Loading...
1996-10-23 I \ .......~ ;-" FILE QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 96-1996 Tax Map No. 41-1-7 Donald A. Milne Area Variance No. 85-1996 Tax Map No. 90-3-1 Arthur Radigan Area Variance No. 87-1996 Tax Map No. 111-3-3 John French Use Variance No. 92-1996 Tax Map No. 33-1-3.3 Anne Brunet Cont'd Pg. Sign Variance No. 95-1996 Tax Map No. 59-1-8.22 Midas Auto Systems Sign Variance No. 90-1996 Tax Map No. 36-1-35 ' Tandy Corporation Area Variance No. 89-1996 Tax Map No.4-I-II John Salvador, Jr. Kathleen A. Salvador 1. 6. 11. 15. 28. 16. 18. 30. , 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. b ~~~~ ft ~~: .. 1"'''1 "-- -..-< J$IÌ;.~.;", ,'.... .\,. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY ROBERT KARPELES DONALD 0' LEARY LOUIS STONE MEMBERS ABSENT WILLIAM GREEN DAVID MENTER PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, AND PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 96-1996 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA DONALD A. MILNE OWNER: DONALD & BARBARA MILNE 31 FITZGERALD ROAD, LEFT HAND SIDE FITZGERALD ROAD, APPROX. 375 FT. NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH MANNIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A GAZEBO AND COVERED WALKWAY ON HIS PROPERTY. THE NEW ADDITIONS WOULD NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR THE WR-1A DISTRICT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 1.79-16. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 41-1-17 LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES SECTION 179-16 DONALD MILNE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT It Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 96-1996, Donald A. Milne, Meeting Date: October 23, 1996 "APPLICANT: Donald Milne PROJECT LOCATION: 31. Fitzgerald Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a gazebo and covered walkway on his property. The new additions would not meet the required setbacks for the WR-1A district. The applicant is seeking a side setback of 15 feet at this location. 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 gazebo and covered walkway. 2. Feasible alternatives: Due to the fact that these structures are already built, alternatives are limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 5 feet of side setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts are expected with this application for relief. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The applicant is seeking relief for structures which currently exist. Staff Comments & Concerns: The location of these structures is 76 feet from the shore of Glen Lake and behind a berm between the property to the south. Staff believes the gazebo and walkway will not effect views of the lake and will be shielded from surrounding properties by the existing topography. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM-'iAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 9th day of October 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a gazebo and covered walkway on his property. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South Chairperson" - 1 - '~-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. THOMAS-Is Mr. Milne or his representative here? MR. MILNE-Donald Milne, 31 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury. The reason I'm seeking relief is because the septic system pump station, which was located prior to the hill, well, it was placed there after the hill came down, and the house was already sited, and that location is fixed, and rather than bury it, as is done commonly, we wanted, 1 wanted to have a vault that had access to that pump, in case of P7"0blem in the winter time, and the gazebo location, then, is d1ctated by that vault that has been there for a while, and that's why we really need the relief and it's difficult to move it over, at this point, because of the vault. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You'r~ saying it's difficult to move the vault from where the gazebo is? MR. MILNE-Well, yes. The vault is fixed and it's in the ground. It's excavated. MR. THOMAS-Right, and the gazebo sits right over the top of it. MR. MILNE-The gazebo was designed to go over the top of it, yes. ., MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Fifteen feet of relief, or five feet of relief? MR. MILNE-Five feet of relief. MR. THOMAS-Five feet of relief. MR. KARPELES-This says 15 feet at the top there. MR. THOMAS-It's a side setback of 15 feet. Required is 20. I..' MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. THOMAS-See, side setback of 15. So the applicant needs five feet of relief from the Ordinance. MR. STONE-Did you have a building permit to construct this structure? MR. MILNE-No, I did not. MR. STONE-Were you aware you needed one? MR. MILNE-Well, I started the gazebo, the gazebo was under 100 square feet, and I was told I didn't need one for that, and then we added the walkway later on. When I started to cover the roof of the walkway, I was aware that I should have proceeded, yes. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions? What's in between the existing garage and the existing house? When I was up there Sunday, all I could see, it's just sloped land, isn't it, between the back of the garage and down to the house? MR. MILNE-Yes. There's two railroad tie retaining walls in there, because the level of the garage is about even with the floor joist of the second floor of the house. So there's about a 10 foot, 11 foot drop in, I guess, 18, 20 feet, between the house and the garage. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else have any questions for the applicant? If not, I'll open the public hearing. MRS. LAPHAM-Is the gazebo finished, and is the walkway considered finished? - 2 - - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. MILNE-No, it's not. It's under construction. MRS. LAPHAM-What further plans do you have for it? MR. MILNE-I'm sorry, what further plans? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. I mean, what do you plan to do to finish it? MR. MILNE-Okay. On the gazebo, a cupola ha.s to be put on. There's no roofing in the center portion, and then part of the roof has to be, the peak has to be finished ~n the roof,. and the rai~ings ha~e to be put in, and the landscap1ng, the ra1lroad, or S1X by S1X timbers have to be put in alongside the walkway, and plantings have to be put in there. MR. STONE-So it is usable? MR. MILNE-It definitely is usable right now. One thing, I was aware when I covered the roof that I needed the permit. I didn't think I needed it just for just a walkway, though. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HERB & AILEEN KANE {' MRS. KANE-Herb and Aileen Kane of 45 Fitzgerald Road. We have no disagreement with this. It's very well done, and it does seem to be the only possible place that he could put this, and it's very difficult to come down when those stairs are not covered in the winter time, because we have a bridge that we have to come across to get to our house, and once it rains or snows on it, it's very slippery. So what he's doing is probably the only thing that he can do. There are two or three houses between us. He's 31. We're 45. MR. STONE-So you're to the east? MRS. KANE-I never know exactly where we are. Yes, I guess to the east. Yes. MR. STONE-Toward the end of the road? MRS. KANE-Toward the end of the road. Exactly, but it is. It's not bad in the summer. It's very difficult in the winter, to get from your garage to your house. So having it covered is going to be wonderful, but I don't know what else he could have done, and he's very careful about everything he does. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Anyone opposed to this application? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. LAPHAM-There's a petition to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. We, the undersigned, do hereby endorse and urge that the application for an Area Variance No. 96-1996, submitted by Donald A. and Barbara D. Milne, be granted. Dorothy Charlebois, Gerald Charlebois, Raymond Erb, Joan Erb, Margaret Aileen Kane, Herbert Kane, Jr., Christine Mozel, Petroski, and Underwood." A letter dated October 4, 1996, from Dr. and Mrs. Kim of 23 Fitzgerald Road, Miss Sue Davidson, Zoning Office, Town of Queensbury, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804. "Dear Miss Davidson: This letter is written in support of Area Variance No. 96-1996, submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Milne, for the construction of a gazebo and covered walkway - 3 - {Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96} on their property adjacent to ours. We believe that the project has merit because it fits the natural surroundings of the property, is modest in size when compared to many recent projects around the lake, maintains tree preservation, and is partially hidden by trees on the west side. Sincerely yours, Dr. Kim" MR. THOMAS-On that petition, are there house numbers on there? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Could you read them off? MRS. LAPHAM-109 Mannis Road, 19 Fitzgerald Road, 19 Fitzgerald Road, 45 Fitzgerald Road, 45 Fitzgerald Road, 99 Fitzgerald Road, 53 Fitzgerald Road, 51 Fitzgerald Road, 53 Fitzgerald Road, 51 Fitzgerald Road, and I think it's 99 Mannis Road. I wouldn't swear to that. Maybe it's 94. MR. THOMAS-Well, that petition, there's really no one close because the Kanes are at 45. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. ÌI MR. MILNE-The house numbers are a little bit messed up in that area, okay. The letter from Dr. Kim, they are the neighbors on the property line in question. MR. THOMAS-The one on the west side? MR. MILNE-That's correct. Okay. So they border the property. The neighbor on the other side is Mr. Barody, who's in Florida. He got the notice just, I think, yesterday and called me about it, and I should have called him and gotten a letter here, I guess. He said he had no problem with it, but you can't accept that, obviously, from me third hand. The next neighbor is Lynn and Bobby Dollos. He's a hockey player for the Anaheim Ducks. So he's not here in attendance. He's only a summer resident, and then there's the Jarvis family and the Kane family. So of the neighbors that are there, all of them either signed the petition or, Dr. Kim, who's the neighbor in most question, sent a letter in support. So no one, to my knowledge, has raised any objection to this. ¡j MS. CIPPERLY-It looks everybody that's on this petition is also on the notification. MR. THOMAS-Is on the notification, the 500 feet. Any Board members have anymore questions for Mr. Milne? MRS. LAPHAM-I just have one. Do you live there year round? MR. MILNE-We do now. Last year we were away about three months of the year. This year it may be less. Our plans are not. MRS. LAPHAM-You're there sometimes in the winter. MR. MILNE-Yes. MR. STONE-By three months, you mean continuous three months? MR. MILNE-We were from November 15th to January 15th, we were away. We came back and we were there from January 15th until March 12th, left on March 12th. One of the reasons for a covered walkway is we have the property plowed, but they don't shovel and so on, and if you come back, flying into Albany, with all these hops. You get a plane out of Kennedy that gets you in Albany around midnight, and you get up here and it's a little tough shoveling your way into the house and so on. So the covered walkway would solve one of those problems, in addition to being safe for the other times of the - 4 - -' --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) year. MR. THOMAS-Sue, would that gazebo, if it's under 100 square feet, be legal? You wouldn't need a building permit for it? Could it be on the property? MS. CIPPERLY-If it were just a freestanding gazebo. MR. THOMAS-A freestanding gazebo, by itself, 17 feet off the property line, there'd be no problem with that? MS. CIPPERLY-It could be five feet off the property line. MR. THOMAS-As close as five feet. MS. CIPPERLY-It would have to meet the setbacks from the lake. MR. THOMAS-Yes, which are now 50 feet, or the average of the two houses, either side of them. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions of the applicant? All right. What do you think, Lou? MR. STONE-Well, I really have no problem with it. I think it's a very nice piece of construction. I am getting more and more frustrated with the number of applicants who come before us with something already built, not having even gotten a building permit or especially having gotten a variance, but I think this particular case, the neighbor on the west side is not unhappy. He thinks it's a good idea. It's a very attractive piece of construction, having visited the site. I will vote for it. . MR. THOMAS-Don? MR. O'LEARY-I have no difficulty with it. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I feel exactly the same way. I, too, am frustrated by these after the fact applications, but I think you've got to put that aside, and if you go out there and look at it, it's a good looking piece of work, and I think it's a good addition. So I have no problem. ',. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I tend to agree with the other Board members, although I am getting increasing frustrated with the amount of applicants that come after the fact, and I don't think it's fair to the people who take the time to learn what the law requires of them, and then they proceed to do it in that manner, but I don't have any problem with the project as such. MR. THOMAS-I share the other Board member's frustrations in these projects being built before they come before us, but along the lines of what everyone else has said, that I think it's a good project. It's done well. It's constructed well. It's well hidden from the neighbor on the west and the lake. It does serve the purpose for Mr. Milne. As he has stated, if he comes in late, in the middle of winter, that he doesn't have to shovel to get into his house. Having said that, I'll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 96-1996 DONALD A. MILNE, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Louis Stone: - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) The applicant is proposing to construct a gazebo and covered walkway on his property. The new additions would not meet the re~ired setbacks for the WR-1A district. The applicant is seeking a s1de setback of 15 feet at this location. The benefit to the applicant, relief will allow the applicant to construct a gazebo and a cover~d walkway. Feasible alternatives, the structures are already ,bu1lt, but there do not appear to be any feasible alternat1ves, and the gazebo could have been built where it is without requiring a building permit, and it seems to make sense to cover up the sewage pump, and the walkway seems to be a natural thing to just connect the gazebo to the house and to the garage The relief does not appear to be substantial. It's only five feet se~back relief, and there are no negative impacts, as far as the ne1ghbors are concerned, on the neighborhood. In fact, all the neighbors seem to approve this project, and no neighbor has expressed any disapproval. Is the difficulty self created? Well, the applicant is seeking relief for structures which currently exist. So, I move we approve that. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Green MR. THOMAS-The application is granted, and if you haven't gotten a building permit, you need to get one now. This doesn't have to go before the Planning Board, does it? It's in a Critical Environmental Area, but it's not. MS. CIPPERLY-It's not an expansion of the house. 'U MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1996 TYPE II SFR-1A ARTHUR RADIGAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST MT. ROAD AND STEWART ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL AND FENCE ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT. THE SWIMMING POOL WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR POOLS, AND THE FENCE IS PROPOSED TO BE TALLER THAN ALLOWED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 179-67B REGARDING THE LOCATION OF POOLS; AND SECTION 179 -7 4B REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF FENCES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 90-3-1 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION 179-74B, 179-67B MRS. RADIGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 85-1996, Arthur Radigan, Meeting Date: October 23, 1996 "APPLICANT: Arthur Radigan PROJECT LOCATION: Corner of West Mtn. and Stewart Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a swimming pool and fence on a residential lot. The swimming ¡ pool would not conform to the locational requirements for pools which allows for swimming pools to be constructed behind the principal structure. The fence is proposed to be taller than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. 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 swimming pool and fence on his property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Due to the fact that these structures are already built, alternatives are limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking relief to locate a swimming pool in an area of his yard that is not allowed - 6 - '--... ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a 5 foot high fence to be built along Stewart Rd. and a 5 foot high fence at the rear lot line. The applicant should indicate what the height of the fence is so it can be determined how much relief is being sought. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts are expected with this application for relief. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The location of the septic and leach field on this property limit where a swimming pool can be built. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff believes the pool and fence should not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. As stated before, the applicant should indicate the height of the fence in order to determine how much relief is being sought. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 9th day of October 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a swimming pool and fence on a residential lot. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: "No County Impact". Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Is Mr. Radigan here, or his agent? MRS. RADIGAN-I'm his wife. MR. THOMAS-Well, you can be his agent. property? You are an owner of the MRS. RADIGAN-Yes, I am. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Your name is on the deed, is what you're saying? To make it all nice and legal. . MRS. RADIGAN-Yes, it is. I have it with me if you'd like to see it. MR. THOMAS-No, that's all right. Would you like to add anything to the application? MRS. RADIGAN-Absolutely not. The septic is right behind the house. That's the only place that we could really have the pool. It's in the direct sunlight. There's trees elsewhere on the property. We could utilize our space. Not one objection from our neighbors. (. MR. THOMAS-Okay. property line? Could you tell me how far the pool is off the MRS. RADIGAN-No, that I couldn't. MR. THOMAS-Can you tell me how high the fence is? MRS. RADIGAN-Six feet. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. O'LEARY-Is this an above the ground pool? MRS. RADIGAN-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-Again, I just have my frustration. It's there six foot high fence all the way around the property, and fence that doesn't allow any view through it at all. It's frustration that I have. with a it's a just a MRS. RADIGAN-Well, the fence is not all the way around the It's just in our back yard, and we were not aware at all permit would be requested for an above ground pool, at all, came to all our neighbors' surprise, too. house. that a and it - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. STONE-Well, it's also the fence. The fence is higher than. MRS. RADIGAN-We had no idea that this needed a variance when this came back, he said, I never applied for a variance for the fence. We just were not aware that there was a size. MR. STONE-I understand that, and that's the frustration. I mean, there seems to be a lack of knowledge in the community about zoning. MRS. RADIGAN-Well, can I say, there's that size fence allover our road, so that's why we would not be aware of something like that. MR. KARPELES-How did you happen to apply for the variance? What prompted you to that? MRS. RADIGAN-Somebody stopped by, to tell you the truth. I'm not sure his name. MS. CIPPERLY-I think it was probably John Goralski? MRS. RADIGAN-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-He's our Compliance. MR. THOMAS-Did someone call John, or did he do it when he was out on his routine business? MS. CIPPERLY-I don't recall that anybody called in about it. I think it was probably a routine. MR. THOMAS-While going up and down the road. MRS. RADIGAN-Yes. That's what he kind of implied to us. MR. KARPELES-Well, you know, an above ground pool like that isn't any big deal to move, and when I looked at it, it looked to me like there are other locations for that pool. . MRS. RADIGAN-There really isn't, except under big trees that we have no way to remove. They're our neighbor's trees. MR. KARPELES-How about by the garden out there? MRS. RADIGAN-By the garden is directly under that big pine tree that I'm talking about. MR. KARPELES-You sketch doesn't show a tree there. MRS. RADIGAN-It's not our tree. It's the neighbor's tree, and it's about 100 years old. It's very big and the limbs come right over into our yard. My garden is covered with pine needles right now. MR. KARPELES-You don' t use the pool this time of year though, right? MRS. RADIGAN-No. all summer long. I'm saying it would be directly under this tree That's what I'm saying. MR. THOMAS-Sue, did John measure to see, or look to see how far the pool was off that property line? MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know that he's measured. The scale on this map says one inch equals twenty feet, and that may be an inch, but, I don't know how accurate this is. MR. STONE-Well, I paced the pool off, I paced the fence off from - 8 - -.-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) the edge of the cement, or edge of the macadam. feet to the fence, 12 to 13 feet. MR THOMAS-So that probably puts the fence right on the property li~e the road being 10 foot wide, 23, depending where the road lays' and the right-of-way. If I'm not mistaken, that pool is almost tight up to that fence. I got about 12 MRS. RADIGAN-No, it isn't tight up. MR. THOMAS-The ladder was close, when ~ looked at it. MRS. RADIGAN-No, no. The ladder isn't anywhere near the fence. The ladder is on our side, the house side. MR. STONE-There was something between the pool and the fence, when I looked at it, today, this morning. MRS. RADIGAN-Well, it's closed up now, so where the ladder is now has nothing to do with when it's being used, and it was never on that side. It's never tight up. MR. STONE-It's not on the fence side? MRS. RADIGAN-Not at all. It's on the opposite end. You get in and out on the opposite. MR. STONE-All I can say is that's where it was this afternoon. MRS. RADIGAN-Right, well, it's closed up. I~'s been closed up for almost a month. . MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant, before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. LAPHAM-There's a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Donald Stockman, 778 West Mountain Road. L MRS. RADIGAN-I have two letters, and one's from them. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to submit them to have them read into the record? MRS. RADIGAN-Sure. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I have figured out what they have done now, and basically it just says, "10/13/96 We have no objections to this variance application. Donald P. Stockman Shirley Stockman" MRS. RADIGAN-And all the others have stopped by and said that they would do anything I requested, and I didn't think there was a need for them to come here tonight. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. This is the same thing that I just read. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What about that one? MRS. LAPHAM-Mr. C. G. Thomas, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, New York, "Mr. Thomas: We the undersigned have no obj ection to the granting of the variance as requested by Mr. Arthur Radigan. James E. Imrie, Jr. Gertrude Imrie." - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. THOMAS-Could you tell me where the Imrie's live, in relation to you? MRS. RADIGAN-Imrie's live actually on the other road, behind me, like right behind. They don't live adjacent to me at all. The Stockmans do, however. MR. THOMAS-They live across the street? MRS. RADIGAN-No. The Stockmans live right next door. looking at my house, to the right of it. If you're MR. THOMAS-On the right hand side? MRS. RADIGAN-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. They're at 168. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? MR. O'LEARY-I have a question for the Board, or you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a little confused on the variance for the pool location. I understand the variance on the fence is, what, a foot over the five foot? "¡, MR. THOMAS-Yes, the foot is a foot over what's required. The pool, because this is a corner lot, the lot has no side yards, it only has front and rear yards. So it has to meet both the front and rear yard setbacks, okay. In an SFR-1 zone, I believe that's 30 feet from the side line, and since there's no distances indicated on the map submitted by the applicant, and the applicant can't tell us how far it is off the property line, we don't know what to give him for relief. So, having said that, I think we should maybe table the application until we can get that information from the applicant, so we can give relief, if so required. Questions, comments? . MR. STONE-I have a question, just looking at the Ordinance. Does all the way around the pool, the fence all the way around the yard, does that fulfill the requirement to have a fence around the pool? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, it does. MR. STONE-It does? Even though there's a huge space? MS. CIPPERLY-The purpose of that is really to keep people from getting in and getting to the pool. So that is satisfactory, as far as I know. The situation here is that, for instance, in Section 179-67 in your Ordinance, the case of pools on corner lots is addressed specifically at the bottom of that page, and it says that, "pools shall be erected only on that portion of the lot that is directly adjacent to that side of the principal". They want it in the back yard, and in this case, we have two front yards. We have fence regulations that also apply to corner lots that are different, to answer your question, Don, and it's been something that's been before this Board periodically. Sometimes it's objectionable to the neighbors, and sometimes it's not. It really depends on what the situation is, but there are some specific regulations about corner lots and pools. MR. THOMAS-Does that answer your question, Don? MR. O'LEARY-It does. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-And I think your suggestion is good. We have no idea - 10 - ----- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) how far this is from the. MR. THOMAS-Yes. If we don't have the measurements, we can't grant relief. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1996 ARTHUR RADIGAN, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald O'Leary: For no more than 62 days, so that the applicant can supply the Board with the actual measurements of the fence and the pool off the existing property line. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Green MR. KARPELES-I'd like to know, too, why the fence has got to be six feet high. I don't see any reason why we should grant a variance on that. MR. THOMAS-Well, I'll re-open the public hearing, so it doesn't have to be advertised again. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN . MRS. RADIGAN-For privacy, if you're asking me. MR. KARPELES-Well, you've got to explain it to us. If we're going to grant a variance, you've got to tell us why you need it six feet high. MRS. RADIGAN-For privacy. Our property, first of all. MR. KARPELES-Well, the Ordinance says that five feet is high enough for privacy. MRS. RADIGAN-Our property is on a slanted hill so that, from the road, you can definitely see over into our pool. MR. KARPELES-You can tell us next time. It's tabled. '" MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Be prepared for that question. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Like I say, that question will be asked again, so you can have it on the record. Like I said, we do need the measurements of the pool and the fence off the existing property line, off the side property line, and the back property line, okay, and you have up to 62 days to get back to us. We have to hear it again within 62 days. That's the State law. MRS. RADIGAN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-1996 UR-10 TYPE II JOHN FRENCH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 11 LYNN AVENUE, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LYNN AND PARK AVENUE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 6 FT. BY 23 FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE ADDITION WOULD NOT MEET THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE UR-10 ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-17C. - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 111-3-3 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-17C KEN FRENCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 87-1996, John French, Meeting Date: October 23, 1996 "APPLICANT: John French PROJECT LOCATION: 11 LYnne Ave. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a 6 ft. by 23 ft. addition to an existing home. The addition would not meet the setback requirements for the UR-10 district. The addition would be constructed 23 feet from the property line along Park Ave. The applicant is seeking front yard setback relief of 7 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to construct an addition on an existing home. 2. Feasible alternatives: Because the applicant is seeking to cover an existing concrete slab, alternative locations for the proposed construction are limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking front yard setback relief of 7 feet. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts are expected with this application for relief. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The proposed construction seeks to cover an existing concrete slab which violates the front yard setback. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff believes this application for 7 feet of front yard setback relief would not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." ".0 MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 9th day of October 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a six foot by twenty three foot addition to an existinq home. was reviewed, and the following action was . taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact II Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is Mr. French or his agent here? MS. CIPPERLY-I'd like to point out something that was said in the notes that could be confusing. It said that the slab violated the front setbacks. The slab in itself doesn't have to meet setbacks because it's not considered a structure. MR. STONE-It's the new construction that requires the setback. MR. FRENCH-My name's Ken French. This says that we're adding an addition. I don't know if you'd consider it an addition. All we're doing is actually covering the walkway. There'll be no sides or anything. It'll þe just four by four posts. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it's just four by four posts going up and a roof coming off the existing slope of the existing roof? MR. FRENCH-Yes. MR. STONE-Is it going that high? The roof, it's not going up to the current roof, is it? There's a slab on the back. So this is below the second story? MR. FRENCH-Yes. On the back side of the house I have a permit already, and I've got a 10 foot by 24 foot going around, actually, both pieces are going to meet, but I needed the variance on a SlX by twenty-three. I'm already okayed for the 10 by 24. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So on the Park Avenue side. - 12 - '-- --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. STONE-On the back yard side you have a permit? MR. FRENCH-Yes, I do. MR. STONE-That was a question I had. I knew you had one because your brother showed me today. MR. KARPELES-It looks like you're going to build a wall there. I thought it was going to be? MR. FRENCH-No. It's two block hides with a cap, and I've checked with everybody before I've done any of this. MR. KARPELES-Okay, but that doesn't show there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It doesn't show the two blocks and the cap on here. It shows the posts sitting right on the slab. MR. FRENCH-Right. MR. KARPELES-But there are going to be blocks there? MR. FRENCH-Yes. MR. THOMAS-You'll go up two courses of block? MR. FRENCH-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Which is 16 inches, and a four inch cap. That's twenty inches. MR. FRENCH-Yes. . MR. THOMAS-And you're going to start the roof on the house below the second story? MR. FRENCH-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and then slope it down. There's no plans in the future to fill that in, whatsoever? MR. FRENCH-No. My parents are getting on there, and I figure, you know, cover it for them, make it easier. MRS. LAPHAM- It's actually not a porch. It's like a covered walkway. Like what we had before. It keeps the snow and ice off ~ and so forth for your parents. MR. FRENCH-Yes. There was a driveway there. That was taken out. The overhead door was taken out. Everything was done. I've checked with the Building Department. MR. THOMAS-What material are you going to use for the roof? MR. FRENCH-It's all right in here. paper, I've got the snow and ice. CDX, half inch, 20 pound pulp It's all right here. MR. THOMAS-I didn't get copies of that. MR. STONE-Is there going to be, from the roof, is that triangular piece going to be in there, or is it just a roof hanging down? Is that solid, or is that just open? MR. FRENCH-That'll be open. When the two come together, it'd be. MR. STONE-I see, you're going to turn a corner. MR. FRENCH-Yes. - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. THOMAS-It's like a hip roof. MR. FRENCH-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I have a question for Staff. About this building permit, do we issue partial buildi~g permits like that, I mean, are they conditional, to build on the back of the house but don't do anything to the? MS. CIPPERLY-That's up, really, to the Building Inspectors to determine. I mean, if he wanted to do a covered walkway on the back of his house, a building permit could be issued for that I guess. I guess, too, another thing I'd like to clarify is you're right. I think it should be called a covered walkway rather than an addition to the house. I think that's misleading, and it would clarify, when the building permit is being issued, exactly what it's being issued for, is a covered walkway, rather than a porch or an addition. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you'll take care of that? MS. CIPPERLY-I think in your resolution. .... MR. THOMAS-Yes. In the resolution we'll call it a covered walkway, rather than a porch or anything. MR. FRENCH-I don't know how it got to be called an addition. On all my paperwork, it says, proposed use, porch roof. That's it. MS. CIPPERLY-No, it's not your fault. MR. STONE-You said porch over an existing slab? . MR. FRENCH-Yes. MR. STONE-A porch, in some people's minds, is an addition. You meant a roof? MS. CIPPERLY-It's not an expansion of living space. important thing. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I just want to make it clear, it's not an expansion of a living 'space. That's the MR. STONE-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant, before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Not germane, but having talked about pools tonight, I noticed a pool in the back yard. Is there a fence around it? I didn't notice. MR. FRENCH-No, there isn't, and it wasn't required. As long as the - 14 - _. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) ladder is up and the gate is locked, there's none, and the gate:s always locked. That's what we were told ~hen,the pool was,put ln with the, there again, I had all the appllcatlons and permlt. MR. STONE-I only ask in your interest, that you cover yourself, that's all. MR. FRENCH-Yes. We were told no. It wasn't needed. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions? If there's no more questions, I'm open for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-1996 JOHN FRENCH, Introduced by Donald O'Leary who moved for its adoption, seconded by Louis Stone: The applicant is proposing to construct a six foot by twenty-three foot cover to existing walkway, such construction twenty-three feet from the property line along Park Avenue. The applicant is seeking front yard setback relief of seven feet. The relief would allow the construction of such a covered walkway. Because the applicant is seeking to cover an existing concrete slab, alternative locations for the proposed construction would be limited. There appears to be no negative impact. Staff does not see any negative impact. There is no public testimony or written testimony against the project, and as a result, I recommend its approval. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE . ABSENT: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-Go ahead and get your building permit for your covered walkway. L USE VARIANCE NO. 92-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A ANNE BRUNET OWNER: NORTHEAST REALTY 1652 STATE ROUTE 9, ROUTE 9 AT THE LAKE GEORGE TOWN LINE, ADJACENT TO THE "TEE-PEE" APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL TO BE USED FOR AN EXISTING RESIDENCE IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE. THE USE OF A SWIMMING POOL AT THIS LOCATION WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE USES ALLOWED IN THE HC-1A ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-23. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 33-1-3.3 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION 179-23 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 92-1996, Anne Brunet, Meeting Date: October 23, 1996 "APPLICANT: Anne Brunet PROJECT LOCATION: NYS Route 9 PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to construct a swimming pool to be used for an existing residence in a commercial zone. The use of a swimming pool at this location would not conform to the listed uses in the HC-1A zone. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? It appears that this property which is currently being used as a commercial business could realize a reasonable return under the current zoning. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? The existing zoning and development potential of this property appear to apply to other properties in this general area. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? The proposed use of - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) this property would not adversely effect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? Allowing the use of a swimming pool at this location could be considered the minimum variance, and would not effect the health , safety, and welfare of the community. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: As is the case with all Use Variance applications, the applicant is required to meet all criteria in order to be approved. The ZBA should determine if all these criteria have been met before taking final action on this application. SEQR: Type Unlisted, short EAF attached." MRS. LAPHAM-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 9th day of October 1996, the above application for a Use Variance to construct a swimminq pool. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone here to represent this application? If not, I'll open the public hearing. , PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-And if Staff would send a letter to the applicant stating that they have 62 days to come back before us or this application goes in the garbage. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 95-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A MIDAS AUTO SYSTEMS OWNER: KENT SMITH 333 QUAKER ROAD, NORTH SIDE OF QUAKER RD., PAST BAY RD. INTERSECTION APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO USE TWO ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS AT EXISTING MIDAS LOCATION. THE NUMBER OF SIGNS THAT WOULD BE USED AT THIS LOCATION IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE SIGN ORDINANCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE NUMBER OF SIGNS . ALLOWED IN SECTION 140-6B,3. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-8.22 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES SECTION 140-6B,3 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 95-1996, Midas Auto Systems, Meeting Date: October 23, 1996 "APPLICANT: Midas Auto Systems PROJECT LOCATION: 333 Quaker Rd. PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to use two additional wall signs at an existing Midas location. The number of signs that would be used at this location is not allowed under the Sign Ordinance. This property presently uses more signage than is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. 1. How would you benefit from the granting of this Sign Variance? Relief would allow the applicant to use two additional wall signs at an existing Midas location. 2. What effect would this sign have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community? Relief would allow the applicant to use signage which would be above and beyond what is currently allowed. Other businesses along the Quaker Rd. corridor are operating with conforming amounts of signage. 3. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? This business operates with more signage than allowed under the current Sign Ordinance. The applicant has the ability to use existing signage to identify this business. 4. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking to add two additional wall signs. This would bring the total number of signs at this location to a total of one freestanding sign and four wall signs. 5. Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? No adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood are anticipated with the proposed request for relief. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff - 16 - -- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) believes the amount of signage existing at consistent with other businesses throughout adequate to identify this site as a Midas Unlisted, short EAF review needed." this location is Queensbury and is location. SEQR: MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 9th day of October 1996, the above application for a Sign Variance to use two new additional wall siqns at an existinq Midas location. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The Warren County Planning Board believes that the Applicant should comply with the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance." Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Is there a representative from Midas Muffler? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-And would you xerox the same letter that you write to the previous applicant, tell them they have 62 days to show up, or we ditch it? MR. KARPELES-Why don't we just ditch it? MR. THOMAS-We have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Well, if you want to talk about it. MR. STONE-Well, first of all, there is an error in the Staff Notes under Number Four, it has, these two signs would bring it to five wall signs. There are currently three wall signs there now, one on the Quaker Road side, one over the office, and one that says brakes. Add two to that, rather than the four would make it five. t MR. THOMAS-On corner lots, they are allowed wall signs on both facades. That's not a corner lot? That doesn't sit on the corner of Meadowbrook and Quaker? MRS. LAPHAM-No, it's down farther, west of where you're thinking. MR. KARPELES-This is almost identical to the request that K-Mart made, just a couple of weeks ago, and we turned that down, and I don't see any reason why we should grant this, especially if they don't have enough interest to come before ,the Board. f,. MRS. LAPHAM-I have to agree with Bob. MR. THOMAS-I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. Does anyone care to make a motion to approve, deny or table? MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 95-1996 MIDAS AUTO SYSTEMS, Introduced by Louis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant proposes to use two additional wall signs in an existing Midas location. The number of signs that would be used at this location is not allowed under the Sign Ordinance. The property currently uses more signage than it's allowed by the - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) Ordinance. There ~re currently three signs on the building, one on the Quaker Road s1de, one over the office facing their parking area, and one brake sign over one of their three bays. We've heard nothing this evening that would justify a variance to our Sign Ordinance. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-Sign Variance No. 95-1996 is denied. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 90-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A TANDY CORPORATION OWNER: LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATES 12845 STATE ROUTE 9, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROUTE 9 AND ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A FREESTANDING SIGN WHICH WOULD BE LARGER THAN ALLOWED BY THE SIGN ORDINANCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS LISTED IN SECTION 140-6B,2. , WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-35 LOT SIZE: 1.65 ACRES SECTION 140-6B,2 DOUG STACHOWIAK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 90-1996, Tandy Corporation, Meeting Date: October 23, 1996 "APPLICANT: Tandy Corporation PROJECT LOCATION: 12845 NYS Route 9 PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to construct a freestanding sign which would be larger than allowed by . the Sign Ordinance. Freestanding signs are limited to a size of 50 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing a sign which would be 55.8 sq. ft. in size. 1. How would you benefit from the granting of this Sign Variance? Relief would allow the applicant to construct a freestanding sign larger than what is allowed by code. 2. What effect would this sign have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community? Relief would allow the applicant to use signage which would be above and beyond what is currently allowed. This could lead to future requests of a similar nature from other businesses in the area. 3. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? The applicant may have the ability to construct the sign in such a manner that it meets the area requirements for freestanding signs. 4. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking to add 5.8 sq. ft. of sign area which is not allowed by current regulations. 5. will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? No adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood are anticipated with the proposed request for relief. Staff Comments and Concerns: Any decision by the ZBA should consider the fact that other on site signage exists which conforms to the regulations, and the alternative that the applicant could conform to the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF review needed. II MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 9th day of October 1996, the above application for a Siqn Variance to construct a free standinq siqn which would be larqer than allowed. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: It does conform when the spaces between the signs are not calculated into the square footage that is allowed." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. - 18 - '-' ,,-,,,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. THOMAS-Before we start, I'd like to ask staff about Warren County Planning Board's comment, the spacing, the empty space in between the signs. MS. CIPPERLY -That was a determination made by our Compliance Officer and Jim Martin. MR. KARPELES-It would comply if there weren't any spaces in there? MR. THOMAS-If there weren't any space between the sign above it? MS. CIPPERLY - I think if you took all of those and pushed them together, since there's only a five square foot difference, those spaces are probably what makes the difference, but you could see that the next one could make the same argument that the air space in between is what's causing the problem, not the size of the sign, but what you really have is a visual blockage, still, of over 50 square feet. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. STACHOWIAK-Good evening. My name is Doug Stachowiak from the Tandy Corporation in Fort Worth, Texas. Mr. Stone, to address one of the things that you've been commenting on all evening was that this work has been done. The sign cabinet has been installed, which you've all visited the site. You all saw it. I apologize for that. As soon as I heard of the situation, I contacted John Goralski, the Code Compliance Officer, and I wanted to get resolution to this, and got on the first agenda that I could. The intent on clarifying the application, Tandy installed a sign cabinet that is 9.75 square feet. When the contractor was out in the field, because of the way the other three cabinets are attached to the existing signs, there are L brackets on the bottom, and ~ because they are separate cabinets, in order to perform any type of maintenance on the sign, to open them up, to replace a lightbulb, to keep them in good repair does require some space to take the screws off, and it was determined, in the field, without Tandy Corporation approval. I would much rather have them hold off on doing that work and getting the approval. It was determined to go ahead with the minimal spacing, hoping that we would be under the 50 square feet that is allowed, and we have approval by thé County, well, they recommend approval, and their comment that, yes, if the signs could be butted together, and that was our original intent, that this sign would comply, and the 5.8 square feet that it exceeds the Ordinance by is actually air space, and not sign area. L MR. THOMAS-Okay. that Radio Shack brackets. There there? Was there a sign in there before, for the store now occupies? You said there were existing L was some kind of store in there before, wasn't MR. STACHOWIAK-Yes, there was. MR. THOMAS-I can't remember the name of it. MR. STONE-Was that North American Gold? MR. STACHOWIAK-It was a jewelry store as a matter of fact, yes. MR. STONE-I think it was North American Gold. MR. THOMAS-And did they have a sign in there? MR. STACHOWIAK-There is a blank panel on the sign on the Route 59 side. North American Jewelry, that was the name of it at the time. I'm looking through my photographs to see if there are brackets. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any other questions for the applicants - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) while he's looking for his photos? MR. KARPELES-Well, I think the L bracket that he's talking about is the electrical connection that goes into the Radio Shack, and the Radio Shack sign is the only one that had an L bracket. All the rest of them come in to the side. I've got to ask the obvious question. If you can be in compliance by just closing them up, why don't you close them up? MR. STACHOWIAK-That's a photograph, and the electrical bracket is definitely visible on the Dunham Footwear. MR. KARPELES-Well, where's yours? Yours isn't on there. MR. STACHOWIAK-Ours isn't, but this was taken before. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but yours has the L bracket right on top of it. There's one on this. MR. STACHOWIAK-Well, that's an electrical box, but if you look, there are L brackets, and plus, to pull this space out, you have to remove one of the pieces of the trunk cabinet. , MR. KARPELES-Well, there are signs that can be designed so that you can remove those without having an air space in between there. MRS. LAPHAM-But when you look at it, though, this is bigger. MR. STACHOWIAK- It's consistent with the signs, the size of the signs out there. It's not overwhelming. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. O'LEARY-I have a question of the applicant. Is there an arrangement when you lease the property, is there an arrangement with the owner of the property with regard to space on the sign, that is to say, the reason why you don't have enough room on the sign, obviously, is because the room that's taken by the other signs that are standing there, right? . MR. STACHOWIAK-Yes. MR. O'LEARY-I mean, supposing Dunham's Footwear was smaller? What I'm trying to find out is, is there an arrangement about signage that's part and parcel of your lease? MR. STACHOWIAK-There are agreements that we will, of course we allow the store front sign and identification, and it is negotiated to put on the signs. The original intent of the proposal was never to get them as close together as possible. I believe that our installer did move them as closely together as possible, to bring it with, as much as they felt necessary to still perform maintenance on the sign sides. MR. O'LEARY-I guess what I'm asking is, if there's vacant store area there, and I lease it, obviously, I won't be able to have a sign. MR. STACHOWIAK-There is no more retail space in this building. MR. O'LEARY-If there were retail space available, and I leased it, I obviously could not put up a sign because the signage allowed is taken. MR. STACHOWIAK-I'm sure the agreement in the lease and it is in other Tandy leases that the landlord would grant their approval with the necessary approvals from the municipality, and then it would be the burden of the tenant or Tandy or your store to come in - 20 - -- -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) and apply for these sign variances. MR. O'LEARY-So, would I be on notice that I would not be able to have a sign? MR. STACHOWIAK-You would have researched before you negotiated the lease, and you would have that information. MR. STONE-There are four businesses in that building, and that's all the space there is? MR. STACHOWIAK-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So there are five signs on the building, which concerns me. Not Tandy. Tandy only has one, but the shoe store has two. MR. THOMAS-That goes back to being a corner lot, because we went through this about three years ago when something went in there. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, there were some previous variances which pre- date our current Sign Ordinance. It used to be that you couldn't have the individual tenants on a freestanding sign. You could just say, like, Dunham's plaza or something. So there were some variances in the past, but they're more predicated by not being able to have all the tenants on your freestanding sign. Currently, since it comes under the business complex, and it is on a corner with two separate streets, it would be allowed two freestanding signs, each 50 square feet, and one sign of up to 100 square feet per business. MR. THOMAS-One or two? t·: MR. STONE-One per business? MR. THOMAS-On a corner lot, I thought they were allowed two wall signs, one on each face, again. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't think the corner makes a difference on the wall signs. MR. STONE-Is a two sided sign considered one sign, or two signs? MR. THOMAS-One. MR. STONE-It's one sign, okay. ... MR. KARPELES-The one on the 149 side is pushed together. MR. STACHOWIAK-That is, that's one cabinet structure. That sign was built that way, and that's the option that I mentioned in my application, and since the sign is installed without a building permit, I'm sorry, Mr. Stone, that we wanted to try the variance process first. MR. THOMAS-That's 140-6(3} (c), bottom of the page. "One wall sign will be allowed on each side of the building facing a public street, where a building is situated on à corner lot." MS. CIPPERLY-But is that for, a building complex is on Page 14015. It says, number of business complex signs is one freestanding sign for entrance accessing a different public right-of-way and one wall sign per occupant. It also says lettering or logos on the freestanding signs shall be a minimum of six inches in height. This is compliance with that. MR. THOMAS-Where are you reading that? I went to 14015 and I don't find that. - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. O'LEARY-You said the square footage of your sign was at 9.75? MR. STACHOWIAK-9.75 square feet. MR. O'LEARY-That's next to the smallest one on the. MR. STACHOWIAK-It's the same size as the Big and Tall and the Sox market. MR. THOMAS-That doesn't say on a corner lot. This one over here does, where a building is situated on a corner, one wall sign on each side of the building facing a public street, but if it's just one business. Only one freestanding sign will be permitted in these circumstances. MS. CIPPERLY-So there's a difference between a single business and a complex. MR. THOMAS-And a complex. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. So which is it that we? MS. CIPPERLY-We're following the regulations for a business 1 complex, because there are at least three businesses in there. So they're allowed one freestanding sign on 149 and one on Route 9, and one wall sign for each business. MR. STONE-Regardless of where it is, Sue, on the building. MRS. LAPHAM-So Dunham's Shoes has one too many? we're? Is that what MR. THOMAS-No, I think they may have fallen under the old ordinance. Dunham's Shoe? MS. CIPPERLY-They may, I think their variances applied, that they've gotten before, but they wouldn't apply to the new. ~i MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any more questions before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Are there two freestanding signs? MR. STACHOWIAK-Yes, there are. MR. STONE-There is one on 149? I go by there, but I don't notice. MS. CIPPERLY-You're only proposing a sign for the one on Route 9, right? MR. STACHOWIAK-No, we will have a panel on the Route 149 and the Route 9 South. MR. STONE-This variance request is not correct. - 22 - ,-' .~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. KARPELES-Does he need a variance for the one on 149? That is together. MR. THOMAS-That's altogether. The one on 149 is altogether. It's one cabinet. There's no space in between them. They're the same sized sign. So it must come up to less than the 50 square feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Maybe that one's conforming.' As I said, this was an enforcement action, and John must have measured it or. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, he would have seen the one around the corner, too. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. So, apparently, if they're pushed together, they're conforming. MR. THOMAS-Yes, they're in conformance. So, we won't worry about that unless John goes out and finds it's not in conformance. Then they'll be back here for another variance. Anymore questions? I'll start with you, Don, what do you think? MR. O'LEARY-Well, in general principal, I'm against increasing the signage allowances. That's on general principal. In this particular case, it's a shame that Radio Shack seems to be the straw that separates the camel's back, in this case, so I'm a little bit conflicted at the moment. Because the sign itself is in keeping with the other signage there, smaller than some, modest, 9.75 square feet, yet the overall is the problem. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I'm against it. I see no reason why it couldn't be moved together and that this couldn't be compressed. They'd be in compliance. They wouldn't even need a variance. .. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I really don't have a problem with it. I think it's tastefully done and it matches up with the other signs there, and that being a complex, such a busy area, it definitely needs signage so that people can safely identify it. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I'm pretty much the same as Don. I believe we have a very good Sign Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. It's very strict, but that's why it's so good. So I have the same conflict that Don has. However, looking at the sign, since it is in place, I don't think it's going to create a run on increased signage on that area. So I think I'm probably all right with it. MR. STACHOWIAK-If I could, I would move those signs together. The original intent was to have those signs under the square footage. MR. STONE-You don't own the sign? You only own? MR. STACHOWIAK-Tandy Corporation only owns the Radio Shack now. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but I'm sure if you were going to, the difference between renting that place and not renting it was that the sign had to be compressed, you could get them to compress that sign. In other words, they'd tell you, go fly a kite if you've got to do that. MR. STACHOWIAK-But it's a, a sign could þe constructed that's 50 square feet that meets the Sign Ordinance. We could remove all three cabinets here. Probably pull the poles and put new structure. - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. KARPELES-I don't think you've got to do that. I think you've just got to move them together. Maybe you've got to change some electrical wiring on the outside. ~R. STACHOWIA~-It'S the ~rim cap tha~ actually holds that sign face ln place., It s a questlon over malntenance, keeping the sign in good repalr. MR. KARPELES-It might make maintenance harder, but it wouldn't make it impossible. MR. THOMAS-How does that sign face come off there? It's just a bracket that goes around, that holds that thing in there, and there's two screws on the top? MR. STACHOWIAK-Any number of sheet metal screws that hold it into the. MR. THOMAS-On the top, on the sides, and on the bottom, or just on the top? Is it hinged on the bottom, and it just comes off and there/s maybe four screws across the top that hold it in? MR. STACHOWIAK-I'm not sure how it is. . MR. THOMAS-What I'm asking for is if you take those four screws out of the top, put L brackets on the inside, and put those screws on the face, then you could move the whole thing right up. That way you wouldn't have to get into the top to get those screws out. You could do it from the face. MR. STACHOWIAK-I'm not exactly sure, on each side, which side opens up to do the maintenance. MR. THOMAS-I'm leaning toward Bob's thoughts there. Something can be done to alleviate this situation, but then again, too, I'm . looking at Warren County Planning Board that says you shouldn't take into consideration the space in between there. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, they don't administer our Sign Ordinance. MR. THOMAS-No, I know they don't administer our Sign. MS. CIPPERLY-And it's unusual for them to not disapprove a sign. MR. STACHOWIAK-What is the definition of sign area in the Code? MS. CIPPERLY-I'll read it to you. Under Sign Surface or Area, it says, the entire within a single continuous perimeter enclosing all elements of the sign which form an integral part of the display. The structure supporting the sign shall not be included. So it's saying, you know, the entire area of the perimeter. I guess in the case of this sign, the spaces were allowed to be included in the measurement as long as it didn't exceed the 50 feet. So if you read this one way, there are four signs there, but if you just measure 50 feet around this sign and include the spaces in the face, then it's conforming. As someone said, it was just the straw, so it may be up to the Plaza to do something about this by maybe moving the signs up so that they're conforming, or if you can get yours up so that the sign measures 50 square feet. MR. STACHOWIAK-Our installer did try to move their sign, and of their judgement, for good maintenance, that that was as close that they could get it. MR. STONE-Well, is this something that the Plaza owner should be responsible for? Is putting in one sign with the four tenants? MR. STACHOWIAK-Ultimately, Tandy will pay for that. - 24 - '- '--" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. STONE-I mean, one whole sign that has all four, with equal size, so that, if they were equal size, they probably would come very close to being in the 50 square feet. MR. STACHOWIAK-Sure. Even if it was one cabinet, with the four panels that are there now, it would be under the square feet. The actual square footage of each one of the faces is 49 square feet. MR. STONE-Did I hear you say that Tandy was willing to build a sign for the four stores? Is that what I heard you say? MR. STACHOWIAK-Well, ultimately Tandy would end up paying for it. I mean, the landlord would say, if you want it done, and Tandy Corporation would pay for it. MR. STONE-So there is a way of resolving this, in a sense, by remaking the sign to comply with the 50 feet and putting them all together. MR. STACHOWIAK-And that's the practical difficulty that Tandy is asking the Board to decide on this evening, because, does it make sense to take down four panels and four cabinets and reconstruct the sign and bear that expense, or does the Board find it acceptable that six square feet of dead space is counted as sign area? MR. THOMAS-I'll refer this question to our lawyer. about cost to the applicant in a Sign Variance? Is the criteria for considering it? Because in any questions that are asked. MR. FRIEDLAND-There's criteria set forth in the Sign Variance section, and I can look it up and tell you ,in a minute, if cost is one of those set forth. Do we worry that part of of the five . MS. CIPPERLY-It hasn't been in the past. MR. STACHOWIAK-To be perfectly honest, it is not. MS. CIPPERLY-One question I have really for the Board members, when you went out to look at the site, imagine a solid 50 square foot sign there. Do you think that would be more of a visual impact than these separated ones? I mean, that's another consideration, and then the other thing I was just thinking is the sort of rate people go in and out of that Plaza, it seems like a sign should at least be designed for changing tenants. So if it's possible to ~ design one that's 50 square feet, that has removable tenant names, we could go with that. MR. THOMAS-Well, apparently there is one there like that, on the 149 side, that meets the square footage, and Radio Shack has a sign on there already, too. So it must be that they do make them so that they can interchange them, as the tenants go in and out. Well, does someone want to make a motion one way or the other? MR. STONE-I'm just wondering if we might table it for more investigation, so that we could see how it's possible to meet the Sign Ordinance, without having to grant a variance. I have to admit, I did not look at the sign on 149. If there's a way it can be done there, it should be done on the front. MR. THOMAS-Well, the applicant has told us there is a way, and that's by rebuilding the whole sign cabinet, and Tandy Corporation, in his opinion, does not want to go through that expense. They would rather have the variance than go through the expense of rebuilding the sign. MR. O'LEARY-I'm not clear whether or not the definition of the area - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) of a sign is the same, when you're looking at a cabinet, a sign cabinet with multiple signs. MS. CIPPERLY-As I said, it says entire area within a single continuous perimeter enclosing all elements of the sign. MR. O'LEARY-Of the sign. How about of the four signs? MS. CIPPERLY-You could have four separate elements of the sign, in theory, that you're drawing a line around. For instance, on a wall sign, you'd draw a line, a box around the letters, but each one of those letters, you know, there's spacing between there that we don't count. I mean, we do count the space in between the letters on a wall sign. MR. KARPELES-Well, you're looking for a motion? motion. I '11 make a MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 90-1996 TANDY CORPORATION, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by The applicant proposes to construct a freestanding sign which would be larger than that allowed by the Sign Ordinance. Freestanding signs are limited to a size of 50 square feet. The applicant is proposing a sign which would be 55.8 square feet in size. The feasible alternatives to this variance are the applicant has the ability to construct a sign in such a man~er that it meets the area requirements for freestanding signs. I think we should take the Staff's comments to heart, where they say that any decision by the ZBA should consider the fact that other on site signage exists which conforms to the regulations and the alternative that the applicant could conform to the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. The Short EAF Form shows that there are no negative impacts. Ìt t MR. THOMAS-Anything else? Any questions on the motion? Additions, comments, subtractions? Second? We're looking for a second to the motion. MR. FRIEDLAND-Mr. Chairman, I'm not what you just said, but I think the Board still needs to make a SEQRA determination of significance, unless you just did that. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we did.' MR. FRIEDLAND-That should be a separate. MR. THOMAS-They told us the last meeting that it has to be included n this motion. MR. FRIEDLAND-Okay. As long as it's clear that you're making a SEQRA determination. MR. THOMAS-Yes, John told us last meeting, because I wanted to do it on separate ones, and he said, no, you have to do it in the motion. I always thought it was done separate. MR. FRIEDLAND-It's usually done separately. MR. THOMAS-I thought it was done separately, too, but last week we were told, it has to be in the motion. MR. FRIEDLAND-Maybe there's some mis-communication there, but generally it's done separately. You do SEQRA first, and then you make the motion on the project. MR. THOMAS-We'll strike out that EAF determination on this one, and we'll make it a separate. We'll hold this motion right now. We'll - 26 - '- "-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) do a motion on the EAF. Do you want to do that, Bob? Just the same thing" MOTION THAT THE REVIEW OF THE SHORT EAF FORM SHOWS NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-All right. We'll go back to the other motion now that Mr. Karpeles has made, to reject the motion. I'm looking for a second. No second? Okay. That motion is dead. I need a motion to approve. Does anyone want to make a motion to approve? If not, we've got 45 days to make it. We can wait for the other two to come back. If no one's going to make a motion, I make a motion we table. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 90-1996 TANDY CORPORATION, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Louis Stone: Until the full Board can be seated and a motion can be made to approve and seconded and voted upon. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: t AYES: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-All right. This application is tabled for up to 62 days, until we get the other two Board members here and get them up to speed on the application. MR. STACHOWIAK-What type of majority is required? ~ MR. THOMAS-We need a vote of four, four in favor of, and I couldn't get a motion out of anyone on the Board to make a motion in favor of. So we'll table it for up to 62 days. MR. STACHOWIAK-What information could I bring to the meeting that would help? MR. THOMAS-The other information you could bring is, if there is any possible way that those signs could be moved up to eliminate the air space, even if you move up, like, the Sox Market and the Big and Tall sign and the Radio Shack sign to close that space down, see if you can get it within the 50. If there's anything else you can do, short of rebuilding the whole sign. MR. STACHOWIAK-Well, we presented that the signs were moved as closely as they could. MR. THOMAS-Yes, you did present that, but see if you can look at it again. MS. CIPPERLY-Or at least maybe even reducing, if you got down to two square feet or, reducing the amount of relief. - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. THOMAS-If you could reduce the amount of relief from 5.8 down to something less than 5.8, I don't mean 5.7, but I mean, down to two or three square feet of relief required. I've got to get a motion before I can get this thing going, and I can't get a motion out of the Board. MR. STACHOWIAK-Does the Board want the sign removed in the mean time? Is that a requirement? MR. THOMAS-No. I would leave it right in place until we can get this thing resolved and then we'll take the action after that. MR. STACHOWIAK-I want is resolved also. MR. KARPELES-Just make it in compliance. That resolves it. MR. STONE-I, for one, want to look at the property again, from some of the discussion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So this application is tabled for up to 62 days. So Staff will be in contact. MR. STACHOWIAK-Again, I'm sorry for it being done without a permit. 1 MR. THOMAS-Yes, but as long as the sign is there, I see no problem in leaving it there until this application is resolved. MR. STACHOWIAK-Now will the Town contact me when we have seven members? MR. THOMAS-Well, we can't always guarantee there's going to be seven members here, because we are instructed to call ahead of time to tell Staff if we are not going to be here, and we're two members short, and they did not call in, that I know of, to let us know that they weren't going to make it. . MR. STACHOWIAK-It takes pretty much all day to fly up, and if the Planning Staff can kßep that under consideration, that would be helpful to me. MR. THOMAS-Well, do you have a local representative here, like a store manager, rather than you fly all the way up from Texas? MR. STACHOWIAK-I mean, we could, but it's important that the Corporation be represented, and handle these issues. We don't want it to seem that it's just Tandy down in Fort Worth doesn't care what happens up in Queensbury. We do, and we want a representative here. MR. THOMAS-Well, it seems to me like the store manager, because we've had, you know, all the public hearing here and the input, and you know what we're looking for, something less than 5.8 feet of relief. MR. STACHOWIAK-Okay. MR. STONE-And we would not look badly on you if you didn't come, if you sent a representative. MR. THOMAS-Yes, a local representative, rather than have to fly all the way up from Texas and then have to fly all the way back. MR. STACHOWIAK-Thanks. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. I want to ask the Board to go back to Use Variance No. 92-1996 Anne Brunet, the one we tabled. Do you want to do the same thing we did with the Midas Auto Systems? - 28 - ~ -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. STONB-I'm willing to, because I'm going to vote no. MR. THOMAS-Rather than table it, and have it dragged back. MS. CIPPERLY-You fill up your agendas, constantly. MR. THOMAS-Yes, with people that don't show. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, that's fine by me. MR. O'LEARY-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. O'LEARY-Is this a precedent, Mr. Chairman? It might be a good idea. It might be a qood precedent. If no one is represented at the hearing, to present their application, should we just go ahead and rule on them? We can rule on them. We have done that in the past. In fact, we've ruled on one recently that we approved with no one here, but it was so obvious. MR. KARPELES-Well, K-Mart no one was here. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we shot that one down. MR. O'LEARY-But we do it without prejudice. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we do it without prejudice, rescind my tabling motion for Use Variance No. entertain a motion for Use Variance No. 92-1996 deny or table it again. . MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 92-1996 ANNE BRUNET, Introduced by Louis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald O'Leary: of course. I'll 92-1996, and I'll to either approve, Proposed project and conformance with the Ordinance, the applicant is proposing to construct a swimming pool, the pool to be use for the existing residence in a commercial zone. Please note that there is a swimming pool already at that site. The use of a swimming pool at this location would not conform to the listed uses in the HC-IA zone. The question, is there a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned, the applicant in the application says yes. L Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-Use Variance No. 92-1996 is denied. All right. The last one on the agenda, Area Variance No. 89-1996, John Salvador, Jr., Kathleen A. Salvador. MR. FRIEDLAND-Mr. Chairman, before you move on, I wasn't here for Number 92-1996. I just wanted to be sure you did SEQRA before. MS. CIPPERLY-You didn't do SEQRA when you tabled it. So you need to do SEQRA determination. MR. FRIEDLAND-You need to do SBQRA first, vote on SEQRA and then vote on the project. - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, Lou has to rescind his motion. MR. STONE-I'll rescind it but I'm not going to re-state it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT EAF FORM SHOWS THAT THERE'S A NEGATIVE IMPACT FOR THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald O'Leary: Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-Okay. Now, Mr. Stone. MR. STONE-I move my previous motion. , MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 92-1996 ANNE BRUNET, Introduced by Louis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald O'Leary: Proposed project and conformance with the Ordinance, the applicant is proposing to construct a swimming pool, the pool to be use for the existing residence in a commercial zone. Please note that there is a swimming pool already at that site. The use of a swimming pool at this location would not conform to the listed uses in the HC-1A zone. .. The question, is there a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned, the applicant in the application says yes. . Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A/CEA JOHN SALVADOR, JR. KATHLEEN SALVADOR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L, DUNHAMS BAY, LAKE GEORGE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE LAND INTO TWO LOTS. THE PROPOSED NEW LOT WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL LOTS HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL LOTS FRONT ON A PUBLIC STREET LISTED IN SECTION 179-70. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO.4-I-II LOT SIZE: 1.99 ACRES SECTION 179-70 JOHN SALVADOR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 89-1996, John Salvador, Jr. Kathleen Salvador, Meeting Date: October 23, 1996 "APPLICANT: John & Kathleen Salvador PROJECT LOCATION: NYS Route 9L Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to subdivide land into two lots. The new lot would be completely submerged under the waters of Lake George. The new lot would not conform to the requirement that all lots have frontage on a public street. Relief is being requested from the requirement - 30 - - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) r that all lots front on a public street listed in Section 179-70. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to subdivide property and use it as a buildable lot. 2. Feasible alternatives: It appears there are no alternatives existing which could provide access to a public street as required by the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking to create a lot which would be submerged under Lake George and which would not have a point of vehicular access. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Allowing the creation of a lot that would not have access to a public street may lead to similar requests to divide and develop property without public street access throughout the Town of Queensbury. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The difficulty that exists is the desire of a property owner to create a lot without public access in light of a Zoning Ordinance requirement that all newly created lots have such access. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff is not supportive of this proposal to create a lot without access to a public street. The creation of this lot could present serious threats to the physical safety of anyone who would use the property or anyone trying to reach this property in case of an emergency. The changeable physical state of the lake waters and changeable climatic conditions limit the ability of this property to be accessed year round. Staff also has concerns about utility service and solid waste disposal at this location should a lot be created and developed. SEQR: Type Unlisted, short EAF required. ADDENDUM TO STAFF NOTES Application of John Jr. and Kathleen Salvador Further review by Dept. of Community Development Staff reveals that the proposed subdivision does not meet the density requirements of Section A183-22 of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury, excerpted below. After deducting all areas listed, the applicant does not have sufficient property to undertake a subdivision. While the subdivision regulations do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals, staff believed this information to be relevant to the deliberations of the Board regarding the variance at hand. §183-22. DENSITY The maximum number of buildable lots for a conventional subdivision shall be calculated as follows: §A183-22A. From the total area of the property to be subdivided, subtract: §A183-22A(1}. The area to be occupied by the proposed streets' rights-of-way¡ §A183-22A(2}. The area to be sét aside for other public use, such as parkland¡ §A183-22A(3}. The area occupied by other public easements or rights-of-way across the property, such as major power or telephone lines; and §A183-22A(4} . Any unbuildable areas of the lot, such as wetlands, rock outcrops, slopes over twenty-five percent (25%) and bodies of water. §A183- 22B. Then divide the resulting figure (the remaining acreage) by the lot size allowed in the zone in which the lots will be located. II ... MRS. LAPHAM-II At a meeting of the Warren CouI;lty Planning Board, held on the 9th day of October 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to subdivide land into two lots. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: It does not conform to the development policies of the Town of Queensbury as it relates to having frontage on a road." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Salvador. Before we start, since Warren County has disapproved this, we need a super majority of the Board, which is four plus one. So we need five positive votes to overturn the Warren County Planning Board. MR. KARPELES-Can I ask a question? What's different about this one than the last one we had? Didn't we have this before? MR. THOMAS-The applicant withdrew it. - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. KARPELES-It's exactly the same thing? MR. SALVADOR-It is not. MR. STONE-This is a subdivision, rather than, I believe the last one was to build. MR. THOMAS-No. This one here the applicant is just asking for relief from the frontage on a public street. 179-70 of the Ordinance states, "Every principal building shall be built upon a lot with frontage upon a public street improved to meet the standards of the Town of Queensbury." That's the only thing the applicant is asking for is relief from that part of the Ordinance, according to his application. MR. KARPELES-I still don't know what's different about this one than the other one. MR. SALVADOR-May I? MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I'm here tonight with my wife Cathy, with regard to our Area Variance request. I'll address and answer your question in a moment, sir. Mrs. Lapham, could you please refer to Page "Two on our application. Question Number Two, we said, "See Attached Statement." Could you please read that statement in full, and we ask this because we refer to the Queensbury Town Comprehensive Plan of 1988. ; MR. THOMAS-She did read that entire Number Two. MR. SALVADOR-She did not make the point that that is a statement, that is not QYI statement. That statement is verbatim from the . Queensbury Town Comprehensive Plan of 1988. MR. THOMAS-How does it start, John? commercial activity in general"? Does it start, "Increased MR. SALVADOR-"Marina development on the lake". MR. THOMAS-She did read that, that was read in there. MRS. LAPHAM-I read that. MR. SALVADOR-It is not in the record that that is not our statement, that is referring to the Queensbury Town Comprehensive Plan of 1988. It is most important, because that substantiates, Page Two is says, "The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance." And the fact that this conforms to the Town's Comprehensive Plan is important to us. MS. CIPPERLY-Would you explain why this substantiates your project? I don't see it. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, in that it appears to me, in the reading of these two paragraphs, that the Comprehensive Plan, well it says, "Marina development in this neighborhood is located in residential neighborhoods and is a pre-existing, nonconforming use. Increased commercial activity in general is changing the character of the neighborhood." We're trying to do just the opposite. We're trying to maintain the character they say the neighborhood has, residential. This is a residential development. That's the point here. Mr. Karpeles, a bit of history on this application. We first made application to the Town Building Department for a building permit, and Mr. Martin determined that our project did not meet the Zoning Ordinance of the Town, in that we didn't meet shoreline setback and we didn't, and the structure we were - 32 - '-' '-'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) intending to build had a capacity to dock boats. We appealed that decision. We were left hanging at the County, in that they didn't really have an appreciation for, but we appealed that decision to this Board, excuse me, and we were turned down. We then set to work to develop a subdivision, to subdivide off one acre of land, totally divorced from the shoreline, having no structures on it, no boat docks on it, and this is the parcel we hope some day to develop, in a residential manner. At the County, our first application, we tried to make the point that suitable access could be obtained for this parcel by the use of the navigable water way of the state. The County didn't really understand what we were talking about. They asked the Attorney for an opinion which was not rendered in time for their meeting and their decision. So they denied without prejudice, pending the issuance of some kind of advice or opinion or determination by the County Attorney. We went ahead, in this meeting, and that's the plan that we withdrew. This application differs from that plan, in that rather than use the navigable water way of the State as a means of access, we are using an access easement, and that plan you have before you should show a 40 foot wide access easement. MR. O'LEARY-I missed the nuance, Mr. Salvador. What is the nuance? The easement proposal, visa vie the claim that the lake was, indeed, the highway water way, what's the difference? MR. SALVADOR-In the subdivision of this lot, we will grant an easement over our existing land, and there will be. MR. O'LEARY-Submerged land. MR. SALVADOR-It's dry land. It's submerged land, whatever it is. MR. O'LEARY-I'm trying to recall from the last hearing. ;': MR. SALVADOR-The plan will show you. MR. STONE-Well, it's over water, though? MR. SALVADOR-Partially, 20 feet. MR. STONE-But it's over water. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. The maj or portion of that easement is over land. «. MR. O'LEARY-I think the theory the last time was that the lake itself was the highway. MR. SALVADOR-No theory, sir, it's fact. MR. O'LEARY-Okay, and that has not changed? contention? That's your MR. SALVADOR-l haven't changed that, no. avenue of approach. I'm just using another MR. O'LEARY-Okay. MR. THOMAS-I'd like to remind the Board that, don't think about the last application that Mr. Salvador submitted because he withdrew it, okay. So everything here is brand new. So forget about anything that was said at the last meeting where Mr . Salvador withdrew it. MRS. LAPHAM-But this easement is going over the lake. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. It's shown there, isn't it, from Route 9L? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. It's shown very clearly here that you are going - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) over the lake. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-But I just want to firm that in mY mind from you. MR. KARPELES-You answered my question, thank you. MR. THOMAS-Go ahead and continue, please. MR. SALVADOR-As we know, this is a residential subdivision application in North Queensbury, bordering the waters of Lake George. We're seeking a variance from the Town Zoning Ordinance, 179-70, in that a Town road is required, built to Town road standards for all principal buildings. This lot is located in a Town One Acre Waterfront Residential Zone. There are two allowable uses in this zone. One is a Single Family dwelling. The other is a 300 square foot hunting and fishing cabin. This lot is also within the Town's Vessel Regulation Zone, and we have noted that on our application. Now there are certain restrictions and uses allowed in that Vessel Regulation Zone, and it's important that that be considered. We cannot understand where the Staff has previously, I don't know if it's on this application, but 1 indicating APA jurisdiction. I believe this is a moderate intensity zone. Residential uses are unlisted. We do know, however, in our neighborhood, that other development of the size, type and form that we're proposing has been permitted by the Town over the waters of Lake George, and the APA has been nonjurisdictional in this regard. That's in the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of some time around 1981, 1982. MS. CIPPERLY-John, could you explain that? You said that similar development has been allowed, a hunting and fishing cabin has been allowed. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I say in the size, type and form. That is locating foundations on the bed of the lake, under water. This is not new in North Queensbury, and also it has been stated previously that this lot is in a Critical Environmental Area. We'll address this Critical Environmental Area a bit later. At this time, I would like to respectfully request Mr. Lou Stone to recuse himself from any voting on this matter. Mr. Stone is a Vice President, maybe even an Executive Vice President of the Lake George Association. He has a potential conflict of interest in this regard, and I would ask him to recuse himself from any voting. I served, myself, six years, on the Board of Directors of the Lake George Association. I know their mind set. I know their motivations. I know their tactics. I believe Mr. Stone has a serious conflict in this regard, and I would ask you to recuse yourself. w MR. THOMAS-Mr. Stone, would you like to recuse yourself, or would you like to remain seated? MR. STONE-I would like to remain seated. My affiliation with the Lake George Association is an affiliation with an organization who's aim is to protect the lake. This, to me, is a common sense situation. It could be anywhere on any lake, any water body in the Town of Queensbury. I think it's a common sense situation, and I will continue to sit. MR. THOMAS-All right. Before you go, from the Town Attorney, what's your opinion on this? MR. FRIEDLAND-Let me ask, has the LGA submitted anything? MR. THOMAS-Do we have anything in the record from the LGA, in the correspondence? - 34 - ----- ",-",.- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MRS. LAPHAM-Letters from the public, Ellen Strack, Alan Strack, Robert Sweney, Shellene Baldwin, William Baldwin, no, then it says other information 10/4/96 letter to Applicant. MR. THOMAS-Is there any letters in there with the LGA logo on it? MR. FRIEDLAND-If Mr. Stone thinks tha~ he can review this application fairly and judge it on its merits, I don't see any reason why, in his discretion, he can't stay on the Board, and not recuse himself, but it's up to him. If he feels he can judge it fairly. MR. STONE-I believe I can judge it fairly. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That's good enough for me. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Chairman, I would also like to request that contrary to what I've seen in previous meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town Board, the Planning Board, that you keep the public hearing open until you folks are ready to vote. MR. THOMAS-We normally do. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Normally. r MR. SALVADOR-The County Attorney has issued some kind of an opinion, advice, direction. I can't tell you what it is, to the Warren County Planning Board, which they used to form a basis for a vote of denial at the, I believe it was October 9th meeting. We have filed a Freedom of Information Request for this letter, and we've been denied. We've been denied because the County Attorney claims that this is client/attorney privilege. It's confidential, and it's up to the Planning Board Chairman as to whether or not he will disclose the contents of this letter. We have appealed this decision. Today we did that, at the County, and we intend to appeal it further. We understand that we are entitled to the contents of that letter if it was used to form a basis for their decision. The minutes of their meeting clearly show they were walking through this letter, as they made their determination on certain points. 80 we are in the process of trying to obtain that letter. , MR. THOMAS-I would like just to say to you, John, that I did talk to Paul Dusek, the County Attorney, and I asked him if he was going to send the Town a letter, and he said he was not going to send the Town a letter of opinion, that it is strictly up to the Town to make their own decision. MR. SALVADOR-I understand. On the subject of the Critical Environmental Area, this first came up ~hen we made our application for the subdivision. It was news to me that we were living in North Queensbury in a Critical Environmental Area, and so I went to work, through Freedom of Information, and tried to establish how and when this Town established a Critical Environmental Area in North Queensbury, and in fact they never have. There is only one Critical Environmental Area established by this Town Board, in accordance with SEQRA, and that is the Rush Pond area. We do not live in a Town Critical Environmental Area, and yet that is a common thread through all of these comments that come forth. I notice for the first time, and you read Staff's comments on this project this time, and there is absolutely no reference to Critical Environmental Area, and I think it's important that this issue be settled. There is also no reference to th~ Vessel Regulation Zone, that is an overlay zone on this parcel, and imposes certain restrictions and privileges on this parcel that should be addressed. In view of the County Attorney's letter that we're - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) seeking to obtain, the uncertainties of this Critical Environmental area, I would like to suggest that the Board table this application until we can get more information in this regard. MS. CIPPERLY-I'd like to hear if anybody is here for the public hearing. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I will open it up to the public hearing before any tabling. As far as this Critical Environmental Area is concerned , I've seen maps of the Town that show it all around the lakeshores and river fronts of the navigable waterways of the Town of Queensbury. What's Staff's opinion about Mr. Salvador's comment that the only Critical Epvironmental Area in the Town of Queensbury is Rush Pond? MS. CIPPERLY-As far as Lake George goes, the Town adopted the Lake George Park Commission's designation of CEA within 500 feet of the shoreline, I believe it was, and that's what effects his property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-And there are CEA's on Glen Lake within 100 feet of 1 the shoreline, and there may be more. I don't have them all in my head. MR. THOMAS-And this Critical Environmental Area that was adopted by the Town, was that adopted by the Town Board under a resolution? MS. CIPPERLY-As far as I know. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. There is a SEQRA process for establishing a Critical Environmental Area. MR. THOMAS-And the Town Board did go through it? ~ MR. SALVADOR-For Rush Pond. MR. THOMAS-For Rush Pond. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Everything. MR. THOMAS-For Staff, is the map filed and recorded for the other Critical Environmental Areas in the Town of Queensbury? It's mapped. It's filed. It's recorded. MS. CIPPERLY-I recall looking into this for a previous variance for Mr. Johnson up on Hanneford Road, and I did find that there had been some method of adoption. I don't know if you want to find that out, so that it's part of the record. I can find that out. I don't know that it necessarily effects this application. MR. SALVADOR-I could add something. MR. THOMAS-Go ahead. MR. SALVADOR-I know the Lake George Park Commission has established a Critical Environmental Area. They define it as the bed of the lake and the upland 500 feet from the shore. The subdivided lot we're talking about is neither the bed of the lake nor 500 feet upland from the shore. It is our private property, and the bed of Lake George are public lands, not private lands, and there is a demarcation line. So our lands are not in the Lake George Park Commission's CEA. MR. THOMAS-I'll defer that to the attorney. MR. FRIEDLAND-I don't know, off hand, whether the Town adopted that - 36 - l1' ~ '''"--'''''' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) or not. Sue can look into it, but I guess I would echo what Sue said before, that this is an Area Variance application. You have express criteria to look at, that this has to meet before you can approve it. I think that's what you should be loo~ing at. .I~ you want to find out if that's a CEA, that's certa1nly add1t10nal information that Staff could probably get for you, but I think you need to focus, also, on the criteria for an Area Variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The CEA, we aren't concerned with the CEA in this variance application, because the only thing this application is asking for is a variance from the 40 foot frontage on a Town street, on a public street, improved publi~ street. So we really don't worry about the CEA's and all the other stuff. That really would go to the Planning Board, if I'm not mistaken. MR. FRIEDLAND-The only thing I would add to that is that when you do SEQRA on this, as you must before you vote on the application, you need to consider all of the environmental effects, whatever they mayor may not be, of the entire project. MR. THOMAS-So, we could maybe ask for an environmental impact statement on this? MS. CIPPERLY-You could. MR. FRIEDLAND-If you determine that the project may have the potential for significant impact, if you pos dec'd it, you could, like with any other project. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. FRIEDLAND-You could go through SEQRA with this project, like you do with any other project. ~ MR. THOMAS-What I think I'll do now is, do you want to stop right now, John? MR. SALVADOR-I would like to have this application tabled until we sort out these problems and get a clear definition, is it or isn't it? MR. THOMAS-Well, I think the CEA would, because of the environmental impacts on this, would have to be included in this. MR. SALVADOR-If you look at most of those letters of comment that come in, all talk about the Critical Environmental Area. They all b~ing that subject up. This is something cemented in people's m1nds. It's on, as you mentioned, on a map downstairs, in the Planning Office. It's unauthorized. It's illegal. MS. CIPPERLY-Maybe that's something that you should resolve with the Park Commission before. MR. SALVADOR-It's on your Environmental Area on our authorization. map. You have put a Critical neighborhood with absolutely no MR. FRIEDLAND-I guess if the applicant is complaining about that or anything else, ~ mean, he's in the wrong forum. I mean, if he wants to compla1n about that, he should go to whoever made that designation. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's Town Board business. MR. SALVADOR- It will unfold in the environmental review. There are other standards for Critical Environmental Areas. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What I think I'll do now is open up the public hearing. - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. SALVADOR-I would like to table this application. MR. THOMAS-I'll open up the public hearing first and then we'll talk about tabling, because there are people here' from the public that would like to speak, and also read in any correspondence that have, come in. MR. SALVADOR-I would like to comment then? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL DIFABIO MR. DIFABIO-My name is Michael DiFabio. I'm an attorney representing Mr. Stanley Wawrejko who's a resident of Dunham's Bay for 30 years. I submitted a letter dated October 23, today, to the Board. I don't know whether the Board wants to read that letter at this point. ì MR. THOMAS-No. We will read it in after all the public input. MR. DIFABIO-Okay. If you will be reading the letter, then I don't want to repeat the content of it. I would like to emphasize that the act of granting a variance is a discretionary act of balancing the benefits and detriments of the applicant with the community and the neighborhood. Mr. Wawrejko vehemently objects to the profound change in the shoreline appearance, character and navigation which will result by filling in a portion of the lake and building on it. The action violates several provisions of the Town of Queensbury, and by my reading of the Code, there are 13 variances that must be approved before this project can go forward. Those objections are . stated in my letter. The Board should recognize the lack of any detriment to the applicant by a denial of the variance in these unique and particular circumstances. Any proj ect requiring 13 variances is unfit for approval. There are feasible alternatives. The applicant can construct a residence on the upland where it will not alter the shoreline, where it will not interfere with navigation, where it will be screened by natural vegetation, and not be distracting from the view of the waterways, where it will not cause siltation damage, where it will not call for filling in the lake, where it will have access to a public road and where it will not be in danger of flooding with the rise in the level of the lake. The requested relief is substantial because it will cause a profound change in the landscape, the shoreline and navigation of the lake, and we obj ect to the application's denial of any significant impact of this variance. The neighborhood and community delight in the natural state of the lake and want it to stay that way, and they have a right to have it stay that way if there are feasible alternatives to the project as there are in this particular case. The difficulty here, the claimed difficulty, is self created because the applicant chose to develop this property to take advantage of the waterfront and now cannot claim that the waterfront presents a hardship to the development of his property. The balance tips in favor of the community and the variance should be denied in all respects. My letter outlines the various provisions of the Town of Queensbury which clearly state the policy regarding development of the shorelines, and when that letter gets read later, that will be fleshed out. There's been some talk of a SEQRA resolution that's in order, and I just want to make some comments for the record. We obj ect to the use of the Short Form of the SEQRA form when a Critical Environmental Area either is actual or apparent, certainly in this case involving the waterways, whether as a matter of law or whether as a matter of discretion, the Long Form, at a minimum, should be used. We object to the - 38 - '--' -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) statement in the application that no further permits are needed, and we submit that coordinated review is needed for SEQRA purposes, with the APA, DEC, and the Army Corps of Engineers. We object to the segmentation of this process into a sundivision only without regard to the next step of filling in and creating the residence in the middle of the water. We request that a positive declaration is in order if in fact this application gets that far. Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to speak? FRANK PARILLO MR. PARILLO-Good evening. My name is Frank Parillo. I'm the immediate, adj acent owner to the parcel in question here. My attorney had submitted a letter that I guess is going to be read into the record. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it will. MR. PARILLO-I won't reiterate that. I will reiterate a lot of Mr. DiFabio's concerns, perhaps, that are not included in our letter and go on record as opposing this variance for many reasons that have already been stated, but also the visual impact that would be created in Dunham's Bay is a great concern. The safety of the boating traffic that will be incurred as a result of this subdivision approval, because what comes next after that, and the great inconvenience in safety for the marina customers, some of which are mine and some of which are Mr. Salvador's, for ingress and egress into their docks, I think is of great concern. So in closing, I'd just like to say that I'd like to go on record, I've been a resident of Lake George since 1984, have been the owner of the Marina since about that time, and I think it would be a great detriment to the Bay if this developed. Thank you. r MR. THOMAS-Well, since there's no one else that would like to speak, Mr. Salvador, if you'd like to make another statement. MR. SALVADOR-Just a short rebuttal. Absolutely no filling of the lake is anticipated. There is no navigation on this parcel of land, and we intend to design around any flooding that might occur. That's no big deal. As far as Mr. Parillo's visual impact I when we can quantify these impacts, we will mitigate them. We have no intention of scorching the earth. We haven't done that in the past, and we don't intend to do it in the future. As far as safety ~ is concerned, this is addressed in the Town's Vessel Regulation Zone. The Town has the power, in that legislative enactment, to address all matters of safety in the waters of Dunham's Bay. Marina safety, it should be recognized that those Marinas, ours included, are preexisting, nonconforming uses. Marina docks can be reconfigured to take care of any safety, and they could be, in fact, removed some day, as they exist as pre-existing nonconforming uses, and again, I would request that the Board table this matter, we get clarification and the information we need to address some of these issues. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Correspondence? Would anyone else like to speak? MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. The first letter is from Allen and Eleanor Strack, RE: Variance No. 89-1996, John and Kathleen Salvador "We are Allen and Eleanor Strack, owners and residents of property on Dunhams Bay (Lot 4-1-17) We strongly object to the establishment of a subdivision or "building lot", or whatever it is to be called, in the open waters of Dunhams Bay. We understand that the ultimate purpose of the proposed Zoning appeal is to facilitate the construction of a "hunting and fishing cabin", or shanty, or structure in the open waters of Dunhams Bay, and we are definitely - 39 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) opposed to such an action. We understand that the Zoning Board must consider the'. ..adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood...' 1. This is a congested, high traffic area, because of Dunhams Bay Boat Company operations, the many docks in the immediate area (many of which are owned by the petitioner), the traffic from the boat launch facility operated by Mr. Parillo, plus the traffic of local owners and residents. The recent presence of Mr. Salvador's (illegal??) floating dock, with flashing red lights, has added another annoyance to this congestion. 2. There is much concern that a 'residential facility' in the proposed area would represent serious risk of pollution from water, power, drainage and septic facilities. 3. There would be added noise and lighting pollution from the occupation and use of the proposed facilities. The area already has an abundance of unshielded floodlighting, providing 'supermarket parking-lot light levels' to the south end of Dunhams Bay. 4. There is no. reasonable access to the proposed 'building lot.' 5. This project (creation of residential building lot, et al) would definitely detract from the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Salvador certainly has sufficient land holdings in the immediate area of Dunhams Bay to satisfy his desire to expand and develop 'hunting and fishing cabins' on property already ~ owned, without going to the objectionable expansion being proposed · here. The Planning and Zoning authorities of the Town of Queensbury are charged with 'continuing vigilance in the growth of non-conforming use essential to the maintenance of residential integrity of residential zoning in this neighborhood.' We would suggest that the Zoning Board exercise its responsibility and deny the requested variance. "Sincerely, Allen W. Strack Eleanor B. Strack" See attached conversation between Sue Davidson, Zoning Office, and Allen Strack. "Stated he did not receive public notice in mail even though notices were sent from the Zoning Office. II The next one is from Shelley Baldwin, 20 Norwood Avenue, Albany, New York and 24 Joshua's Rock Road, Dunham's Bay, Lake George, Queensbury Zoning Board, Care of Mr. George Hilton, Bay Road, ~ Queensbury, NY "Dear Board Members: I am writing on behalf of myself and my family members of the Joshua's Rock Corporation, a group of six homes opposite the proposed subdivision site, to express that we are not in support of the Salvador's proposal to subdivide their underwater land in Dunham's Bay. I was present and spoke at the August 28th meeting as were six other of my family members, but due to work commitments we will be unable to attend this meeting. I still believe that this proposal is ludicrous and would be detrimental to the bay and lake both environmentally and ecologically as well as set a negative precedent for other underwater land owners throughout the Adirondack Park. At the August meeting, I saw the board deny a resident a zoning variance for selling quilts from her garage and require a Cleverdale resident to remove a carport, because these proposals would negatively affect the neighborhood. I feel that the Salvador's subdivision proposal would also negatively affect our neighborhood. In conclusion, I believe that the board members should maintain their standards and unequivocally deny this variance. Respectfully yours, Shelley E. Baldwin" MR. THOMAS-What's the date on that letter? MRS. LAPHAM-October 21, 1996. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Here's one, dated October 21, 1996, Queensbury Planning Board, Attention: George Hilton and Sue Davidson "Dear Mr. Hilton and Miss Davidson: I am writing as a Director and Stockholder in the Joshua's Rock Corporation and the Owner of a home at 22 Joshua's Rock Road on Dunhams Bay. I am opposed to John Salvador's application for variance #89-1996 to sub-divide his underwater property which will be discussed at the October 23 meeting. I feel - 40 - f,. '- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) . the idea of developing underwater property is ridiculous and can only add to the decrease in the quality of life on Lake George and Dunhams Bay. I hope the planning board will be able to end this foolishness once and for all. William C. Baldwin" Okay. This letter is dated October 22, 1996, from Shanley, Sweeney, Reilly & Allen, P.C., Attorney and Counselors at Law, The Castle at Ten Thurlow Terrace, Albany, NY 12203 via Telecopier, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, Queensbury Town Hall, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, RE: Application of Salvador, Dunham's Bay Subdivision Public Road Access variance "To the Zoning Board: Please be advised that this office represents Frank Parillo, the owner of lands immediately adjacent to and west of the proposed Salvador subdivision of lands beneath the waters of Lake George. A copy of an excerpt from a survey map prepared for the Salvadors, showing the lands of Parillo, is attached hereto. It is our understanding that the Applicant previously filed an application for a building permit to construct a hunting/fishing cabin of less than 300 square feet supported by posts over the waters of Lake George. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application for subdivision approval of a one acre lot of the lands beneath the waters of Lake George to accommodate this proposéd construction. The Applicant is now also seeking a variance due to the lack of public road frontage for the parcel. As the adjoining landowner, Mr. Parillo has several concerns which should be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals in its review of this proposed variance. 1. Interference with Navigation Navigation Law § 32 c prohibits any person from building any structure in navigable waters of the state'. ..which will in any manner lessen the depth of such waters or interfere with the free and safe navigation thereof...'. Further, Navigation Law §32 provides that '..no..structure built on. . columns, open timber, piles or similar open work supports, temporary or permanent, shall be constructed, installed. . . or otherwise placed by any person in the navigable waters of the state or in a navigable channel. .so as to interfere with the free and direct access to such waters from the property, wharf, dock or similar structure of any other person unless written permission is obtained therefore from such other person...'. In addition to the rights of the adjoining waterfront landowner, the courts in this state have been clear that' .. .the public right of navigation and navigable water supersedes [the property owner's] private right in the land under the water (see Smith v.' State of New York, and 153 A.D.2d 737, 740)'. Adirondack Leaque v. Sierra Club, 201 AD.2d 225. As a result, the applicant's somewhat unique status as the owner of the real property beneath the waters of the State of New York does not give rise to a right to interfere with navigation over the waters of the state which inundate those privately owned lands. It cannot be disputed that the proposed subdivision lot and the structure proposed thereon are to be located in an area subject to extensive boat traffic. There are hundreds of boat slips, commercial and private docks ringing in the perimeter of this proposed subdivision lot and structure. There can be no argument that such a structure would interfere with the free and safe navigation in the waters of the state. Of more particular importance to my client, the proposed structure would directly interfere with ingress and egress to the boat slips on Mr. Parillo's property. In addition to the six slips on Tax Lot 4-1- 10, the Zoning Board should be aware that my client, and his predecessor in title, have used and occupied the additional four boat slips to the east of the lands of Parillo for a period in excess of 30 years. The rights of Parillo to continue to use and occupy these boat slips has been fully litigated before Judge Moynihan and the Warren County Court and a decision determining those rights is expected within a few months. 