Loading...
1993-11-17 ORIGiNAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17TH, 1993 INDEX Area Variance No. 98-1993 Area Variance No. 100-1993 Area Variance No. 101-1993 Area Variance No. 94-1993 Thomas R. Bolen 1. Joyce R. Folsom 1. Rita & Robert Whiteman 1. Michael Di Palma (Cont'd on Page 34.) 2. Sign Variance No. 99-1993 Holly Wheeler K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs 13. Area Variance No. 102-1993 James & Kathy Flores 22. Area Variance No. 105-1993 Timothy & Marion McKinnie 24. Use Variance No. 103-1993 Car Essentials 25. Area Variance No. 104-1993 Car Essentials 32. 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. QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11TH, 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON. SECRETARY FRED CARVIN CHRIS THOMAS ROBERT KARPELES LINDA HAUSER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-So. before we get on to the order of business here immediately. we'll take three applications, Area Variance No. 98- 1993 Thomas R. Bolen. Area Variance No. 100-1993 Joyce R. Folsom. and Area Variance No. 101-1993 Rita and Robert Whiteman. They are Type I actions in a CEA. and they require SEQRA review. and I would make a motion to move these applications to the Planning Board as lead agency in the SEQRA Review. MOTION TO SEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 98-1993 THOMAS R. BOLEN TO THE PLAHNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY IN THE SEQRA REVIEW, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 17th day of November. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MOTION TO SEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-1993 JOYCE R. FOLSOM TO THE PLANHING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY IH THE SEQRA REVIEW. Introduced by Theodore Turne r who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MOTIOH TO SEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-1993 RITA & ROBERT WHITEMAN TO THE PLAHNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY IN THE SEQRA REVIEW. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 17th day of November. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Okay. With that done. the next order of business is Area Variance No. 94-1993. and that's Michael Di Palma. - 1 - '-.-' OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE HO. 94-1993 TYPE II LC-42A CEA MICHAEL DI PALMA OWHER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L. ACROSS FROM WILLIAMSONS STORE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING ON A NONCONFORMIHG LOT. SECTION 179-13C REQUIRES ONE HUHDRED (100) FOOT FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS, APPLICAHT SEEKS RELIEF OF SIXTY-ONE (61) rEET. EIGHT (8) INCHES FOR THE FRONT SETBACK, AHD EIGHTY. EIGHT (88) IHCHES FOR THE SIDE SETBACK. (ADIROHDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 10/13/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 20-1-8 LOT SIZE: 1/2 ACRE SECTION 179-13C MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-This was originally on the agenda October 21st. and it was tabled to research the history on the piece of property. documented proof of 15 years ago as to certain transactions regarding use of the property. advertisement of business use. etc. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 94-1993. Michael Di Palma. Meeting Date: November 17. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Upper Ridge Road. across from Williamson's Store. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing an addition to an existing dwelling on a nonconforming lot. Section 179-13C requires one hundred (100) foot front and side setbacks. applicant seeks relief of sixty-one (61) feet. eight (8) inches for the front setback. and eighty (80) feet. eight (8) inches for the side setback. REVIEW: Applicant was tabled at the October 21. 1993 ZBA meeting. Applicant was asked to provide materials showing that his guiding business is a grandfathered use. Materials supplied are: Certificate of Michael C. Di Palma Conducting business under the name of Northway Adirondack Guides. dated December 12. 1984. NYS Guide License issued March 8. 1985. Lake George Park Commission Commercial Dock Registration dated April 9. 1992. Income tax forms for 1984 and 1985 showing the use of the residence as a rental property. Letters verifying that the applicant has been operating a fishing charter business out of his residence since 1984 and/or in support of his variance application seeking setback relief. Applicant was also asked to provide the dimensions of his existing house. The south side dimension is thirty (30) feet. the front dimension is forty-five (45) feet. The distance from the nearest corner of the house to the front property line is thirty-five feet. ten inches (35 ft. 10 in.). From the midpoint of the front to the front property line is thirty-six feet. four inches (36 ft. 4 in. )." MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Chairman. I am Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and 0' Connor, and I am here this evening representing the applicant. I did review the minutes from last month's meeting. I was not retained until some time after even the filing date for this particular meeting. I'll try not to be repetitious. I'm a little confused. to some degree. because of the nature of all the discussion that took place. This is basically. as I review the application. an application for an area variance for a 14 by 16 foot room to an existing single family residence. The application is for use of that room as part of the residence. There seemed to be an awful lot of discussion outside of that particular use. This is not an application to this Board for site plan review. or for any other permission other than to construct the particular room that's shown on the application. There appears to be some confusion. even. on the application as to the actual dimensions and whatnot. and I did note. and I had prepared today even. Mrs. Eggleston was looking for some type of sketch of the interior of the existing building. and I don't think that that has been submitted. I'll submit it to you. I'll give one to Staff. too. Basically. it looks like there's two small bedrooms. a small bathroom. and a large living room. They've drawn it out without a real scale. but I think it's representative of what is there. This is the proposed addition. which is shown in the right hand corner - 2 - of that map. and I think this was already in your packets, this sketch. but I'll give it to you. just because it seemed to make more sense to look at it separately. If I understand the application. the consideration that you might have is could the addi tion go some place else on that site and not cause the requirement for the variance. Looking at the site. and being advised as to the topographical features. I understand that it probably cannot. If you look at the back of the building. the site drops off dramatically behind the existing house. It would be almost impossible to build behind there. If you look at the north end of the building. which is basically where we're talking about putting the addition. you can't flip flop it to the back of the building. if you would. and maybe make it more conforming to the front setback. because then that would just make it nonconforming to the back setback. and maybe more nonconforming to the side setback. more nonconforming. You also have a septic system that is in existence at the back corner of that building. and if you have your 10 foot separation from the foundation. leaving the crawl space of the addition. I don't think it would fit in there. You try and move it to the south end of the building. and you run into similar problems. There's not a great deal of room between the existing building and the garage that's there. There is an entranceway in the back corner of the building to the existing cellarway. it's like a home made cellar. There's also a drop off in the back there. Also. if you take a look at the floor plan of the interior of the building. then in order to get to the den. you would have to walk through the bedroom. if you will. as opposed to what's presented here. It's not a very large structure that's on the existing site. If you take away the wrap around porch. which goes across the building and on both ends of the building. and you look at just the two bedrooms. the small bathroom. the kitchen area, and the living room. it's not very good sized. There are some actual measurements that were made in conjunction with an old survey. I have only a portion of the survey. and it appears to be one that was reduced. but this is the basis for that plot plan that Steve Lynn prepared that is shown here. My reading of the survey is that if you look at the southeast corner of the addition, it's going to be 37 feet 11 inches from the road. Now let me say this before I even get to the exact measurements. The front of the proposed addition is no closer than the front of the existing building. So we're not talking about a protrusion beyond what's already there. a protrusion that would probably be noticeable. based upon the addition being similar in construction to the existing building. If it's done properly, it will look like it's always been there. If you look at the front. the south corner of the addition is 37 feet 11 inches. We need relief of 62 feet 1 inch. If you look at the north corner of the front of the addition. it's 38 feet 4 inches. We need relief of 61 feet 8 inches. If you look at the side line. the northwest corner of the addi tion is 20 feet 11 inche s from the existing side 1 ine. We would need relief of 79 feet 1 inch. If you look at the northeast corner of the addition. I don't know if you need relief. and I say that because if you go to the nearest side line. it's well over 100 feet. If you go to an extension of this side line. or you take this as a side line and say it should go through the front to the property. then you are talking about some relief. but if you actually measured at right angle to that corner. to this corner right here, it's well in 100 feet to this property line. If you take this and go here. you're well in 100 feet. So, I don't think we technically need relief from that corner to there. You do need relief from this corner to that corner. You need relief from here of 79 feet 1 inch, from here gives you 61 feet 8 inches. from here is 62 feet 1 inch. This is just a dimension line. It confuses me when I look at the map. It is not anything indicating construction. Only this indicates that. From this corner here, you need 62 feet 1 inch. and you need 61 feet 8 inches from this corner. and I am off by a quarter of an inch. a half inch. conservatively. So those are the three points that we need relief. The practical difficulty is that there's no location on the site that would require less of a variance. There are a lot of - 3 - ~ difficulties that would be encountered if we tried to flip flop that room to some other portion of the building. attach it to some other part of the building. There does not seem to be any impact by the construction of the building upon anyone. I do note that there was a lengthy letter and lengthy discussion by an adjoining owner who objected because we are looking for relief from the 100 feet. but if you actually look at this survey. and correct me if I'm wrong. but his nearest property is 200 feet from us. So we're not even talking about. if these were squared off lots instead of very odd shaped lots. the objective is the owner of this parcel up in here. and this dimension alone is 182 feet. and we're talking 20 feet beyond. so we're 200 feet from what he would normally be. if these were nice rounded off. or not rounded off. but squared out subdivision lots. as opposed to this odd shaped lot that we have. Lot Three exists. I don't think there's any question about that, and you go back and take a look at some of the zonings. 1966 it was R-1 zone, and I think 1982 it became LC-42 acre zoning. MR. TURNER-You agree that this is an expansion of a preexisting nonconforming building. and not an expansion of a preexisting nonconforming use, such a business? We're not talking business now. MR. 0' CONNOR-Okay. The only question before this Board is the building, and expansion of the building. MR. TURNER-The building you're claiming is residential? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Di Palma. as part of his application. has indicated that it is his residence, and that is the request before this Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. O'Connor. I'd like to say. I'd like to take exception to your remarks that are. that the questions that we asked last time seemed to have nothing to do with the application and were off base. We'd be very remiss if we didn't ask the questions about whether this is a business and an expansion use of a business. since there is an advertisement where the applicant advertises lodging and breakfast included. current advertisements. So to contend that it's strictly residential. and to say their remarks were not wi thin the realm of his application. I take exception to that. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. I make my comments to the sense that the request before the Board and in the application is for expansion of the building for residential use purposes. This Board. if it granted the approval on the first night. or if it grants approval tonight. does not grant approval of expansion of a business if there is a business operated from that site. It does not permit. or it's not this Board's jurisdiction to permit an operation of a business from that site. That's the context of mY comments. as to much of the discussion. I understand the discussion. and I read the discussion that went on as to whether or not there is a business operated from there or not. That's not the issue. That's not the application before the Board. MR. TURNER-That might not be the application it is a fact that he's running a business allowing the expansion. we're allowing preexisting. nonconforming use. before the Board. but out of there. and by the expansion of a MR. O'CONNOR-I differ with you on that concern. MR. TURNER-Well. what does this say right here? MR. O'CONNOR-He operates a guide service from his home. MR. TURNER-He told us that he rents the place. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. - 4 - MR. TURNER-That's not a business? MR. O'CONNOR-He did not deny anything. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying he denied it. MR. O'CONNOR-Notwithstanding the comments made by the applicant wi thin the application and wi thin the record. I don't know if that's germane to the jurisdiction, or question of can he expand his residence 16 feet by 14 feet. MR. TURNER-I'm saying to you, is this a true representation of the applicant's application? Is he really telling us that this is going to be a residence? No. He's saying, no, it isn't. It's going to be a business. MR. O'CONNOR-No. He's saying it's going to be used for residential purposes. MRS. EGGLESTON-But on breakfast and, like a call it, or lodge. O'Connor? the other hand, he advertises lodging and bed and breakfast, or whatever you want to Does one not contradict the other, Mr. MR. TURNER-I think I'd beg to differ with you. MR. O'CONNOR-I think on an application for an area variance, the burden on the applicant is to show that there's practical difficulty. We have a builder here who could tell you that there's no other feasible site upon which to make this expansion. MR. TURNER-I'm not arguing that point at all. My point is that he's running a business out of that house. So we're saying to him, fine, you can have the addition and you can still run your business there, because you can expand it. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that's an issue for the Planning Board. I think that's an issue for enforcement. MR. TURNER-No. I think it belongs right here. MR. O'CONNOR-It's a permitted use. MR. TURNER-It's not a permitted use. preexisting. It's an expansion of a MR. O'CONNOR-A bed and breakfast is a permitted use within that zone under site plan, Type II application. MR. TURNER-A bed and breakfast. MR. CARVIN-But he's not running a bed and breakfast. MRS. EGGLESTON-This is a lodge. MR. O'CONNOR-Part of what he's doing, I think, falls within the definition of bed and breakfast. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but according to the minutes here, he claims it's not a bed and breakfast. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don't know if he's trying to stand on what the legal definition of the use is, as opposed to the Zoning Ordinance. I think that's why he got us involved in it. You've got to look at your Zoning Ordinance. You've got to look at your definition of bed and breakfast. I think, from what I've seen in the minutes of how he's related he operates the service that he provides, from those people who stay at that premises, it is a bed and breakfast. Because it's his principal residence. They stay there accessory to his. - 5 - MR. CARVIN-It's not his principal residence. other wheres. He says he lives MRS. EGGLESTON-He said he lives in New Jersey. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, maybe that's something you misunderstood. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I don't think so. MR. CARVIN-It was pretty clear. MR. O'CONNOR-Then lets clarify the record. Mr. Di Palma, is this your principal residence? MICHAEL DI PALMA MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Is this where you vote from? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Is this where you pay taxes from? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Do you own another residence? MR. DI PALMA-I have another residence. It's my wife's. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and do you occupy that as a residence? MR. DI PALMA-I did. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Do you occupy it now? MR. DI PALMA-No. MR. TURNER-You occupied it until when? MR. DI PALMA-A year ago. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You occasionally go to New Jersey to substitute teach? MR. DI PALMA-Yes, I do. MR. O'CONNOR-How many days a year do you do that? MR. DI PALMA-Two dozen, tops. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The rest of the time, are you here in Warren County in Queensbury? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And residence in this structure? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. TURNER-All right. Do you not operate a charter business out of that residence? MR. DI PALMA-I have my own boat on the dock, and when I get a call for a charter, I walk down to my dock, hop on my boat, and I pick up charters. MR. O'CONNOR-People do not depart from that dock as part of charter business. - 6 - MR. TURNER-That's fine. but the contact is made there. right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It's his residence. MR. DI PALMA-They call me up. MR. O'CONNOR-Most people that have a charter business or something like that operate out of residences. They don't have. in the Adirondacks. an office where they operate out of. where people make contact. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion on the application? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. even though Mr. 0' Connor says the addi tion isn't pertinent to the increase of the use. I think it is. because here's a man. by his own admission. he's the only man that lives in this house. It's already got two bedrooms. a bath. a 20 by 10 living room. dining room. and a kitchen. and to expand more only increases my thought that this is being used as a lodge. and if that were so, then he should go through the necessary, whatever steps necessary to make it legal and go on that basis. That's my own opinion. MR. TURNER-Any thoughts. Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've got a couple. This is more curiosity than anything else. Last meeting you stated that that well is no good. the water coming out of it isn't any good? MR. DI PALMA-No. sir. MR. THOMAS-It's contaminated. the well is? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. THOMAS-What's it contaminated with. do you know? MR. DI PALMA-With (lost word). MR. THOMAS-From across the street? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. The State. they're handling the whole thing. MR. THOMAS-They're handling the whole thing? didn't put a filtration system on your well? The oil company MR. DI PALMA-They did. MR. THOMAS-They did. and the water's still no good? MR. DI PALMA-Sometimes it comes out good. sometimes it doesn't. It varies. MR. THOMAS-That's all I've got. MRS. EGGLESTON-What do you use for water. then. for these lodgers that you have? MR. DI PALMA-For drinking water. I go to a local spring and I fill up a jug. You can wash your hands with it. take a shower in it. It just smells like rotten eggs. It always had a high sulfur content. MR. CARVIN-What percentage of your income do you feel is derived from your guide activities? Like 10 percent? MR. DI PALMA-If that. MR. O'CONNOR-I think part of my comments are that. even if he were to take this on as being expansion of the business. what he would - 7 - ~ be doing would be applying to the Planning Board, under Site Plan Review, for permission to expand an existing nonconforming business. The first thing the Planning Board would tell him is that he must obtain a variance from the structural requirements or dimensional requirements for the structure. It's almost, and it's not really related to the site. We went through this application recently with the retail operation that came in. We came in and got variances from setbacks of that building, with a, infringing on a buffer zone, before we went and did Planning Board approvals for site plan review. Here, the applicant is telling you that he is going to use this for his personal residence. I don't think you can presume that by constructing that. he is going to be using it illegally. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm astounded you can say that, with an advertisement that advertises lodging and breakfast included. I'm stymied at how you can say that. MR. O'CONNOR-That's legal. That advertisement is legal. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but I'm having a problem. MR. O'CONNOR-That advertisement is legal. If he has another 220 feet of dwelling, okay, I think 224 feet of dwelling, does that make that illegal? Even if he contings that advertising? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. it's a residential zone. MR. 0' CONNOR-But that's a permitted use wi thin that residential zone. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is. a lodge? MR. O'CONNOR-What he's doing. MRS. EGGLESTON-Maybe what you're classifying as a bed and breakfast, but that doesn't mean I would classify it as a bed and breakfast. Does he pay sales tax, I mean, all that kind of thing? Conform to the Board of Health? He just gets a way with all of that. MR. DI PALMA-I don't make enough money to pay anything. That is my home. my retirement home. I want to live there in peace and relax. I do not want a guide where it becomes a job. During the busy season, from May to December, if I take out more than two a week. that's a lot. It's not to be work. It's for relaxation. MR. O'CONNOR-You get into the dimensional requirements. you get into whether or not practical difficulty is shown, you get into a balancing of effects between what this encroachment upon that setback will have. as opposed to the neighbors rights not to have an encroachment. I don't see anything here where there's an infringement upon somebody that's adjoining. MR. CARVIN-Well, we have a letter that says that there is an infringement. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That particular owner is in excess of 200 feet, by location. At most what he would be entitled to is protection of 100 feet. We're not encroaching on that two hundred feet. MR. CARVIN-Well. again. I think they're coming back, their exception is that this could be construed as an expansion of a business. which will be putting more people down through there, and I think that that was the gist of their letter, that this is a residential area. MR. O'CONNOR-Then condition your approval that it be not used for business purposes. that it be used solely by Mr. Di Palma for his - 8 - - own personal residence, which is what his application is, there is Planning Board approval, and maybe that everybody's question, if that's your concern. unless answers MISS HAUSER-It seems that the letters that were sent by his neighbors are further substantiating the fact that he is running his business out of his home, and they're in favor of that. MR. O'CONNOR-Most of the letters did say that. I think there's one that's opposing, and there's a bunch stating that they're in favor. MR. CARVIN-I didn't see any other letter. I think there was just one letter, wasn't there? MRS. EGGLESTON-I thought just the one. MR. CARVIN-I didn't see any in support. MISS HAUSER-No. I'm just saying that they're saying that he was a guide, and for so many years, and so on and so forth, which is substantiating his argument that it is being used as a business, as opposed to just as a residence. MR. O'CONNOR-I think there are eight letters, aren't there, there? MRS. CIPPERLY-There should be a number of letters. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, there is more than one. MR. CARVIN-They must have come in since, then? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, they have. MR. O'CONNOR-Since your last meeting. MRS. EGGLESTON-They're in with these tax papers, and whatnot. MR. KARPELES-Well, I'm confused as to whether it's going to continue to be used as a business or not. Is he coming out and saying, flat, that he is not going to use it as a business at all? MR. 01 PALMA-That room is not going to be used as a business at all. MR. KARPELES-But this house is not going to be used as a business? MR. O'CONNOR-No. He is going to continue to operate the business, to the extent that he's been operating from the balance of the premises. There is not going to be any expansion of business activities, because of the fact of the construction, and he stipulates to that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you want me to read the letters, Mr. Chairman? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-From Thomas J. Callahan, Catskill Bay, "I am an Environmental Conservation, Division Law Enforcement stationed at Katskill Bay, New York 12844, policing Queensbury and Lake George and have known Mike Di Palma since approximately 1984. I believe he has been a licensed guide for State of New York since that time and has operated a guide service from his residence since that time. Respectfully, Thomas J. Callahan" The letter was received 10/28/93. And this one today from Ms. Jane Crannell, dated October 25th, 1 Hanne ford Road, "I have no ob j ection to the addition my neighbors, Michael Di Palma, wishes to add to his home. The home looks spacious because of the full-length enclosed porch across the front; but the porch is only useful in the warm weather, and the inside rooms are quite small. It's natural for him to want to expand a bit. I expect neighbors will hardly, because of - 9 - plantings, be able to see his new extra room. Michael's house is his home, not a business building. He has been guiding since 1984. As I have read and observed during my 47 years in the Adirondacks, guiding is traditionally done from a person's home. Parties for fishing or hunting meet the guide there. and if necessary spend a night or two and have some meals. There is rarely more than one extra vehic le parked in Mr. Di Palma's driveway. I'm a close neighbor and I can't tell whether the people going to the dock with fishing gear are Mike's friends or his customers. There are only a few at a time. There's no more noise or activity than near any acti ve fisherman's home and dock. Yours truly, (Ms.) Jane L. Crannell" And from Ron Williamson, Star Route, "I have known Mike Di Palma since he bought his house here in 1979. I know for a fact that he became aN. Y. State licensed Guide in 1984. Mike has provided room and board for his clients at his residence on Rt. 9L, and taken them fishing to various areas rivers and streams. I cannot see how Mike di Palmas's 14' by 16' proposed addition to his house could negatively effect the community in any manner. Ron Williamson" And from Gavin Rooney, Hanneford Road, "I have known Michael Di Palma since he was in high school. He worked for me for twenty six years as a police officer in New Jersey. I clearly remember when he received his fishing guide license in 1984 because he always wanted to arrange his days off and vacations around the times when fishing was the best in both Warren County rivers and Lake George since he was allowing his customers to stay at his house when he was taking them fishing. I also have seen people I recognized from New Jersey staying at his house who were paying to stay there and go fishing since 1984 because my wife and I owned a home on Cleverdale prior to buying our present home on Hanneford Road in 1987. As a neighbor I not only do not object to his planned addition, I think it will improve his property and therefore the neighborhood. Sincerely, Gavin J. Rooney" And Jane Peltier, Star Route "I'm writing in regard to the variance, the one Michael Di Palma is seeking! My husband Don Peltier and myself - Jane Peltier approve of the variance Mr. Di Palma is seeking! We do not object to it! We have known Mr. Di Palma since 1984, and have found him a very good neighbor. We also agree with him as he is trying to fix his home better! Thank you, Jane Peltier" And from Stephen Lynn, Star Route "I am writing to verify that my neighbor, Mr. Mike Di Palma, has been operating a "fishing charter business" out of his residence on Rt. 9L, Queensbury, NY since 1984. Furthermore I have no objection to the proposed addition to his residence. In my opinion, Mr. Di Palma's application satisfies the requirements to be granted an area variance. I suggest that the Zoning Board of Appeals confine itself to reviewing the application as submitted. The Board is obligated to consider only whether or not the application satisfies the criteria for granting an area variance. This must be done on the merits of the application as a basis of fact. It cannot allow itself to be influenced by supposition from anyone as to what the addition may or may not be used for. Very truly yours, Stephen J. Lynn" MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets move the application. Any further thoughts? MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't know. Does that change anybody's mind? MR. THOMAS-Well, I'm under the impression that if that it's his residence. he can do that, but if stipulate that he won't use it as a business, Board approval, I would go along with that. he wants to claim he also wants to wi thout Planning MR. TURNER-That's fine. Yes. You know where it all stems from. MR. DI PALMA-I know the problem. MR. TURNER-Okay. I don't have a problem, as long as he wants to say it's residential. that's fine, if he doesn't want to use it for a business. MR. CARVIN-I don't see how you can enforce that. I really don't. - 10 - MR. TURNER-You're not going to enforce it. MR. KARPELES-Don't see how you can enforce what? MRS. EGGLESTON-The part about putting a stipulation in there, about no business without site plan approval? MR. CARVIN-Right. I mean, and in the back of my mind, there was a conversation, I think that's how he got started is that people would come up and visit him, and he'd take them fishing. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-He's going to need site plan anyhow, no matter what. MR. TURNER-He's got to go to site plan, because that's the procedure he has to go through. MR. O'CONNOR-And you actually can't go to site plan without the variances. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'll go along with what Chris, I think that would be a reasonable solution. MR. THOMAS-If he has to go to site plan anyway. MR. MARTIN-Even as a residence, he's got to go to site plan. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why don't you make the motion, Chris. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-1993 MICHAEL DI PALMA, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Grant him relief from Section 179-13C of the Zoning Ordinance. I further move that we grant setbacks on the southeast corner of 62 feet 1 inch, on the northeast corner of 61 feet 8 inches, and on the northwest corner of 79 feet 1 inch, from the 100 foot requirement. The practical difficulty in this matter is that there is no other location on this property to place the addition without encountering a lot of difficulty. The applicant does have letters of support for his project. I do not see any detrimental effect on the district or neighborhood, and there are no effects on public facilities and services. That the proposed addition is to be used strictly for residential unless changed by site plan review by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 1993, by the following vote: MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Chairman, before we vote, Fred had a point. MR. CARVIN-Well, in my conversation, here, with Joyce, I just said that I can't really support this motion, and I'm not quite sure it's approp for me to make comments just before the vote, but I feel there will be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood by granting this, because it is an unenforceable situation. That's essentially my feeling in the matter. MRS. EGGLESTON-By expanding the use, there'd be more people, more traffic, more fighting over right-of-way type of thing. MR. TURNER-There's not going to be too much more. It's only 14 by 16, 224 square feet more. I can understand where Fred's coming from, and I appreciate his remarks, because I almost fell in line with him on that, but if he wants to stipulate that he's, if he wants to expand his business, he's got to go through site plan review. He's doing it now anyway. - 11 - ',-- HR. CARVIN-I still fall back on that this is a self-imposed hardship. and that this is an expansion of a business. and nothing against Hr. Di Palma. but I mean. just reading the minutes here. the man changes positions just about as quickly as the situations evolve. and I'd say it's a residence. too. and then all of a sudden I'd have 500 people drop in and they'd just happen to tip me $500 a piece to go fishing. I mean. now it's still a residence. It's not a business because they left me a tip. Now. I mean. either the guy's got a business there. or he's got a residence. I mean. that's my feeling on the case. So. I mean. again. this should have been brought up during the discussion. We're in the vote process. HR. TURNER-We're not in the vote process yet. We're still discussing it. I can understand Mr. 0' Connor's remarks. in reference to going to site plan. and even though a variance is required from the setbacks. I might rather say that he go through site plan first. and see if he can get the expansion. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. Item Number Two of our area variance says. whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant. MR. MARTIN-The Planning Board can't act on a nonconforming situation. HR. O'CONNOR-The Planning Board cannot give permission to expand. if a variance was required for the expansion. The proper procedure is to get the dimensional permission from this Board. and then if it's going to be used for a use that requires a site plan review. to go to the Planning Board. The applicant here is saying that it will not be used for business purposes. It will be used for residential purposes. I f he is in violation of that he is in violation of his right to Certificate of Occupancy. his right to use it. and is restrained by the Town. I think. and I'm not fully familiar with all the history here. but once before the applicant in this particular application was told that he was possibly in violation of a Town regulation by leaving from a dock with people under charter. He then changed his mode of operation so that he no longer did that. and brought himself into compliance on a voluntary basis. simply by that being brought to his attention by the Town. He is not somebody who has flaunted himself at the Town. or the importance of procedures of the Town. In fact. his background is in fact enforcement. He was in a police agency for some number of years before he retired. I think you've got to give him the faith and credit of his application. and you can't presume that he's going to violate the law. if you give him the permission to build the expansion. The question also. and I'll raise it. take issue to whether or not this is self-created or not. This is an area variance. it doesn't make any difference. Self-created hardship is only a bar of a use variance. not an area variance. and that's clear. If I'm wrong. correct me. MR. TURNER-Okay. The motion's been made and seconded. Any further discussion on the motion? AYES: Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Karpeles. Mrs. Eggleston MR. TURNER-It's denied. MR. O'CONNOR-Because the motion was denied to approve. you're going to say that the motion is deemed to have been denied. or the application is deemed to have been denied? MR. TURNER-The application is denied. MR. O'CONNOR-Without any findings of fact or anything as to why it was denied? - 12 - -=--- MR. TURNER-I think the discussion relates to the application pretty well. So I guess you're going to have to take it from there. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm just asking you because your denial is going to automatically fail on that basis alone. You have to support that. I'd just as soon not playa lot of games and waste a lot of tax payers money on the Town being defended in something they can't defend. Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 99-1993 HC-1A HOLLY WHEELER K.D. WHEELER CUSTOMER SIGNS OWNER: LEO F. SWIFT WILLEY CREEK CO., INC. ROUTE 9. LOG JAM FACTORY STORES ON RIGHT HAND SIDE JUST BEFORE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A FREESTANDING. DOUBLE-FACED EIGHT FOOT THREE INCH BY SEVEN FOOT FOUR INCH (8 FT. 3 IN. BY 7 FT. 4 IN.) SIGN THIRTY (30) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND SIXTY-TWO AND FIVE TENTHS (62.5) FEET FROM THE CENTER OF ROUTE 9. WITHIN THE FREESTANDING SIGN. APPLICANT PROPOSES A THIRTY-SIX INCH BY SEVEN FOOT FOUR (36 IN. BY 7 FT. 4 IH.) PANEL WHOSE COHTENT WOULD BE THE NAME OF ONE OF THE PLAZA OCCUPANTS. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 140-6B(3)(d) WHICH ALLOWS ONE (1) FREESTANDING SIGN DENOTING THE NAME OF THE SHOPPING CENTER ONLY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 11/10/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 36-1-34.3 LOT SIZE: 4.56 ACRES SECTION 140-6B(3)(d) HOLLY WHEELER. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Sign Variance No. 99-1993. Holly Wheeler/K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs. Meeting Date: November 17. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Log Jam Outlets. Route 9 (Million Dollar Half Mile) SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant proposes to install a freestanding. double-faced eight foot three inch by seven foot four inch (8 ft. 3 in. by 7 ft. 4 in.) sign thirty (30) feet from the property line and sixty-two and five tenths (62.5) feet from the center of Route 9. Within the freestanding sign. applicant proposes a thirty-six inch by seven foot four (36 in. by 7 ft. 4 in.) panel whose content would be the name of one of the plaza occupants. Applicant proposes to remove the "Factory Stores" panel from the Log Jam Restaurant sign. CONFORMANCE WITH REGULATIONS: The proposed sign meets dimensional requirements of Section 140-6. There is an existing directory sign on the building. facing Route 9. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 140-6B(3)(d) which allows one (1) freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center only. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. ARE THERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE LAND OR SIGNS WHICH DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? The applicant states that. due to the configuration of the building. the tenant in the rear has little or no visibility. 2. IS REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND OR SIGN POSSIBLE IF THE ORDINANCE IS COMPLIED WITH? The applicant claims that the tenant in the rear would be at a disadvantage. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR PUBLIC FACILITIES? It would appear that this sign would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Other signs exist. via variance. which list tenants on a freestanding sign. 4. ARE THERE ANY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES? The applicant states that there are no alternatives. 5. IS THE DEGREE OF CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? Since the sign meets all dimensional requirements. it does not appear the relief requested is substantial. The revised Sign Ordinance will permit this type of sign. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Application was denied by the Warren County Planning Board based on the misconception that there was a Town Ordinance relating to signage and other issues related specifically to the Million Dollar Half Mile. which the Board thought had not been addressed by the application." - 13 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Is the letter in here from the Warren County Board? MR. MARTIN-The explanation's provided in their comments. MRS. EGGLESTON-And Warren County Planning Board disapproved with the comment. "The Board wi 11 re- hear without pre judice if it is returned. The recommendation of disapproval is based upon the proposal designed for the Million Dollar Half Mile that was approved by the Town and should be implemented." MR. TURNER-Okay. Holly. anything further? MS. WHEELER-I do know that the location that they wish to put the store is all the way in the back of the mall. I'm sure you're familiar with the building. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. WHEELER-It has been empty for almost a year. and if they can't. if they are not granted the variance. to put the tenant's name on the sign. that they will not have this tenant coming into the building. So. it will remain empty. MR. TURNER-Who was in it previously? Anybody? MS. WHEELER-Gitano was in there last year. I remember them being there prior to Christmas. but I don't know when they left. MR. TURNER-That Directory sign in the front. no room for that? MS. WHEELER-They're a small type mounted on the wall. MR. TURNER-I know they are. but I mean. when they came the last time. they appealed to us to have that Directory sign there because of tenants that were in there. because of the fact that the mall does lay on such an angle that you can't see them. and the Board went along and granted the variance. If you can't get them on there. they feel they're still compromised by the small sign on the front? MS. WHEELER-They do. especially because it's so far back. even from the wall mounted sign on the face of the building back there. You just don't see it. until you drive all the way back in there. MR. TURNER-Yes. well the Log Jam Restaurant blocks a lot of it off. from the north. MS. WHEELER-True. MR. KARPELES-Are those other signs that are hanging there. are they legal. like there's a small sign that says prime ribs. and another that says salad bar? MS. WHEELER-That's on the restaurant side. which is owned by a different company than this one is. I know they've been combined in the past. but they are separate properties. MR. KARPELES-It's the sign we're talking about. though. the same stand. right? MS. WHEELER-No. MR. TURNER-No. MS. WHEELER-No. What we're going to do is. the current sign looks like this. We're going to take the "Factory Stores" out. MR. KARPELES-Yes. Those. the two signs I'm talking about are the two little white ones off to the left. - 14 - - MS. WHEELER-Okay. This is a separate property owned by a separate owne r . MRS. EGGLESTON-But it's still the same sign. MR. KARPELES-It's the same sign. MRS. EGGLESTON-In general, it's the same spot sign. MS. WHEELER-No, it's not. whole different location. This is a whole new sign going in a MR. KARPELES-Okay. I'm confused. I thought you were going to rip out this one that said. MS. WHEELER-We're going to take "Factory Store" off of this. So it will just be Log Jam Restaurant. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. So where's the? MS. WHEELER-And then the new sign. MRS. EGGLESTON-Were you given a pink sign to post up there? MS. WHEELER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you have it up there? MS. WHEELER-It's on the building. MRS. EGGLESTON-On the building? Not where the sign's going to go. I didn't see that, though. MS. WHEELER-On the map, it's the next page over, the existing sign is here. The proposed new sign is there. It's a totally different piece of property. I don't know if at one time it was all owned by the same person, but it is not now. MR. KARPELES-It's a whole new sign you want to use? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-What was this one where I read they were going to take down the "Factory Stores"? MS. WHEELER-We're going to take "Factory Stores" off the existing one. MR. KARPELES-That isn't part of this variance? MS. WHEELER-No. We're just going to remove that off the existing restaurant sign. MR. TURNER-They're going to put new copy, different copy. MS. WHEELER-I have a sign permit for the top portion of this sign, where it says, "Log Jam Factory Stores". I have a current sign permit. All I'm asking for a variance for is to add this other thing to the bottom. I'm still not exceeding square footage overall, or setback, or anything. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is that going to do to all the other stores down through there? I mean, are they going to feel they, actually, the building way in the back is more visible than the ones on the side, because as you come up, you're looking straight in, and you can see that building where they're going, but the ones that sit facing this way, parallel to the Route 9, have much less exposure of the. MR. TURNER-What's the history of the building, other than just that - 15 - - one tenant being in there? MS. WHEELER-I honestly don't know. MRS. CIPPERLY-There was a sports clothing store back there at one time, next to the Gitano store. MR. TURNER-Yes. success, right? public hearing. So Okay. it has been occupied, but with not much Any further questions? I'll now open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ED MOORE MR. MOORE-My name is Ed Moore. I'm an owner of French Mountain Commons Outlet Center, and a resident of Queensbury. I'm opposed to the sign variance because about two years ago, the Lake George Plaza also came before the Board, the Board that was here at that time. for a variance on the Anne Klein store. That was turned down for similar type things. The thought was that you couldn't see the store without direct signage on the main billboard. It was turned down because there's a law right now. is that anything more than three stores in a plaza would turn over to just the main sign of the plaza and the sign for on the building. As you addressed, all of those signs are popping up here and there already. The Route 9 Plaza. as Jim Martin will testify to, several times during the summer. all of a sudden. people come up and they put signs allover the place. I, too. would like to. at my Center. put the name of a nice strong tenant on the front of my building. It would help me. You can't see all of my stores on my Center. You can't see everyone of them. the way the building is situated. and for that reason, aesthetics also. the law is set up so that. you come down the road. you see the name of the plaza. You pull into the plaza. and then you look for the store you wish to go to. You grant a variance for here, I'm going to be in here next week for a variance. too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. MR. TURNER-I know you are. MR. MOORE-And I'm sure Mr. Kenny from the Adirondacks is going to be here, and I'm sure Lake George Plaza's going to be in here again. We all have a similar complaint. I understand the sign committee has before. has come up with a new Ordinance which they'd like to bring before the Town and change the whole Ordinance so we could put signs on there. within the parameters of the 50 square feet. If the Town approves that on a public hearing. so be it. Lets do it. I wouldn't vote for it. but if that's the case. but I don't think these individual variances should get. it's already becoming a hodge podge, and I'm against it. To answe r your questions as far as other tenants that were there, there was Gitano. There was the sports place. There was a dish place there. and they didn't go. The tenants went bankrupt. It had nothing to do with that particular store. The company of ten or fifteen stores. twenty. thirty stores. went bankrupt. There's no question, it's not a good location. They can do like Anne Klein did. They have that little sign there that says, Anne Klein. follow the arrow, a directional sign. That's permi tted. There are other avenues to go. I sympathize with them. but I think it shouldn't move forward. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. DAVE KENNY MR. KENNY-My Outlet Mall. not clear on. like to know name's Dave Kenny. I'm the owner of the Adirondack I guess there's a few things in the application I'm One is, the 62 feet from the center of Route 9. I'd how far it is from the property line. - 16 - MR. TURNER-The property line. yes. MR. KENNY-That's what the Ordinance states. Two. I guess there is some question on ownership. where the sign is going to be located. She had mentioned two owners. and five or six years ago. when the Log Jam originally came before the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. to get the mall approved. and I don't know what the, I'm not sure. but one of the things was signage. at that time. At that time. it wasn't going to be a major problem. because the Log Jam Restaurant and the Log Jam Mall was owned. they were partners. They share parking. They share some other things. They're lacking on a lot of the parking. They got approvals because the restaurant was contiguous. and I believe at that time it was stated that. the Log Jam Restaurant and the Log Jam Mall all in one location. right here. on site plan review. If they're going to change all that. I don't have a problem with that. I think they've got to go back for site plan approval. I don't know if they have to or not. I really don't know. but my understanding is the Log Jam Mall just got sold again. in the last two weeks. MR. TURNER-So are you saying that the guy that signed this application might not be the owner? MR. KENNY-I don't believe so. with new owners coming. the Log Jam Restaurant sold. It used to be owned by Roy Tonneson. Now it's owned by David White. So all of a sudden. you've got new owners. I think the whole case should be possibly reviewed from the site plan. to see what is allowed on that whole site. because as new owners come in. they're going to say. you know. if this sign goes uP. and I don't know where it is. because it's not shown anywhere. but it's going to block the Log Jam Restaurant sign. I'm assuming it's going to be before the driveway cut. before the driveway cut? MS. WHEELER-You know where the three flag poles are in front of the building? MR. KENNY-Right. it's going to be there. MS. WHEELER-It's going to be right next to one of the flag poles. MR. KENNY-And. I mean. I don't have a problem with that. but I don't know how it's going to effect the Log Jam Restaurant. but I think that was stipulated in site plan approval back then. it was going to be the one sign in that location. They didn't need two signs. one for the restaurant and one for the mall. They were both the same name. Are you going to change that at all? I don't know. I don't have the record. Jim. but I remember that when I came up. because they sought relief from the parking. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KENNY-I think Ed raises a point. I don't believe there's any variances for freestanding signs on that road. that I'm aware of. MR. TURNER-No. MR. KENNY-I don't believe there are. MR. MARTIN-Freestanding? Dunham's just got one. MR. KENNY-Not a variance. Dunham's are allowed three. aren't they? MR. MARTIN-No. They had their variance from this Board just earlier this year. the freestanding signs with the tenant names on it. MR. TURNER-With the tenant names on it. but they were granted that before this year. Yes. They came for the sign on the other side. on 149. and we told them no. They have a variance for the package sign on the road. but that wasn't this last year. That was three - 17 - or four years ago, five years ago, probably. MR. MARTIN-That's right. MR. TURNER-Because they came for a variance for a sign on the building on 149. MR. KENNY-I guess if you read the Ordinance, they're allowed three, is three or less stores, you don't need a variance. MR. TURNER-Three businesses is a shopping center, three or more is as shopping center. MRS. EGGLESTON-And at one time there was not three in there, was there? I think that was, so maybe when they put them up like they did. MR. MARTIN-There's three in there now. MR. KENNY-There's four in there now, but my only thing is you did have the problem with the Lake George Plaza, and my question would be, you know, the freestanding sign is, every tenant up there would love to have a freestanding sign right on the road. MR. TURNER-I don't know. You were here when they did the variance on the Directory sign. I was just looking through the minutes, but I thought they indicated to the Board at the time they wanted the Directory sign that they wouldn't go for a freestanding sign if they got the Directory sign, and the minutes are kind of sketchy, and they don't indicate anything that I've read yet. MR. KENNY-They wanted the Directory sign at that time because all the tenants wanted to have something, because again, what we have up there is an awful lot of foot traffic. People walk from Adirondack Outlet Mall along the parking lot. They see those signs right out there without walking all the way down the back. The Directory sign I would like to see is all have smaller Directory signs, customer service thing. MR. TURNER-Well, they claim they can see them from the road, too, going by with their car. MR. KENNY-The problem I have is, if they get it, every tenants going to want it, and if it's allowed, if you wanted to allow it, I don't have a problem with that, but then I think the law should be changed, one tenant, what's to say I can't come in and say, I want two tenants out on the road, wi thin the parameters of 50 square feet. MR. TURNER-I'm going to say the same thing I said before. When you go up there, you go up there to shop in those plazas, you drive your car in there, you park it there, you walk around. You know what's there. You look in every store. Usually women look in every store, and we tag along. MR. KENNY-One of the things I would like to see up there, if a sign person came before the Board with like ten square foot nice signs for each property, that had the map of the whole, so that if you were in front of mY Center, you would see what stores are across the street, what stores are at the Log Jam, some type of Directory so that if somebody was there, but it's done very nice ly, that would be a tourist information thing, and then people would know where all the stores are, instead of going looking for them. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I've got to go right back to Ed's remark that he made, that those are mostly factory outlet stores in there, and they go under, they take 15 or 20 stores with them, they're going to take some of those stores that are up there, and that's what happened. - 18 - MR. KENNY-Well. what happened with the Log Jam, with the two tenants that were up there. did not leave the Log Jam because of poor location. MR. TURNER-No. that's what I'm saying. MR. KENNY-They left because they went out of business. I mean. they didn't close the Log Jam. Gi tano closed about 60 stores across the Country. I will agree with Holly. it's a very poor location. Visibility is poor. and the tenant back there probably does need some type of relief. I just don't know on a freestanding sign. I would also like to see. where the sign is located. and where the property line is. MR. TURNER-Well. it'll have to conform to the Ordinance. 50 at 15. and 64 at 25. MR. KENNY-At 25 from the property line? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KENNY-Right. I don't know where that is. MR. TURNER-No. but I mean. that's the way you go. because there's no variance for that anyway. MR. KENNY-Right. There's no variance requested. MR. TURNER-But it'll be stipulated. MR. KENNY-And I guess my other question would be. if this sign is approved. be it by. I guess I'm a little. if I come in and go to site plan review. and get site plan approval. in order to change site plan approval. do I have to go back and have it approved. even if it's just a. on the site plan approvals. you have to locate your signs. and show them what you're doing. Now. three years later. I want to put a new freestanding sign uP. should they have to go back for site plan approval and get that sign approved. or can the Building Department just issue another permit? MR. TURNER-I'll let Jim answer that. first. MR. MARTIN-If it was expressly in the resolution of the site plan. I'd say they'd have to go back in front of the Planning Board. Often times they're not. The other thing is. in this situation. if you had a combined property. you had. essentially. two businesses on one property. MR. KENNY-Well. it wasn't combined. It was separate. It's always been separate. MR. MARTIN-And it was in the site plan that they would share a sign. you're suspicious that it was? MR. KENNY-I'm not sure. sharing other things. They were sharing parking. They were MR. MARTIN-If it was expressly said in the site plan approval. then I would say they'd have to get a modification from the Planning Board. too. MR. KENNY-And my concern is more now we have new owners come in. and all of a sudden. David White comes in and says. wait a second. That sign's blocking my sign. His Log Jam sign is very visible. this sign goes in front of his. and it's 64 square feet. and his sign's 30 feet behind it. and I don't know. It's just a legal problem. Sometimes these things fall through the cracks because you don't know what was done in the past. and that's my only question. I don't have a problem with it. - 19 - '- MR. MARTIN-If it's expressly in the site plan, then it has the weight of law, but if it's not, then I think the Ordinance would kick in. You have two separate lots here, two separate businesses. I'm not prepared to answer that question tonight, about the site plan, if the approval would include that or not. I don't know. MR. KENNY-But those are some of the questions I had. very much. Thank you MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard, on the application? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-All right. Any discussion? MR. CARVIN-I think we've got a couple of interesting challenges here. The first is, I think we addressed it before the meeting, is the applicant and the owner. Now there's been some question whether we've got a proper application here. MR. MARTIN-I asked Paul about that, because Joyce asked me the same question. A sign contractor, in this case, like the sign contractor can be the applicant. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but we have an owner that's in question now. MR. MARTIN-I don't know about that. MR. CARVIN-Yes, we don't, either. MS. WHEELER-I've been dealing with a gentleman at Willey Creek who's name is Steve Warner. When I faxed him the papers and then mailed him the papers to sign, he sent them back with the signature you see. I don't know if the mall has been sold or not, other than what this person has told me. MR. MOORE-The mall has been sold. We just got some information mailed to us in that regard. This is one of the malls that Willey Creek, the Corporation, owns, and they sold, I believe, eight or nine of their complexes to a factory outlet store. I think Factory Outlets of America or something like that. I don't think the papers have been signed or anything like that. So I don't think, actually, I think this is probably very young, but this is under that applicant's name. Whether it would be sold, actually papers signed, in three months or six weeks, I think the application is probably correct. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MS. WHEELER-And as to the distance of the setback, on the map, way down at the bottom left hand corner, it is marked. Sue drew this nice little map for you, and from the middle of the line, middle of the road is really small. The middle of the road to the curb is 20 feet. From the curb to the edge of the sidewalk is 12.5 feet, five foot of sidewalk, and then from the edge of the sidewalk to the first sign post is 25 feet. So I definitely need the setback, and obviously I think it would look better to put the tenant's on the sign than to have all these little directional signs here there and everywhere with arrows, which they don't even have to have a sign permit. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? MR. THOMAS-The only thing I'm thinking about is that Steinbach application we had, and we turned that down, for the same reasons that it looks like Mr. Moore and Mr. Kenny said, that if we grant this one, there's going to be an avalanche in here. MR. TURNER-Absolutely. - 20 - MR. THOMAS-And the idea I like is the one we did on Miller Hill. where we put every occupant's name on the sign. but it fit within the signage. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's what the sign committee's trying to work towards. but it isn't. MS. WHEELER-This is wi thin the square footage. exceeding the overall allowed square footage. This is not MR. THOMAS-Yes. but the thing of it is. if Levi's goes in there. what's going to say that Bannister and the rest of them. well. Levi's has got theirs out there. I want mine out there. too. MS. WHEELER-The Log Jam will get much smaller. MR. THOMAS-Real small. but then again. like I said, Mr. Moore and Mr. Kenny will be in here. the same thing. MS. WHEELER-There was a variance granted for Dunham's. and also for the Route 9 Mall. wasn't there. the one next to it? Pat's Diner. and? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I forget what we did on that. MS. WHEELER-There was a variance for that. because they have tenants names on the. MR. TURNER-They have their tenants. yes. and the thought there being. again. it's the same reason. way back. and that was my comment at the Sign Committee meeting. Those people are way back away from the road. and you're by them before you even see the. notice that they're there. but again. I think there has to be a limit as to how many can be on there. even though it's the square footage. there should be a limit. There should be a cut off some place. or not have any. Just let them have the freestanding sign like it is now. because again. I say. when you go there to shop. usually the people that come there. they shop in every store. they go in every store in the place. The person that goes there and shops goes in every store. I mean. just out of curiosity. even if they don't buy anything. They want to see what they've got. and the hardship on this store is the fact that the tenants who were there were part of business that went out of business. and that's not a hardship on a store. That's just a fact of life. Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 99-1993 HOLLY WHEELER K.D. WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: Applicant is seeking relief from Section 140-6B(3)(d). which allows one freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center only. Applicant was seeking to add an additional sign designating one specific store, namely Levi's Outlet By Design. There are no special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or signs which do not apply generally to the whole neighborhood. They're all built basically the same way in that area. so there are no special circumstances. I believe there would be an adverse effect on the neighborhood character. in that it would set a precedent and others would be requesting the same freestanding sign with additional stores denoted. There are other feasible alternatives. and the applicant has not demonstrated an economic hardship would be created by the denial of this variance. Dul y adopted thi s 17th day of November. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner - 21 - NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 102-1993 TYPE II SFR-1A JAMES & KATHY FLORES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 41 WINTERGREEN ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TWENTY-FOUR BY TWENTY-SIX (24 X 26) SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FOURTEEN (14) FEET FROM THE TWEHTY (20) FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIRED IN SECTION 179-20. TAX MAP NUMBER: 119-5-1.1 LOT SIZE: .46 ACRES SECTION 179-20 JAMES & KATHY FLORES. PRESENT MR. MARTIN-Joyce. just as a note. too. the number that is correct. on the front part of the application for this they cite the garage as being 24 by 22. that's the correct dimension. MRS. EGGLESTON-Twenty-two by twenty-four is correct? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-It said twenty-four by twenty-six. MR. MARTIN-Twenty-four by twenty-six is incorrect. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-She did our Staff Notes off of the site plan. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 102-1993. James & Kathy Flores. Meeting Date: November 17.1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 41 Wintergreen Road SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a twenty-four by twenty-six (24 by 26) foot attached garage. CONFORMANCE WITH USEIAREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-20 requires a side setback of twenty (20) feet. Applicant is proposing a setback of six (6) feet. and is seeking relief of fourteen (14) feet. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING CODE. The practical difficulty is the location of the existing house and the sloping nature of the lot. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? This is the minimum variance needed to construct this garage. Since the distance between the house and s ide lot line is thirty (30) feet, any attached garage would require a variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear that this garage would be detrimental to the neighborhood or district. since there is a distance of at least one hundred (100) feet to the nearest residence on that side. and there is a wooded area to help screen it from view. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? There would be no effects on public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment." MR. TURNER-Okay. How long have you owned the house? Okay. MR. CARVIN-The Collette's lot, is that one lot. or two? In other words. do they own two lots there? MR. TURNER-Yes. they own two. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that the lot next to you is technically a vacant lot. and then the Collette's are actually one lot over. Okay. So conceivably there could be another house that goes into that. MR. FLORES-There's a circular type driveway that goes through that - 22 - -- lot. So there's no way to build a house on that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but I mean. technically. somebody could move the dri veway. and put a house on that lot. It would have to be a pretty desperate move. MR. TURNER-They'd be here for a variance. MRS. FLORES-Mr. Turner. I would like to offer. in support of our application. the consent signed by Don and Marianne Collette. MR. TURNER-Okay. Fine. else have any questions? That would be great. It's pretty simple. Thank you. Anyone MRS. EGGLESTON-We've had to do a lot of them. I think. in there. MR. TURNER-Yes. I'll open the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARIHG OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-A letter from "Donald and Marianne Collette. residing 45 Wintergreen Road. Queensbury, New York. by these presents do hereby indicate to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury. Warren County. New York. the following: 1) We are owners of a parcel of real property identified on the Warren County Tax Map as 119-5-1.2 which parcel is adjacent to the property of our neighbors. James and Kathy Flores. 