and divide it into two and put a house on each, as long as they're a single family. I do believe that Mr. Barber stated that all these lots in l;oxley Knolls will be one family houses, and that he will not be asking for anything other than that. MRS. HIGGINS-But my point is that if this variance is allowed, it's a foot in the door. It's a change that I don't feel, and my neighbors obviously don't feel is an important or necessary change. MR. THOMAS-Well, in order to do what Mr. Barber wants to do, and that's to sell off these duplexes, he has to do that. Okay. He has to put these on lots, and he's made each lot as big as he can to accommodate. MRS. HIGGINS-Why didn't he do that when he built the homes? MR. THOMAS-When he built the homes back in '86, '87, the zoning back then was SR-30, which was 30,000 square foot per building. At that time, when he built these, he met all that zoning. He met the zoning requirements back then, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. It's just that they didn't make lots to go with. MR. THOMAS-And then since then this zoning has changed. In fact, I think it's changed twice since then, and this area has gone from single family residential 30,000 to single family residential one acre. That was changed, I think, in '88. I do believe that's when the zoning changed, but when Mr. Barber built these duplexes, he was required to have 30,000 square feet of land per building, and at that point in time, he met the zoning, per dwelling unit, which is 60,000 square feet of land per building, which is a duplex, okay. Since then, the law has changed, I do believe in '88, and again, like you said, in '94 to make this, this is now zoned SFR-l Acre, where one acre of land is required. MRS. HIGGINS-My question would be then, why wasn't a request made in '94, or before these homes were built to change it to one acre then? MR. THOMAS-That's up to the Town Board. The Town Board does the zoning ohangeø. MRS. HIGGINS-But (lost words) response to a request. MR. THOMAS- It could have been that. It could have been going through and re-doing the Comprehensive Master Plan, seeing what was going on here. They wanted us to limit the building, and that's how you limit it by increasing the number of lots or increasing the lot sizes from 30,000 to one acre, making bigger lots. That cuts down on the number of houses that can be built in an area. These duplexes, at that time, I couldn't tell you. I wasn't on the - 40 - '~ .,-""," (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) Planning Board. I wasn't a member of the Planning Board back then, nor was I a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Back then, like I said, they met the zoning for that, so they could do this. Mr. Barber could, at that time, could build and did build those houses, but now that the zoning has changed, he needs relief from that change to put these lot lines in to break these up into four lots so that he can sell them off. He built these back in 1986, 1987, and he's selling them now, 10 years later. He'd have to ask Mr. Barber. I can't answer for Mr. Barber. MRS. HIGGINS-Okay. Well, I would just like to reiterate my final comment is that we are opposed to Any subdivilion or conltruction of any multi-unit dwelling for rental usage. MR. THOMAS-As I can see it right now, there will be no new ones going in. There can't be. You cannot have any more multi family dwellings within this subdivision, because it's like Mr. Turner said, it's the "Holy Zone". SFR is the most restrictive ordinance in the zoning law in the Town of Queensbury. MR. STONE-And in fact there are one family homes going in around the circle, at least one or two. MR. THOMAS-Yes, there are. As far as up at the end of the circle where you are, the only thing that can go in there are single family homes, nothing else, unless, like I said, there's a two acre lot up there, and Mr. Barber can subdivide that in half and put a single family dwelling on each, as long as he meets the criteria for a lot, which is one acre and a minimum of 40 feet on the road front. MS. CIPPERLY-There was also considerable evaluation of this with the Planning Board when they did the subdivision, and I really don't know that going back to change it would be something he'd want to do. MR. THOMAS-Yes. See, anything that Mr. Barber would do to change this, he'd have to go back to the Planning Board. MS. CIPPERLY-In fact, he's going to have to go to the Planning Board for this if he gets this variance also. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I would rest my fears that there are not going to be any more multi family dwellings, duplexes, tri plexes, four plexes, whatever, within this circle of these lots that are shown on this map. MRS. HIGGINS-But we continue to be opposed. MR. THOMAS-So noted. Anyone else like to speak opposed? BOB FLANAGAN MR. FLANAGAN-I'm Bob Flanagan. I live at 22 Nottingham Drive. On your map, you might have the residence recorded as Milton and Gertrude Purdy's house. That is also right behind the circle that you referred to, Mr. Thomas, (lost words) Loxley Knolls. At some point, I also signed this letter and helped compose the letter that Mrs. Higgins just presented to you, as did 14 other homeowners, a lot more signatures than that (lost words) in the area. Mrs. Toomey was mentioned by the applicant. I had also contacted her, and she