2. Standards for a Variance from Queensbury Zoning Law 179-70 Town Law §267-b requires proof from the applicant for an area variance that: (a) no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby property will be created by the granting of an area variance; (b) the benefits sought by the - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) applicant cannot achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance¡ (c) the requested area variance is not substantial (in this case it is a 100 percent variance); and (d) the proposed variance will not have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The adverse and detrimental affect of this off-shore structure on the adj acent property owners, not to mention the aesthetics and environmental conditions in the Dunhams Bay, is obvious. The applicant cannot possibly meet the burden of proof on these issues. 3. Town Law §280-a In addition to Town of Queensbury zoning requirements, Town Law 280-a prohibits the issuance of permits for the erection of any building' . . .unless the street or highway giving access to such proposed structure has been duly placed on the official map or plan...'. Town Law §280-a(1}. This statute goes on to provide that '... for purposes of this section, the word "access" shall mean that the plot on which the structure is proposed to be erected directly abuts on such street or highway and has sufficient frontage thereon to allow ingress and egress of fire trucks, ambulances, police cars and other emergency vehicles. . . ' . There is, of course, no possible way that the applicant can meet the requirements of this state statute. The application, obviously, raises a number of other significant questions. For example, does the proposed structure qualify as a ì "Dock" under Queensbury Zoning Law §179-7 (Definitions), and thereby require compliance with all of the pertinent dock regulations? Is the proposed 'hunting/fishing cabin' a 'new recreational activity or use' requiring special permitting pursuant to 6 NYCRR §646-2.3 (Special Navigational Rules)? In what matter does the Town determine whether use of the proposed subdivision lot would meet the shoreline setback requirements of Queensbury Zoning Law §179-60? Finally, this application for a variance requires full compliance with all the requirements of SEQRA. The application for a variance raises all the implications of the entire "action" proposed by the Applicant including the subdivision of land, the variance, and the construction of the proposed . structure on the subdivided land. It is improper for the Zoning Board to segment the consideration of the other aspects of the "action" from its consideration of the variance. See 6 NYCRR §617.7. The potential environmental impacts of this project in a designated critical environmental area must be fully addressed, including impacts to the bed of Lake George, water quality, fisheries, etc. The applicant has not adequately disclosed these impacts and they cannot be addressed by the Board at this time. Given the extensive detrimental implications of this variance application, we respectfully request that the Zoning Board deny the variance application. Very truly yours, SHANLEY, SWEENEY, REILLY & ALLEN, P. C . Robert L. Sweeney Copies to John Salvador and Frank Parillo" MR. THOMAS-Also mention the fact that there is a map attached. MRS. LAPHAM-And there is a map attached from Coulter & McCormack that shows the lands of Parillo and the partial lands of Salvador. MR. THOMAS-And it's dated May 18, 1992. MRS. LAPHAM-And it's dated May 18, 1992. One more letter, dated October 23, 1996, Mr. Christian G. Thomas, Chairman, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, RE: John Salvador, Area Variance No. 89-1996 "Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: We represent Mr. Stanley J. Wawrejko who has owned a summer residence in Dunham Bay for the last 30 years. We object to the recent proposal by John and Kathleen Salvador for an area variance, AV 89-1996. Consideration of an area variance requires the Zoning Board to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and - 42 - · ... ~ -~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) community. The benefit to the applicant would be the ability to have a choice as to whether to build on dry land or on water. There is little detriment to the applicant upon the denial of the area variance because can continue, without restriction, his profitable economic use for his pro~erty and would st~l~ retain t~e right to build on his upland shore11ne acreage. Add1t10nally, h1s position is self-created in that having chosen to purchase and develop his shoreline property to take advantage of the waterfront, he cannot now complain that there is a body of water right where he wants to develop his property. To the contrary, the existing neighborhood and waterfront character will severely and forever degraded by the granting of this area variance. The proposed development does not conform to the uniform development policy of the Town of Queensbury as it relates to the shoreline. This policy is clear and articulately stated in several sections of the Town Code of the Town of Queensbury. The Code of Queensbury, §179-60, entitled "Shoreline and Wetland Regulation", states: A. Purpose. The purpose of these shoreline requlations is to promote and protect the public health, welfare and safety and to protect economic property values, aesthetic and recreational values, and other natural resource values associated with all lakes, ponds, streams, swamps or wetlands. It is the further purpose of these regulations to: (I) Provide for the protection, preservation, proper maintenance and use of township water courses and wetlands in order to minimize disturbance to them and to prevent damaqe from erosion, turbidity or siltation, a loss of wildlife and vegetation and/or from the destruction of the natural habitat thereof. B. Regulations. (I) In case of the shorelines of all lakes, ponds, streams, swamps or wetlands and the shoreline of the Hudson River, the following restrictions shall apply: (a) *** (b) Docks and moorings. *** [6] No dock shall be so as to interfere with normal naviqation or reasonable access to adjacent wharves. [11] Boat houses shall be designed and constructed solely for the storage of boats and related equipment and shall not include provisions for sleepinq, cookinq or sanitary facilities. [15] *** [e] In addition, the following specific conditions shall apply: [1] Filling. There shall be no fill placed in the waters of any lake, stream pond, river or wetland, except as associated with shoreline protective structures or beach replenishments or as otherwise found to be beneficial to existing shoreline conditions or water quality or clarity. Any fill placed adjacent to any lake, stream, pond, river or wetland shall be protected against erosion. The Code of Queensbury, §179-115, entitled "Appendix C: Regional Project Review Criteria", states: E. Shorelines. (I) Obiective: Maintain or enhance the existinq physical bioloqical and aesthetic characteristics of the shoreline of all lakes, ponds, rivers and streams. (2) General Guideline: Comply, at a minimum, with the applicable governmental shoreline restrictions; minimize construction or development of any land near or on the shorelines, avoid physical modifications of the shorelines themselves, minimize the removal of vegetation along the shorelines, locate buildings so as to be partially screened from the shorelines by natural veqetation and maximize the preservation of stretches of shoreline in a natural unchanqed and undeveloped state. The Code of Queensbury, §A183-52, entitled "Appendix C: Development Objectives ~or u.se in Review of Regional Subdivisions" contains language 1dent1cal to Code of Queensbury §179-115 recited above. The Code of Queensbury §A183-53, entitled "Appendix D: Development Objectives for Cluster Developments" states: H. Shoreline Development. (I) Objective: Design and construct development along shorelines so as to maintain existinq aesthetic and ecoloqical characteristics thereof and to avoid all siqnificant impairment of these qualities. (2) General Guidelines: Adhere, at a minimum to the shoreline restrictions of the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law and all local laws, maximize preservation of undeveloped shorelines by such methods as clustering and preservation of shoreline vegetation, minimize construction of docks and boathouses on - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) shorelines. and minimize aesthetic alterations to shorelines as viewed from water bodies and surroundinq areas. Much more is at stake than the separate question of public access as required by Code of Queensbury §179-70. The applicant truly needs a variance from all of the following provisions of the Town Code of the Town of Queensbury: 1. §179-70 (Public Access 2. §179-60 (A) (Preservation of Aesthetics and Natural Resource Values) 3. §179- 60 (A) (1) (Preservation of Siltation Damage) 4. §179-60 (A) (1) (Minimization of Disturbances to Water Courses) 5. §179- 60(B) (I) (b) [6] (No Interference with Navigation) 6. §179- 60 (I) (b) [11] (No Sleeping, Cooking or Sanitary Facilities on Boathouses) 7. §179-60 (B) (I) (b) [15] [e] [1] (No Fill to be Placed in any Lake) 8. §179-115 (E) (I) (Maintain Existing Aesthetic Characteristics of the Shoreline) 9. §179-115(E) (2) (Minimization of Construction on or near Shorelines) 10. §179- 115 (E) (2) (Screening of Shoreline Building with Vegetation) 11. §179-115 (E) (2) (Preservation of Shoreline in Natural Unchanged and Undeveloped State) 12. §A183-53(H} (I) (Avoidance of All Significant Impairments of Aesthetic Shorelines) 13. §A183- 53(H} (2) Minimize Aesthetic Alterations to Shorelines as viewed from Waterbodies} The granting of an a area variance would profoundly change the landscape, character and navigability of Lake George and essentially change the character of the Dunham Bay area. 1 Additionally, we note that the Code of Queensbury §A183-3 provides that subdivision plots can be approved only for building purposes if it can be done so "without danger to health or peril from fire, flood or other menace". The lack of public access from fire or emergency vehicles presents an unquestionable danger to health. Furthermore, the lands owned by (or to be owned by) Mr. Salvador were flooded in the first place when dams and dikes were installed decades ago. Who is to say that there will be no further damming or any other change in the level of the lake in the future. Mr. Salvador is in his present position because of a rise in the level of the lake. A future rise would flood Mr. Salvador's proposed structure. It must also be considered whether continual fill must . be dumped into the lake to compensate for the continuous erosion, which would jeopardize the integrity of the foundation of Mr. Salvador's proposed structure. The original filling of the lake and the dumping of replacement fill would cause tremendous siltation damage and possible sand bars in the lake. We urge the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the area variance on the grounds that the detriment to the aesthetics, landscape and character of the Dunham Bay far exceeds any benefit accruing to Mr. Salvador. Very truly yours, Michael D. DiFabio Copies to Mr. Stanley Wawrejko, 55 Colvin Avenue Albany, New York 12206" MR. THOMAS-Is that a+l the correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-I think so, yes. MR. THOMAS-I would ask Staff that any and all correspondence coming in, concerning this variance application, copies be made and sent out to the members of the Zoning Board, and to narrow it down, this application, again, is a request for a variance from Section 179- 70, Frontage on a Public Street, and I have one question of the Town Attorney. If Mr. Salvador had drawn his map showing 40 feet on the right-of-way line for Route 9L, would he be here in front of us? MR. FRIEDLAND-I'm sorry, say that again? MR. THOMAS-If Mr. Salvador's map drawn, if he had shown 40 feet along the right-of-way line of New York 9L, would he be here before us tonight? MR. FRIEDLAND-That would be a determination the Zoning Administrator would make, but it seems to me that would probably meet the Ordinance, and they probably would not need a variance. - 44 - '- -.../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) You're saying that if the lot that's now out on the lake actually touched by the shoreline and had 40 feet MR. THOMAS-Yes, for 40 feet, that he would not, Mr. Salvador wouldn't be here tonight. MR. FRIEDLAND-I would assume that the Zoning Administrator would then determine that it did not need a variance. . MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Salvador, would you like to respond to any and all of those letters? MR. SALVADOR-With regard to your question concerning the 40 feet directly on the right-of-way, you'll find if we did that, we would not have a buildable lot. There's no way we can meet setbacks from either the street or the shoreline, as you have written, as the Town has written a Code, on the land. It's not buildable. So the Ordinance has taken that land from us, do it that way. Just briefly, I would really like an opportunity to respond to all these letters. I'm hearing some of them for the first time tonight, although I did FOIL the full record at 3:30 this afternoon. Just with regard to this gentleman's comments, we make no complaint about having flooded land. We're not complaining about it. We know full well what we're doing. All environmental issues will be addressed at the right time. We have absolutely no intention to create an environmental disturbance. That's not our intent. We haven' t done it in the past. We have a 24 year record of operation up on that Bay, and I'll stack it up against anyone. As far as safety, we have the North Queensbury Fire Department and the North Queensbury Emergency Squad. They actually utilized our property, that access area, for taking people from boats off the lake. The cruise boats come into our dock when they have someone on board who's ill, fainted, heart attack, and the Queensbury Emergency Squad is right there at that shoreline to pick them up. The Fire Company drafts water from our facility to fight fires. They have water cannons that'll reach from the shore., They don't have to go out on the lake. They can reach from the shore to any structure that we would put on that lot. The Fire Company has fire boat with pump. They have a hover craft. They're equipped for winter operation. Someone goes through the ice, all outfitted. Structural integrity, that's a question of design, and that's a requirement of the Building Code. So that's something we can meet. Actually, we're trying to utilize these means of access, that we think are permitted in the law. Number One, the Navigable Waterway. I think I mentioned once before, this lot abuts the Navigable Waterway. We pay dearly in taxes to own property abutting the public waterway. We have a Riparian Right to access that, and if we could use that, there would ,be no disturbance whatsoever. The Town requires the road to be built. I told you once before, I know how to build roads. That's no big deal, but think of the environmental disturbance. The access easement is another instance of absolutely no environmental disturbance, and that easement area is already encumbered by three parties that have access to the waters of Lake George over that same area. So this is just one more. With regard to that easement, the Town Ordinance, I think, is very restrictive in this regard. I'd like to refer to Real Property Tax Law Section 334. It's a very long sentence, if you'll bear with me, okay. "It shall be the duty of every person or corporation who, as owner or agent, subdivides real property into lots, plots, blocks or sites, with or without streets, for the purposes of offering such lots, plots, blocks, etc., to the public for sale," and it goes on and on, with or without streets, Real Property Tax Law Section 334. It seems to me we would be in conformance with this law with an access easement, for the Navigable Waterway. There has been a lot of talk about building and the disturbance that building would cause. We would not be able to build anything on this lot that wouldn't be allowed by the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. We would not be allowed to ~ - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) build anything that wouldn't be allowed within the framework of the New York State Building Code. We'd have to meet Health Department requirements. That's not unusual. That's expected. We do it every day. It's not foreign to us. Now others on the lake have been smart enough to fill the land first and then they've built on it. Think of the Harris Bay Yacht Club. All that fill, all that parking lot i~ filled, and their building is on piles, driven through the fJ.ll, through the wetland, to good bearing soil. That's what they've done, but they filled it first. We don't intend to fill it. Mr. Parillo mentions environmental disturbance. He maintains a launch area, the parking lot of which has totally been filled in, a wetland has been filled in. That's how others have done it, and we don't intend to do that. Just briefly, Mr. Strack's letter, he talks about traffic and safety and congestion. All of this is taken care of in the Town's Vessel Regulation zone. That was the very purpose of establishing the zone, and putting in the regulations. If we don't have sufficient boat safety, boating safety on that Bay, that's the place to go and get that Ordinance tuned up, but you'll find the Town has many, many other obligations with regard to sanitary waste, trash, everything in that Ordinance, that they turn their back on. There's some mention in here about, Mr. Strack says here in paragraph number two, "There is much concern that a residential facility in the proposed area would represent serious risk of pollution from water, power, drainage and septic facilities II , all to be addressed with a building permit. All will be taken care of. There's nothing new about underwater cable, nothing new about underwater pipe lines and how to be sure that they don't discharge into the lake. Mr. Parillo's attorney has written a long letter, and it was pretty much the same letter that was written the last time. Most of the arguments fall apart, in that the waters over our land are not navigable waters. They are flood waters, and they were not navigable in their original state. Okay. Those waters didn't exist before 1790, and we have a right to recover our flooded land. That is a right we have. That's in the law. We've talked about most of these things in that letter. Shelley Baldwin's letter talks about, it'll be detrimental to the Bay and the lake, both environmentally and ecologically. I'd really like to hear some details, because we can mitigate every one of those. That's not difficult, but we don't think we're harming the environment of Dunham's Bay at this time, and if we are, we ought to be shut down. They talk about, negatively affect our neighborhood. How? How do we do this? Dunham's Bay is ringed with hunting and fishing cabins, many of them on the water, on the public lands, not private lands. Mr. Baldwin's letter talks about developing underwater property is ridiculous. I mentioned what others have already done to develop their underwater property. Again, I'd like to suggest that this matter be tabled. I think we should clarify certain matters for the Board, Staff as well, and we get a determination from the County. Give us an opportunity to exercise our rights and access that letter that the County Attorney addressed to the Chairman of the Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-I just have one question for you, Mr. Salvador. I stated, earlier, I asked the Town Attorney earlier that if we had a, or if you had drawn a 40 foot easement upon the right-of-way of New York 9L, that you would not have to be here, and you've stated that you would not be able to meet the building setbacks, this lot you have proposed. How would you meet the building setbacks with that? MR. SALVADOR-It's large enough. The dry land is not sufficient, that's what I meant. The land between the highway right-of-way. MR. THOMAS-From the highway right-of-way to the shoreline. MR. SALVADOR-To the shoreline, it's not a buildable lot. MR. THOMAS-But that would be included in part of the one acre lot - 46 - , . -- '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) you have proposed here. MR. SALVADOR-No. Only the easement touches the, I'm not building on that. MR. THOMAS-No. Okay. MR. SALVADOR-You see? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I see what you mean. MR. SALVADOR-If you tried to create a building lot between the shore and the highway right-of-way. MR. THOMAS-No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, if you made part of your lot that you proposed, the 1.01 acres, if 40 feet of that touched the highway right-of-way line on New York 9L. MR. SALVADOR-Then it would have shoreline, and I would have to meet shoreline setback, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It depends on which way you look at shoreline, which way does shoreline go, upland or out? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, well, I tried. MR. THOMAS-The only fly in the ointment on this one is the environmental assessment form. I do believe, as Mr. Salvador has stated, that we should table this for clarification of the CEA, so that a SEQRA determination can be made, because right now, we could not go even through that Short Form and come up with any kind of declaration one way or another, until we know exactly how that CEA fits into this. Thoughts? Anybody? . MR. STONE-I think you're right, Mr. Chairman. MR. THOMAS-I don't like tabling these things, but I think this one here is going to be in the forefront, and I do believe that whatever happens here will be precedent for anything else that happens in and along the Lake George, in Lake George, in the Town of Queensbury, because there is other land under the waters that is owned by other individuals. So this could be precedent setting. So I don't want to make any mistakes or trip up on this one. MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador also has stated that he is under a handicap, because there is a piece of paper that he believed in germane to ~ his argument that he would like to see, and we should allow him what legal rights he might be able to use to get that. MR. THOMAS-Do the Board members agree with what Mr. Stone has said? Did you want to say something again, Mr. Parillo? MR. PARILLO-Not at this time. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So having said that, is there anything else Staff would like to add in? MS. CIPPERLY-What did you do with the public hearing? MR. THOMAS-I'm leaving it open. throw in anything? Does the Town Attorney want to MR. FRIEDLAND-I have nothing to add. Do you have any questions of me? I'll be glad to answer them. MR. THOMAS-No. I'm just going to call Jim Martin and set up a meeting with him and whoever else he can think of to get this CEA thing settled, once and for all, and if we can come up with a motion that the Town Board has made, a resolution the Town Board - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) has made and passed, that all these areas are indeed Critical Environmental Areas, and we can prove it by pulling the resolution, that they have adopted, the Lake George Park Commission's rules and regulations concerning CEA, well then I think we can continue on with the SEQRA, and I think we can continue on with the variance from there. So, having said that, does anybody else have anything they want to say? MR. PARILLO-Will we be notified in writing as to when the next meeting is set? Will it be re-advertised? I'd like to request that I be notified. MR. THOMAS-What can we do about that, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-You could ask that it be re-noticed, everybody within 500 feet. MR. THOMAS-Does everybody on the Board agree that this should be tabled, for the concerns that Mr. Salvador has, the CEA and his wanting to get the copy of the letter from the County Attorney to the County Planning Board? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree. , MR. THOMAS-All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-1996 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: So that the applicant can obtain further information from the County Attorney concerning a letter the County Attorney has written to the County Planning Board, and also for clarification of the Critical Environmenta¡ Area, as concerning the property owned by Mr. Salvador. I would also ask that the property owners within 500 . feet of this application be notified of the next meeting. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-Does everybody understand what we're tabling it for, and also that notification of property owners will be sent out again for the next meeting. MR. SALVADOR-We're still bound by 62 days. MR. THOMAS-We're still bound by the 62 days. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-So this is tabled for up to 62 days to allow everybody to get their stuff together, and everybody within 500 feet will be notified again. MR. PARILLO- Is there a rule as to how many times this can be tabled? MR. THOMAS-Not that I know of. Jeff, is there a rule, is there any legislation, rule, that says how many times an application can be tabled? MR. FRIEDLAND-I don't believe so. You're required within, as you know within 62 days after the public hearing is closed. If you clos~d the public hearing tonight, you'd have to make a decision - 48 - ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) within 62 days. MR. O'LEARY-I had that procedural question as well. When there's a request made by the applicant to withdraw the application, do we then continue with prolonged public hearing, or do we? MR. FRIEDLAND-No. If the application's withdrawn, that's the end of it. There's no application. MR. O'LEARY-Well, but the application was, the request was that it be withdrawn, but we had a lengthy public hearing. MR. THOMAS-No, it's tabled. MR. O'LEARY-Well, he originally said that he would like to withdraw the application. MR. THOMAS-No. He never said he would like to withdraw it. It's tabled. MR. O'LEARY-You said you'd like to table it? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. O'LEARY-Okay. What is the procedure, then, under the tabling? MR. FRIEDLAND-What you just did. You just made a motion and you tabled it. MR. O'LEARY-No, but I mean, once it's a request that the application be tabled by the applicant himself, then do we have a public hearing? 1; MR. THOMAS-Yes, the public hearing is left open. Okay, and then within 62 days we have to make a decision, after we close the public hearing we have 45 days to make a decision. MR. FRIEDLAND-I think it's 62. MR. THOMAS-Sixty-two. If the public hearing is left open, this could go on for who knows how long. MR. FRIEDLAND-Let me just add that there's no requirement that you table it just because this applicant and the other applicant requested it. I mean, there's no reason not to, and you can do whatever you want. In this case you table, but there's no L requirement that you have to table it. MR. O'LEARY-I guess the question is when we do it. MR. FRIEDLAND-That's in your discretion. If you think there's a good reason to table it for more information, generally it's if you need more information or want more information or just want some time to think about it, or leave the public hearing open. MR. STONE-I think he meant at what point in the proceedings, when Mr. Salvador asked us? Our Chairman had thought it was because people had come a distance. MR. THOMAS-That's up to us. MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. It's completely up to you as to whether or not to table. MR. THOMAS-Yes, when we table it is completely up to us. We could have tabled it as soon as Mr. Salvador asked and not opened the public hearing, but I wouldn't do that. - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. PARILLO-When does the 62 days start? MR. THOMAS-Tonight. MR. FRIEDLAND-After the public hearing is closed. MR. PARILLO-Well, what is the point of leaving the public hearing open? Sixty-two days is not running yet. MR. FRIEDLAND-That's right. MR. PARILLO-What is the purpose of that? MR. THOMAS-We leave the public hearing open so we are not legally obligated to notify again, send out notification again, as long as the public hearing is left open. We aren't legally bound to do that. MR. PARILLO-That's for the convenience of the Board, but what about the convenience of the people that have been here now two meetings for about a total of six or seven hours, and also the Board's time, if the 62 days is not running yet. It could go on here forever unless the public hearing is closed. Is there any advantage to leaving the public hearing open? ì MR. THOMAS-There is, because that way we can receive more written testimony or written letters like your attorney sent. If I close the public hearing, okay, anything that comes in by mail, fax or voice we can't read into the record. MR. PARILLO-I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but nobody is going to be re-notified. So there would be no point in anyone sending, what would precipitate someone from sending a letter now when they've been notified already that the meeting is tonight? . MR. THOMAS-We've had instances where people have correspondence after the public hearing has been closed. way or another, it's going to run on. sent So, in one MR. PARILLO-The 62 days is not running. MR. THOMAS-No, not until I close the public hearing, but even if I closed the public hearing, I could re-open it again. MR. PARILLO-Wouldn't it be advantageous to the property owners and the concerned residents to close the public hearing, and then if they have to be re-notified, they receive a letter like we have for tonight's meeting? MR. FRIEDLAND-You could do it that way. Again, it's completely up to you. MR. PARILLO-Wouldn't that be advantageous to get the true feelings of the property owners of Dunham's Bay? MS. CIPPERLY-You asked that they be re-notified anyway. MR. THOMAS-Yes. They're going to be re-notified anyway. This is a special circumstance. Usually, we don't do that, a renotification, but we are going to leave the public hearing open, and there is going to be renotification. MR. PARILLO-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-It's the way the Board has been run since I've been on here, for a little over four years. Having said that, one other business we have to take care of, the November meetings are scheduled for the 20th and 27th of November, the 27th of November - 50 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) being the day before Thanksgiving. We have two, other open dates, November 21st which is the Thursday follow1.ng the Wednesday November 20th ~eeting, and also the 13th is available, which is the Wednesday before the normal first meeting date of November. MRS. LAPHAM-I'd vote for the Wednesday before, not two nights in a row, and I can't do the 27th. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The only problem with the 13th is, that's the same night as Warren County. MR. KARPELES-So what's wrong with that? MS. CIPPERLY-We've gotten around that before by scheduling non Warren County. MR. KARPELES-You mean this room? MR. THOMAS-No. They have their meeting in the Warren County building, but we can't pass on anything until they give us their blessing. MS. CIPPERLY-But not every project is Warren County. MR. THOMAS-But not every project is Warren County. So, if you can get everything that's, whatever's coming in on the agenda that doesn't include Warren County, the 13th would be better, but I don't know if you can do that or not. MS. CIPPERLY-If that's what the opinion of the Board is, that the 13th would be better, than we can try to do that. We don't have all the applications in for November. r MR. THOMAS-It closes November 6th? MS. CIPPERLY-No, the last Wednesday. MR. THOMAS-The last Wednesday. So that would be the 30th of October, would be the last day for applications for the November meeting. MS. CIPPERLY-We just kind of need a little guidance on reserving the room. .. MR. THOMAS-So what's the pleasure of the Board? It'll be November 20th. MR. STONE-The 21st. MRS. LAPHAM-I can't do the 27th. MR. KARPELES-I don't think I'm available. MR. THOMAS-On the 27th? MR. KARPELES-I don't think from the 16th on, I've got to check my calendar when I get home. MR. STONE-I would go on the 13th. MR. KARPELES-Yes, the 13th I'm available. MS. CIPPERLY-I think the thing to do would be to call Sue Davidson. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Why don't you do that. Check your calendars. The 20th is a definite, okay, and we can either go with the 21st or 13th, or like I say, the 27th, the day before Thanksgiving. - 51 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) MR. STONE-I won't be here. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Wasn't there another meeting, like at four o'clock, that Sue was? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We're going to talk about that after this. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So call Sue Davidson at the Town Hall. You've got her number, and let her know what it's going to be, and it'll be whoever can make it. MS. CIPPERLY-With any luck, we won't have enough applications for two meetings. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Also, would you notify the other two members that are not here of the options of the 13th and the 21st. MR. STONE-I'll go with either one. "I MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, just call Sue and let her know one way or the other. MRS. LAPHAM-The 13th or the 21st? MR. THOMAS-Yes, whichever you prefer. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I prefer the 13th, but I can go with either one. I just can't do it the 27th. MR. THOMAS-Well, tell Sue you can go either way on it, then, and whatever the majority is, that's the date we'll go with. Okay. Number Two, on November 6th, either at 4 or 4: 30, Jim Martin called me and asked me if we could have a special meeting. Circumstances have come up where a person is moving a trailer off a lot, and they want to move a double wide in, and they cannot meet the setbacks, and the rules and regulations state that they have to either meet 30 feet or the average of the two adjoining building's setbacks, which comes out to 18 feet, I believe he said, and they cannot meet the 30. So this one on the sixth of November will be the only thing we're going to hear. It's a fairly easy variance. I haven't got the application yet, and I haven't seen the paperwork. I don't even know where it is. All Jim told me was that they have to get a variance because if they move this other trailer out, they have nowhere to live, and on the 6th of November is probably the soonest we can get in here because of notification and all the other legalities that go with it. '" i~ MR. KARPELES-But it is in a trailer zone I understand, right? MR. THOMAS-I do believe it is. I do believe it's in a Mobile Home Overlay Zone, but I'll check with Jim again. MR. STONE-I've got it down. MR. THOMAS-Yes. November 6th is a Wednesday. It's two weeks from tonight, and it's either going to be a 4 or 4:30, and it will probably be over in the other building in the Conference Room downstairs there, in the Planning and Zoning Office, and we're going to be the only ones in there besides the applicant and probably Mr. Martin and probably one other person. We have to make public notification, but if the public shows up, well, we're all crammed into that room, but I don't foresee the public. I really don't, but if they come in there, well, we'll just have to cram all in there or we'll have to find somewhere else. Sue, do we have a - 52 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/96) contingency plan for this November 6th meeting that you don't know about, in case we get flooded with people, not that I think we will, but, just in case we get a large audience. Other than that, does anybody else have anything they want to add? MR. STONE-I was going to say, maybe I should have recused myself and you guys all could have voted yes. MR. O'LEARY-Well, it would have made it moot, though. Didn't you say that we needed? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We've got to have a super majority of four plus one. MR. 0' LEARY-Right. So if you would have recused yourself, we could have made the whole thing moot and left here at 9:30. MR. THOMAS-The only thing, that would have been a no action, and we'd have to wait for the other two members to come up to speed on it, as Fred would say, and they would have to vote one way or the other. MR. STONE-They would? Okay. So you couldn't take a vote with only four of you here. MR. O'LEARY-Right. MR. THOMAS-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-I also see no reason why you should. MR. STONE-I agree. I knew John was going to do that. He didn't tell me, but I knew he was. I was going to write out a long speech, but I figured, just saying common sense was enough. r: , MR. THOMAS-If something came in from the LGA, I would have said, you better talk to the Ethics Board and see what they say. MR. STONE-No, I think you're absolutely right there. MR. THOMAS-But if we do get, because the public hearing is still open, and we still are taking in whatever. MR. STONE-Yes. That's a good point. MR. THOMAS-If we get anything from the LGA, you're going to have to , bailout. I think the Ethics Board would tell you that. MR. STONE-I will tell them not to send anything in. The problem, you see, I could have taken umbrage at John's comment about, but why bother. MR. THOMAS-Yes, you could have. Why bother. MR. STONE-Not the recusing, but, I know the mindset. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. STONE-I second the motion. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christian Thomas, Chairman - 53 -