2) We understand that the Flores have made application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the construction of a proposed garage which will be attached to their existing residential structure and located on the northerly side of the residence. 3) We understand that the side line set back in the Zoning District in which the Flores' property is located is 20 feet and that the proposed garage. if constructed. would allow a side yard set back of 6 feet. 4) Our residence is located a substantial distance from the common boundary between our property and the Flores' property and we are offering no objection to the construction and placement of the proposed garage and hereby consent to the extent that we are able to offer our consent to the granting of the area variance sought by James and Kathy Flores. November 16. 1993" MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further comment? None? Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE HO. 102-1993 JAMES & KATHY FLORES. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: This is relief from Section 179-20. which requires a northerly side yard setback of 20 feet in an SFR-1 acre zone. This would grant the applicant relief of 14 feet from that requirement. The practical difficulty is that it is a preexisting house which has a slope in the back of the lot. which minimizes their ability to place the garage in another area. This is the minimum relief needed to construct the garage since the distance from the house to the lot is 30 feet. This would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, and in fact we have a letter from their nearest neighbor, Donald & Marianne Collette. supporting their application. This would have no effect on public facilities or services. Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 1993. by the following vote: - 23 - "- -.-" grandma bought the property to the grandkids being able to upgrade the property and bring it into more compliance. MR. TURNER-Well, the whole thing will be up to code then. MR. BROOME-Yes. MR. TURNER-It would be a much better mobile home, trailer, all the way around. Does anyone have any comments? MR. THOMAS-Is this a double-wide? MR. TURNER-A double-wide. MR. BROOME-If that's the term you want to call it. premanufactured. It's MR. THOMAS-Does that sit on a foundation, or a slab? MR. BROOME-We're putting it on a slab. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. TURNER-Anyone else? MR. CARVIN-The old mobile home, the old single wide trailer is going out of there? MR. BROOME-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. No further comment from the Board? Okay. open the public hearing. I'll PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMEHT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. order. Any further discussion? None? Motion's in MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 105-1993 TIMOTHY & MARION MCKINNIE, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-26, Light Industrial 1A area, which requires a setback of 50 feet. That we grant relief of 17.74 feet from this Section, and also 13.39 feet from the side setback requirement of 30 feet. The practical difficulty is that this is a preexisting nonconforming lot which makes it impossible to site a double wide on this lot and meet the current setbacks for the Light Industrial zone. This is the minimum variance necessary. There does not appear to be any detriment to other properties in the district or the neighborhood. There appears to be no effect on public facilities or services. Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE USE VARIANCE NO. 103-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A/LI-1A CAR ESSENTIALS OWNER: GERALD & ROGER HEWLETT SOUTH SIDE OF DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CREATE A ONE AHD SIX-TENTHS (1.6) ACRE LOT VIA LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND UTILIZE IT TO CONSTRUCT A RETAIL PLAZA. THE NEW LOT WOULD BE BISECTED BY THE ZONE BOUNDARY - 25 - MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone have any questions? MR. THOMAS-How would you respond to the Staff Comments. the one that says, "While this particular project may be unique due to the split zoning. it would be a matter of concern if a trend developed. shifting land zoned Light Industrial into Highway Commercial uses. There is appropriately zoned land in the vicinity for Highway Commercial uses, and it would seem prudent to maintain Light Industrial use potential."? MR. MULLER-I guess I'd have to be honest with you and say that I read the whole thing. When I got down there, I thought it was like the language of given. up at the toP. and the language of taketh away, down at the bottom. It was like more of an instruction to you folks. and to planners. saying that. you know. this is kind of. like what you ought to do is take a look at these zones out here and do something about them. and quite frankly cutting a broad brush stroke and taking all Light Industrial zoned properties in the Town and changing it to Highway Commercial would probably be a bad move. We're only asking for one lot. I don't know why that broad language is there. Maybe SC could answer that. MRS. CIPPERLY-That's there because that was a concern of mine. and this Board is concerned about setting precedents and trends. and I thought that was worth pointing out. MR. MULLER-Yes. Every lot that you grant a zoning variance relief on sets a precedent. How unique is it that you can support the relief requested. I would hope that you don't have an awful lot of lots here coming here split zoned. because it's for sure that if someone comes and wishes to use this property for a Light Industrial use. and I, quite frankly. don't think that's compatible on Quaker Road. as to what's happening. Lets assume for the moment that they do. They're going to be here to get the relief from the other side, Highway Commercial. Got to be here. MRS. EGGLESTON-When was the property purchased? MR. MULLER-It's under contract. It's subject to getting an approval here tonight. and it's subject to getting approval for bank financing and even if you approve this this evening. it's subject to site plan review. MR. TURNER-Does anyone else have any questions? MRS. EGGLESTON-How many stores will be in this proposed retail plaza? JOHN GORALSKI MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you. the way the building will be designed. it will allow for the owners to lease the building in whatever sections people would like. If somebody comes in and says. I need 2.000 square feet. we can. it will be because it will be modular that we be able to do that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Like floating partitions or something? MR. GORALSKI-Well, yes. Basically the structure will be such the partitions will be built anywhere, but I would guess you're probably going to have one large store and maybe smaller stores. that type of thing. that that four MR. CARVIN-Okay. The plan that we're looking at. this meets all the Town setbacks and parking spaces and the whole nine yards. MR. GORALSKI-Well, except for the area variance. MR. MULLER-The only relief that we need is the one on this application and the one on the next one. - 27 - MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MULLER-Can I say one other thing. just to confuse you. We had a surveyor go out there. This is the most westerly corner of the property. right at Quaker Road. We went at the site and checked it out. and 18 feet of it is encroached by the Mazda dealership. Eighteen feet is paved. Even more than 18 feet is the hillside that goes down where they filled it in. John and I discussed it this evening. and we would like to propose. and I think it's still solid in terms of how we address this use variance. is that it is possible that our site plan review. when we go to the Planning Board. it will still be 240 feet of frontage on Quaker Road. because that's what Mr. Hewlett had promised to sell. but it may start at this point. which is actually 29.87 feet from the point that I'm showing you this evening. In reality I'm asking you. the zoning line doesn't change. okay. I'm admitting and saying to you that perhaps 29.87 feet is already technically being used for Highway Commercial. the sale of Mazdas. and we're not going to be able to use it. If we do get it. I'd be surprised. but it's all part of our application here. We want to just certainly take what is the Light Industrial section and asking for it to be Highway Commercial. whether we get the opportunity to buy it, or whether it is left and attached to the Mazda dealership. That's just good planning. You don't want to leave that slice in there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does that lot go all the way to the Dix Avenue corner? MR. MULLER-The one that we're interested in? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. MULLER-Well. technically. it will. It will not be joined. but the same purchasers are purchasing a building on Dix Avenue that will house Car Essentials. MRS. EGGLESTON-So. by still saying it'll be 240 feet on Quaker Road, you're just moving more towards Dix Avenue? MR. MULLER-More towards the intersection, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. between. So. what size lot does that leave there, MR. MULLER-How much frontage is left there? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-They're purchasing a building on Dix Avenue? MR. MULLER-Yes. It's the one that has P.J. Enterprises in it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Where Sager Spuck is? MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Jim. is there a culvert across the road there? Isn't there a swale right there next to Mazda? MR. GORALSKI-There is a culvert that goes. almost. it's on the survey. MR. MULLER-To try to answer your question. it was Joyce's question. right? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. MULLER-Here's the 29.87 feet. Add to that. MR. GORALSKI-You want to know what the distance is from the corner - 28 - to the property line. from the intersection of Dix and Quaker to the property line at this lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-What kind of a lot is it going to leave in there? MR. MULLER-It's presently 396. MR. GORALSKI-It's going to be approximately 500 feet from the intersection to what would be the southerly property line of this lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. MULLER-There's quite a bit of frontage. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. MULLER-So that when you look at this map, what I'm saying this evening is that it's possible. there is a strip here that's already been encroached upon by Mazada. and so. although we were showing it as this. it's possible if Mr. Hewlett can't solve that. we're going to be shipped over. and so we're asking this evening that this Light Industrial One Acre be. by variance. allowed to be Highway Commercial. That will accomplish that strip. which. in fact. is already being used for Highway Commercial. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MULLER-And we're not creating a new lot. by the way. We sat down with Mr. Martin and had a discussion about it. We are taking what. we end up with the same amount of lots that Mr. Hewlett bought. and we're basically correcting a line. shifting it. So. I had submitted an application for subdivision. We worked it out so that it's not a subdivision. We said if I end up with the same amount of lots that I started with. then I'm not subdividing. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions? All right. Let me open the public hearing. then. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion by the Board? MR. CARVIN-My only question. Ted. is that I know. didn't we just grant them relief over here on the other side? MR. TURNER-Yes. Earl Town. MR. CARVIN-Is this the correct line? For some reason, I thought it ran this way. but I could be all wet. MR. TURNER-No. I think that's the correct line. MR. CARVIN-In other words. this looks like there's a lighting district line. MR. KARPELES-Yes. district? What does that mean. anyway. that lighting MRS. CIPPERLY-The lighting district line coincides with the zoning line there, and the parcel line. MR. GORALSKI-Right. It just so happens that that lighting district line is the same line. MR. CARVIN-For some reason. when we were looking at this one. I - 29 - thought it ran this way. but that was a long time ago. MR. TURNER-Does anybody have any problem with the Highway Commercial versus. Mazda got approved. That piece of property that's owned by Roger Hewlett and the other property that was owned by Duplex down there was all zoned Light Industrial. and Dave came along they claimed. they made presentations to this Board on similar applications. and in fact had tried to sell this property for Light Industrial and had no takers. and that's why what is there is there. MRS. EGGLESTON-For myself. I don't have a problem with it. I think. like Mr. Muller has said, we're going to have a problem because of the split zone. whether you go one way or the other. I guess it's just a matter of whether you want to use up Light Industrial. or preserve Light Industrial, which is the. part of it. MR. TURNER-You've used it up. You've already used it uP. more than what's there, and you're not. this is a unique situation because it does split it right in two. and the character of the neighborhood is Highway Commercial. MRS. EGGLESTON-And with K-Mart coming, it's going to attract more Highway Commercial business. I don't have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-It seems to me. like everybody else has said. with a split zone like that. you're going to a lot of problems. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I mean, you know. even to the west of that, they've tried to develop it. for. MR. THOMAS-Yes. for Light Industrial. MR. TURNER-And it just never has taken off. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. MARTIN-The Master Plan. the only references made are. it says commercial development at major intersections along Quaker Road. It never gives the extent. or specific locations. MR. TURNER-No. Well. the general thought was, when that zone was established down there, they never did change it. It never was changed. only on that one side of the road. The one across the road was Light Industrial. before. by the airport. That never got changed. We left it just like that. and then we thought that since that was Light Industrial. to pick up some additional Light Industrial area we transferred it to the other side of the road. but it just never caught on. either side of the road. and the trend was to Highway Commercial, and that's what's happening. MR. MARTIN-I think the major shift with K-Mart and the presence, now, of 168.000 square foot Super K there is going to change the character of this intersection forever, and it's going to have an effect on the properties all around there. MR. TURNER-Right. MISS HAUSER-Now, if this application were granted. to these people. and they don't purchase the property, maybe they can't get financing. then would a perspective new owner have to? MR. TURNER-We can stipulate it that it's contingent on purchase of the property by the applicant. MR. MARTIN-Even if you don't do that. it has a one year life anyhow. If they don't do anything to act upon the application. then it expires. MR. MARTIN-I think the better way is to tie it down to purchase if - 30 - the property. If they don't purchase it. then you don't have to worry about it. It's gone. It still stays like it is. Because right on Dix Avenue, next to P and J Enterprises. is a bUilding for sale which was Northeast Welding Supply. That's for sale. It's been for sale. for well over a year. There's been no takers yet. It'll probably go some day. but it's the type of building that's not conducive to a lot of uses. MR. MARTIN-I think you'll see something happen right there at that vacant corner. the sharp angle corner there between Dix and Quaker. MR. TURNER-Eventually. yes. MR. MARTIN-K-Mart's going to break ground by December 1st. MR. THOMAS-What's going in on Dix Avenue there. on the south side of it? MR. MARTIN-That's AMG. the Industrial Park. MR. TURNER-Yes. that's AMG. Okay. Any further comments anybody? Okay. Motion's in order. Do we want to give them variance? Have they established the criteria? I think they Did anybody approach you for the use of that property as Industrial? Have you ever showed it Light Industrial? from a use have. Light MRS. EGGLESTON-Have you had any nibbles at all on it? SUSAN BALFOUR MRS. BALFOUR-For Light Industrial? MRS. EGGLESTON-For any. MRS. BALFOUR-Other? No. MR. TURNER-This is the first one? MRS. EGGLESTON-And how long has it been on the market? MR. MULLER-About four years. MR. TURNER-Yes. all of that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is the purchase price compatible with other properties in the area? I mean. it wasn't an exorbitant price. so that's why it didn't sell? MRS. BALFOUR-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. The only thing that really bothers me that they haven't shown is the fact that they've only shown it to one person. and it has been for sale. and Roger's not here to even answer any questions whether he showed it himself. Do you know? MR. MULLER-I don't. MR. TURNER-That's the only problem I have with it. He hasn't really shown, in terms of dollars and cents. that that is not a viable piece of property as zoned. MRS. EGGLESTON-But Ted. if he goes the other way and he sells it and gets it Highway Commercial use. he's still going to have to get a variance. One way or the other. there's a variance that's going to be needed on the property. right. since it's half Light Industry and half Highway Commercial. MR. TURNER-There's going to be a buffer. that's all. MR. MULLER-Lets assume that the Light Industrial applicant comes - 31 - along. He'll be here. as we are this evening. but asking instead for relief from the requirements of the HC-1A. and he'll be here with the following application because the buffer still applies. He follows the zoning line. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, so either way. MR. MULLER-So this lot. for sure. has that dilemma. These two variances. no matter who shows up here, whether it be the Light Industrial applicant or the Highway Commercial applicant. Now. I think if it's the Light Industrial applicant. that's a lousy plan. I'll tell you why. since you have a Light Industrial use between two Highway Commercial uses. MRS. CIPPERLY-Excuse me. Just to clarify a point here. The parcel that we're talking about, as far as marketing and things is. the only thing they've been trying to sell is that triangular parcel. This is a new squared off. MR. MULLER-No. They've been trying to sell whatever's out there. MRS. CIPPERLY-Okay. because it was my understanding that this square lot that you've created is a new. the one that's divided by the zoning line. MR. MULLER-It would be fair to call it a new configuration. It's not a new lot. It takes that sharp angle, that acute angle, and brings it so that there's a proper amount of road frontage. If a purchaser came along. and gave Mr. Hewlett a price. they would be able to buy from Mazda right to the point. It's for sale. MRS. CIPPERLY-Okay. I just thought that we ought to clarify what's been trying to be marketed. MOTIOH TO APPROVE USE VARIAHCE NO. 103-1993 CAR ESSEHTIALS. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Grant relief from Section 179-26. which is a Light Industrial zone. whereby the applicant proposes to create a 1.6 acre lot via lot line adjustments and utilize it to construct a retail plaza. The location of this lot as proposed does straddle two zone sections. Light Industrial and Highway Commercial. Because this lot is bisected by the boundary lines. the retail plaza would not be permitted in the Light Industrial zone. and it is this that I'm granting relief that the lot may comply with the Highway Commercial zone. Because of the unique situation of this lot. and efforts demonstrated by the applicant. the general direction of the neighborhood is Highway Commercial. that the granting of this variance is reasonable. I would also make the granting of this variance contingent on the sale of the property to Car Essentials. By granting this variance. there does not appear to be any adverse effect on the neighborhood character. and there does not appear to be any significant impact on public services or facilities. I have reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and find that there is no environmental impact. Duly adopted this 17th day of November. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIAHCE NO. 104-1993 TYPE II HC-1A/LI-1A CAR ESSENTIALS OWNER: GERALD & ROGER HEWLETT SOUTH SIDE OF DIX AVEHUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CREATE A OHE AHD SIX TENTHS (1.6) ACRE LOT VIA LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND UTILIZE IT TO CONSTRUCT A RETAIL PLAZA. THE NEW LOT WOULD BE BISECTED BY THE ZONE BOUNDARY BETWEEN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1A - 32 - AND HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL lA. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-23C AND SECTION 179-26C. WHICH EACH REQUIRE A FIFTY (50) FOOT BUFFER WHERE LI-1A ADJOIN EACH OTHER. TOTAL RELIEF SOUGHT IS ONE HUHDRED (100) FEET. OR ONE HUHDRED (100) PERCENT. IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THE PARCEL. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 11/10/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 110-1-2.7 TAX MAP NUMBER: 110-1-1.32 LOT SIZE: 2.69 ACRES AND 1.18 ACRES SECTION 179-23(c). 179-26(c) MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. with the comment. "Concur with local conditions." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 104-1993. Car Essentials. Meeting Date: November 17. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Quaker Road. near Dix Avenue intersections SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant proposes to create a one and six-tenths (l.G) acre lot via lot line adjustment and utilize it to construct a retail plaza. Tax Map parcels involved are Numbers: 110-1-2.7 and 110-1-1.32. CONFORMAHCE WITH USEIAREA REGULATIONS: Any use of this parcel would require a fifty (50) foot buffer on each side of the zone boundary; as described in Section 179-23C and 179-2GC. Applicant is seeking one hundred (100) percent relief as this would mean a one hundred (100) foot wide strip through the center of the property. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING CODE. There is no way to utilize the lot with a one hundred (100) foot wide buffer strip running through the center of it. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? Applicant is seeking maximum relief. which is also the minimum relief needed. There appear to be no other options which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMEHTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IH THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear that this variance would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AHD SERVICES? There would be no effect on public facilities and services. STAFF COMMEHTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Muller. anything? MR. MULLER-I would incorporate all of what I had to say on the earlier application as part of the presentation here. and ask for it's approval. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? None? I'll open the public hearing on this application. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 104-1993 CAR ESSEHTIALS. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by The applicant is proposing to create a 1.G acre lot via a lot line adjustment and utilize it to construct a retail plaza. That we grant relief of 100 percent of the 50 foot buffers that are required under Section 179-23C. and Section 179-2GC. Without this variance, there would be a 100 foot wide buffer running through the center of the lot. which makes the use of the lot unusable. Even though this does appear to be maximum relief. it is in essence minimum relief necessary to alleviate this practical difficulty. - 33 - By granting of this variance, it would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, and there does not appear to be any effect on public facilities or services. This is contingent upon the sale of the property to Car Essentials. Duly adopted this 17th day of November. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman. can I make a comment to the Board. based upon the typical thing. other business that might come before the Board? And it has to do with Mr. Di Palma's application. and even. I'll put Staff on a little bit of a limb. here. I just don't understand the justification for the denial within the provisions of the Ordinance that we have, that we're working with, and to me. it seems like a great waste of effort and time and money on everybody's part. The County Planning Board said it had no impact. Your staff reviewer says it has no impact. The Zoning Administrator has indicated that he knows of no negative reason for denial. You have. I think at least most of the neighbors. in fact. we talked on the way out. Claude Charlebois was here. because he owns 200 and some odd acres across the street from us. and didn't understand your basis for denial. although he didn't speak either for or against it. The other fellow with the application just before us owns the property immediately to the south of it. He was not one of the letter writers. I don't believe. He didn't understand the basis for your disapproval. The owner immediately behind us has a letter that apparently in the mail. It's not one of the letters that was read. I just don't understand it. Maybe even you got mislead a little bit by Mr. Di Palma saying that he has another residence. He does not have another residence, and I don't know if you understand that fully. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, Mike. I say maybe that's part what's wrong wi th this whole application. is that we have danced around 50 answers to about 10 questions. I mean. he changes his mind with the wind. MR. 0' CONNOR-No. I don't think he. he has a residence that he stayed in. in New Jersey. and he says it's his wife's residence. I said, your own private residence, is that your residence? He said. no. Is she your wife? No. I'm divorced. I don't know what he's talking about either, and I apologize for that. I'll ask him the questions directly that you have issues with. For the record I think it's clear. though. this is his principal residence. You're talking about 14 by 16 foot addition to it. In any imagination. I don't think it can change the character of the neighborhood, even if it were used for business. and we've indicated that we do not intend to use it for business. You are presuming, I don't know on what basis. that we're going to use it for business. That's not grounds for disapproval. I'm sorry. It just isn't. You cannot make that presumption. MICHAEL DI PALMA MR. DI PALMA-Can I say one thing. before any of these people write these letters. there's two people there. that neighbor that wrote to you about this lot two and before they said yes or no to me. write a letter. which they did. they said. Michael. are you going to expand your business and have more boats on your dock. have more people and cars coming to your house? I said. absolutely not. It's not going to get any bigger than it is right now. If it that's even big. which it isn't big. believe me. It isn't big. I'm not planning to make money here. I'm planning to retire and take up my retirement time doing this, and that's all I plan to do. and that room is not going to be used for anything else but my own - 34 - use. MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask Mr. Martin. maybe, as your professional advisory, if there really is grounds for your denial, based upon it being an area variance application. with the application before you, with the application being for residential use, not for business use of that 14 by 16 foot addition. MR. TURNER-I think you heard Mr. Carvin's remarks, how are you going to police it? MR. O'CONNOR-That is something that the Town. MR. TURNER-I'm saying, that was one of his concerns. MR. O'CONNOR-What a court is going to tell the Board is that if that is an issue, that is a Town Board legislative issue. It's not one that you can base a denial on. I'm sorry. MR. TURNER-It's not a Town Board legislative issue. enforcement issue. It's an MR. O'CONNOR-An enforcement issue, yes. That's not a zoning issue. MR. DI PALMA-If you think it's a problem, I have no problem with any member of the enforcement part of the Town zoning come and look at that room when it's done, or six months after it's done, to see that there's nothing in there that has to do with my business, except maybe plaques and fish mountings, and that's it. MR. O'CONNOR-My basis for making the comment is I'd like to see if you would reconsider your vote, and save me the problem of filing an Article 78, which I've been authorized to do, and which I'll do. A simple filing of the Article 78 is going to cost this man about $1500. You're going to get denied, or the application is going to get approved by the court, for many reasons, one, you don't have justification for denial, two, your denial's improper. I'm supposed to appeal your denial on the basis of you being arbitrary and capricious, and that has to do with your findings of fact. If you look at the Section of the Ordinance that says that you will deny, approve or modify applications based upon Town Law. Town Law says you will set forth reasons for denial. I don't even think you have, truthfully, basis for, you know, what am I going to tell the court you were arbitrary and capricious about? You voted against the motion. That's a procedure issue that maybe Paul Dusek has to take up with you a little bit. but I really think that there is not a basis, legal basis within the Zoning Ordinance for it. You may have some reservation as to the enforcement of it, but that is not the basis for a legitimate denial. I started this by saying sometimes I don't see the, enforced, and I apologize if I appear argumentative, but I think in fairness, you should reconsider your vote. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Turner, I know you said we really didn't want to set a precedent here, but I'd be more than willing to explain !!!.y position as an individual vote. MR. TURNER-Well, I think now, under State Law, we can re-hear an application. So I think, procedurally, the right way to do this, if the Board feels that they want to re-hear it, is the Board vote on re-hearing the application. We'll re-hear the application, and have a new vote. but what's done is done, right now. MRS. EGGLESTON-What changes, what has changed. a new law that just came out? MR. TURNER-It's a new law. They've changed it. The State changed it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because before we couldn't re-hear unless there was - 35 - a different set of circumstances? MR. TURNER-Yes. They did have it. and then when they re-did it. in '92. they took the re-hearing out. Now they put it back in. MR. O'CONNOR-There was no motion finally determining this application. You have a motion that was made to approve it. and the vote for two for. and four against, denying that motion. The appl ication. in honesty. is sti II on the table. The meeting is still open folks. You're not re-hearing the application. I'm asking you to make a final determination. if you will, with this application. I'm asking you to reconsider the affirmative application or motion that was made. Maybe there's some other stipulation you've got to stick in there. I don't know. It's not a re-hearing of the application. I asked Staff. and I said I'll put them on the limb a little bit. I said. lets talk about zoning. Lets talk about this Board. Lets talk about the Ordinance. I don't think I'm that out. MR. MARTIN-I would. at a minimum. recommend that you cite a reason for the denial. I think you expose yourself to a weakness. and I think Paul Dusek would agree with me that you should cite a reason for your denial. that you cannot simply deny. There has to be a basis. MRS. EGGLESTON-Can we hear the motion back? (Ms. Gagliardi read the motion to approve back.) MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. Ted. I'm somewhat confused. and maybe you can clarify it for me. Sometimes when we have a motion like that. and it doesn't get passed. we turn around and somebody will make one to deny. and that will get passed. What did not happen in this case? MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm saying. At a minimum. that should be done. All you have was a motion for approval. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's why. and I asked Ted at the time. should we have done a denial. MR. TURNER-She did ask me. MRS. EGGLESTON-So I'm still unclear if that's what we should have done. Then the denial would have said why we denied it. MR. MARTIN-You've got to make sure you stay along the criteria for an area variance. practical difficulty, impact on the neighborhood. MRS. EGGLESTON-Health and welfare to the neighborhood. MR. MARTIN-Amount of relief. maximum or minimum. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That type of thing. Your reasons should be grounded in that criteria. in either event. approval or denial. MR. O'CONNOR-The suspicion of lack of enforcement is not within that criteria. is it? MR. MARTIN-Not that I can see. MR. O'CONNOR-That's my point. It's like we were here looking for. if somebody was here looking for a variance a month or so ago and they talked about ownership of a road. and they. as the applicant. said they owned the road and they had a right to the road. That was challenged, and everybody said no. you can't challenge that. They've said that they have. We will grant the variance based on that. and we're saying, grant the variance based on the fact that we will use it for residential purposes. If it's other use. or if - 36 - the road ownership turns out to be different. the variance is void. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-The hard part for me comes with you keep saying, residential purposes, used for residential purposes, and I think. in my heart, we know it isn't. So that's my big stumbling block here. MR. DI PALMA-From listening to this this evening. I can look at you. and I can see where you're coming from. You're coming from that I am running a business. okay. and that this room is not going to be used for residential purposes. That's a strong letter you got from Mr. Bleibtry. but you have to have an open mind. MR. MARTIN-Lets get some things on the table here. bedroom house is this? How many MR. DI PALMA-Two bedroom house right now. MR. MARTIN-It's a two bedroom house. When's the last time that you had lodging in this facility on a commercial basis. in other words. you had a client in there. lodged and paying you a fee to rent that room? Was it both rooms? Ever? MR. DI PALMA-No. MR. TURNER-Did you rent the whole building to a client. to clients. or a client? MR. DI PALMA-A year ago last June I rented it. the whole house out to a family of ten. nothing to do with the guiding business. I rented it out like my neighbors do. MR. MARTIN-That happens all the time around the lake. I'm talking about in connection with your charter business, did you have a party in here where you offer them breakfast, lodging? MR. DI PALMA-July. the last time. I had day trips. Went out of the dock. went out and picked up people. took them fishing for six hours. and came back. The last time they stayed at the house was in July. and without my book. I can't tell you what weekend it was. They stayed there from. like, late Friday. They fished Saturday and Sunday. and went home Monday. That was in July. I did not have anybody stay in the house in August. I had friends stay there. The thing is. if I tell you now. it will be this use. I have four friends of mine. two couples. MR. MARTIN-Is this proposed room to be proposed as a bedroom. or a general living area/den? MR. DI PALMA-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-He already told us it's going to be his trophy room. or something. or his play room where he's going to keep his. MR. DI PALMA-I know you're concerned about that. Why can't you just come in and look at it when it's done. and I'll let you come back a year later. You can see what it's going to be. I don't have a problem with that. You don't believe me? I used to take the oath every day in court. I was never caught lying. I never did either. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-At the minimum, I would recommend you come back with a motion of denial. It's up to you if you want to reconsider it. but. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I wish some other members of this Board would - 37 - speak up. their thoughts. I've given mine, of why I gave. MR. TURNER-I think you've got to come back. I think you were right in asking me the question that you asked me. and I think I was wrong in saying what I said. and I think we do have to have a motion. MR. DI PALMA-Can I say one more thing? This is a mistake on my part. We dug out the foundation for the addition. without realizing there was a ledge there. so, won't dig it out. Then we have to get a building permit. not knowing we'd have to go for a variance. So we did. My water pipes for my well are now three foot off the ground. because it comes under the ground where it's dug out into the house. Personally. I wouldn't care how. but with the cold weather coming. those pipes are going to freeze. They're going to be wrapped. but not being under the ground. it's going to be touch and go. I'll be gone now from that residence for at least a week and a half. MISS HAUSER-I'll say something, Joyce. I'm totally confused. and I'm just going to read something. I'm going through the notes. and I'm reading a statement last week, or from last month. It says. Jim. may I say not only that in our testimony his neighbors. at that time. accused him of running a charter business and he adamantly denied he was running a charter business. They were pleasure boats. I don't know what to think. That's why. This was the last meeting. I didn't know what to think. So when it came time for me to vote. I said no. because I felt more comfortable saying no than agreeing to something that I couldn't agree to 100 that I couldn't agree to 100 percent. because I am confused. MR. DI PALMA-If I confuse you when I talk. problems enunciating. hit me with it. understand it. or this doesn't make sense. sometimes I may have I mean say. I don't MR. O'CONNOR-Why don't you state, for the record. what the nature of what you do is. because I think that's a question of confusion. You make the statement of what you do. that is what this Board will look to to enforce. if there's an question about it. MR. DI PALMA-Well. right now I'm allowed to run a charter, as I understand charter service off of my dock, because it's a commercial dock that was granted to me by the Park Commission when this neighbor also tried to get a friend's boat towed out. saying he can't have it there. I said. what do you mean I can't have a friend's boat at my dock? I wasn't charging them. MR. MARTIN-I've sat here for two meetings. and I've talked to you in my office. You run a charter business of such a nature that people either do one of two things. They either come to your residence here and leave from there. from that dock. and go off fishing, park their car in your driveway. and they go off fishing. You bring them back there. and they leave. or somebody calls you up and says. I'm at such and such a motel in the Village of Lake George. would you pick me up at the dock and we'll spend the day fishing, and then you, yourself only, leaves that place. picks up those people, go out into the Lake. fish, bring them back to their motel dock. and then you go back by yourself to your dock. MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Thirdly. he also will take people off the river. not related to the lake. and we'll meet them at his home. or meet them elsewhere. and take them to a river to go fishing. MR. MARTIN-All right. Now, part and parcel to that. if someone calls you up. because they've read your ad. and they say. yes. we'd like to spend Saturday night. go fishing all day Saturday. fish again Sunday. spend overnight at your extra bedroom there, and you'll cook us breakfast to boot. you'll take that person? - 38 - MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, is that a business? MR. MARTIN-That's a business. He's doing it for a fee. MR. KARPELES-Will this room be used for that business? MR. DI PALMA-No. MR. CARVIN-I mean, it's got to be part of the house. The whole house is the business. That's the problem. The house is the business. You're renting the house. MR. 0' CONNOR-What he's saying will not increase the amount of business that he presently does from the site now, by having another 224 feet of living space, which he can utilize as his own personal den. I don't know if I'm selling that or not selling that, but that's basically his presentation. MISS HAUSER-With a bed in it for his daughter when she comes and visits, according to last month, if I remember right. MR. TURNER-You're not selling it, because you've already said that we'll maintain that house as a residence for Mr. Di Palma, period. MR. O'CONNOR-No, no, Mr. Turner. I have not said that. MR. MARTIN-He said the room only. MR. O'CONNOR-I have said we will not use, the addition will not be used for business purposes, okay, but the house, right now. is legitimately a business. MR. CARVIN -Okay. Fine. When you add to the house, because the house is part of the business, you are expanding that business, is mY point. You can't separate the room from the rest of the house. Unless there is a physical separation, once you attach it to the house, it becomes part of the business. MR. MARTIN-But again, I think we have to stay along the lines, is there a practical difficulty here that he cannot overcome? Is there anywhere else he can expand this room off of this house? Is this maximum relief? Is this a detriment to the neighborhood, the physical expansion of this structure. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, with one person living in the house, if there were no business, and there's two bedrooms, he could make one bedroom his den, to put it simply. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's different now. That's different. MR. CARVIN-This is my point. It's not like he's got a wife and he's got 14 people. He's got one person that he says lives in the house. MR. O'CONNOR-Mrs. Eggleston, the question is not a personal question, because then if I come in here with a fellow who's got ten kids, he could have ten bedrooms? The question is, I'm sorry, this is zoning. The question is what is the property. That argument falls on its face, that he's a single person living, and he's got two bedrooms. He's not entitled to a third room. I'm sorry, because then, logically, if he's got ten kids, he's entitled to ten rooms, and I think, even yourself, you're going to say that that's not basis for a variance. We've got to stay within some of the court rulings of this thing, and if you're going to stick by your guns, stick by your guns. I think you're so far off. MR. MARTIN-I'm saying, and I want you to take my comments in the right context. I'm not saying this as an advocate for the - 39 - applicant. by no means. I'm just saying it as staff to this Board. I feel it's my responsibility to alert you to the criteria by which you have to judge these things and remind you of that. That's my only reason. MR. O'CONNOR-The old Ordinance had it in it. the actual criteria. MR. MARTIN-It used to. It was changed recently. the reason was so that it wouldn't have to be changed every time the State law changed, because it's changed three tim~s over the years. MR. TURNER-It's still practical difficulty. another way. It's just saying it MR. O'CONNOR-But it has to be the same findings of fact. MR. TURNER-I know. but I'm saying it's still the same thing as it was before. MR. O'CONNOR-I started to say. let me ask you this much. Do you really think 224 feet, one room. is going to change or have an impact. even if it was used for business? MR. MARTIN-The other thing that, is this is one story structure? He could go up a second story here and not have to come to this Board at all. and put on this same size. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-What is this? MR. O'CONNOR-That's the basement showing of the footings. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but that looks two storys. MR. O'CONNOR-It's not two storys. MR. CARVIN-Well, it's 7.9, and it's 8.1. MR. DI PALMA-That's because of the cellar. MR. O'CONNOR-That's because. that's the crawl space cellar in the back. It will be one story. MR. CARVIN-You're talking a foot difference. crawl space. It's not really a MR. DI PALMA-It's not going to be 7 foot 9 in. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Carvin, as I understood it. the back wall is 7 foot 9 in. The front wall is about four feet. You're going to go wi th the slope of the land, the rock that's there. They've excavated the rocks. MR. CARVIN-I guess I'm confused as to what this drawing is. This is a cross section. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Moores? That's a cross section. This is done by MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-The builder was here earlier. I asked him why it went on this end of the building. as opposed to the other end of the building. and he said because what they could do here is two foot crawl space in the front. and seven to eight foot wall in the back, foundation. This is not a good representation of the foundation. This is the level. It's not a two story structure. and if that's a question that you had. I certainly would stipulate that what we're talking about is a one story dwelling, with a crawl space - 40 - '- underneath it. One wall of the foundation would be 7 foot 9 inches. and the front wall will be three to four feet in height. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think really what's created this whole problem is the discrepancies in Mr. Di Palma's answers. I'm sorry if you think we're a bunch of bumbling idiots up here. but we have had. MR. O'CONNOR-The areas that you have questions, ask, and we will define it, if we can. MRS. EGGLESTON-It comes right down to this photograph. that drawing. I mean. that drawing is clearly a two story, and you're telling us it's not. MR. DI PALMA-You know. I've been before jUdges when they've had a real tough decision. You know what they did? They went out and they looked at the scene. and I wish somebody would come out and see the place. I know it would change your mind immediately. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've all been there. Mr. Di Palma. MR. CARVIN-We've all been there. MR. DI PALMA-You haven't been inside the house. though. MR. TURNER-No, no. MR. O'CONNOR-The drawing is not correct. Mr. Carvin. It represents a two story structure. The structure is a one story. It will be at the same level as the balance of the building. I asked a question whether or not he could build a second story on some other part of the building. and he said he'd have to change the whole use. It would not be as practical as trying to do this 14 by 16 foot addition on the outside. MR. MARTIN-But my point was that you could expand, you could put this same sized addition on a second floor, and it would not. you could get a building permit for that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. at more expense. MR. DI PALMA-If I was thinking of expanding my business. that's what I'd do. I'd add a whole bunch of new bedrooms up there. I don't want to do that. That's not my plan. MR. O'CONNOR-This is a real problem. and I got involved in it a couple of times. with the Glen Street Association. where you have the mixed residential and nonresidential use in that same building. It's a problem. I think the neighbors police it. and they tend to. if they have an overusage of cars that appear. if they have an overusage of people or whatever, they make complaints. I don't know. maybe Ordinance that gives you better means of enforcement than our Ordinance. I truthfully don't. and I understand where you're coming from on that point. but I think that's a condition of our approval. It's the same thing as the condition of the road thing. You either own the road or you don't own the road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you going to do are-motion? MR. TURNER-Yes. I think we're going to have to. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, I'll change my vote. based on the neighborhood approval. We had eight letters, people said they were. MR. CARVIN-Except that I'd like to point out that all of those letters were sent in after the original application, and as Mr. Di Palma has indicated. he solicited all those letters, and I'm not saying that you can't. I mean. he's perfectly within his right. - 41 - MRS. EGGLESTON-I think my second reason for changing my vote maybe is that 242 square feet. is that the room? MR. O'CONNOR-Two twenty-four. MR. TURNER-Two twenty-four. MRS. EGGLESTON-Two twenty- four, in all honesty, I'd have to be truthful here that it's not going to make much of a difference. one way or another. Whatever he's doing there now he's going to continue to do. I just wish that if the man ever comes back before this Board again, he can be forth right, stay consistent with his answers, and we will not be in this type of a hassle. It's your own. in my opinion. it's your own fault we're where we're at. because you have not been consistent in what you've said. You have changed your mind three times in one sentence. and to be truthful with you, it makes it very confusing. and frustrating. We don't know right from wrong. MR. O'CONNOR-I read the minutes. She's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-And I went back and read the minutes from way back before. and not because you're beating me down either. is not my reason for changing my vote. I'm just trying to be very fair here. It's like. if we keep going back enough, we'll get an answer we like. That's not my reason for saying. or doing this. I just think that two hundred and twenty-four square feet is not going to make that much of a difference that you could bring in ten people. as opposed to three. MR. CARVIN-And I can appreciate where you're coming from. I'm just going to state on the record my reason for the opposition is that. and again. I don't think you can separate the business from the residence. and a business in a residential zone. as it expands. it opens up the door for the next guy down the line to come in and say. look, he's got a thriving business, even though it's approved, and we let him expand it. why can't I put my business in there, and that's one of the criteria here, and I think that the letter from the Bleibtrys pointed that out very aptly. I mean these things in residential areas tend to grow. I mean, a business is. you start a business to grow it. You don't start it to go out of business. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me just respond in part, the type business that he has, by history, is a business that's run out of a residence, and it's a mama papa type operation. We don't have that type of commercial guide system, or commercial fishing system up here that generates somebody, maybe other than Ellsworth's. Ellsworth's runs charters out of their store, but they have a retail store. and purposely, the Town, within the last couple of years, put in this particular zone as a permitted use. a bed and breakfast type use, which is a permitted use under site plan. MR. CARVIN-Then I would strongly suggest that he comes back and applies for. or at least qualifies, I mean. he's advertising it as a business. MISS HAUSER-And last month he said, and it's rented to fisherman, snowmobilers. and hunters. So that's where he's coming from. MR. CARVIN-I'm just telling you where I'm coming from. MISS HAUSER-That's why we're so confused. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that. I think when he says it's rented to the se people. it's rented like a seasonal camp. I ike a lake property, and that's not what the primary use of it. That's an occasional use of it, as was shown, I think. by the income tax returns he submitted. MISS HAUSER-Right, but then we see the ad and it says it's - 42 - available for three day periods. MRS. EGGLESTON-That was ten years ago. That's kind of a difficult. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. you asked him for those to determine when he started this operation. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think that they show anything different now. MR. D! PALMA-No. they don't. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you know. Mike. in all honesty, I looked back at the records of when we had all the controversy over the charter boat, and there's no mention then. and this was like since I came on this Board in 1988. There was no mention then that he was renting out to lodgers and whatever. MR. O'CONNOR-But they didn't have any objection to it either. MRS. EGGLESTON-But the people had an objection to the traffic on the property. MR. DI PALMA-There wasn't any person that objected to the traffic. except one. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. one. MR. O'CONNOR-! still come back to. you're talking two hundred and twenty-four square feet. is it going to have, regardless of how bad you think it's going to be used, really a consequence on the site? ! think it. we say that it even, not withstanding the side. ! said the same thing before. I don't think it's going to have any impact. it would fall within the criteria of the requirements for granting an area variance that would prohibit his approval. MR. CARVIN-Well. do we want to give him this? MR. O'CONNOR-! think you've been very eloquent. with you. ! think that he has conducted residential area in such a way as to antagonize ! don't want to do anything to perpetuate that. and I still agree a business in a his neighbors. and That's mY opinion. MR. DI PALMA-Sir. I have to disagree with you. When you say. antagonize my neighbors. That's a real broad statement. MR. KARPELES-Well. ! heard a neighbor come here and he was pretty adamant about it. MR. DI PALMA-One man that moved in there. that when he bought his house knew! had a right-of-way through his property. Once he came in there. he bullied me. threatened me. ! did nothing, because of my position at the time. MR. TURNER-Yes. Wait a minute now. Hold it right there. What started it all was when you let Mr. Stevenson go down in there and use your dock for his charters. That's what started it. You had a right to that dock. a 100 square foot dock. and you had a right to that right-of-way. ~. not Mr. Stevenson. you. MR. D! PALMA-Okay. May! please explain. MR. O'CONNOR-Lets not get all. MR. TURNER-We're not. but he's talking about an issue that came up a long time ago. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. ! think your question is that the neighbor had other motivation here. - 43 - MR. TURNER-There is other motivation, because. MR. O'CONNOR-Besides objection to the activities of having people stay at the place, and I think that it should be part of the record. Who started what or where, I'm not that familiar with the history. MR. TURNER-Well, I am, but I'm just stating what happened. That's what happened. MR. MARTIN-Ted, might I suggest you re-read the resolution, call for another vote, and if it ends up in the same outcome, then a new motion for denial? MR. TURNER-I don't think we should do it that way. I think we should have another resolution, and do a vote on it, and then if it goes, it goes, one way or the other, that's the way it is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just so long as we do it right, so that, I don't want to cost the tax payers of Queensbury. My taxes are already too high, more money. I'm just saying, do the motion correctly. is what I'm saying, the legality of the motion. MR. TURNER-We've got to have substantial facts. If they take it to court, we've got to have facts to back up our side of the story. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what I'm saying. MR. TURNER-That's what we've ~ to have. That's what's necessary. Mr. O'Connor is correct in pointing that out. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MISS HAUSER-Tell us. again, what we have to base our decision on. MR. MARTIN-Practical difficulty, detriment to the neighborhood, and health and safety. and maximum relief. MR. TURNER-Is there an al ternati ve, does the applicant have an alternative to his proposition. MRS. EGGLESTON-And is it minimum relief. MR. MARTIN-And does he have an alternative relates to the practical difficulty, are there practical difficulties present on this site that he has no other alternative available to him. MR. KARPELES-Well, he has can build uP. upstairs. come before this Board alternative. an alternative. He said that. to get that. He can go up, right? He He doesn't even need to So he does have an MR. O'CONNOR-What's the benefit to the Town to make him go up with the more expensive, because you have to change the roof. that's the balancing act. MR. KARPELES-He doesn't have to come before us. and we don't have anything to say about it, right. MR. O'CONNOR-That's passing the buck? MR. KARPELES-AlI we're saying is he has an alternative. MR. MARTIN-And in any event. he'll need site plan. Even if he does go up, he's going to need site plan. MR. TURNER-Yes. Well. I'm stfll happy the way I voted on it before, as long as he wants to say that he's not going to use any part of that addition for any business. - 44 - MR. CARVIN-Well. let me ask you this. Ted. he has a group of hunters in. okay. and one room. does that construe a business? Does of the business, because a person, or does block off that room from the customers? Lets say he rents the. of them goes into that that now become a part he have to physically MR. TURNER-I think the standpoint from which this room can even remotely be considered an expansion of the business is if he makes that into a bedroom. If he simply expands the living area, and they cross through that living area for whatever reason. if he adds another bedroom, that's different. MRS. EGGLESTON-A den with a couch is a sleeping area. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but when he rents the house. he rents the whole house. Is that correct? In other words. you're only going to rent the kitchen. the bedroom. and this additional? MR. O'CONNOR-Renting the whole house is not a business use that's prohibited in any sense, that's the rental of property, the same as camps are rented throughout the lake. There are how many different camps around Lake George or Glen Lake that are rented on a weekly basis. sometimes less than weekly. sometimes more than weekly. That is not considered rental business. Whether the people swim or the people fish. whether they go from the property to shop. whether they go to the property to hunt. That cannot be considered a business under this. You're talking about when he is there. and he is providing a bed and breakfast type setting. A rental of the whole property is not a prohibited use under this Ordinance. It's not even a restricted use under this Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess the question, Fred. would in four fishermen and they're going to stay there and he's got two bedrooms. one has got to be his. stays. be if he brought a week with him. So one fisherman MR. MARTIN-That's why I'm saying. if you add another bedroom. then you do add capacity for this structure to bear more customers. MRS. EGGLESTON-Jim. do you think a den with a couch in it could not be a place for another fisherman to sleep? MR. MARTIN-I can't look into this gentleman's, I'm just saying when I look at these plans that come in. I have to take people at their word. If he tells me this is a den. then that's all I can accept. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but when we have a. known business going on here. and then, as I said. this is where the grey area is. I mean. the house is the business. MR. O'CONNOR-He also has a gun collection he'd like to put in the room and isolate it from the rest of the house. even by doors. Now I don't know if that's going to make you feel better or not. but that's part of the intention of the room. MR. MARTIN-Would it be something where we could do periodic inspections if you wanted to? MR. CARVIN-Well, are you going to waste your time? I mean, you're talking about tax payers dollars. I mean, we're not going to be knocking on doors just to make sure he doesn't have a cot set up, for crying out loud. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I think I'm going to stick by what I said. I said I'd change my vote to a yes vote. based on the fact that it's only a 224 square foot addition, and I don't feel good about it. Sometimes that happens, and sometimes you can't always maybe feel good about everything you do, that it's right or not. but I just think it's a minimum. It's not like adding another 1,000 square feet or something. - 45 - MR. TURNER-If he was going to add a big addition to it. then I think. I would say the same thing. I would vote no against it. but 224 square feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-And as far as the letters. Fred, you could go and ask anybody to write a letter for you. Yes. you can solicit them, but they're not going to write them if they. they'll just tell you take a hike if they don't believe in what they say. MR. CARVIN-Yes. but I think the interesting thing in all of those is that they all substantiate the business. MRS. EGGLESTON-Everyone of them. I don't think there's a question, but what there's a business there. but is that our. MR. TURNER-That's a preexisting, nonconforming use. MR. CARVIN-I'm not arguing the business. expansion. I'm arguing the MR. TURNER-That was my argument initially. It's an expansion of a preexisting nonconforming use. MR. CARVIN-It's an expansion, and when the next guy comes in and says he wants to start a business up there, or they want to expand it in a residential zone, you're going to have a problem. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? MR. MARTIN-And I wouldn't say Land Conservation is. I wouldn't characterize that as strictly a residential zone. not with the site plan uses that are allowed. There's sportsman and hunting camps. There's bed and breakfasts. That is not like an SFR or an SR by any means. MR. TURNER-No. Timber harvesting. MR. MARTIN-There's timber harvesting. logging operations. saw mills. MR. CARVIN-I guess I'd just be more comfortable if he'd come out and say it was a business, and it was a business, and then we'd look at it from an expansion standpoint, and do it that way. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. Chris. do you want to make your motion again? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I'll make my motion the same as before. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-1993 MICHAEL DI PALMA. Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Grant him relief from Section 179-13C of the Zoning Ordinance. I further move that we grant setbacks on the southeast corner of 62 feet 1 inch. on the northeast corner of 61 feet 8 inches. and on the northwest corner of 79 feet 1 inch, from the 100 foot requirement. The practical difficulty in this matter is that there is no other location on this property to place the addition without encountering a lot of difficulty. The applicant does have letters of support for his project. I do not see any detrimental effect on the district or neighborhood. and there are no effects on public facilities and services. That the proposed addition is to be used strictly for residential unless changed by site plan review by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 1993. by the following vote: BOB WHIPPLE - 46 - ~.,....--------- -' MR. WHIPPLE-Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, before you vote, will you re- open? MR. TURNER-I didn't really re-open it. All right. MR. WHIPPLE-I mean, I've been sitting here all night long. MR. TURNER-Well, then you should have spoke when I called the public hearing. MR. WHIPPLE-Well, no, I didn't have anything to say about that then, but I do now, because of what happened, and I am a tax payer in Queensbury like everyone else, and I just think that there seems to be some confusion. My name is Bob Whipple. My only comment is, having sat back there and listened to you folks discuss this whole thing. and I'm a disinterested party. I don't know this man or anything about him, but listening to this gentleman on the end here say he's antagonizing his neighbors, I heard one letter that was against, eight letters that were for. I heard Mr. O'Connor say that there was two people out back that own land next to him that had no problem with it. I would think anybody by any reasonable thought is if his neighbors, who live right there, don't care, what would you people care? I mean, what harm can it do, if nine are for, or ten are for, and one is against, if, in fact, this law that you're stating, and as he says the criteria is it a hardship, all these other things. I just think that somewhere along the line this whole thing got out of whack. MR. TURNER-It got out of whack because of the answers he gave us at the last meeting. MR. WHIPPLE-I understand that. I wasn't here for those, but I'm saying, just listening to you talk between yourselves, I own a piece of property down on Quaker Road. We just re-zoned the whole lot in 15 minutes, because nobody came, or nobody said yes. Nobody said no, but now we've got eight for, one against, and we say no? MR. KARPELES-There's a big difference. You should have been there last week. MR. WHIPPLE-I'm just going by what he stated today, what he wants to do today, and what Michael says he's doing. I say, I'm just mind boggled at the confusion. I thought this was a go. I'm sitting back there saying, wow. MRS. EGGLESTON-Sir, the people, in all fairness. the people who share the dock with him, who have a right-of-way, a mutual right- of-way, have a very lengthy letter. You weren't here probably at the last meeting. So there is a lot of things that. MR. WHIPPLE-Okay, but once again, I understood that that was the one letter that, and the other eight were for, and the two out here were for, and that was all. I just was wondering how this worked, and how it happened, and I felt after sitting here this long. I ought to, as long as you were doing it again, I ought to maybe have a little better idea what you people were thinking, because I care about what my neighbors think about me. I'd go with the majority, myself, if I was doing something. MR. KARPELES-Last week, the people that were against were here, came here in person, and they spent their time here, and they were very adamant, the way they were speaking. There were no people in favor of it, that came here, and were willing to spend the time to come here and argue in favor of this. MR. WHIPPLE-Okay, but they did take the time to write the letters, which takes more time, more effort. Okay. I have nothing more to say, but I just felt that I would like to say that. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. - 47 - AYES: Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin MR. TURNER-It's approved. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you for your patience. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner. Chairman - 48 -