was the single person that declined to sign that letter. Dr. Sheehan was mentioned by the applicant did not receive a copy of the notice because he's not actually a land owner yet, but his house is half under construction by the applicant. The Board can appreciate that Dr. Sheehan would have no comment on this matter because of the predicament he's in. As far as setbacks, would the Board consider looking once again at the 75 foot setback - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) requirement on the properties in Loxley Knolls on Maid Marion Way and make a determination whether that 75 foot setback applies as well to these four lots in question in the present application? MR. THOMAS-In the SFR zone, I do believe the setback is 40 feet. MR. FLANAGAN-Perhaps in the SFR zone, the setback is, but particular exceptions were made to Loxley Knolls. MR. THOMAS-The front setback is 30 feet. The side setback is 75 feet. MR. FLANAGAN-On the lots that are on Bay Road. So you might take that into consideration. I guess my last point is in agreement with Mrs. Higgins. You have to bear with the novices in this business, the non technical people, what we may call a change in the zoning law, you may call granting relief, to us are pretty much semantics. The effect is the same. If you, today, grant relief in the instance of this single lot or there now exists four duplexes, and next year you may grant relief to Lot Number One off Maid Marion Way, which is directly across the street from the lot in question tonight. The following year, you might grant relief to Lot 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. So if it doesn't stop tonight, can you put in a stipulation that it'll never (lost word) on any of the lots in Loxley Knolls? MR. THOMAS-No, I can't do that because that's not part of this application. The Planning Board has already approved the lots in there, and they're for SFR. According to the law in SFR, you cannot put a duplex without variance relief, and I don't see any way that they can come up, anyone can come up and tell us that they cannot get a reasonable return on their property as zoned and have to put a duplex on there. MR. FLANAGAN-So what you're saying is that any time anyone who purchases Lots One, Three, Four, Five Six, and the rest can come to the Planning Board and ask for relief? MR. THOMAS-Sure can. You can come to the Zoning Board of Appeals, go down tomorrow, make an application to put a trailer on your front lawn. MR. FLANAGAN-Earlier this evening you were saying that, to the fellow that had the motorcycle garage, that you could put stipulations. MR. THOMAS-Different variance. That's a Use Variance not an Area Variance. This is an Area Variance, not a Use Variance. Very different. MS. CIPPERLY-For instance, putting a duplex on one of these single family lots would be a Use Variance, because that's not a use that's allowed in that zone. MR. FLANAGAN-This is what I'm asking you. people that signed this, 14 homeowners, some this petition, can you give those people duplexes would never be on any of those lots? Can you give us 14 18 people who signed guarantee that the MR. THOMAS-No. I can't give you that because the zoning could change again tomorrow and allow it. We have no control over what the Town Board does for zoning. We just grant relief from the law. We don't make the law. The Town Board makes the law. Like I say, they've changed the zoning in there twice since Mr. Barber built these, and I know there's another zoning change going through, the Comprehensive Master Plan is going through again and changes are being made, and I can't guarantee you, nor would I ever try and guarantee you or even tell you that I could guarantee you that - 42 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) there will never be two family homes on these lots, because the zoning could change. There's nothing that I can do about it. There's nothing that anybody in the room can do about it. It's completely up to the five people that sit on the Town Board, but as far as anyone coming in here and asking for a variance, it's like Sue said, it's a Use variance because they're trying a different use than what it's zoned for, other than Single Family, and there's no way that they're going to get any kind of relief for a Use variance to put a duplex or anything else other than a Single Family on any of these lots, as this Board sits right now. MR. FLANAGAN-Lastly, I would want to point out to you that the.e 14 homeowners opposed to this application, and the applicant and Mrs. Toomey in favor of it. That's 88% opposed to it, 12% in favor. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to speak opposed to this variance? One last time? All right. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. November 20, 1996, to Christian G. Thomas, Chairman and Members of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: Barbara L. Barber's request for subdivision of one lot into four lots, Tax Map No. 48-3-49.54, Bay Road and Maid Marion Way "I wish to go on record in favor of this change and hope for your vote of approval. Sincerely, Barbara S. Toomey 889 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY II And that's it for correspondence. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Barber. MR. BARBER-Mr. Chairman, again, we are asking for nothing more than what we built and'did legally in '86 and '87. We are asking for nothing more than that, and lots that are being individually mortgaged to banks. We have no intentions, it's against zoning. It's against the Town Board, everything. We cannot build, and I think that's the real focus of the opposition, and I've talked to one here tonight and a few others. I've talked to one. I've gotten the impression from a few others that this is what they're worried about is the rest of the land and of course that's the land that I own, Loxley Knoll. I built just about all of their homes, if not all their homes, but we cannot do that. We cannot put two families in there. Nobody has any intentions of doing such. I'm just asking for what was in, and I think it's done in the proper manner. The lots and the land, there was an acre and a half, basically, for them all at that time, and the way we put the road in nicely. It's a nice looking area. We've had a lot of comments on it¡. That's all we're asking. I think the opposition, like I said, is in that context, and I (lost words) myself. Dr. Sheehan, by the way, does own the property and is in favor. I have spoken to him about this. MR. STONE-You say that these are individually mortgaged? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. STONE-These property lines as shown by A, B, C, and D are what the banks have now as identifying the lots they think they gave a mortgage on? I MR. BARBER-The mortgages were granted at the time. We still have six years on them, okay, on that note, and we'd have to go back to the banks after the granting of this. We have to go backwards and add the lines, adjust it with the mortgage, yes. The lines, I haven't really paid attention to the adjusting of lines. To me, - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) it's academic, where they're adjusted. MR. STONE-But you're saying there are four lots, as far as the number of banks are concerned, they have one of these four lots another has another of the four lots? MR. BARBER-Well, Glens Falls National actually has them all, but they're all deeded separately. MR. STONE-They're all deeded separately. MR. BARBER-Yes, we'd have to go back and adjust them. MR. STONE-As far as they're concerned, they're four lots. MR. BARBER-We changed because the like the driveway, we need that driveway to Lot Two and Three. MR. STONE-Let me ask one other question, only because under Number Two, we're talking about feasible alternatives. How feasible it to make these one family homes rather than duplexes? MR. BARBER-We have behind there, we have a total, there's 12 duplexes actually in that group right there, okay, and all of this started way back in ' 77, starting the duplexes, which even in Sherwood Acres, down near the homes of several of these people, there's duplexes almost next to them. Okay. It's just not the four. There's eight more. MR. STONE-I understand that, but if you took one of these, is it possible to convert it into a Single Family dwelling? MR. BARBER-Well, if we sold it in that context, we would not do that right now, because a lot of our business depends on, because of our overhead (lost words); MR. STONE-I mean, it is a feasible alternative. MR. BARBER-Sure. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Barber? MR. KARPELES-Do you have buyers for these properties now? MR. BARBER-No. We have no intentions of selling any of them, but we just went through the same thing down in Sherwood Acres on Nottingham Drive. There was five or six buildings on, Mike 0' Connor handled this and I'm not sure why we didn' t come here. We went to the Planning Board and the County, and we were all on the same Tax Map, I think it's because it was a subdivision already, Sherwood Acre Subdivision, but we were on the same Tax Map. This was back in like June, at the Planning Board. We went to Warren County also, where we had to separate them, get them off, in fact, we did sell two of them down there. One of my tenants bought one, but we're doing the same thing here that we did down there. We should be separated. We should have the right to sell them if we want to. They were mortgaged that way, individually. At the moment, we have no intentions. If we get to a certain where you work so hard, and we work so hard, that there's a point that maybe you want to sell, so you don't have to work so hard to pay your bills. Of course, anybody wants to sell their (lost word) home or apartment house, etc. That's always, but no, there is not, in that context, we don't plan on it. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, the change that you're proposing would enable you to sell them as four separate units, or would they be sold, I just - 44 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) want to get it clear. Four separate sales to one individual owner who would then rent the other duplex, or you would sell each unit? MR. BARBER-No, you can't do that in condo style. I could sell the whole thing to one individual, for example, okay, but we're not changing anything. We could sell if we wanted to, to a different individual, each apartment house, but not the apartment. MRS. LAPHAM-What you're seeking to change is you want to be able to sell each apartment house to a different buyer? MR. BARBER-If it comes to that, and we're looking down, several years from now. My wife' f3 M, Flchool teacher locally and I have a business here. That's not in our, plan down the road, yes, it could be. MRS. LAPHAM-I'll just comment on the reason that he has four different mortgages, probably, is because when these were built and mortgaged, they were separate lots and they were allowable. MR. BARBER-We built two at one time, in '86, in late '85, '86, and those two, and they were at the First National at that time, and then we built the other two with Glens Falls National, and we consolidate our notes, and each single one has a separate mortgage with each bank. MRS. LAPHAM-Right, because it was an allowable thing to do at that point, that's why. MR. BARBER-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-There was never a recorded subdivision of the lots, though. Maybe the bank drew up a description to go with each building, but as far as the County goes and the Town goes, this particular lot was never di vided and drawn up, you know, with property lines. So the banks sometimes do that for their financing purposes, and kind of doesn't always agree with the Town and County. MR. BARBER-The attorney would do the dividing, and you would present it as a parcel of land, basically (lost words) . MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Barber? I do believe I closed the public hearing. If not, I will close the public hearing. What do you think, Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I'm very sensitive to the neighbors here. I believe that they don't want anymore duplexes in that area, and I don't blame them. I wouldn't want anymore duplexes, but I, having been on the Zoning Board for three plus years, I don't think we are putting the foot in the door by allowing the sale of these duplexes, and since the duplexes are already, incidentally, I didn't know those were duplexes until today. I've driven by there 100 times. I think you've done an excellent job in building them and disguising the fact they're duplexes. So I think it boils down to, what is the best situation now? And I can't see where individually ownership of each property would be any worse than the properties all being owned by one person. I have no objection to it. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I think we'd be placing a very financial hardship on Mr. Barber if we insisted, because the likelihood of one buyer for all four properties would be very unusual in this real estate climate and investment climate. So I don't have a problem, and I don't have a problem with it because I don't think it changes anything. I do have to agree with the neighbors. I wouldn't want - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) any more duplexes, but we've all stated that they probably can't, you know, there can't be any more. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Don? MR. O'LEARY-I think it's a distinction without a difference. I think that if we grant the variance, the neighbors will wake up tomorrow and nothing will have changed, and so from that point of view, I don't think they have any immediate fears or objections, and I think that, as Bob has pointed out, granting this variance on these particular terms and conditions is by no stretch of the imagination an indication that this Board, as it's presently constituted, would look favorably on granting variances for the purpose of building duplexes on other available lots. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I think everything that I would say has been said. I strongly agree with Don that I see no likelihood, certainly in the immediate future, and who can speak beyond five years or ten years anyway, in the immediate future, that there would be any risk of having more duplexes in this area, and I think this is a satisfactory request. MR. THOMAS-I'll agree with everything everybody's said. I am concerned, I can't say I'm concerned, but I feel for the 14 neighbors that did sign the petition, that I would be a little fearful, too, of duplexes coming in there, but these people not knowing zoning the way we do, that we know, as this Board sits now, that there's no way that there's going to be any duplexes on any of those lots, but like I said before, the zoning could change. The Town Board could change the zoning and allow them up there. I don't see it happening, and I wouldn't want to be the Town Board member sitting there voting yes on that resolution because I know I wouldn't have a job next election, but I have no problem with this. It's more or less a paper change, and having said that, I'll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 106-1996 BARBARA L. BARBER, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: We would grant the applicant the right to subdivide one lot containing four duplexes into four separate lots. The new lots will range in size from 1.11 acres to 1.79 acres. The benefit to the applicant is that the applicant will be allowed to subdivide a lot which already has four duplexes on it. There appear to be no feasible alternatives, due to the fact that these duplexes conformed to the zoning designation when they were built under SR- 30 and they are now existing. This relief does not appear to be substantial relative to the Ordinance, and I can foresee no negative impacts on the neighborhood or community. Lot A requires .64 acres of relief and Lot B requires .21 acres of relief, and C requires .86 acres of relief, and D requires .89 acres of relief. Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green MR. THOMAS-So the application is approved for the subdivision. Now you have to go through the Planning Board and do the same thing all over again, and I would just like to say to those who were - 46 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) concerned, that I don't see anything in the near future, unless the Town Board changes course here real quick, that there will ever be anything more than single family houses in there, but I do specify that if there is a two acre lot there, Mr. Barber does have the right to go to the Planning Board to ask for a subdivision of that two acre lot, as long as he meets the criteria, but there again, in an SFR-1 zone, you cannot put a duplex in there. It would require a Use Variance, and this Board, as it sits right now, would not give that. Having said that, we're on to our last one. AREA VARIANCE NO. 107-1996 TYPE II HC-1A GLENS FALLS INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 67 GLENWOOD AVENUB APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE DECK TO AN EXISTING BUILDING. THE NEW DECK WOULD NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS OF THE HC-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUIRED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179 - 2 3 . CROSS REF. SPR 72 - 96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 62-1-4.1, 4.2, 5 LOT SIZBI 0.57, 0.32, 2.59 ACRES SECTION 179-23 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 107-1996, Glens Falls Independent Living Center, Meeting Date: November 20, 1996 "APPLICANT: Glens Falls Independent Living Center PROJECT LOCATION: 67 Glenwood Avenue Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a handicapped accessible deck to an existing building. The new deck would be attached to an existing building and would have a front yard setback of 41 feet. A 50 foot front yard setback is required in the HC-1A zone. 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 handicapped accessible deck. 2. Feasible alternatives: The deck will be connected to a building which will be used for therapeutic arts. The floor plan for this building may limit where the deck can be constructed. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 9 feet of front yard setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative effects are anticipated with this relief request. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The deck would be built in order to provide access to a preexisting nonconforming building. 6. Staff Comments & Concerns: The proposed deck would be attached to the west side of an existing building. Presently, the building has a setback of approximately 30 feet. Staff anticipates no negative impacts with this relief request. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of November 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a handicapped accessible deck to an existinq buildinq. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact." Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. the application? Is there anything you'd like to add on to MR. MILLER-Yes. My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, and with me is Paul Cushing, the project architect. The Independent Living Center is looking to build an office building on this site, and the relief we're seeking doesn't deal with that office building. The office building, primarily, the Independent Living Center and some of its tenants, are various agencies for counseling and training people with various disabilities. One of the tenants of this property is Helm House, which is a therapeutic arts program for people with various handicaps, and this includes primarily ceramics, art and that type of thing, and the development of the - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) site, there was an existing residence that was there. It was determined that since Helm House is sort of a different type of function, then the other functions would be more office and training related, that they would easily utilize that space in the existing house. So it would primarily be like an art studio and classroom space. It's being renovated to be handicap accessible and also to provide as much space as possible. The idea of the deck came about to provide some additional outdoor space. Right now there's no neighbors on that side. It's actually treed over there, and the intent was to provide some additional space with the floor flush with the inside space for accessibility, and that the wood deck was determined to be best because of the grades outside the site. In addition to that, since these plans were submitted, Paul has been developing some additional plans, and one of the things you'll see in the site plan is we have a parking area where the old driveway was with a new sidewalk, and the intent was the sidewalk would be constructed for accessibility to the building, and part of that construction, there would be a ramp, that would have to go up approximately one foot nine inches to be flusr. with the floor level as required by Code, and I add that because we have a drawing here, I don't know if this should be included in our request, because this ramp will be slightly elevated above grade. MR. THOMAS-If it's connected to the deck that you're talking about, that you're asking? MR. MILLER-No. Here is the porch, which if you look from Glenwood Avenue, you would see, the deck is off the back side, and this is the front entrance. So what we're basically doing is, as required by Code, we're making this accessible. So we're going to have, this is going to be a concrete ramp in landing, entering the building with a railing, and you can see it's about one foot nine inches at its highest point. MR. THOMAS-I don't think they, at a concrete ramp like that, I don't believe, because that's. MS. CIPPERLY-Ðave Kenny, on his restaurant, his was about four feet up, I think. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-I thought this is what we were talking about. MR. MILLER-That is. That is what you're talking about, but essentially submitted, I originally, when we did the site plan, I understood that this was going to be like a flush sidewalk, but because of the framing of the house, it's necessary to elevate that, so we're not filling against the wood frame of the house, and that would be right in this area now. MR. THOMAS - Yes. PAUL CUSHING MR. CUSHING-Right behind this large tree. screened. So it's essentially MR. STONE-It's in there, but this is new construction. needs a setback too, I guess. So this MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CUSHING-Well, there's the line, the setback line, coming right through the house. That's the 50 foot setback. So practically anything you do. MR. STONE-I agree. There's no question, anything you do. - 48 - "--'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. KARPELES-Where does that go again? MR. STONE-This is what they're asking for. MR. KARPELES-I know. MR. MILLER-This is the deck, but then this ramp section would be right here, right against the house. This would be flush. This would be a handicap curb here, and this would just be a flush sidewalk, and at this point, about 20 feet away, it starts to elevate to meet the floor elevation, and I only bring that up to clarify that becauee we eort of discovered this after WI had submitted the application. MRS. LAPHAM-But the ramp in this drawing goes east, right? It's right here. MR. CUSHING-It starts about there and then goes. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, it goes west, but it's on the eastern side, and the deck is on the western side? MR. CUSHING-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, because I mean, I go by there every day. So I didn't stop, I mean, I've walked around that house 100 times in my life. I mean, I used to live on that corner. MR. THOMAS-We had to give a handicapped access for Dave Kenny's place, the restaurant there up on Route 9 in the Plaza there, the Meeting Place. It seems to me that was a wood ramp though, wasn't it? Was that cement? We're talking about Kenny's. MR. KARPELES-I think they would need a variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think they would need a variance for that, too, because it is a structure. MS. CIPPERLY-I would say if you could include it in your deliberations, it would be a good idea. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That way we'd cover all the bases. MS. CIPPERLY-If something's a foot or less, we kind of disregard it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but this is approaching two. MS. CIPPERLY-So you can address that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We'll add it in there. The only thing is we're going to have to take some measurements to find out how far back it is of£ the property line. MR. MILLER-Yes. corner is 30 feet. like 28 feet. It looks, the distance at the house and that So we may, it may be a little bit, there may be MR. THOMAS-What's the scale on that, 30? MR. CUSHING-Thirty. MR. STONE-So we'd need say, that would be about 32 probably. So we'd need 18 feet of relief. MR. THOMAS-What's that 28 there? MR. MILLER-Yes. - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) MR. THOMAS-Is that about where it starts there? MR. CUSHING-That's correct. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So 28 would be the closest, and 31 would be the farthest away. MS. CIPPERLY-And it's just the length of the ramp. MR. THOMAS-Yes. How long was that ramp? MS. CIPPERLY-Twelve feet. MR. CUSHING-It has to be one foot for every inch vertical. MR. MILLER-The landing's seven foot eight, and then there's about 21 foot where it goes. MR. CUSHING-About 28 feet out. MR. THOMAS-So about 28 feet out. Is there anything else you'd like to add on? MR. MILLER-No. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-What's the Independent Living Center, can someone tell us that? AL BLUMBERG MR. BLUMBERG-My name is Al Blumberg. I'm the Director of Facilities, and I would like to say that in as much as we work to represent the disabled it's really important that every I be dotted and every T be crossed. We want this to be exactly as the law is written. We're the example of what is to be done for the facility. In answer to your question, your question was? MR. KARPELES-I don't know anything about the Independent Living Center. Can you tell us? MR. BLUMBERG-The Independent Living Center works with the physically disabled, not only with people who are physically impaired, but the hearing impaired, substance abuse. MR. KARPELES-Who funds this? MR. BLUMBERG-The State of New York through VES, with the Department of Education. We don't take any County funds, per say, United Way funds. For the other agenoies, we take a little bit, such as the hearing impaired gets some United Way monies. MR. KARPELES-Do the individuals pay anything themselves? MR. BLUMBERG-No. MR. STONE-Does that go on in this building, or is this just? MR. BLUMBERG-That will not go on in this building, no. MR. STONE-Not the little one, the new one. MR. BLUMBERG-Yes. The new building will be made up of Liberty House, ourselves, the hearing impaired, alcohol and substance abuse. The technology is ours. It is also Liberty House, which I - 50 - -- - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) don't know whether you know who Liberty House is but they deal with the mentally disabled. MR. KARPELES-Do you have any facilities in the area right now? MR. BLUMBERG-Yes. We are on Sherman. Liberty House is on Bay. The hearing is in with us now. Helm House is in two places. They were on Main Street. MR. STONE-So you're consolidating. MR. KARPELES-Are you consolidating, is that what this is? MR. BLUMBERG-Yes. This is going to be an umbrella facility where six or seven agencies will be housed and jointly be able to do programs they're not able to do by themselves. MR. MILLER-One of the things with the design of this facility, a lot of these different groups can share conference room space and computer training spaces, lunch facilities, where now they're duplicating these things at various and separate locations. It's the intent of the Independent Living Center to try to combine these and help everyone's overhead. MR. STONE-Is Ricciardelli's building part of this? MR. CUSHING-No, it is not. MR. STONE- I mean west of that. That was sold to Warren/Washington. MR. CUSHING-That was sold to ARC. MR. STONE-ARC, right. MR. BLUMBERG-They've already announced that they'll be over for lunch. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-The only question I had was, looking that the property, that swale to the west is on the property, right? You go up close to the parking lot. MR. MILLER-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-It looked like it was a property line, but obviously it's not a property line. MR. MILLER-No. feet west. Actually the property extends probably over 100 MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? The only question I had was in Number One, the question is, How would you benefit from the granting of this Area Variance? And the last sentence is "Deck will provide handicapped accessibility. Is this year round accessibility? You're going to be using that deck year round? MR. CUSHING-No. We wouldn't be using it year round. Obviously, we have a short season of summer and that's when we primarily use it. Some of the existing porches which will be enclosed will suffice for this type of program during the balance of the season, as well as more interior space. MR. STONE-But this will be from inside, not from outside? MR. THOMAS-Yes. There's no outside access onto this deck. MR. MILLER-No. What that answer meant to be, as opposed to say a - 51 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) flush terrace or something like that, because of the way the grade falls away, that building, the grade slopes down, so we couldn't put something level at grade and still have the accessible. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No correspondence. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? Don, what do you think? MR. O'LEARY-Lets vote. MR. STONE-Lets vote. MR. O'LEARY-I see no objection whatsoever. MR. STONE-None. MR. KARPELES-No, I have none. MRS. LAPHAM-None. MR. THOMAS-I don't have any objection either. It's probably the only thing they can do here. We aren't going to forget about the ramp either. That's going to have to be made into the motion also. Would anyone like to make the motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 107-1996 GLENS FALLS INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald O'Leary: The project is to construct a handicapped accessible deck to an existing building. The new deck would be attached to an existing building and would have a front yard setback of 41 feet. A 50 foot front yard setback is required. So the relief needed would be nine feet. The benefit to the applicant, the relief would allow the applicant to build a handicapped accessible deck. There are very few feasible alternatives because the deck will be connected to a building which will be used for therapeutic arts, and the floor plan for this building may limit where the deck can be constructed. The applicant is seeking nine feet of front yard relief. This is not substantial. We don't perceive any negative effects are anticipated with this request for relief, and this difficulty does not seem to be self created. The deck is limited to where it can be by the pre-existing nonconforming buildings, and the handicapped ramp will be built with a setback of 28 feet, and 22 feet of relief is required, and the benefit to the applicant would be, as I mentioned before, that the ramp could be built, and since it's going on an existing building, this would not seem to be self created. Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE - 52 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/96) ABSENT: Mr. Green MR. THOMAS-The regular meetings would be the 18th and the 25th. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christian Thomas, Chairman - 53 -