Loading...
2000-07-19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN PAUL HAYES ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES MC NULTY JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT NORMAN HIMES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI USE VARIANCE NO. 51-2000 LI-1A RENALD J. DEVINE OWNER: RENALD J. DEVINE, CONTRACT VENDEE WITH GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK 49 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL USE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE ALLOWABLE LISTED USES. CROSS REF. 40-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/14/2000 TAX MAP NO. 112-1- 3 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-26 DAN MANNIX, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Would you read the tabling motion in. MR. MC NULTY-I don’t find a copy of that tabling motion. MR. STONE-Well, do we have one? Well, why don’t you read it from the minutes. MR. MC NULTY-We can do that. “MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 51-2000 RENALD J. DEVINE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: For 62 days, for the applicant to better prepare an application for Use Variance which talks to specifically for financial hardship and particularly self-created hardship and any other concerns that have been enumerated by Board members this evening. Duly adopted this 21 day of st June, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes” MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to excuse myself for the reasons previously given. Okay. We’ll ask Mr. Urrico. MR. MC NALLY-I’ll have to excuse myself also. I represent the Bank very frequently, and I see they’re taking a more active role tonight in this proceeding tonight. MR. STONE-Okay. We appreciate your candor. As I recall, and looking at the minutes, we never did open up a public hearing. We got hung up on our questions and your response, and so let’s pretend we’re starting from scratch, would be the easiest way. Obviously, our concerns are on the record. Why don’t you make your presentation. MR. MANNIX-I don’t have anything substantial to add, beyond the submission that Michael Muller produced, and I believe you all have a copy of it. I hope you’ve had an opportunity to review that before tonight. I believe it addresses every issue you raised with the prior hearing in order, and I think exhaustively. I have nothing further to add tonight, except to respond to any follow up that you might have. I see no reason to go through it each item by item tonight. Are there any questions that I can address specifically? MR. STONE-I would ask, if I may, that you read in the self-created hardship one, because we only touched on that the other day. We got more concerned about the actual financial information, or substitute therefore, and it’s on Page 10, if you would just read it in, so that we all can hear it at this particular time. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. MANNIX-Sure. The applicant believes that the self-created hardship is not an issue here, because “It is a fundamental rule of zoning law that a Board of Zoning Appeals may not grant a use variance to relieve hardship which was created by the applicant. (See Courtney v City of Albany Zoning Board of Appeals 177AD2nd 820 (1991) and Drake v Colonie Zoning Board of Appeals 183AD2nd 1031 (1992). The rule applies to prevent the granting of a variance to a person who purchases the land for an intended prohibited use. The rule ‘does not prohibit the granting of a variance to a contract vendee whose obligation to purchase is conditioned upon the granting of the variance. In such a case, the vendee is considered to be the agent of the owner, and the owner’s right to a variance is not diminished by his contract to sell.’ Quoted from NEW YORK ZONING LAW AND PRACTICE (3 Edition Lawyers Coop) Robert M. Anderson, p. 201. ‘[T]’he unnecessary rd hardship which will support the granting of a use variance must relate to the land, not the applicant owner.’ NEW YORK ZONING LAW AND PRACTICE (3 Edition) Robert M. Anderson rd quoting Hickox v Griffin 298NY365 (1949). A simple, straightforward and practical analysis of the pre-existing building, the pre-existing, non-conformity of the substantially undersized lot, the unusually narrow side setbacks and the fact that the improvements within the pre-existing building are small spaces that do not readily and economically adapt to all of the listed permitted uses should reasonably allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine that the unnecessary hardship truly relates to the parcel in question and that neither the current owner that obtained the premises by foreclosure sale, nor its contract vendee have in way “self-created” the hardship. A pre-existing 6550 square foot lot in a zone that minimally requires a one acre parcel in a substantial and critical matter that cannot be construed as “self-created”. Such a major deviation from the lot size criteria, although perfectly legal as a pre-existing non-conforming lot, readily impairs most if not all of the permitted uses which by their definition include larger spaces, open and exterior storage, movement of heavy equipment and large vehicles or the outdoor storage of materials for warehousing, distribution and assembly. Moreover, sand, stone and gravel extractions nor logging activities could not reasonably be suited to the site. Wherever an allowable use is designated as a permissible use and to the extent there may be some plausible expectation that the building could reasonably be put to such use, existing limitations or material inadequacies substantially impair such occupancies as a plausible use. For instance; offices are permitted if the facility is in excess of 10,000 square feet, an absolute impossibility on this site (based on the square footage of the site in question). An existing 1000 gallon septic system which is more than satisfactory for all of the uses to which the applicant propose to occupy this property could not adequately serve the permitted uses of a restaurant, a laboratory, or for that matter any of the permitted uses that might congregate dozens of people to this location including a cab or bus terminal, freight terminal, or television and radio station. The small size of the land and its configuration preclude all possibilities that the septic system could be expanded. Moreover, municipal sewer service is not available (at this site).” MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. MANNIX-You’re welcome. MR. STONE-Any questions on the part of the Board of the applicant, on this or the financial disclosure as put together by Mr. Muller? Okay. I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak against, opposed to this application? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see anything new, other than what we’ve received. MR. STONE-Was there any County? We probably read it in the last time, if there was. MR. MANNIX-I believe it was read in last time. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sure it was. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Are there any further questions of the applicant? Well, hearing none, let’s talk about it. This is a Use Variance, which, just to remind the people in attendance, we have four criteria, all of which must be satisfied. There is no balancing test when it comes to a Use Variance, and, having said that, let me call upon Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Counsel has some very interesting cases that he referred to, but I would like to ask you if your client did, in fact, enter into a contract with this financial institution to purchase this property at a substantially reduced value, with the knowledge that the property may have limited feasible uses? Yes or no? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. MANNIX-I want to make sure I understand your question. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll say it again. MR. MANNIX-I understand what you said. I heard what you said, I just want to see if I understand it. I believe that, I wouldn’t say yes or no to that question, because I’d rather use my own words, and phrase it as, yes, my client did enter into a contract to purchase it, and it was at a value that was reached within the marketplace, that’s a value that could be offered by a perspective buyer, and was acceptable to the seller, under the circumstances. MR. ABBATE-Would you agree that, as an able counsel, that you advise your client that there was limited feasible uses for this piece of property? MR. MANNIX-Under the current Zoning Ordinance, yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Where do you stand? MR. ABBATE-This is a self-created hardship, and as such I would vote against it. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, at the last meeting when we discussed this, I was in favor of a motion. The building and the property really doesn’t have any suitable use in Light Industrial that I can see. Being a contractor, it would be hard to use that as an assembly facility, without the added commercial boost. I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I looked at the property, and I also went through the Comprehensive Land Use recommendations made in 1998, and in this particular area, they suggest that the zoning permit flexibility for industrial and commercial uses, and it also goes on to say that existing buildings, if not currently successful as one of the uses that’s recommended, that it should be made available for an alternate use, and I think, given the circumstances of where this building’s located and what it can be used for, I can’t think of anything more suited to this area than what you are proposing. I do ask, where would you situate the off street parking? Where would customers be allowed to park? MR. MANNIX-We’re going to be addressing those issues, hopefully, at the Planning Board next week, but we intend on using the present site plan that was submitted by the prior owner before the foreclosure. There are two parking spaces out in front, and it is not contemplated that this particular business will generate any volume greater than that for customers coming in. There is existing space at the rear of the building for employee parking, and there’s space inside the garages underneath around the side for additional employee parking, and it’s my understanding there’s a limited number of employees, two or three, perhaps. RENALD DEVINE MR. DEVINE-Yes, me and my son. MR. URRICO-I would therefore be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Last meeting I was inclined to be opposed, and I had some real concern about whether or not this was a self-created hardship. As far as the current purchaser goes, I will agree that it’s still a self-created hardship, that he knows what he’s contracting for and knows there’s a limitation. However, I think the presentation that was made by the attorneys is real complete, covers all the points that I think that we could raise. It certainly covered the financial aspect, and, if I understand it correctly, is making the point that, in this instance, the potential purchaser is, in fact, representing the current owner, as far as the hardship is concerned. So looking at it from that viewpoint, I will agree that the Bank inherited this from a foreclosure. They had no control over whether they received it or not, and they’re due consideration without claiming that it’s self-imposed hardship, and therefore I’ll be inclined to approve. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be inclined to approve, based upon the fact of the scale of the operation that’s proposed there, and the fact that the building, the size and the constraints placed upon it by the side setbacks. It’s a fit for the building, and I have no problem with the balance of the uses down in that area of the Town. MR. STONE-Okay. I certainly, I basically agree with the majority of the Board. I’m concerned with the fact that we have to rely on anecdotal information, if you will, for financial hardship. Although I agree this is probably the best presentation that we have had for a Use Variance when there actually aren’t numbers, but I am, and I have to say, I wish we didn’t have to beg for it the first time. I mean, a Use Variance is recognized as one of the most difficult things to obtain in the State of New York. They’re not easy. It’s not easy for us, because all four criteria must be met, and I will talk about all four criteria. That should have been known by the applicant, whoever the applicant was, and while Mr. Sears makes an eloquent statement when he gets up here, I’d much rather see it in writing, ahead of time, so that we can study it. BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-Unfortunately, I didn’t know I was the applicant for that one. MR. STONE-Okay. Then we’ll let you off the hook, Mr. Sears, but it is necessary. I mean, lately we have had a number of situations, and you are not, I’m not singly out this applicant, where we have had to extract a lot of information that should have been forthcoming from the get go, if you will, and having said that, I do appreciate the effort that has gone into this particular research, if you will, in this statement, and certainly as far as financial hardship, I think you have proven that. The other three criteria that we must find lending itself toward granting the application, is relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? Obviously, this is unique. It is a small building that was constructed to build a permitted use in that area, and unfortunately, the person who had the variance, who had the business, lost the business. So the Bank now finds itself with a nice building, but one that makes it, it’s very difficult to use for a permitted use. So I think it is unique, and I do not think that granting the variance for this building is going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. So that’s three of the four, and the fourth one is the self-created hardship, and I, like a lot of the members here, certainly were concerned that you couldn’t make the point that it was not self-created, but I think the citations that you’ve made, and as an officer of the court, I have to assume they are the truth, as I do when I’m Chairing the Board of Assessment Review. Having said that, I am in favor of this application, and I’ll call for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 51-2000 RENALD J. DEVINE, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 49 Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to establish a retail use in a Light Industrial zone and requests relief from the allowable listed uses of the Light Industrial zone, Section 179-26. Addressing the criteria for considering a Use Variance, according to Chapter 267 of Town Law, can the applicant realize a reasonable return provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? I believe that the material provided by the applicant for this meeting shows that it isn’t really practical to use this property for any of the permissible uses listed for this zone, and they’ve provided what financial evidence that they could to support that, and in particular I’m referring to the presentation entitled “Premises at 49 the Boulevard, Town of Queensbury, Presentation for Use Variance of Premises, Tax Map Parcel 112-1-13”, and pertaining to the Use Variance No. 51-2000, application by Renald Devine, Claudia Devine, and they are contract vendees and agents for the Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company, which is the owner of the property, and the report was prepared by Muller & Muller, Attorneys at Law, Glens Falls, New York. The second criteria, is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? I believe that the hardship is unique, in particular because of the size of the parcel and the size of the building that’s on it. There are no other nearby parcels in the same situation that have the size restrictions that this parcel does. Three, Will the requested Use Variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? I don’t believe so. It’s a small parcel. The proposed activity is going to be appropriate for the location, and finally, Four, is the alleged hardship self-created? Given that the applicant is acting as a contract vendee of the current owner, it can be said that this hardship is not self-created, since the Bank had little choice in accepting this property ownership. Therefore, I believe that the applicant has met all four criteria for the granting of a Use Variance, and I move that we approve the request. Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go on the Use Variance. Bob, do you want to come back now, because it’s not the Bank for this next one. I think it’s not the Bank. It’s your call. I didn’t mean to make the judgement for you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A RENALD J. DEVINE OWNER: RENALD J. DEVINE, CONTRACT VENDEE WITH GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK 49 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REF. SPR 40-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/14/2000 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-3 LO SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 140 DAN MANNIX, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Read the tabling motion in, and then we’ll start from scratch. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution, “Motion to Table Sign Variance No. 52-2000 Renald J. Devine, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Because of the lack of consideration of this particular application for the Use Variance, we will table the Sign Variance again for 62 days, in order that the Use application may be heard and a decision made. Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2000, by the st following vote: AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 52-2000, Renald J. Devine, Meeting Date: July 19, 2000 tabled June 21, 2000 “Project Location: 49 Boulevard Description of Proposed Project: NO NEW INFORMATION Applicant proposes construction of a 30 sq. ft. free-standing sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance § 140-6B. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to install the desired sign in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 11 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self- created, as there appears to be compliant locations available for the proposed sign. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 8-1991 res. 2/20/91 Electrical Contracting CDK Electric SP 18-1991 res. 4/16/91 Electrical Contracting CDK Electric UV 51-2000 res. 7/19/00 retail use in Light Industrial zone Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed placement of the sign may present accessibility and sight line constraints on the site. Relocation of the relatively low (7.5 feet tall) sign to a compliant location West of the two parking spaces shown in front of the building appears to be a feasible alternative. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form, June 14, 2000 Project Name: Devine, Renald J. Owner: Renald J. Devine ID Number: QBY-SV-52-2000 County Project#: Jun00-24 Current Zoning: LI-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a freestanding sign and seeks setback relief for the sign. Site Location: 49 Boulevard Tax Map Number: 112-1-3 Staff Notes: The applicant wishes to install one 7.4’ x 4’ (30 sq. ft.) sign 4’ from the edge of the northern property line, 4’ from a private right-of- way to the east, and approximately 20’ from the pavement edge of The Boulevard/County Road 79. The applicant has indicated in the application that the business is not permitted either a wall sign or a freestanding sign under the code. A discussion with the town indicates that a sign of this size is permitted in the zone, but must be set back 15’ from the property line. Therefore, this sign variance request is for relief from the setback requirement. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed, Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board, 6/15/00. MR. STONE-Mr. Brown, did we neglect to do a Short Form on the previous application? We needed one, I believe. MR. BROWN-A Use Variance, that’s correct. MR. STONE-Yes. Can we return to that? MR. BROWN-I think you can return and open the public hearing and make that statement, whatever the statement is. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. STONE-All right. MR. BROWN-Assuming it’s going to be that you found no negative. MR. STONE-Well, we haven’t done it, we haven’t gone through it. MR. BROWN-You have to do the review before you can make that determination. MR. STONE-Yes, right. Let me return to the previous one, because I realize that we did not do a Short Environmental Assessment Form for Use Variance No. 51-2000. USE VARIANCE NO. 51-2000 LI-1A RENALD J. DEVINE OWNER: RENALD J. DEVINE, CONTRACT VENDEE WITH GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK 49 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL USE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE ALLOWABLE LISTED USES. CROSS REF. 40-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/14/2000 TAX MAP NO. 112-1- 3 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-26 MR. STONE-I will briefly open the public hearing, if there’s anybody that wants to comment on the environmental impact of this particular thing. Anybody wishing to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Would you go through the Short Form, Mr. Secretary? MR. BROWN-You may, after you make that determination no negative impacts, if that’s what you find, just reaffirm the vote on the motion you made. MR. STONE-Correct. Good point. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Part II of the Environmental Assessment, “Does action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NULTY-“B. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR Part 617.6?” MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Yes or no? MR. STONE-On B, yes, it’s got to go for site plan, right? MR. BROWN-Well, formal coordinated review? I don’t think that that’s been determined for this application. Each Board can do their own independent review. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll just say no. MR. MC NULTY-We’ll say no on that one. “C. Could Action Result in Any Adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NULTY-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources: or community or neighborhood character?” MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NULTY-“C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?” 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. STONE-Not to our knowledge. MR. MC NULTY-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NULTY-“C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. STONE-None. MR. MC NULTY-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1-C5?” MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NULTY-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?” MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NULTY-No. “D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?” MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NULTY-No. “E. Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NULTY-No. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Bryant: Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MOTION THAT, ON THE BASIS OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, THAT WE RE-AFFIRM OUR VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS GRANTING OF THE USE VARIANCE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Bryant: Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s go back to the Sign Variance. I apologize for that omission. We will do this again with the Sign, too. It’s yours. MR. MANNIX-The first thing I’ve got is an amendment to our application. We submitted a conceptual sign. Now we’ve had Mr. Ken Wheeler do a work up. The 48 square feet on the sign that’s before you now is still within the limits. I believe that 60 square feet is the allowable amount. What we propose to do is, this is, again, a very unique property, and everything that we’re proposing 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) is according to the Ordinance, except for that setback, and the problem presented is a property line. You’ve all been out there. You can see the survey mark in the soil, and we’ve taken some photographs. I’ll pass them along one by one here. You’ll see the photographs are generally looking to the east. You’ll see a large expanse of gravel, sand. Unfortunately, that’s not all with this property. That expanse is owned by (lost words), and that is the problem. The setback from the center line of the roadway is completely within the limits. The setback from the fog line is completely within the limits. So this sign is not right on the road. It just so happens that the property line doesn’t go out as far as most property lines would, when you consider where (lost words). In these photos you’ll see two bricks and some stakes coming up, which would be the proposed location of the sign. So, you’ll have some idea, looking toward the roadway, where the property marker is. Also in those photographs is a picture of the sign at Stan Hunt’s place, which is just down the road. In fact, the photographs of our proposed sign location, if you look in the distance, you can see Stan Hunt’s sign, not that far down the road, maybe a quarter mile. As you drive down the road from the Boulevard, if you head east, the property immediately adjacent, to the east of this subject property, is out further than this building, and it screens off the front of the building, the façade, an that’s why we’re proposing to put the sign out there. The sign location we’ve proposed is in line with the property line of the adjacent owner. So as you’re driving along, the sign would be in line with their properties, and if you were to park a vehicle, as you see in some of those photos, in front of that adjacent property, you could easily see how that would also screen the front of this property and all the other possible locations, and we don’t believe that the sign would be at all effective in those other possible locations. In fact, if you have had the opportunity to drive by, you almost come up on it very quickly, not knowing exactly where it is, because it is set back off the road so far. MR. STONE-I apologize for looking at the sign. The first stake is the property line, and the second stake is where you want to put the sign? MR. MANNIX-Two stakes or posts. MR. STONE-For the sign. MR. MANNIX-Two posts for the sign. That would be the location. MR. STONE-So it is going to face like the Hunt sign. MR. MANNIX-We want to do exactly what Stan Hunt. MR. STONE-Perpendicular to the right-of-way. MR. MANNIX-Exactly the same. We propose to landscape. MR. STONE-So the sign would be here. Okay. MR. MANNIX-And you can see in those photographs that the setback, in the present property, you have sand and gravel, and he’s got a nicely landscaped lawn, but it’s the same distance back from the bottom line and from the center line. MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask, how do you calculate 48 square feet on that sign? MR. MANNIX-You’d have to ask Mr. Ken Wheeler. It’s an engineering question. I’m not qualified to answer that. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me ask you this. You applied for a 30 square foot freestanding sign. Correct? MR. MANNIX-We’d like to amend the application tonight to reflect the 48 square feet. MR. ABBATE-I think the amendment should be in writing. MR. MC NALLY-You’re amending it to whatever this is. You’re amending it to whatever this square footage is. MR. MANNIX-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-From 30 to 48 square feet. MR. STONE-Now the way we measure 48 square feet, it would be from the top of the sign, Craig, if I’m correct, the curvature to the bottom of the air hockey tables panel? MR. BROWN-Yes. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. STONE-In other words, did he measure it? I see there’s space in the middle. That constitutes part of the sign, as far as our Ordinance goes. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MANNIX-I don’t have the answer to that question. I suppose we could figure it out right now. MR. STONE-He’s got 56 inches, I guess is what he’s saying. MR. MC NALLY-It’s within the 60 some odd square feet. MR. MANNIX-It is within the permissible square footage. MR. STONE-Well, we’re talking 50 square feet at 15 feet, and you want to be at four feet, right? Fifty is permitted. MR. MANNIX-Fifty is the permitted number? I’m sorry. MR. STONE-Craig, 50 at 15, right? MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s correct. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MANNIX-Okay. Well, we’re still within the 50, then. MR. STONE-If and in fact it’s 48. MR. MANNIX-If it is 48. If it is, as proposed, with the additional sign at the bottom, if that’s a problem, we’ll come within compliance to the 48 proposed, just by knocking out those few that might exceed the limit. That’s not a problem. MR. STONE-The basic question is, are we going to allow a 50 foot sign, 4 feet from the property line, which that’s the question before us. MR. MANNIX-I just want to stress again that the property line is not where you would ordinarily expect it. The concerns with property lines are usually because of access along a roadway, allowing people to have room to get off on the shoulder, and clearly that’s still going to be permissible here, and we look, again, to Stan Hunt’s sign and you’ll see that he’s been approved for that sign, and that’s acceptable, and we propose to do the very same thing, nothing different at all. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question, Counselor, about the Stan Hunt sign, the distance between the roadway and the sign appears to be more than four feet. MR. MANNIX-That’s right. It’s about 22 feet, and we propose to put it back from the fog line the same distance. MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask a question regarding this drawing? I see that there’s a sign marked, is that where you’re planning to put it. MR. ABBATE-The upper right hand corner, it’s a little black dot. It’s like an ink mark. MR. MANNIX-No. That was the survey drawing in 1991. That’s not our proposed location. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Could I ask where, then, on this proposed drawing, then, you are proposing to put it? Just so I can get an idea. MR. MANNIX-So you understand, it would be, as you look at the drawing, to the right of the north arrow. MR. STONE-To the right of the north arrow. MR. MC NALLY-Is that the right-of-way, though? MR. MANNIX-It would still be on the property owner’s property. MR. STONE-Is that beyond that paved street type thing? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. MANNIX-That is not a municipal street. It’s a right-of-way. MR. STONE-I understand it’s a deeded right-of-way. So when you buy this property, you’re going to own all the way to the grass, to the east? MR. BRYANT-See, this is my point, this looks like more than, you know, this is 22 feet. MR. MANNIX-This is the same distance from that, is what we’re proposing, to set it back the same distance from the fog line. So this pole would match up with that pole. MR. MC NALLY-Do you know how long that distance is? MR. MANNIX-Twenty-two feet from the fog line. MR. MC NALLY-It is 22 feet there? MR. BRYANT-Where is their property line? MR. MANNIX-Where is their property line? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. MANNIX-I don’t know where that property line is. MR. BRYANT-The property line is right here at that two by four. That’s where his property line is. So we’re talking about putting a sign here. (Discussion among Board members and applicant ensued) MR. STONE-Would you look at this, because Staff is concerned that his interpretation of this, that this is the property line, and that’s where the sign. So this is that paved area. MR. MANNIX-If this is the pavement, then the sign would be where Mr. McNally identified. MR. STONE-Okay, those three dots. MR. MANNIX-It’s clearly not going to be on the paved surface. As it relates to the photos, exactly where those bricks are. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s where this drawing would show it, yes. So we don’t know who owns this, but the property line, as far as we know, you’re assuming, is right here, fairly close to the building, actually. MR. MANNIX-Right, it is. That’s where the right-of-way is. MR. STONE-Okay. Deeded right-of-way to somebody. MR. BRYANT-So let me understand, Counselor. You’re comparing it to the Stan Hunt sign, but we don’t know where the Hunt property line is. We don’t know if that’s a legitimate, is that a legitimate sign without a variance? MR. MANNIX-I haven’t checked up on them to see whether or not it’s a complying sign. MR. STONE-Well, would you assume that a mailbox has to be on your own property? MR. MANNIX-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Well, if you look at the mailbox on the Hunt property, it’s right up next to the pavement. MR. BROWN-Typically the mailboxes are not on your own property. They’re in the right-of-way. MR. STONE-Do you happen to know where the property line on this picture is, Craig? MR. BROWN-I haven’t seen that picture, but I can guess. The right-of-way line or the property? MR. STONE-The property line is what we need the relief from. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. BROWN-I think that the application is requesting relief from the side property line, as well as from the right-of-way line. So, in this case, the right-of-way line, it’s impossible to tell from (lost word). MR. STONE-We’ve never talked about that, though. So you’re saying we need also relief from the side, for where they want to put it? MR. BROWN-I think you need to get a number out of the applicant, as to how close to the side line it’s going to be, approximately. MR. STONE-And what is that? MR. BROWN-Fifteen feet from any property line. MR. STONE-From any property line. Okay. So we’re concerned that, since you can’t tell us exactly where this sign is, dimensionally, in relation to the property line, that we don’t know what kind of relief to grant, if we wanted to grant relief, because Staff is telling me that we need 15 feet, currently, without a variance, 15 feet from both property lines. MR. MANNIX-And we’re certainly within, we’re greater than 15 feet from the easterly property line. MR. STONE-Well, that’s the question. Looking at this drawing. MR. MANNIX-Well, it’s clear that there’s a 25 foot deeded right-of-way. MR. STONE-Who owns this 25 foot deeded right-of-way? That’s the question I think. MR. MANNIX-It’s the property that the applicant is proposing to buy. It is their parcel. The deeded right-of-way permits the back lot access over that property, but it is their property. MR. STONE-Is that your understanding, Craig? MR. BROWN-That’s not my understanding, but I may not have all the information. I think what you’re working off is a survey of a property next door, and if you want, you know, a higher level of accuracy, you get a survey for this property, and on that survey, it would delineate who owns this right-of-way. It’s unclear from this drawing who owns it. I mean, the applicant is representing that the. MR. STONE-Is there anything in the drawing that talks about it, the proposed deed? MR. BROWN-I’m going to go pull the tax map and see if I can figure it out. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. I mean, right now, there is a question in terms of where the property line is, and therefore what kind of relief, either we have to grant or don’t have to grant for the side property line. We believe, I mean, the 11 feet is, in fact, what we’re talking about for the front property line, although we don’t really know that the north property line is the same as your neighbor’s. Because you don’t have a survey of that. MR. MANNIX-I’m looking through my file for a deed. MR. STONE-Does anybody else have any questions that they can answer, at this particular time? MR. MC NALLY-Again, I keep going back to this. We’re talking about the lot that’s shown on the right side of this drawing, right? MR. MANNIX-That’s right. MR. MC NALLY-And so this was a survey that was actually made for the adjacent property owner, that the current applicant has adapted for his own use? Is that basically right? It seems to be that’s what’s happening. MR. MANNIX-You’re talking about the adjacent property to the west? MR. STONE-To the west. The survey is of the adjacent property to the west. MR. MANNIX-I agree with that statement, yes. MR. MC NALLY-And the applicant’s property has got the north arrow on it? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. MANNIX-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-And do we know the dimensions of the front there? MR. BRYANT-It’s supposed to be 50 feet. MR. MC NALLY-That 50 feet wide lot. Is it a 50 foot wide lot? It is? So you’re proposing to put the is sign how many feet from the east line? Four feet? MR. STONE-No, they’re suggesting that the line to the extreme right is their property line, but we have no proof of that. MR. MC NULTY-Well, if you follow the dimensions, about two thirds of the way down the property, on the left side, it shows that the building is 20 feet off the left property line. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-And then down at the bottom it shows the building is 26 feet wide. That says to me that the property line is on the near edge of that right of way, that 50 foot wide lot. MR. STONE-Or it’s deeded, but who knows to whom it’s deeded. MR. MC NULTY-And there’s the four foot there. That’s your 50 feet. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NULTY-So if the lot’s 50 feet wide. MR. MC NALLY-This isn’t a survey drawing. It’s someone’s survey that was changed. How far from the east line is the sign going to be put? MR. MANNIX-I think, based on the questions that have been raised so far, I don’t have an exact answer for that. MR. STONE-One or two. MR. MC NALLY-One or two feet? MR. STONE-If the 50 is the width of the lot from the surveyed, adjacent property, then it goes just beyond the building, to the east. Craig is going to get the tax map and see if he can find out. MR. MANNIX-We believe that what we’re proposing is a four foot setback from the northerly boundary, and also the easterly boundary of the right-of-way. That will establish exactly where it’s going to be located, in relationship to this drawing, and going back to Mr. McNally’s earlier question, it is where the sign is indicated. MR. STONE-Okay, and you’re saying that’s about four feet from the? MR. MANNIX-Four feet in both directions. MR. MC NALLY-From the corner of the lot? MR. MANNIX-That’s right. MR. MC NALLY-And is it going to be in that right-of-way then? MR. MANNIX-No. It would be. RENALD DEVINE MR. DEVINE-On my property. MR. MANNIX-It’s on the property and out of the right-of-way by four feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Now what do I have here? MR. BROWN-I think we’re talking about Parcel 13. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. STONE-Parcel 13, all right. So that deeded right-of-way belongs to 15.1, way over here. Well, right now they’re willing to say it’s four feet and four feet. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-Which means 11 and 11. MR. MC NALLY-Can I explain? I just spoke with the applicant. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. MC NALLY-The applicant’s proposal is that his lot does not include the right-of-way, as I understand it. Lot 13 he’s looking at. MR. STONE-Right, deeded right-of-way is this parcel, which is connected to this one. MR. MC NALLY-So he’s proposing placement of the sign exactly where it’s written sign on this drawing. MR. STONE-Correct, and he’s saying it’s four feet in from the property line here, and four feet off the property line to the west. MR. MC NALLY-Correct. MR. STONE-So that’s what he’s willing to state, and we can discuss it in that vein. MR. MANNIX-And if we look at the tax map that Mr. Brown has provided to us, I think that’s an accurate statement, that it does indeed, the right of way goes with the property, the 15.1. MR. STONE-15.1, yes. Okay. So you’re asking relief, four feet from the northern property line and four feet from the eastern most property line. Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant, based upon that request? MR. MC NALLY-Just one more. This drawing shows two parallel parking spaces, parallel with the road, yet the sign’s going to block off that parallel entrance. I take it you have other plans for parking in the front, and if you do, what are they? Are they going to be perpendicular to the property? MR. MANNIX-Well, certainly perpendicular is how people park there. If you look in the photographs, the neighbors park that way. You, or anybody driving up, would park perpendicular. I did when I was there the other day. MR. MC NALLY-I did, too. MR. STONE-I did, too, this morning. MR. MANNIX-It’s the only logical way to do it. MR. MC NALLY-Your drawing is not showing what your intentions are regarding how people are supposed to park. MR. MANNIX-I would agree that it would be difficult to get in there, but it could be done, because you could go around the right-of-way and come in and park that way. We’ll do whatever the Planning Board tells us to do. MR. STONE-Your parcel is to have two parking spaces perpendicular to the Boulevard? MR. MANNIX-That’s correct. MR. STONE-With no curb cuts. It’ll just be one total opening to the road, across the whole property line? MR. MANNIX-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Is that permissible, Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-I’m not going to speak for the Planning Board, but I would bet that they wouldn’t approve of that. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MANNIX-Well, we’re going to comply with whatever the Planning Board tells us to do about those two parking spots. We’re not altering the site plan from the required 1991 application, and if this is indeed the way it is, I think we still can get two cars in there, coming around through the right- of-way, if, indeed, that’s going to be the recommended plan. MR. STONE-Okay, but right now there is no way to stop anybody from pulling in off the Boulevard to park, in any fashion they have right there? They could park this way, this way, this way. Okay. MR. BROWN-I think we may end up re-visiting this subject, but based on the dimensions on this drawing, it’s an 800 square foot retail. Our parking ordinance requires them to have eight spaces, and we don’t have an application in front of us for parking space relief, but I would anticipate that’s going to be one of the next steps if they get through this process. MR. MC NALLY-So they’ll need another variance for the parking spaces. MR. BROWN-That would be the determination that Zoning Administrator would make, but I would guess that that’s what would be next. You need one parking space for every 100 square feet of retail. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. MANNIX-I think I can solve that problem right now, because the entire store is not going to be retail. I think during the prior hearing that we had here, it was discussed about the assembly and the back room work that’s going on. So the retail’s not going to be the full amount of that. MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m just going by the application. It says 800 square feet of retail. So if it’s 500 square feet of retail, they should be all set. MR. STONE-So what we’re really saying here is that we’ve got a confused application, or we need another application. MR. BROWN-Well, what we really saying here is this is a Sign Variance. So we iron out everything else some other time. If you want to give him the sign four feet from the property line, you should do that. If you don’t. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. ABBATE-Let me make sure I understand this now. You’re seeking 11 feet and 11 feet, because you’re seeking four and four, correct? MR. STONE-They want to be four. MR. ABBATE-Right, is that correct? MR. MANNIX-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay, just wanted to get it clear in my mind. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? MR. BRYANT-A question about the sign. The sign is going to sit up on a pedestal that’s two feet of the ground? MR. MC NULTY-With landscaping around it. MR. MANNIX-They’re going to be on two posts, and then there’ll be landscaping around that sign, similar to what Stan Hunt has, flowers, shrubs, bark mulch. MR. BROWN-But does this show a two foot flower box? MR. MANNIX-Yes, that’s what it’s sitting on. MR. BROWN-I guess that’s what your question is? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-I’m trying to figure out where the, the height of the sign is 56 feet from the ground, 56 inches, or what? MR. MANNIX-The top of the drawing illustrates it as 132 inches from grade. MR. STONE-Excuse me, thank you, from grade. So that’s 11 feet. That’s within the Ordinance? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MR. ABBATE-Craig, this comment that the sign may present accessibility and sight line constraints on the site was based on the applicant’s proposed construction of a 30 square foot sign, not 48, is that correct? And the reason I’m asking is that, if it’s based on now a 48, then that emphases your concern, correct? MR. BROWN-That along with the location of it. MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay. So that increases the concern then. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MC NALLY-What kind of real sight line problems are there? It’s set back from the road pretty far, at least the traveling portion. We’re you thinking of something in particular? MR. BROWN-Well, as you’re pulling in and out, are you going to have problems with the sign on one side? Maybe not. They may be able to demonstrate, once they get out past the sign, they can see either way. It was just something to ask, I guess. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-You also said, relatively low, seven and a half foot tall sign. This is actually 11 feet high from the ground. MR. BROWN-Again, this is the revised drawing that they submitted tonight. MR. STONE-So a lot of things have been changed since the application, and since this was advertised. MR. BROWN-If you don’t feel comfortable granting this relief with the revised drawing, you may want to re-advertise it. MR. STONE-I’m leaning that way. MR. BROWN-It’s certainly a larger request than the original application. So it’s not unreasonable. MR. STONE-I think there are a lot of changes in this particular application. I’m going to take the prerogative of the Chair and table this. I hope you’ll go along, but I’m going to propose that we table this, to get a more accurate representation of what it is you’re looking for, and a better representation of the sign, and make the application correct. So, having said that. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-2000 RENALD J. DEVINE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: For no more than 62 days, in order that the applicant furnish a more up to date and accurate application, visa vie the position of the sign and the size of the sign requested, and because of all of these changes, this application will be re-advertised, and will therefore probably appear no earlier than one of the August meetings, but he has 62 days. Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-I’m sorry, but that’s how it’s got to be. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. MANNIX-Okay. If I may have the benefit of the Board’s input right now. Am I to understand that the Board would like to see a survey drawing, precisely locating it on this particular property? Would that allay some of your concerns? MR. STONE-We’d like to see a survey showing where it’s going to be in relationship to the, to accurate property lines. We also want an accurate representation of the sign, with all of the numbers in place, in terms of how high it’s going to be, what the square footage is going to be, and how that was determined. I mean, using dimensions so that we can do our own multiplication, if necessary. MR. MANNIX-And you do rather squared off dimensions on the sign? MR. STONE-We’ll have to study how we handle the rounded top, but consider the fact that the space are part of the sign, and I don’t know whether the sign designer kept that in mind when he gave you the number of 48. MR. MANNIX-Okay. Well, we’ll verify all the information. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you take this picture here, and just re-do your picture, get out there with two two by fours or something and get a piece of cardboard off of one of your big boxes, and put a string between the two two by fours and hang it down, what it’s going to look like in front. Then you’ll have an accurate idea. MR. MANNIX-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Because this is not six feet. This is like 10, 12 feet tall now. MR. STONE-It’s 11 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because it’s off that two foot box on the bottom. MR. MANNIX-From grade, that’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Maybe you’ll come back with some more precise information. MR. DEVINE-If I could say just one thing. Part of the problem is like everybody, you know, like the County wanted us to have a sign ready for them like the meeting we went to them, and I went to Wheeler. Wheeler just sketched me out something, because naturally, they can’t, at the drop of a hat, sit down and spend time with me. So I mean, I feel a little embarrassed about this, but when they finally did, they kept it within the limits, or we wouldn’t be coming to another meeting. MR. STONE-Don’t be embarrassed. We ask questions. That’s our job. We have to protect, help protect the quality of life in Queensbury, but that’s what we’re here for, and that’s the kind of questions we find ourselves asking, hopefully tough ones. MR. MC NALLY-The other thing is, within the Sign Ordinance, 15 feet back. It’s not within, I mean, now you’re asking on the road, the overall dimensions would certainly be something we’d be looking at. MR. DEVINE-Yes, we’ll do that. We’ll still be, we’re just trying to coordinate it with the Hunt sign, so that everything stays in line. MR. STONE-I think the other thing that we need to know is exactly where the right-of-way is, where the property line is in relationship to the paved area. You call it the fog area. MR. MANNIX-The fog line, the white line along the boundary of the roadway that designates the lanes, that’s the fog line. MR. STONE-Okay, but the paved area comes even further toward his property. MR. MANNIX-True, there’s a small shoulder there. MR. STONE-Yes. I’d like to know, personally, where it all stands. MR. ABBATE-One other comment. Counselor, it might be a good idea, when a sign is finally prepared to be submitted, check with our zoning folks to ensure that that portion of the post above the sign is not included in the space. Because if it is, then we have another problem. If they say it’s not and you submit it, then it’s not. We don’t have a problem with it, but that’s certainly up to you. It’s only a recommendation. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. MANNIX-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Next, under New Business is Notice of Appeal No. 6-2000, John Salvador, Jr. MR. BRYANT-Why don’t you shuffle the agenda around. Is that possible, Mr. Chairman, since he’s going to make a presentation at the end. MR. MC NULTY-Well, it’s going to be separate, though. MR. STONE-It’s a separate. Mr. Salvador, your request that you made of me has nothing to do with what we’ll be talking about now? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-That’s not true. MR. STONE-Well, do you want to flip flop these two, and put you at the end? It’s yours. I mean, the agenda is published the way it is. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, then do that, as a courtesy. MR. STONE-Okay. Then we will flip flop Notice of Appeal No. 6-2000 with Area Variance No. 63- 2000 Garden Time/Barrett Auto Sales on Quaker Road. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2000 TYPE II GARDEN TIME/BARRETT AUTO SALES OWNER: G. HEWLETT & GARDEN TIME, BARRETT AUTO SALES CONTRACT VENDEE AGENT: F. TROELSTRA APPLICANT PROPOSES DISPLAY & SALES OF R V’S, SHEDS, GAZEBOS AND PLAYSETS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 51-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING BD.: 7/12/00 ZONE: HC-1A TAX MAP NO. 109- 4-11, 110-1-1.21, 110-1-1.23 LOT SIZE: 6.54 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-66 FRED TROELSTRA & JIM BARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2000, Garden Time/Barrett Auto Sales, Meeting Date: July 19, 2000 “Project Location: Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes shared development of a lot to include the display and sales of sheds, gazebo’s and recreational vehicles. Relief Required: Applicant requests 25 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, § 179-28 (TCO). Further, the applicant is seeking relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading requirements which limit the width of access drives to 40 feet. The application requests an 80 foot wide entry. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Section 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to establish the display areas and access drives as desired, apparently gaining increased visibility. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include utilizing compliant building display areas and downsizing the access drive. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 25 feet of relief from the 75 foot TCO requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot maximum allowable width for access drives may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the encroachment into the Travel Corridor Overlay zone may be with “temporary” structures, they will appear to be permanent, as when one is removed, another will take its place on display. The construction of an uncontrolled 80 foot wide access drive onto and off from a highly traveled commercial corridor may present a substantial impact on the community. While interconnection is a Planning Board review item, per § 179-66.1, consideration may be given to this item when reviewing the access drive. Since the proposed uses are extensions of adjoining uses, would it be feasible to allow no access from Quaker and limit accessibility to the site through the existing uses? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 12, 2000 Project Name: Garden Time/Barrett Auto Sales Owner: Garden Time/Barrett Auto Sales ID Number: QBY-AV-60-2000 County Project#: Jul00-23 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the display and sales of RV’s, sheds, gazebos and playsets and seeks relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone requirements (75’ setback required, 50’ proposed). Site Location: 652 Quaker Road and 674 Quaker Road Tax Map Number: 110-1-1.21 Staff Notes: This proposal was also referred by the Town for County review of the site plan (Agenda item Jul00-24), also recommended for discussion. The applicant proposes developing the parcel for the outdoor display of products. Staff is concerned about the impact to Quaker Road from infringement upon the Travel Corridor Overlay and an additional point of ingress and egress from and onto Quaker Road approximately 275’ southeast of the entrance to Garden Time and 225’ northwest of the entrance to Barretts (see attached site plan). Further, it appears that the 50’ setback as indicated does not include portions of the seasonal parking area. Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A Public Hearing has been set for July 2000. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning 7/13/00. MR. STONE-It’s yours. Introduce yourselves, and tell us anything you want to tell us. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. Good evening. I’m Fred Troelstra from Garden Time. MR. BARRETT-Jim Barrett from Barrett’s. MR. TROELSTRA-And it’s been accurately described what we’re looking to do. I don’t have any input into, above and beyond what has been requested. I guess what would be more important is to give you a little description of who we are and what we’re looking to do, give you a little more background on why the parcel is approached as it is depicted here. Barretts and Garden Time have undergone a contract to purchase the property from Hewlett estate, more specifically, the Barretts are under contract and look to close here, very, very shortly, and Garden Time has entered into a sub contract, if you will, a long term lease, with the eventual purchase option of the parcel that’s closest to Garden Time, of course, but what we’re describing here is a parcel that has approximately 520 feet of frontage, I believe it is, and ideally what we’ve done is to optimize both parcels by trying to maximize the frontage for each. What I proceeded to do was divide it exactly in half. In turn, this was a logical line to put a common parking, both the product types that we’re looking to display and sell here are “temporary” type structures. One has wheels and the other is something on the nature of sheds and gazebos. The idea here is to display this product, and, based on the nature of the product, it takes considerable room. Jim and I have approached this parcel, and are amenable and agreeable and are very much working together to make this beneficial for both he and Garden Time, and one of the things we discussed was mutual parking. It makes, in our minds, the most sense, and we also looked at what’s the nature of the customer. Well, most recently, Barretts has been including their lines of RV’s. We, I guess by Ordinance, allows 40 feet a piece. If this was to be two lots, it would be 40 feet a piece, for an ingress/egress. That’s allowable. What we have decided to do, to make it more safe for people to pull in and out, because he and I have both demonstrated this and have experienced it, 40 feet on Quaker Road is not enough. It’s a duck situation to try to get into these parcels. We’re both operating large equipment. Try to pull a tractor trailer into Garden Time with 40 feet. I do it. I did witness, just the other day, pulling into Barretts, a 40 foot travel mobile home. The guy got into his parking lot and didn’t know which way to go. So he proceeded to back up. So in an effort to make this more amenable for the product lines that we do carry, we recommend that we put the two ingress/egresses together, and make it 80. Since 40 is allowable, if this was to be two separate lots, each would be allowed 40. That’s the one subject matter. The second subject matter is this travel corridor. There is mention of temporary structures. Yes, my buildings are to and fro. I’m there in business to move them, but I believe some people look at it as a sense of permanency, because once I move one, I move another one in. Yes, that’s true, and in addition, Barretts will be handling RV’s. They’re move removable, if you look at it in the strict sense. The argument we have here is that we understand the likelihood of the Quaker Road expansion is pretty minimal, at least from Ridge down to Dix Avenue, currently. I know for a fact that Quaker Road is off center. It hedges more toward the parcel that you’re looking at. There is more room opposite this, more toward the Quaker Road service road. If expansion was to occur, most likely they’d go towards that void, but it also I think is necessary to understand, these are temporary structures. If the travel corridor was to go through, we are not looking to put any permanent structures out there that is requiring foundations, so that these are easily adjusted. We are currently demonstrating or utilizing property, both Barretts and Garden Time, that is less than the 75 feet. Now, this parcel is in between, obviously sandwiched in between, and that would make, in our opinion, sense. MR. STONE-The difference being that you’re asking for a variance, whereas the other properties, whether or not they’re right or wrong, they’re not before us. MR. TROELSTRA-I understand. MR. STONE-The thing that I would like to see, and I hope I would think the Board would, too, could you explain, first of all, I don’t even know where the TCO ends on your particular drawing, because you don’t show it. So I’m not even sure where the relief is, and can you explain, you’re 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) talking, in a sense, you don’t want to divide the lot, you don’t want to sell each lot. Barrett is, I gather, going to buy the whole lot, but you’re each going to utilize one half of it. You’re not going to intermingle gazebos with RV’s? Okay. The gazebos are going to be around the circle, and the RV’s are going to be over here in this other area. MR. BARRETT-Right. MR. TROELSTRA-To answer your first question, I don’t know where the TCO is. It’s just understood, our Ordinance says it’s 75 feet from the property line. MR. STONE-No, from the center of the road. MR. BROWN-From the property line. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, from the property line. Excuse me. MR. TROELSTRA-So, if you will then just put a scale on there. MR. MC NALLY-What’s the scale on this thing? MR. TROELSTRA-One to fifty. MR. BROWN-And I’ve done that on my drawing, if you want me to pass it around the Board. MR. STONE-Yes, if you would, that would be helpful. MR. MC NULTY-They show a 50 foot setback. Just imagine half that width more. MR. STONE-Well, if that’s the property line. MR. TROELSTRA-I’m sorry, Craig, that 50 feet goes, it starts with the entire parcel. I’m sorry. Okay. MR. BROWN-This area right here is where they’re requesting relief. MR. STONE-But you’re going to have parking in that, as you should. MR. TROELSTRA-That was brought up at the Warren County Planning Board, and that isn’t parking. That’s just that tip, if you will, where you are able to back out and get out of the last parking stall. I’m not looking to put a parking stall in that. That’s not a parking stall. MR. HAYES-He’s talking about the 75 feet. Because it kicks it up into the handicap spots. MR. TROELSTRA-You’re talking about the 75 feet. If it’s the Travel Corridor, then, yes. MR. BROWN-The Travel Corridor, if you look at that Section of the Ordinance, it says that all buildings have to meet the setback. Parking lots, vehicle display, they can be in there. It’s just the buildings have to meet that setback. So they’re not looking for relief for the RV’s or the parking spaces. It’s just for the display area for the sheds. So it’s just that cross hatched area. MR. STONE-And you’re saying in your judgement that those are buildings, and they’re not merchandise for sale? MR. BROWN-They’re defined as buildings in the Ordinance. MR. STONE-Structures, even though they’re temporary. Okay. So we’re really talking the one side. We’re talking the Garden Time side, where the relief is, where you need relief because it’s contrary to the TCO. MR. TROELSTRA-I don’t look at these sheds much differently, excuse me, Jim, than these RV’s. MR. STONE-Unfortunately, the Town does. MR. TROELSTRA-I’m giving you my opinion. MR. STONE-And we’re going to give you ours, eventually. MR. TROELSTRA-I could put them all on trailers, I suppose, and they look much like a camper. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. MC NALLY-Your driveway that’s in the center of this property, that’s what you’re proposing to be 80 feet long? MR. TROELSTRA-That is correct. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re going to have parking on either side? MR. TROELSTRA-That’s correct, just as it’s depicted there. MR. MC NALLY-I know I’ve seen a couple of instances in the Town where businesses have shared a driveway, the Pizza Hut, Long John Silvers, the Go Karts and the Golf Course, Pirate’s Cove. I don’t know how successful that has been, in terms of difficulty coming in and out and accidents. Did you ever give any thought to what kind of effect that would have on traffic along Quaker Road? MR. BARRETT-We did. The plan was, if you look at it, the experience, what we experience there, people have a hard time finding those short driveways along Quaker Road. The speed limit there’s 40 miles an hour, but everybody drives 50 or 55. Even if you’re driving 40, particularly in the wintertime when it starts getting dark early, it’s very difficult to find these driveways, and if we were to divide this property up, if you could picture it divided up, with a driveway, say for our part of it, half way down that property, and then another driveway halfway down that property, you’re going t o have four driveways there, you know, could have four driveways there. People stopping, you know, to get into my property here, and then 20 feet, 30 feet down the road, stopping again to get into Garden Time’s property, and we just sat there and looked at it and said, gee, it would be a lot easier, if it was just us or any of you guys driving down that property, and pulling in there, and sharing the parking lot. MR. MC NALLY-Cars are backing in and backing out from the same driveway that they’re coming in off the highway. MR. BARRETT-Well, not that, they’re not going to back out of it. They’re going to have room to turn around and head out. MR. MC NALLY-I meant backing in the sense of getting out of their parking spot as cars are coming in at the same time. MR. BARRETT-We have that problem now. We really do. Everybody has that problem, backing out of a supermarket and somebody’s pulling in, you’ve got to stop. Everybody’s got that backing up and going forward problem. We just thought that this would be a very attractive and efficient shopping type area, because, you know, the RV’s are going to come and go, and it’s going to be a seasonal business. You’ll be driving by there some time and there won’t be that many there. It’ll be the wintertime, because I don’t want to carry a big inventory. So I’ll get rid of a lot of them. Not having them, I don’t want to carry a floor plan on those, any more than Fred wants to carry a floor plan on his sheds. We thought if people had a combined area to go to where they could, you know, look at his sheds, you know, more spread out, where they didn’t have to cross the road. Right now they have to cross Quaker Road. Somebody’s going to get killed going across the road to look at his sheds, and if we had the trailers and the small trailers in the same area, it’s kind of a nice shopping area. People are going to look at the sheds. They like to look at the pop up’s, and it just appears to us as a more efficient operation, a smoother flow of traffic. MR. STONE-Craig, if these were two lots, they could put the driveways next to each other? MR. BROWN-No, there needs to be a 150 foot separation between access drives. MR. BARRETT-And that’s part of the problem, because they could be two lots, and we could get two driveways, and we just thought four driveways down through there is two too many. MR. BROWN-But at the same time, if they were two lots, the Planning Board would recommend, when they do a site plan review, that there be interconnection, so you wouldn’t have to go out and down and back in. You could do, you know, a connector road between the commercial developments, which is that Section that’s referenced in the notes. MR. STONE-You’re not going to, driving internal in those lanes? MR. BARRETT-No, we don’t want any through traffic, or any traffic from well, you know. MR. HAYES-They’re not paving those lanes anyway, right? MR. BARRETT-Let me take that back. We’re going to want some internal access eventually to get from here over to our place. So we don’t have to go out onto Quaker Road. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. MC NALLY-Get from where to where? To get from the entrance into the Barretts property? MR. BARRETT-Right, because it’s going to be adjacent property, and we’re going to want to make that look like one piece of property. MR. MC NALLY-But right now you’re showing a fence, preventing that. You’re saying that’s not going to be there, or it’s going to have openings? MR. HAYES-There’s one lane there, isn’t there? MR. TROELSTRA-Negative. That’s not a fence. That’s a property line that’s going down, if you will, the east side of the property. MR. MC NALLY-That’s not a split rail fence? MR. TROELSTRA-Negative. The split rail fence is across the front and across, if you will, perpendicular to Quaker Road, each side of the parking area. MR. STONE-You say that people going 50 miles an hour, how are they going to know to turn in here? MR. BARRETT-We’re going to put a sign up. MR. STONE-That’s what I’m concerned about. MR. TROELSTRA-Eventually. We’re not here to talk signs. MR. STONE-I understand you’re not. You will be back to us, probably, to put a sign in the TCO, eventually. MR. BARRETT-Yes, right. MR. TROELSTRA-The beauty about it is we’re two entities that exist right now. We both have signs. MR. STONE-Yes, I know you do. MR. ABBATE-I haven’t decided what position I’m taking on this. So I’m going to be very objective, but my concern is the drastic interpretation between your application and Staff comments. As an example, you indicate here, is the amount of relief substantial relief relative to the Ordinance? You indicate no. Staff comes along and says it’s substantial. You indicate, what effect the variance would have on the change of character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. You say none. Staff says moderate to substantial, that the construction of an uncontrolled 80 foot wide access drive onto and off from a highly traveled commercial corridor may present a substantial impact on the community. Convince me, help me out. Why are they wrong? MR. TROELSTRA-Mr. Abbate, let me clarify. This is the first time I’ve seen Staff Notes, and I’m here, amenable to anything you have for suggestion. MR. ABBATE-Do you have a copy at the present time? MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, I do. This is the first time I’m seeing Staff notes, okay. MR. ABBATE-Are you prepared to discuss that? I don’t want to put you at a disadvantage. MR. TROELSTRA-I’m here for this topic, to discuss it. MR. ABBATE-Tell me why you’re right and they’re wrong. MR. TROELSTRA-Why don’t you break it down. MR. ABBATE-Sure, I’d be happy to. Let’s make it simple. The Staff comment says, basically, the construction of an uncontrolled 80 foot wide access drive onto and off from a highly traveled commercial corridor may present a substantial impact on the community. Tell me why that’s not true. MR. BARRETT-It starts out saying a moderate impact may be anticipated as a result of this action. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, look under Staff comments, the sixth line down. MR. BARRETT-You’re taking the whole thing. I’m starting from the beginning. Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. That’s where I start. MR. TROELSTRA-I assume that to be. MR. BARRETT-The whole thing. MR. TROELSTRA-Exactly. MR. BARRETT-I think it is moderate. That’s my opinion, too. I mean, I think it’s a, from a safety standpoint, it’s safer than having two additional driveways, just common sense wise. If you look at Lowe’s, or any of these big developments, all the malls, they have 100 foot wide driveways to get into them, and you could, if I was the Pyramid Mall Corporation and I came in here to bill this as one piece of property, it’s sort of like the same thing, only we’re two small independent business guys trying to make a very attractive, easy access. That’s the way I interpret it, you know, coming from a business standpoint. MR. ABBATE-Well, in your application you indicate that the amount of relief, substantial relief relative to the Ordinance, is there the amount, and you indicate no. Staff basically says that 25 foot of relief from the 75 foot TCO maybe interpreted as moderate. Forty feet of relief from the 40 foot maximum allowable width for access drives may be interpreted as substantial. Why are they wrong? MR. TROELSTRA-I’m not going to state that they’re wrong. Let me clarify. Let me put it to you this way, I’m going to hold the ground, I don’t find it to be substantial because in essence you could have two 40 foot ingress/egresses. We put the two together, that’s 80, 40 and 40 is 80. Secondly, 75 to 50 I don’t find is substantial, not in relation to what the Travel Corridor is about. It isn’t, can anybody clarify, is it going to occur? MR. MC NALLY-Well, you have to look far into the future. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. I’m looking far into the future, and I’m saying, these are temporary structures. I’ll move them back. I’m not putting foundations out there, gentlemen. MR. MC NALLY-Well, but you’re asking for relief. So you’re asking us to take your word that some day in the future, even though you’ve got the right to keep property there, you will do that. MR. STONE-We could put a condition on there. MR. TROELSTRA-Put it in. MR. MC NALLY-We’re looking 20, 30, 40 years down the road, when you don’t own the property anymore, and whoever’s purchased from you says I’ll be damned if I’m going to move those things. I got the right back in 2000. I can keep them there. MR. STONE-We can condition it on that, Bob. MR. MC NALLY-You’re doing something very unusual, going from 40 to 80 feet. Have you had a traffic engineer or anyone else that can support and say this is a good idea, or we think this is what the Town should do? MR. TROELSTRA-I’m going from 40 to 40, and adding, putting two entrances together. MR. MC NALLY-I know Garden Time when it used to have two entrances. There was a more circular motion and traffic actually went more smoothly. There’s a certain wisdom to having an egress and ingress, separate and distinct, with a single entrance. I’m not an engineer, but the Town Board says 40 feet wide is your driveway period, and I’m asking you, you know, what kind of engineering, what kind of other facts do you have to back up 80 feet? MR. TROELSTRA-Well, I am an engineer, but I’m putting that aside and saying common sense should be prevailing in this particular case. The Ordinance says 40 feet. We have discussed this with the Zoning Administrator and Craig Brown and we had decided that joining two would be better than having two separate ones. MR. MC NALLY-Who decided, the two of you or zoning? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. TROELSTRA-It was discussed, and it was, how shall I say it, the feeling was that two would be, wouldn’t be beneficial to have in this stretch of Quaker Road. That one common one, based on the approach to the property for the products that are being sold, would be more amenable. MR. BARRETT-If you guys were to just take a moment and, you know, you’ve probably all driven by it, but is there anybody that can’t see the logic of this? I mean, is there anything here that doesn’t make any sense at all to you guys? Or do you see the logic? MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, you’re talking about the logic of it. This is why I prefaced my question earlier, Staff notes make a lot of logical sense to me, based on what they have. Your application, your presentation makes sense to me as well, but I have to say to Staff, are you firm in your position as outlined in the Staff notes? MR. HAYES-They’re Staff notes. They’re recommendations. MR. BROWN-I’m not going to change my mind. MR. HAYES-We can make our own decision. These are just notes. MR. STONE-Craig looking at it, he can’t grant a variance. MR. HAYES-That’s why we have a ZBA. MR. BARRETT-Can I ask another question? I’m confused a little bit. Warren County approved this thing, right? MR. STONE-Yes, so? MR. BARRETT-The Staff, who’s the Staff that makes these notes? MR. STONE-Mr. Brown, or Mr. Round. It’s a combination of Staff . MR. BROWN-Well, it’s mostly me. MR. STONE-It comes from the Community Development Department. MR. BARRETT-All right. Do they disagree with the Warren County approval? MR. HAYES-That’s a separate entity. MR. STONE-Totally different. MR. BROWN-Just to clarify, the Warren County review is a referral, recommendation. They recommend approval. They don’t grant any approvals. They recommend that the local municipality approve it. That’s all. You didn’t get approval from them. MR. STONE-What they’re saying to us, in their opinion. You should consider approval, but that’s as far as that goes. MR. BARRETT-Okay. MR. STONE-The question that I would ask in connection with this whole thing, have you ever considered using these as internal extensions of your own property, using your current egress and entrance? MR. TROELSTRA-You heard Craig Brown refer to the fact that each 100 foot of retail space warrants a parking spot. Garden Time currently is what I would say at max for parking spaces. If you are suggesting that we use our ingress/egress, and then traverse my parking lot to get into this new facility, or this entity that we’re proposing, that is going to create a big burden on my existing parking. MR. STONE-Just asking the question, that’s all. It’s a reasonable answer. MR. MC NALLY-See, I don’t have a problem, conceptually, with you guys using this lot for both your businesses, but I know without some kind of better plans or thought or engineering to control the ingress and egress, there may be problems, and if we pass this, you’ve got an 80 foot wide gap you can throw cars in and out of there. You don’t show us any turn lanes. You don’t show us any dividers. You don’t show us any traffic flow patterns. You don’t show us any one way/two way kind of things. You’re just saying give us 80 feet and we’ll put the cars in and out and trust us that 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) it’s going to be okay, and I don’t know if I trust you, is what I’m saying. I believe you. I believe you’ve got good faith. I’m just saying. MR. BARRETT-Do you guys have the power to put a red light there? MR. STONE-No, we don’t. MR. MC NULTY-That is a point, though, that the concern I have is you say now cars have to slow down to find your 40 foot entrance, but Quaker Road’s got a reasonable shoulder there to do that, and it strikes me that my normal reaction is, well, if I’ve got to slow down to 20 to make a 40 foot entrance, if I’ve got an 80 foot entrance, I can go in there at 40. I think you’re going to find people going in there faster if you’ve got a bigger entrance, which could be a more serious problem. I will agree that it makes more sense to have one entrance into this property than two, because if you have two, then every few feet you’ve got another entrance. I think I’d like to see it, though, more of maybe a 40 foot entrance, that then expands into the wider parking interior. MR. MC NALLY-We’ve got to balance safety and the community interest and well being with your interests, and, you know, if it’s there, we can do it. MR. TROELSTRA-Well, I can proceed to place some traffic control in that entrance. I would suggest that it be wider than normal because of the applications of the vehicle that’s coming in. I would suggest we don’t go with any of these raised dividers, because I haven’t seen really a successful one yet, that it would be done with paint, so that it’s a continuous surface in this particular case, if that’s necessary, and it may warrant them having to do a little paving at the apron to be able to do that. MR. MC NALLY-You show rear entrances there. Are they actually going to be open to the public? MR. TROELSTRA-No. MR. MC NALLY-Because that would be an interesting way of doing things, too. You have no access to that asphalt road at all? MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, we do. That road is, that’s a part of this seven acre parcel. MR. BARRETT-The road comes with the property. It’s an access road. It’s actually going to be a large driveway. We could park there, I suppose. We could have drive through there. We’ve got it now at our place, where you come in and you go out the back way. The reason we, you know, we’re not thinking that way, you know, we could think that way, if you guys had any suggestions. We just didn’t want, we didn’t want through traffic. We didn’t want somebody coming from Dix Avenue and trying to beat the red light and coming through there. So we thought if we saw that happening we’d put some speed bumps in there, but we could open that up. MR. STONE-But what I’m hearing from my Board is, certainly, that the combining of this lot for two businesses is a great idea. I mean, I think it’s a very practical idea. I am hearing concern, however, with the width of this one opening, and if there were some way you could reduce the size of the opening, without losing, you wouldn’t lose much parking, at the road only I’m talking, some kind of device and then opening up immediately, so that, you know, you get beyond our jurisdiction, if you will. You could make it as wide as you want. MR. BARRETT-Do you guys have any ideas on what you might agree would be wide enough, I mean, without going through a lot of safety, I mean, like without getting the DOT there? We could get the DOT there, I suppose, but I don’t know the procedure for that. MR. TROELSTRA-DOT’s just going to come down and say, you know, they’ve just got recommended figures. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BARRETT-But you guys have got to say, look it, it could be 65 or 70 feet. Do you guys have any comments on that? MR. STONE-Do I hear any thoughts on how I summarized? MR. MC NULTY-I think you’re basically on target. Personally, I would like to see it be a 40 foot entrance. I’d like to see it comply. MR. ABBATE-I don’t have any problems. I think Chuck is right. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. HAYES-Yes, except they’re trying to pull big vehicles in there. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. HAYES-I’m just speaking for myself. I don’t think it has to be 40 feet. MR. MC NULTY-They’ve got a back road. MR. STONE-They’ve got a back road, apparently. MR. MC NULTY-They could make accommodations there. MR. ABBATE-That’s the asphalt road that we’re talking about, the back road, correct? And that’s an ROW, isn’t it, a right of way? MR. STONE-It’s a private road. It’s your private road, in terms of getting the RV’s into your property. MR. BARRETT-We could bring them in the back. No question about it. MR. TROELSTRA-Well, you’ve got Mr. Smith driving down Quaker Road, and he’s from Maine. He says, gee, dear, those are nice RV’s. Maybe we should upgrade from our 40 footer to a 50 footer, and he starts, he doesn’t know about Dix Avenue. He’s just driving down Quaker Road. MR. STONE-Well, if he can’t get in to a 40 foot wide opening, he shouldn’t be driving the RV, I would submit. MR. TROELSTRA-I’ll just make reference again, the same with tractor trailers pulling in to Lowe’s. You did have traffic control in front of Lowe’s, or along Bay Road. I think it lasted about a week before those signs were flattened and remained flattened for about six months. It’s not wide enough for tractor trailer traffic. I’m being very candid with you. MR. BROWN-Yes, at that intersection you’re talking about, it’s marked, not a truck entrance. The next entrance to the north is a truck entrance, which nobody pays attention to. MR. TROELSTRA-My point, going down the Quaker Road. MR. MC NALLY-Could I ask you, what’s this drop area in the back there? Is that actually for dropping off of temporary structures? MR. TROELSTRA-That will be deemed the area for those tractor trailers, for those tractor trailers that pull in. MR. MC NALLY-For Garden Time. MR. TROELSTRA-For Garden Time. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and the other thing is, it says grass and what not. Is that going to be commercial area, you know, pallets of stone, temporary structures, things like that? MR. TROELSTRA-No. That’s an area that is within the 30 foot setback of the property line. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and in some of your lanes you show this curby things. What does that mean? MR. TROELSTRA-Gates. MR. MC NALLY-Those are gates? MR. HAYES-Security gates. MR. TROELSTRA-Again, it’s to prevent the drive through. MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty said he’d like it 40. I don’t want to necessarily go down, but do I hear interest in a considerable reduction? MR. MC NALLY-I’d be willing to go with the 80, if you show me that there’s not going to be substantial effect on the neighborhood, other than you’re just saying that. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. Would it be amenable for the Board then that, if I do a little more detail on this entranceway, that would include, I picture a divider, if you will. If you want traffic control, I can detail a divider in there, so that people would know what’s ingress and what’s egress, and a turning lane right and a left coming out, which I think should be a little wider than normal, because of the nature of the vehicle going in. MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a problem. That makes sense. MR. STONE-But you’re talking, you’re painting lines on an 80 foot wide opening. I’m hearing not everybody is comfortable with 80 feet. So I would suggest, if you want to do this, that you consider something less maybe, if you want to do some work. MR. TROELSTRA-What’s less? MR. BROWN-Just a point of reference. I’d caution you from designing the project for them, number one, and I did a primitive, count the ceiling tiles, and the depth of this room is about 60 feet, if you can just picture that, everybody, so, just to throw that out. MR. STONE-That’s big. MR. BROWN-It’s pretty big, and an average drive lane on a common roadway is 11 or 12 feet. So you’re looking at 60 feet, if it’s 60 feet, with a couple of shoulders. You’ve got five lanes. MR. STONE-What is your current driveway now? MR. TROELSTRA-We have, at Garden Time, I believe that is a 60 footer with a sign in between. Back when we first, we were allowed two curb cuts, then, which is a change, obviously. I think they were both 50 feet. MR. STONE-Well, I’ll tell you what we’ll do. You’ve heard some of our comments. Let’s open the public hearing. Is there anybody here wishing to speak, one way or the other? We’ll get it on the record and we’ll come back and discuss it again. So I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-Not opposed, just a comment. Kathleen Salvador, North Queensbury. I drive into Garden Time all the time, and I’ve just heard that it’s about a 60 foot wide drive with the center. I think that’s very narrow. Cars have no problem getting in there, but I would think that some of their delivery trucks and all would have difficulty getting in there. One of my questions, before you started talking about painting lanes and all, was how many lanes of traffic were you thinking about putting in that 80 foot, four lanes of traffic with a center aisle? MR. BARRETT-I think what I was thinking, and we haven’t, you know, I think he’s going to agree with me, I’m not sure, but like two lanes in and two lanes out. MRS. SALVADOR-Two lanes in and two lanes out. That’s what I wondering. MR. TROELSTRA-A nice wide painted area, so that they know that. MR. BARRETT-Another thing that that prevents is like a lot of times, somebody will want to come into our place or Garden Time’s place, and somebody will want to take a left turn, and if you’re behind that person, sometimes you’re there for half an hour trying to make a left turn. MRS. SALVADOR-Exactly. MR. BARRETT-Where is somebody could make a left turn and have his blinker light on because he can’t get out, and somebody could make a right turn, you know, you guys have been in that situation. You can’t get out. MRS. SALVADOR-It’s very difficult getting out of there. MR. BARRETT-This way you can get in and out quicker. I know it sounds like a lot. I mean, we could probably live with 60 feet, but 80 would be nice, but just for, we were just looking at it as an average person driving down the road, to make a pleasant, let’s face it, we have competition out there today. It’s massive, and if we had a nice common area, like a common shopping area, what it would be like, where people could enjoy walking around seeing some trailers and some pop up’s, we 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) thought we’d sell more of each, if people come just come there and kind of see them in common, and you want to get into a place easy and out of a place easy. Now, when I was over there on Dix Avenue and Queensbury Avenue, I wish I hadn’t moved out of there half the time, because you get in and out of Dix Avenue. You can’t get out of Quaker Road. MR. STONE-Let’s finish the public hearing and then we’ll allow you rebuttal. MRS. SALVADOR-I agree on that. There are a number of places on Quaker Road that I avoid, because I cannot get in and out properly. The traffic on Quaker Road is horrendous. Trying to make a left onto Quaker Road from any of these businesses is very, very difficult. A lot of times I will make a right and go up to another drive and then turn around and come back. MR. BARRETT-If you had a double lane going out, you could prevent that. MRS. SALVADOR-You could prevent that, exactly. MR. BARRETT-And I’ve got a 25 foot driveway. It’s ridiculous. You can’t even get out of our place sometimes. MRS. SALVADOR-I also feel that, as was mentioned, that the raised dividers do not work, i.e. Lowe’s, trying to come from the north turning left into Lowe’s. That is a mess. I don’t know who designed that. MR. STONE-The Planning Board. It’s not the Zoning Board. MRS. SALVADOR-Did they really? Well, they shouldn’t plan driveways. MR. STONE-Is that correct, Craig? MR. BROWN-No, the Planning Board did not design it. They approved it. They did not design it. MRS. SALVADOR-It’s very difficult to plow in the winter, too. I think if they went with a nice wide driveway, with some kind of a center aisle, and they could do that very nicely, a lane in, a couple of lanes in, a couple of lanes out, just from a layman here, driving, trying to get in and out, I think that would be, but as I say, don’t let the Planning Board then design it. I’ve seen a lot of their parking lots. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak one way or the other? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Yes. John Salvador. I just would like to also add, don’t use that Bay Road Lowe’s entrance as any kind of a standard. It is bad. It is bad. Somebody should do something about it. MR. STONE-Thank you. Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have one letter from Sean Garvey, addressed to Craig Brown, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding Garden Time/Barrett Auto Sales Zoning Appeal application, “As a property owner in the immediate vicinity, I have no dispute with the aforementioned application. I support their proposed use and am confident that their diligent efforts will result and reflect their currently well run professional business establishments. I ask the Board to do the same. Sincerely, Sean JT Garvey” MR. STONE-Nothing else? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other comments? Anything you want to add to what you heard from the public? MR. BARRETT-Not at this time. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? All right. Let’s talk about it and see where we go. Alan, we’ll start with you. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. BRYANT-Well, as far as the TCO goes, I didn’t have a problem with it, and I think Mr. Troelstra has pointed out that he’d accept a contingency based on expansion of Quaker Road. So I don’t have a problem with it. The 80 foot driveway, when you actually look at the drawing, and I know it’s not a detailed drawing, but when you take into consideration the, what do you have, 15 feet for a car. That’s 30 feet from the 80. MR. TROELSTRA-Twenty. It’s usually 20. Each stall is 20. MR. BRYANT-In length. MR. TROELSTRA-In length, is 20 feet. MR. BRYANT-Yes, so actually your drive area is 40 feet and I know the entrance is going to be 80 feet, but you’ll be able to make that turn with a larger vehicle, and I think it does make sense to have a wide entrance, and I would be in favor of both questions. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. As far as the Travel Corridor Overlay, even though these sheds are theoretically, it’s actually all within the Ordinance of being structures, I think that they’re easily movable. That’s why they’re sold that way. So I think the TCO thing is minor, with the contingency that he accepts that if Quaker Road is ever enlarged, that he’ll move them back. As far as the area, I grant you that it’s an interesting question that there could be two 40 foot entrances separately. I just envision less cuts on Quaker Road, in this particular circumstance, as being better. I think having a little room to maneuver there, as the applicants have pointed out, to make left turns and right turns, with the property demarcations and stuff, also will be a benefit, in this particular circumstance, and, quite frankly, you have two well run businesses here. I guess my confidence level grows based on examination of how they’re conducting their business currently at the two sites. I think that, you know, 40 feet is a lot of relief. There’s no question about it, but I think in this particular circumstance, as my colleague pointed out, I think it makes sense in this unique case. So, as far as an Area Variance, I don’t think there will be any detriment to the neighborhood or community, and I think, quite frankly, some of the speed and the traffic problems on Quaker Road are not, this is not a self-created difficulty based on those conditions that they’re having to deal with, as far as running their businesses. So I this particular circumstance, I can go with this as it stands. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to be the negative person on this. As far as the entrance goes, I still would like to see a 40 foot entrance. I think that was written into the Zoning Code with somebody paying some attention to what was adequate and thinking in terms of its influence on traffic, and I can’t quite buy the argument of having to get tractor trailers in there, because obviously, Garden Time is planning on having the tractor trailers come in from the back side. They’ve got the drop area already delineated to come off the rear road. So, any large vehicles, and for that matter even any large campers that had to be moved in and out could come in from the back side. I’m also thinking partly of appearance, which leads me to the Travel Corridor Overlay. I know we’ve assumed right along that the only function of the Travel Corridor Overlay could be widened, but as I’ve said before, I don’t like what this Town has done to the four lane section of Quaker Road. I think it’s a gaudy strip, and it could have been a beautiful strip. I think the section of Quaker Road that these properties are on now is a relatively nice piece of road. I hate to see it get degraded, and if we allow intrusion into the Travel Corridor Overlay now, and then the road does get widened to four lanes, then all the businesses are a lot closer to the road. I would like to see the Travel Corridor Overlay be honored, and I guess the sum is I’m against the proposal. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in favor of the proposal. I think it’s reasonable, and it is a combination of the two, but to me that makes more sense in the long run than putting in separate driveways. I think that the fact that, you know, you’ve got 20 foot spaces on each side of the lot still gives you room to maneuver in the middle, and if somebody’s driving in with a big RV, like you said, you know, those things are wider than a car, and trying to work your way into a normal width road with cars parked on either side is not going to be much fun for the driver doing that. So, I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with the Travel Corridor Overlay because while I think it’s a permanent display area, there’s no question about that, it’s a display of temporary structures, which, with a truck or trailer or something else, you could move those, or sheds back any time you please. I, frankly, don’t have a problem with that aspect of the application at all. Regarding the entrance, I 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) think that whatever is going to be best for egress and ingress along Quaker Road, is what we should be looking for. I haven’t the slightest idea what that is. I see that you’ve got an application which provides for 80 feet, and I would assume the Planning Board would set forth reasonable requirements as to how that’s supposed to be marked and signed, but I know from prior experience where this has been done before, sometimes the there’s been some problems. So I’m kind of leery without some kind of an engineering study or some kind of an engineer with traffic background saying, yes, this is the way you should do it. This is the way it should be done, but generally I’m in favor of it. It’s just I’m worried about those details. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-As I indicated, I came here with no preconceived position, and it’s only at this moment that I made a decision. These are well run businesses. I don’t have a problem with that, and for expansion and they’re attempting to do what they believe is correct, I don’t have a problem with the application. I do believe that I would support their attempt to have some sort of traffic control egress going out and in for safety and what have you, and I think if the applicant were to do that, and to submit plans for that, I have no problems with an approval on it. MR. STONE-I have no problem with the TCO incursion. I mean, that is something that we can condition, and we will condition it that as far as the gazebos and the structures, as classified by the Town Zoning Code, we can say that if the space is needed, then they will be moved back to outside of the TCO. The 80 foot bothers me. I mean, it’s a wonderful, logical idea. I mean, I agree. It’s something that I probably would have come up with if I was trying to do what you guys are trying to do. I’m allowed 40. I’m allowed 40. Let’s put them together and make it 80 and put it in the middle and have the whole thing. I just think it’s a big opening, which is not to say that I won’t vote to approve it, but I really would like to see some reduction, some bottleneck, and I don’t want to use the work bottleneck, but a bottle opening that comes in off the highway at something less than 80, and then opens up inside, just because of precedence and anything else you might want to consider, but I think as Mr. McNally said, what is the right opening for Quaker Road? I have no idea, except the Town says 40. That is the Code at the moment, and, but having said that, I will probably vote for it, because I think the bulk of the Board is for it, and I don’t have any real compelling, except a request that I wish it were less than that, but having said that, let’s hear a motion from someone, and we’ll go from there. MR. HAYES-How do you guys feel about 70? Maybe some kind of reduction. I mean, I think you could carry the day with some kind of reduction. MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. Excuse me, we originally started at 100, but I was just sketching here that Jim and I have had a little side discussion here, sidebar, and felt that we could work with 60, falling short of drawing it up for you, I thought this. MR. STONE-As far as I’m concerned, how do you guys feel. MR. MC NALLY-Is it 60 all the way back, or just the 60 on the front? MR. STONE-No, it just has to be as far as the TCO is concerned. MR. BROWN-It’s 60 feet at the property line. That’s all you can pass judgement on. MR. STONE-At the property line. MR. BROWN-In the right of way it’s going to get a lot wider, and that’s up to the County. So you just go to the property line. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s 60 feet at the property line. MR. BROWN-If that’s they’re offering. MR. STONE-Are you offering that? MR. BARRETT-I think that’s a good move. I think you guys would be happy with that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BARRETT-I think we can live with it, and it’s just going to make ingress and egress a lot easier. I think people are going to like it. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2000 GARDEN TIME/BARRETT AUTO SALES, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Quaker Road. The applicant proposes shared development of a lot off Quaker Road to include the display or sales of sheds, gazebos and RV’s. Specifically, the relief requested, in this case, is 25 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, Section 179-28. Additionally, the applicants are seeking relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading requirements which limits the width of access drives to 40 feet, and that Section of the Ordinance, the applicant is now requesting 20 feet of relief. So they are requesting a 60 foot wide entry. Criteria for considering such a variance, the benefit to the applicant, the benefit to the applicant would be they would be able to pursue the use of this lot jointly, as depicted for the sales of items related to their business. Feasible alternatives, I believe the feasible alternatives are limited, based on the fact that, as merchants, they are trying to gain the visibility and accessibility from Quaker Road, and I think something less than this would be less than that. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t think the relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone is significant, in this particular case, based on the fact that both of the items being sold and displayed are very mobile by definition, and could be moved back out of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone if that ever became necessary in the future. Twenty feet of relief from the forty foot maximum allowable width for the access drive I believe is moderate, but I believe it’s a logical plan, and I think the relief is moderate in that there are safety concerns and accessibility concerns involved with the entrance and exit from the joint use of this property. So I believe it’s moderate, the relief. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I believe that, based on the reduction in the relief sought from 40 feet to 20 feet, that this represents a compromise that will act as a benefit to the neighborhood in this particular case. Also, these are two businesses in our community. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I believe that the traffic on Quaker Road, at this time, necessitates careful consideration to ingress and egress, and I think this is a good plan. So, I move for its approval with two important contingencies. One is that, in terms of structures that are allowable, in accordance with this variance or under this variance, are sheds, gazebos and play sets, only, will be 50 feet from the property line. The second contingency is that the egress and ingress point is delineated in some fashion to indicate the turning lanes, some painted fashion. There should be some kind of delineation for safety. So, I guess based on those two contingencies, I would move for the approval of the application, at 60 feet. Duly adopted this 19 day of July, by the following vote: th MR. HAYES-So I move for its approval with two important contingencies. One is that both business owners agree to remove any of their display items from the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone if requested by the Town or the County, or how should I word that? If there’s an expansion of the road. MR. BROWN-Realistically speaking, if the County decides to do that, they’re going to take the land, regardless. If you want them to meet a setback from that right of way, if you want them to move it 20 feet from that new right of way line, or from the existing right of way line if the road’s expanded, you might want to say that. Right now, they’re 50 feet from the right of way line. If you want them further than that, if the road expands, you should say that. I know it’s difficult in this case because the right of way is so wide. If the road ever widens, the right of way’s not going to get any bigger, because it’s basically huge right now. So they can widen the road within that right of way and not effect any property lines, but if your intent is to have the buildings further from the road surface, if it’s ever widened, you might want to come up with a number. I don’t think that the County’s ever going to take any more of their land. I don’t know if that’s your conception that the right of way’s going to get bigger if they widen the road. I don’t think that’s going to happen. It’s 150 feet wide right now. MR. STONE-No. I think what we’re saying is that it should be 50 feet from the property line, from the road. MR. BROWN-Right now they’re proposing to display the sheds 50 feet from the property line. MR. TROELSTRA-Which is like 80 feet from the edge of the road. MR. HAYES-We could use 50 feet from the road. MR. BROWN-Right. They could expand the driving surface another 20 feet towards their property, and the sheds would still be 60 feet from the driving surface. MR. HAYES-So if I make it at least 50 feet from the driving surface, then that at least provides some criteria for, maybe we should just leave it alone. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. BROWN-I don’t really see why you would need to do anything with it. MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ll remove that contingency. MR. BROWN-But it’s up to you. MR. STONE-Well, the way you’re saying it, Craig, there is nothing that we should condition. MR. BROWN-As far as the display of the buildings, I don’t see how it’s going to change if the road gets widened. MR. MC NALLY-Can we do it this way? Can we make the variance such that you’re allowed to keep a temporary structure, such as currently sold on the property on that TCO? Because they can always be moved. Limit it to the current use? MR. HAYES-As far as sheds and gazebos? MR. MC NALLY-We’re not approving another structure. MR. BROWN-No, but I mean, as you approve it as it is, if the County widens the right of way, now they have to meet 50 feet because you’re giving them up to 50 feet from the property line. They have to meet 50 feet from the new property line, which is taken care of if they widen the right of way. MR. ABBATE-So why even address that? MR. BROWN-I don’t think you need to address it. MR. ABBATE-It’s a moot point, right. MR. STONE-Well, except that if we’re granting relief for structures, we’ve got to identify the structures that we’re talking about. We’re talking temporary structures, even though we don’t define temporary structures in the Code. MR. BROWN-Right, and their position in relation to the property line, and if the property line moves, they have to move their sheds back. That’s understood, I think. I mean, that goes without saying. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess are we looking for a definition, then, from them of what they intend to sell in that, what we’re going to approve? MR. BRYANT-Isn’t that included in the description of the project? MR. HAYES-It is, but I guess I’m asking Mr. Troelstra. He should be satisfied with that, because that’s what’s going to go down in this motion. So you ought to clarify that and make sure everything’s okay. MR. TROELSTRA-I’m agreeable to keep it as the application states, the sales and display of sheds and gazebos. MR. HAYES-Sheds and gazebos, okay. We’re not talking about RV’s. That’s not in there anyway, that’s not a structure. MR. STONE-No, that’s not. MR. HAYES-We’ll leave that right off to the side. So sheds and gazebos. MR. TROELSTRA-I’m not going to discount there may be an occasional playset in there. MR. HAYES-So I guess the first contingency then is, in terms of structures that are allowable, in accordance with this variance or under this variance, are sheds, gazebos and playsets, only. MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. Maybe if it clarifies it, retail. We’re intending to move these again. That’s the intent here is these are retail sheds, gazebos and playsets. MR. BRYANT-Temporary structures. MR. HAYES-Temporary structures that are designed for retail. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. BROWN-And not to confuse this or prolong it but if you’re trying to avoid having pallets of stone or flowers or perennials, if you don’t want those out there, you can limit that. They’re not subject to the setback because they’re not structures, but it’s a reasonable condition. If you want to give them the relief to put the buildings in there, you can ask them not to put, I don’t know if that’s where you’re going with it or not. MR. HAYES-No, I guess we’re trying to condition it on what structures are actually going to be ion the Travel Corridor. MR. HAYES-I think you did it. MR. HAYES-Well, those aren’t structures anyway. MR. BROWN-The retail stuff. MR. HAYES-Yes, like you put pallets of stone out there, that’s not a structure. MR. BROWN-Right. I didn’t know if you were trying to limit other things other than the buildings. MR. STONE-We can’t, can we do that if we wanted to? MR. BROWN-I think it’s reasonable. MR. STONE-If we say you can’t put bales of peat moss. MR. TROELSTRA-I think you’re going to have a long list. MR. STONE-I understand that. I’m not trying to get there. MR. BROWN-If you’re going to give them relief to do something other than what’s allowed, which is why they’re here, you can put a reasonable condition, if you think it’s reasonable, that they’re limited in other aspects, but you don’t have to. I’ve probably confused it by bringing it up. I thought that’s where you were going with it. MR. STONE-No. MR. TROELSTRA-That would be a separate discussion. If we are in violation, then we will come back in front of the Board for a variance on that. We can further condition it. MR. STONE-Well, I think the door that he has opened, and I’m not sure that we’re necessarily going to take it, is that some of the materials you have on your other piece of property, some of the things that some of the other garden stores have that, if we have this opportunity to limit you, but I don’t want to do it, because we’re not going it to anybody else. Why would we do it to you? MR. HAYES-I think it’s just sheds, gazebos and playsets. MR. STONE-And playsets, exactly how he put it in the application. MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s the first contingency, and the second contingency is that the ingress and egress point is delineated in some fashion to indicate the turning lanes, I guess that’s the best way to word that, the turning lanes in some painted fashion. I’m not going to require a built up median, because I also don’t think that they work. So there should be some kind of delineation for safety. So I guess, based on those two contingencies, if everybody else is satisfied, I would move for the approval of the application, at 60 feet. MR. STONE-Everybody understands that we’re talking the application as requested, except it’s now 60 feet, and that it will be conditioned that temporary, or structures such as sheds, gazebos and playsets will be moved back if necessary, will be 50 feet from the property line. Okay. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Himes MR. STONE-Thank you for your cooperation. MR. TROELSTRA-Thank you. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. BARRETT-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 6-2000 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. APPELLANT IS APPEALING 179-78 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OMISSION THAT A NEW USE HAS BEEN INTIATED ON “TAKUNDEWIDE MANAGEMENT GROUP”, “TAKUNDEWIDE HOMEOWNER’S ASSOC.” PROPERTY AND THAT SUCH NEW USE REQUIRES A USE VARIANCE. TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.1 THROUGH 11-1-3.4 JOHN SALVADOR, JR.., PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-This is a letter from John Salvador, addressed to Mr. Chris Round, Executive Director, Town of Queensbury Community Development Department, regarding Takundewide new nonconforming use, “This is to confirm our many discussions since July of 1999, when we became aware that the Takundewide Management Group, Inc. had filed with the NYS Department of Health an Application to Operate a Temporary Residence on their property in Cleverdale. Based on information and belief, the Takundewide Management Group, Inc. has since submitted an Application to Operate a Temporary Residence on the same property for the year 2000. We are awaiting the response of a FOIL request to the NYS-DOH in this regard. Sub-part 7-1.1(a) of the NYS Department of Health Code defines a Temporary Residence – “Temporary residence shall mean a property consisting of a tract of land and any tents, vehicles, buildings, rooms, camping sites or other structures and installations, temporary or permanent pertaining thereto, any part of which is utilized or maintained primarily for overnight occupancy by people, with or without stipulated agreement as to the duration of their stay, who are provided at least some part or portion of the use of the property’s facilities with the consent or implied permission of the owner, operator or lessee thereof.” Further, the application of Subpart 7-1, the Public Health Code is defined in subpart 7- 1.2(a) – “The requirements of this Subpart shall apply to a temporary residence occupied by or maintained for occupancy by 10 or more people, or to a mass gathering of 5,000 people or more. As you know, in 1983 Takundewide, Inc. obtained site plan approval to convert its operation from that of rental cottages (Temporary Residence) to residential use. In this regard, Takundewide was no longer required to meet the requirements of Public Health Law Section 225 and the regulations known as Subpart 7 – Temporary Residences. The operation of a Temporary Residence is commercial (rental of cottages) in nature and is not, I would think, allowed to start in a residential zone, after being terminated for at least 18 months, without obtaining a Use Variance. Takundewide Management Group is in violation of Sec 179-80 because of a discontinuance of a non-conforming use between 1983 and, at least, July of 1999. Your failure to require the Takundewide Management Group, Inc. to obtain an after the fact Use Variance for the continued legal operation of the referenced Temporary Residence will require us to make application to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals for an order requiring you to do so. Should you decide between now and June 29 that for some reason a Use Variance is not required, then a second notice of appeal will be filed seeking an order to reverse such a determination. We attach a copy of Takundewide Management Group’s Application and Permit to Operate a Temporary Residence for 1999. As soon as we receive the year 2000 data from the NYS Department of Health, we will make it available to you and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Yours truly, John Salvador, Jr. Attach” MR. STONE-Okay. Would you read the response of Mr. Round. MR. MC NULTY-And we have a letter to Mr. John Salvador, from Chris Round, Zoning Administrator, dated July 13, 2000, “Dear Mr. Salvador: I have reviewed your appeal file June 28, 2000 requesting this office to require a use variance for the Takundewide property/facility. I offer two (2) responses to your appeal. One you have no standing to bring the appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). This is based on lack of proximity to the operation (your property is located in excess of 1.5 miles from the subject site) and the fact that the Town’s decisions on this matter have no apparent bearing on your facilities or operations. Two, in this instance, the opinion or action of the NYSDOH has no bearing on the local land use regulation you reference. An action by the NYSDOH does not require the Town to act. I have forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the ZBA. Sincerely, Chris Round, Zoning Administrator, Director of Community Development cc: ZBA members Town Counsel Craig Brown” MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I say anymore, I would like to suggest a few corrections to this notice that’s before me, that was on the table here tonight. We are seeking the Zoning Administrator’s omission that a new use has been initiated by the Takundewide Management Group. It’s the activities of the Takundewide Management Group that we are complaining about, not the Takundewide Homeowners Association. The Takundewide Management Group is an 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) organization, I believe, that doesn’t own anything. The Takundewide Homeowners Association, however, does. MR. STONE-So noted. MR. SALVADOR-In light of Mr. Round’s letter, which I just received a couple of days ago, I would like to settle the issue of standing first, and maybe that has to be done in another arena. I don’t know. In any case, tonight, I would suggest that we either table this, we table this appeal. If you’d like to conduct the public hearing, while everyone is here fine. I would then address any comments that people might make, but then I would suggest that it be tabled for the usual 60 days, until I can get the issue of standing straightened out. I don’t think that we should proceed. If I really don’t have standing, the appeal is not standing, there’s no appeal. Right? MR. STONE-Well, if you choose to do that. I agree with you that we have some people that have waited very patiently. I have no idea why they’re here, but nevertheless we will hear from them because, as I will explain to those that are here, this is one of the functions of the Zoning Board, is, as was stated by Mr. Salvador very succinctly in his notice, that’s one of our jobs. If a decision made by the Zoning Administrator, and that action can be an omission, as Mr. Salvador points out, a failure to act, then it’s up to us to decide whether or not the Zoning Administrator acted properly, in our opinion, and that’s the narrow issue that is before us. Obviously, there are some people who wish to speak, as I say, on behalf or opposed to the whole thing, and we will now open the public hearing, and anyone who wants to speak in favor of the appeal, in other words, who wants to say that the Zoning Administrator acted incorrectly in not recognizing this as a new use, please speak now. All right. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED THEODORE ARNSTEIN MR. ARNSTEIN-My name is Theodore Arnstein. My sister-in-law and I have properties adjacent to Takundewide. We were there from the beginning of Takundewide, when the present owners, or the majority owners parents ran the place, never had any problems whatsoever. Mr. Round, to me, went way out on a limb to say that Mr. Salvador had no right to address this. All we have to do, I would think, if you people agreed to it, is have Mr. Salvador represent my sister-in-law and myself, for example. Whether or not he is correct, that is for you to decide, but I think it’s pretty strong for an employee of the Town, who works for us as well as you, to say he has no standing and shouldn’t. I think anybody has a right to speak in this Country. So therefore, I would like Mr. Salvador to be allowed to speak, if only as a representative of myself and my sister-in-law. MR. STONE-Thank you. Mr. Salvador certainly always has a right to speak. Whether or not we agree with him is another story. MR. ARNSTEIN-That’s well taken. MR. STONE-It’s not a matter of speak. It’s a matter of, does he have standing to bring the appeal, and that’s a different issue. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on behalf of Mr. Salvador’s position? It gets confusing on these things. FRANK ENGLAND MR. ENGLAND-My name is Frank England, and I live on the other side of Takundewide, about three houses up. Maybe somebody can clear something up for me. I don’t quite understand that Mr. Salvador has no standing to bring some sort of a violation of Town law to the Board. This is what I don’t understand. I would think at any time something is brought up by a member of the Town, to a Town official, that it would be heard, and not say that the person doesn’t have standing. Maybe somebody could correct me. I don’t understand. MR. STONE-I’m certainly not going to do it. It is a legal issue. It is best argued in that forum, and maybe Mr. Lapper, who wants to speak, can comment on that side comment, but our job is to rule on the appeal. If we are told that there’s a question of standing, I think Mr. Salvador is correct, that we ought to get that resolved. We can’t resolve it. However, on the merits that we may hear, we could decide that the Zoning Administrator is right, even if Mr. Salvador has standing. So we’re not going to get into the standing. MR. ENGLAND-I know. I understand that. Well, maybe I’m asking for the ruling is, maybe the Town Counsel should tell us, is the gentlemen who said he has no standing and can’t bring the appeal, that’s what I don’t understand. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. MC NALLY-I can. Under the Town law, you have to be what’s called an aggrieved person, and an aggrieved person is not really defined, but basically comes down to, he can’t just have the same detriment that other members of our community have. He has to show some kind of difference in quality or quantity of damage that entitles him to bring the complaint. If there’s a violation of our Ordinance, then it’s our Town Zoning Administrators who are responsible for bringing the change of uses to our attention, but short of that, short of his being an aggrieved person, that’s a matter of standing that he’ll have to address when he gets a chance. You’re an adjacent property owner? You’ve got standing. MR. ENGLAND-I’m about four houses away. MR. MC NALLY-Anyone close by or anyone who’s been damaged in some special way is probably going to be able to bring a complaint. MR. ENGLAND-I’m still puzzled because I used to be a Town official in Massachusetts, and if something was brought to our attention, we had to do something about it, no matter who brought it to our attention. This is what’s puzzling me. I don’t know the merits of the case or anything like that, but the thing that concerns me, that has been brought to a Town official’s notice, and he’s saying, well, I don’t have to do anything about it, because the person who told me about it lives too far away. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we have two options. We can rule on the merits of the case, regardless of who brought it, which we may do. MR. ENGLAND-Okay. MR. STONE-Or we can say that we will not entertain the appeal, because of the standing issue, and let Mr. Salvador determine whether or not, through the proper channels, that he has standing. So, I mean, we have two options, and we’re going through the process. When we get all done tonight, we can say, all right, Mr. Salvador, we don’t want to do anything tonight. We want you to prove that you have standing, or we can say, on the basis of what we’ve heard and what we feel, that this appeal has no merit. So we can resolve the issue if we so choose. MR. ENGLAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-All right. Mr. Lapper, I believe you had your hand up. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and with me tonight is John Mason. I’m here on behalf of Takundewide Homeowners Association, Inc., Takundewide Management Group, Inc., and each of the 24 property owners who own the 32 units that make up Takundewide. First to address the issue of standing. I would like to respectfully reserve the right to agree with the Town that Mr. Salvador doesn’t have standing. I think that Mr. McNally’s explanation is correct. The legal issue that Chris was referring to about whether or not someone is in proximity to have standing to bring an appeal, but on behalf of the entities and individuals that I mentioned, we would respectfully ask the Board to get to the merits of this, because I think that, whether or not Mr. Salvador owns property in proximity, certainly Mr. Arnstein and Mr. England do. So if they want to do it in their names, we’ll all be back here next month anyway, and since we’re all here, I think we might as well get to the substance of it. MR. MC NALLY-Are you waiving the claim of standing, or lack of standing? MR. LAPPER-Not if we wind up in court over this, but if we come to this Board, we’re reserving the right. MR. MC NALLY-Seriously. Why waste our time if we going to just talk about standing, if that’s the defense that you’re using. You can’t have both sides of that fence. MR. LAPPER-We’re waiving standing. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you, Bob. MR. LAPPER-We’re waiving standing, okay. Now, first of all, I think that, like you, I sit through many meetings of many Town Boards and listen to Mr. Salvador’s opinions and issues that he raises, and I think that he fulfills an important role in the Town, frankly, just by raising issues, and I think there are times that I agree with him and there are times that I don’t agree with him, and this is one time when I respectfully disagree with him. I think he’s just wrong on the facts here. I want to start off by explaining that this is a very, very important issue to the 24 individuals who own units at 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) Takundewide, as to whether or not they can legally rent those issues out, as they have done historically. These units have been rented out on and off since 1954. Mostly they’ve been rented at various times of the summer. The units are single family units, as I will explain when I get to the conversion in 1984 from the cottage colony to the single family units, and one of the rights of ownership of all of us who own single family homes in the Town of Queensbury is that we can rent our homes, and the character of the use is that it is occupied for single family use. So that if I take a job in another State and rent my home, the family that is there renting from me is still using it as a single family, even though they are paying me and I am paying my mortgage, but it’s still a single family character. They’re there living in the home, for whatever duration, and instead , if I lived in Saratoga, for example, and I wanted to rent my house for August for the track season and go to the Cape for August, that’s still a single family use, even though I would be renting that home, and the basic argument is that this is still a single family use, even though these people may rent it weekly, or they may rent it monthly over the summer, but it is a single family home. The individuals own the home and the land under the home, and I guess a few feet, 10 feet around the home, and the Homeowners Association owns what’s called the common property, and while homeowners association structure is not the most common thing, most people own a quarter acre, half acre, acre parcel with their home on it, it’s becoming more and more common to have common property, and there’s the Overlook Homeowner’s Association at Hiland, right next to us. There’s the Westwood Homeowner’s Association by Glenwood. There are homeowners associations all over the Town, and in terms of the homeowners association structure, which I think is part of the confusion here, the homeowners association, under its bylaws, is managed, and the management of a homeowners association is to collect the dues from each of the homeowners every month, and to spend that money to maintain the property, to insure the property, to do services to maintain the individual and the association property. Sometimes the association appoints or elects members, homeowners themselves, and they collective fulfill those functions, and sometimes they contract with an outside management company to fulfill those functions, here, Takundewide Management Group fulfills functions for Takundewide Homeowners Association, Inc., and an additional function, which the Management Group company fulfills is that if someone wants to rent their unit for some or all of the summer, Takundewide Management Group would hopefully, from their perspective, get the contract to do that rental, to arrange that rental and to earn a commission. The 24 individual property owners aren’t required to use the Takundewide Management Group, and many of them use Owen Davies or other well known realtors on the lake that do rental property. So just in terms of that fact, I will turn to John Mason, who’s one of the 24 owners, just to confirm that people of the 24 homeowners use Takundewide Management Group and also other realtors to rent the property. JOHN MASON MR. MASON-Yes. My name is John Mason. I think the only reason Jon has asked me here tonight is he had to find someone that’s been around since 1954, and just by matter of my age, I qualify. Although Ted Arnstein’s been here a lot longer than I have. So he could come up here and talk even further back, but Jon’s absolutely right. There are, through the years, and actually I’m a perfect example of this, in the years that I have owned, I have two cottages at Takundewide. I own Number Five and I own Number Twenty-Six. While I’ve never had a management contract with anyone for Number Five, I’ve lived there every year since I ended up with it. Number 26 I have had a management contract with Takundewide Management Group. I have not had a contract with Takundewide Management Group on a different year. I have rented the cottage on my own on another year. While I’ve not used the services of a realtor, other homeowners have. They’ve used Owen Davies, I think Robert W. Levitt has rented cottages there. It’s pretty much up to the homeowner whether they would like to use Takundewide Management Group to rent their property or whether they would like a realtor to rent their property. One point, though, that I want to go back and touch on. Jon has asked me to give you a little bit of historical perspective on this, from the time the cottage colony started. My parents purchased the land in 1954 and began building cottages. In 1961 they incorporated, under the name of Takundewide, Incorporated. It was almost immediate that they realized that there was no way that they were going to be able to transition Takundewide from generation to generation. So they began gifting stock to each one of their children, and they were still building, as they were gifting stock. In about 1984, in the early part of 1984, they made the decision to convert to single family residential, and they made that decision, again, for inheritance, for all those reasons, they wanted to make certain that they were not forced, the family was not forced to sell the cottage colony at their death. There were seven children involved, and it just, simple arithmetic lead them to believe that there was no way that they could keep even individual cottages in the hands of any one of their children, unless they converted. So in January of 1984, they began the conversion process. The conversion process took probably four or five months. We came in front of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, this same Board. Dick Roberts was the Chairman at that time, and we were approved unanimously to convert from the cottage colony to single family residential, and actually I still have the original application. We did not convert right a away, because it took a little bit of time. It took almost a year. In March of 1985, the conversion actually took place, and when the conversion took place, Takundewide Incorporated, as we knew it at that time, dissolved. The 32 cottages that comprise Takundewide went to individual owners of stock. There were nine owners of stock at that point. Every person who was an owner of stock received 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) four cottages, depending upon how many shares of stock they owned. At the time this conversion occurred, while Takundewide Incorporated ceased to exist, three new entities were created. Takundewide Management Group took on all of the duties that Takundewide Incorporated had before that, that related to taking care of the property, that related to renting the property, that related to maintaining the property. All those duties were taken care of by Takundewide Management Group. It was on a contract basis, though, at the behest of Takundewide Homeowners Association, and Takundewide Homeowners Association was an Association, there’s a large document that formed this Association, and every person who had a cottage belonged to the Association, but no new use came about. The uses today of Takundewide Management Group, Takundewide Homeowners Association, or any of the individual 24 owners of Takundewide are no different than they were in 1954, 1961, 1984 or today, and there is no 18 month break that John Salvador is referring to. Cottages at Takundewide have been rented in the same way that they are rented to day, every single year, from 1954 to the present. The uses are identical. The rentals are identical, and there has never been a break in service. MR. LAPPER-Continuing from there, anyone who owns real estate, who owns a single family home, has the ability to rent that out. It’s one of the bundle of rights that you get as owning a single family home. You can live there. You can move away and you can rent it, and if you don’t rent it, if you move into your home and you don’t rent it in 18 months, it doesn’t, you don’t lose the right to do that, because the renting it doesn’t change the character to a commercial use. It’s still a single family residential use. That’s certainly my first very important point, that if the Board were to agree with this appeal, what you’d be saying is that people can’t rent their single family homes, and that would be losing a very important right, not just on the lake, throughout the Town, and I think that that would be wrong, because that is not a use issue. It would still be single family, even though you’re renting it. Now we get to the Department of Health classification, and I think what Chris Round was saying was that just because the Department of Health may change the classification of something, that doesn’t necessarily effect the Town, and so for the sake of this appeal, we’re talking about the character of the use being single family, single family units, and the Department of Health is in a very conservative trend now as a result of the tragedy at the Washington County Fair, and they’re looking under every stone, which is probably appropriate, but in this case, as a result of that, we believe, they insisted that the Association apply as a temporary residence, and while we believe that that is wrong, and the definition cited in Mr. Salvador’s letter said “The requirement of this Subpart shall apply to a temporary residence occupied or maintained for occupancy by 10 or more people”. That absolutely doesn’t apply because each of the units, no one of the units has 10 beds, and each of the units are on a single, separate deeded parcel, and some people own more than one, but nobody owns 10 beds. So it was easier to pay the $100, and get the permit, than to fight with the Department of Health, although I think that was probably wrong, because here we are. So, it was probably worth fighting it, but they were told to do it, and they did it, and it doesn’t mean that they’re not single family units, just because the Department of Health wants them to get this permit. I’ll also point out that I was told by Mr. Mason that it was Mr. Salvador who’s been insisting that the Department of Health classify it this way, and pressed them to ask for this registration. Also, the Department of Health permit is in the name of Takundewide Management Group, because they, which doesn’t own any property here. So, there was some discussion with the Department of Health as to, gee, who’s name should the permit be in if we’re going to pay you this $100, and they didn’t have any answer, because the property owners are the 24 people. The Homeowners Association only owns the common property, which certainly doesn’t have any beds or any units. It has a bunch of grass and some docks, and some parking areas. So, we’ll probably go ahead now, this year, and fight that, rather than continue with that registration, because we think it’s wrong, but whether it’s right or wrong, it doesn’t change the character of the use, that these are still single family units that are being rented out by individuals who own them. Finally, I want to read you what I think puts this whole issue to bed. We only have one copy. So I would be willing to submit this with a promise from Craig that he’ll get me another copy tomorrow. I’m comfortable with that. This is the Town of Queensbury, this is the application, and I have the approval, from 1984, dated this 20 day of th January, 1984. The application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for site plan review, for, things were done differently then, for conversion. MR. MASON-It’s under Section 9.020, I believe. MR. LAPPER-Which is the Section that was formally in the Code that dealt with conversion of cottage colonies to single family use, and the site plan review, provisions of this Ordinance, Section 9.020, conversion of certain existing uses, see attached description, and the description, we also have the approval that goes along with this, I just want to read the application, site plan review, “Evidence of compliance, Section 9.020, conversion of certain existing uses, those structures existing on the effective date of this Ordinance that are associated with resort hotels, rental cottages, and group camps, will be allowed to be converted from their previous use to individual single family residence use through site plan review. Said conversion can be made, notwithstanding the fact that such structures, as converted, do not conform to the provisions of this Ordinance or the shoreline restrictions. Takundewide has been in existence for several decades, and is a rental cottage colony, clearly a type of use contemplated by Section 9.020 when it was adopted and enacted by the Town 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) Board of the Town of Queensbury. Mr. and Mrs. Algercy Mason have been the primary owners of Takundewide, Inc. since its incorporation and have operated the property in exemplary fashion for several decades. At the present time, under advice from their legal and tax counsel, they desire to liquidate to Takundewide, Inc. in a formal fashion, pursuant to the provisions of Section 333 of the United State Internal Revenue Code. This corporate liquidation is part of an overall estate plan which is necessary in order to insure liquidity to the estate and to provide for the desired distribution by Mr. and Mrs. Mason of their property to their heirs. It is proposed that each of the cottages, together with the main house, become individual single family residences which residences will be distributed to the current stockholders of Takundewide, Inc., to wit the Mason family, and the Mason family would then enter into a lease arrangement with a separate legal entity, in order that the individual single family residences may continue to be rented out as they have been for the past several decades. No difference in operation, appearance or use will occur upon the property. The property will be converted from a present nonconforming use to one that is permitted and in fact encouraged under the Ordinance, specifically Section 9.020.” So just to repeat, the most important sentence, “The Mason family would then enter into a lease arrangement with a separate legal entity, in order that the individual single family residences may continue to be rented out as they have been for the past several decades”, and then in addition to that, I have the approval of April 4, 1984, “We have reviewed the request for site plan review and have the following recommendations: Approved, Town of Queensbury Planning Board approved this site plan review”, and it’s “Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously passed, it was resolved that the Queensbury Planning Board approved the site plan of Takundewide, Inc. for the conversion of existing rental cottages and appurtenances on a parcel of lake shore land of 21.342 acres, to individual single family residential use pursuant to Section 9.020 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance”, there’s probably nothing else here, just in harmony with the general Town Ordinance. So we’re going to submit this as evidence that, when they converted, it was always the intention in the application that they would continue to be rented by the new owners. They have, in fact, been rented, and that that doesn’t change the single family nature, and the fact that the Department of Health, after all these years, decided to characterize it, and they agreed to submit an application dealing with septic systems, so be it, but they have the right to continue to rent them, and we very much hope that you agree. Anything that you would like to add? MR. MASON-Yes. I just want to add one other thing. I’m sure the Board wonders why, as a group, we’re here with an attorney, and taking this as seriously as we are. We do take this very seriously, and while John may consider it a little lighthearted to go after one organization after another after another, after another, I puts someone in a terrible position. I’ve heard people come up here today and make the remark that if someone’s doing something illegally, we want the Board to do something about it. Takundewide is not doing anything illegally. Takundewide Homeowner’s Association is not. Takundewide Management Group is not, and nor are any of the 24 owners of cottages there. We’re doing something that we planned on doing way back when, that we brought in front of this Board as a site plan review, way back when, and at no time have we contemplated doing anything outside those parameters. No one’s doing anything illegally. No one’s doing anything against any Town Ordinance, and to tell you the truth, it doesn’t feel very good to listen to remarks like that, and that’s why we’re taking it very seriously tonight. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any questions? No? MR. MASON-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else willing to speak, wanting to speak, I should say, against the appeal? Against the appeal? Do you want to come back up, Mr. Arnstein? MR. ARNSTEIN-My name is Theodore Arnstein. I live in Cleverdale adjacent to Takundewide. I beg to differ with the gentlemen. In the early days, until approximately a few years ago, to my knowledge, the buildings were rented for a minimum of a week, and mostly for two weeks and a month, and in some cases for the whole season. We know because we have evidence that, for example, during Americade, there were as many as 20 odd motorcycles there, and there was advertising in some of the literature of Americade. So I say that that is a difference. That is a change. We have, at least from my family’s concern, we do not have any fault to find in renting it as it was traditionally for a week, a month, or a season. We would wish they would continue that, but we do have problems with very short term rentals. I don’t see any difference between that and a motel. I’m sorry, I don’t, but that’s up to you. Now Mr. Mason made a statement, here, and he differs a little bit, but since you heard him, he said we do not break any laws. We were doing everything right. I would submit that they operate a marina there, and have for many years rented boats to outside people, and to my knowledge, do not pay for a Class C or Class B Marina. MR. STONE-That’s not on point. MR. ARNSTEIN-Neither was what he said on point, Mr. Stone. That’s all I have. Thank you. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak, on either side of the issue? We won’t get into the marina, don’t worry. MR. MASON-Takundewide has always been open from May 15 until October 15, every single thth year. Takundewide has always rented weekly, during the months of July and August. Takundewide has always allowed people to rent shorter periods of times, three day minimum, all the way back to 1955, and we have brochures that will bear that out. If Mr. Arnstein is going to fault us for taking advantage of Americade, so be it. Americade has done some very unique things to this community over the last 10 or 15 years, and Takundewide, like many, many other individuals and resorts, Takundewide has taken advantage of that. We do rent to people with motorcycles, and by in large, we find them to be very well behaved, etc., etc., etc. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this matter? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t believe so. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, you can come back up when we close the public hearing. You’re the appellant here. You can speak at any time. Do you want to respond? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Again, let me close the public hearing first, then you can talk. MR. HAYES-Kind of both sides in the public hearing type thing. MR. STONE-He spoke before the public hearing, and he’s going to speak after the public hearing. MR. HAYES-I guess when he waived standing, though. MR. STONE-Come on up. Go ahead. I don’t think it makes much difference one way or the other, in terms of whether it’s opened or closed. MR. SALVADOR-Johnny Mason’s correct. I did raise this issue with the Health Department, and Takundewide’s not the only property. The issue is how the property presents itself to the public, Takundewide and other properties as well in Lake George, some of them in the Town of Queensbury, some not, but they present themselves as the Health Department definition, if you’ll look at your definition, if I can find mine, they present themselves as maintaining primarily for overnight occupancy by people. That’s the presence they are putting forth to the public, and that’s why the Health Department required them to get a temporary residence permit, primarily for overnight occupancy. We do that sort of business, primarily for overnight occupancy. We have one week rentals. We have two week rentals. We have one month rentals, but it’s primarily for overnight occupancy. I don’t take issue at all with Mr. Lapper’s comment that a residential homeowner has the right to rent his property, no problem at all, but a residential property owner is not likely to rent his property for overnight occupancy. It’s going to be six months, a year, two years. That’s outside of this regulation, and Mr. Mason mentioned the fact that sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn’t, and he mentioned Units Five and Twenty-six. On the application to operate, those units have not been listed as part of the TR. There are only certain units here that are listed, a total of 15. Fifteen of the how many units they have, thirty-two, I believe, are being operated as a TR. Some of them are not, but that’s the point. It’s overnight occupancy is the primary use, and as Mr. Arnstein mentioned, you know, Americade is only here for a few days, and that’s why the Health Department required them to get a temporary residence permit, and by the way, this happened before the Washington County affair. The Health Department is coming down very hard on those of us who have water wells on site. I can tell you all about it, but it has nothing to do with the lodging aspect of the thing. It’s the public water supply that they regulate, and I know they’re requiring, if Takundewide still does take their water from the lake, from a surface body of water, the Health Department is requiring filtration, some kind of disinfectant, and they’re coming down hard on those properties that take water from the lake. We, fortunately, do not, but in any case, those are a couple of points I thought needed clarifying. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Salvador, can I ask you a question? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Mason stated that the cabins or the houses generally rent for no less than three days. Is that the minimum? Are you saying that that’s not the case, that these cabins rent, you know, you can come in for one night at a time, is that what you’re saying? MR. SALVADOR-No. My point is they have a temporary residence permit. They made application for a temporary residence permit, and they’ve been given one by the State Health Department. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. BRYANT-By the Health Department. MR. SALVADOR-The only reason that the Health Department could require and give that was the units are used primarily for overnight occupancy, and not primarily for let us say a year rental or something. I mean, we’re in this business. We have a temporary residence permit. It’s something that you have to qualify for. It’s a heavy inspection. I’ll go over that with you at another time, but the reason is you’re in the business and you make a presence to the public, you make a presence of being in the overnight occupancy business. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Salvador, you say, I just want to throw your words at you, that a new use has been initiated on subject property and that such new use requires a Use Variance. Is that your contention? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, because. MR. STONE-It has nothing to do with one day, three days, a month. You’re saying it’s a new use that has never been done before. MR. SALVADOR-No. I’m saying that it has lapsed for at least 18 months. Before Takundewide got that site plan approval, they were a temporary residence. They were operating as a temporary residence. They found it was no longer necessary to make application for that permit, and they ceased to obtain that permit. I don’t know how many years. MR. STONE-They didn’t get a permit from the Department of Health, but they’re arguing that their use hasn’t changed in that 15 year period. That’s the bone of contention here, and that’s what we have to decide, whether or not that’s the situation. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but as Mr. Arnstein mentioned, they carried an ad in the Americade literature and advertising, you know, with a two night minimum. That’s, year after year that was going on. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-And they advertise in the County booklet, all the things that all of us other resorts advertise, services to the people, okay. Those services require regulation, control. That’s what the Health Department does. MR. STONE-And apparently the Department of Health did that. MR. SALVADOR-Only since 1999. MR. STONE-But maybe that’s the group that you might go for an oversight hearing about, the Board of Health. Why did you not? MR. SALVADOR-They have done their job. The Board of Health has done their job, and Takundewide, for these units they have listed on their application, is in compliance. The Board of Health’s not making any complaints. They haven’t been taken to a tribunal. They are in compliance. My position is that since they started again, operating a temporary residence that is the re- establishment of a prior nonconforming use that has lapsed. MR. STONE-Your contention is that it lapsed, and that’s what we’ll talk about. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, for at least 18 months. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-By virtue of the fact that they did not have the TR permit. Okay. MR. STONE-I hear that. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? I don’t want to cut you off. MR. SALVADOR-No, but I would suggest that pending the determination as to whether or not I have standing to bring this issue, that this be tabled. MR. STONE-You’re asking, we will discuss whether we wish to do that, or whether we wish to vote on it. MR. MC NALLY-Well, I don’t know whether we need to table it for standing, if the applicant has waived that aspect. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. STONE-Well, I was going to say that, this is the applicant. MR. SALVADOR-I’m the applicant. MR. STONE-They’re only the public. MR. MC NALLY-I apologize. You’re right. MR. STONE-So that’s why I didn’t say it, Bob. MR. SALVADOR-You should not make those mistakes. MR. STONE-Okay. I will close the public hearing. MR. LAPPER-Before you close the public hearing, we need to respond to that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MASON-First of all, with regard to the 18 months, the 18 months John is talking about is 18 months between having this TR and not having this TR, and I can assure you that the reason that Takundewide Management Group or Homeowners Association or individual lot owners obtained this Board of Health TR is only because it only costs $100, and they were sick and tired of arguing with John Salvador about it. John Salvador made the Board of Health, made Brian Fear’s life absolutely miserable, to the point where he called up and said, look, it’s only $100. You’re going to sign the thing, so that I don’t have him calling me every day. MR. STONE-No, I just want to get, the application says $50. MR. MASON-No, it’s $100. I think it was $50 last year and $50 this year. So we’ve paid a total of $100. MR. STONE-Get the facts straight here. It’s $45 because you get 10% off. MR. MASON-The bottom line on this is that it was paid for simply for that reason, to now have this thrown back in their face, as if this, I’m going to tell you right now, if there truly was an 18 month interval, there’s going to be another 18 month one starting next year, because there’s no way anyone’s going to file one of these things next year, whether it’s $50, $100 or $5,000. We don’t have 10 beds. MR. STONE-March 31, 2002 this permit expires. MR. MASON-Then that’s when it’s going to expire for ever and ever. MR. ABBATE-Hang on for a second, but nonetheless, the facts show that you did have a DOH, and you listed as categories this particular, these buildings, correct? MR. MASON-The buildings that are on there, yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you did, in fact, do this. MR. MASON-I did not do that. Let me explain what happened. That document was filled out by the owner of Takundewide Management Group, and the cottages that are listed there are cottages that he was renting during that time period. The reason Number Five and Number Twenty-six are not on there, which John brought up, is I do not have a contract with Takundewide Management Group. I was renting my cottage. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then would you agree that the Department of Health form that you signed applies to those units you have here, Two, Four, etc., etc.? MR. STONE-That’s his brother. That’s not. MR. LAPPER-What Mr. Salvador just said, and what you’re reading, is that that form is a form that people use if they have a temporary residence, and what he said was that if you have that form, you are allowed to rent out your unit every single night, one night at a time. Just because, if you fill out that form, Department of Health says, okay, as far as the Department of Health is concerned, you have the right to rent out your unit every night, doesn’t mean that they do that. MR. ABBATE-What you’re saying is that this is not a re-classification? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. ABBATE-That’s your argument? MR. LAPPER-Yes. They’ve been doing the same thing all along, renting them out sometimes a week, a month, three nights, some people are, some people aren’t. They’ve always done that, and the Department of Health came in and said, hey, we want you to sign this thing. We want you to apply for this permit, and they didn’t argue about it because it shouldn’t have any bearing on Queensbury Zoning because it doesn’t change the character of the use. MR. MASON-We didn’t argue about it because it didn’t cost that much, and the feeling was, what difference does it make, let’s leave us alone. We’ll sign whatever you want. MR. ABBATE-So in effect what you’re saying is there’s no grounds for you to have to comply with this? MR. LAPPER-Well, the 10 bed issue, there’s no 10 beds that’s under the same ownership, that if somebody owns Unit Two, and they have a three bedroom home, and they rent that out, that’s their decision. They’re homeowners. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me try one more time. So it is your position that your organization does not have to comply with the Department of Health regulations that you’ve submitted. Is that your position? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Because if you read what was submitted in the application, the requirements of this Sub Part shall apply to a temporary residence, occupied or maintained for occupancy by 10 or more people. MR. ABBATE-So this doesn’t pertain to you, is what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-Right, because nobody owns 10 units. They’re single family homes that happen to be in a colony. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Do you have any Association literature with you? MR. LAPPER-Well, the Association has by-laws and a Declaration of Covenants that are recorded in the Clerk’s Office, like any homeowner. MR. BRYANT-I’m interested more in the literature that one of the other speakers mentioned, that you advertise your brochures. MR. MASON-Can I respond to that? Takundewide Homeowner’s Association, does not advertise. Takundewide Management Group advertises. Takundewide Management Group’s advertising is not paid for by the Homeowner’s Association. It is not paid for by me as a landowner. It is paid for by, in the same way that Owen Davies advertises on Sunday afternoon, when you pick up a newspaper and Owen Davies says, you can rent this parcel, that is no different than what Takundewide Management Group is doing. The same thing. MR. ABBATE-So they don’t speak for you, is what you’re saying. MR. MASON-I’m telling you right now, they don’t speak for me. MR. ABBATE-Even though they’re listed in the application? MR. MASON-Even though who is listed? MR. ABBATE-Both groups here. MR. STONE-They’re listed in the appeal don’t call it an application. MR. MASON-John Salvador has listed them together, but, no. MR. ABBATE-They do not speak for you at all? MR. MASON-Absolutely not. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-I just have a couple of questions. Who owns Takundewide Management Group? MR. MASON-Bill Mason. MR. MC NALLY-He is related to you how? MR. MASON-He’s my youngest brother. He also owns two cottages at Takundewide. MR. MC NALLY-Does Takundewide Management Group maintain an office or a place of business at the property? MR. MASON-The very same office that, my parents original house was Cabin 32. There was an office in there that was always for the use of the cottage colony. He purchased that specific unit. That office is still in existence today, and, again, has been in existence every single day and year since. MR. LAPPER-’54. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and I get a flavor and a sense that you have a property owner who certainly has the inherent right to rent out their property, but that right is different than a corporation establishing a business on the property and operating a motel on a nightly basis. MR. MASON-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Now, I hear you saying that Takundewide Management Group does not rent on a nightly basis. That’s what you’re saying? MR. MASON-To the best of my knowledge, I’m worried when I hear, but, yes, to the best of my knowledge, they do not rent on a nightly basis. MR. MC NALLY-And Mr. Salvador says that they rent at least for a two night minimum, is that true? MR. MASON-That is what Mr. Salvador says. MR. MC NALLY-But I’m asking you if you know. MR. MASON-To my knowledge, first of all, my cottage has never been rented on a two night basis, and I do not believe that is the policy, but I’m not sure of that. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-And is it your position, though, that this is the way it’s always been operated? MR. MASON-Absolutely. I know where you’re going, but let me just make this very clear. The year that the conversion occurred, in 1985 when Takundewide Incorporated ceased to exist, three entities were created. Takundewide Management Group was created at the very same time. One dissolved, one began. Takundewide Management Group began. Takundewide Homeowners Association began, and the individual property owners began. Different functions of Takundewide Incorporated were passed to each one of the three places. Nothing has changed. No new use. MR. MC NALLY-I’m just trying to get an understanding if the use has changed, not the corporate form or the ownership or the shares or anything like that. MR. MASON-The use is the same. The uses that Takundewide, the functions of Takundewide Management Group today and every year since 1954 are no different than year by year by year, the same exact uses. They rented boat slips. They rented cottages. They did all, they advertised, they did all of those things. MR. HAYES-Rented weekends in June, then? MR. MASON-Yes. Takundewide has always gone from May 15 to October 15, and it’s always thth shorter time periods off season, both before and after. July and August it’s weekly rentals at the very least, and Ted’s correct, seasonal rentals by many, Mr. Arnstein is correct, seasonal rentals by many people. If there is one difference in Takundewide over the past 30 or 40 years, it is that there are far less renters, and when I say far less, I mean far less. I’m a perfect example of that. I’m in Cottage Five all year long. No one rents my cottage, and that holds true not only for many of my brothers and sisters, but also for the, all the outside people who have purchased in there. There are very, very few people who rent, but if he rents one week, Billy has put it down on that list that you have there. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Mr. Salvador, do you want to respond to something? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. SALVADOR-I’d like to address the issue of the 10. That applies to the property, not to a single building. We operate a temporary residence. We have an occupancy of some 150 to 160, 70 people. That’s more than 10. That’s how they measure it, not a particular building. We don’t have a single building on our premises that would, yes, we do, but many of our buildings will not hold 10 people. MR. LAPPER-But you own them. MR. SALVADOR-The Dunham’s Bay Lodge operates a temporary residence. John and Kathy Salvador own the real property on which we operate this temporary residence. MR. STONE-We’re breaking down, guys. John, you made the point. I understand that. MR. SALVADOR-It’s an operating company, Takundewide Management Group, that has made application for the temporary residence permit. Because they are renting units on a nightly basis, and they are renting for more than 10 people in the. MR. STONE-And that is the position of the Board of Health, and they granted a permit on that basis, and nobody’s arguing that. They obviously did that, for whatever reason they did, they did it, following their reg’s. MR. SALVADOR-Do you know how many properties the Board of Health administers in this program, in the North Country here? Do you know how many properties there are? Hundreds. MR. STONE-That’s fine. MR. SALVADOR-They know what they’re doing. MR. STONE-I never said they didn’t. I didn’t mean to imply that. KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-If I might just have one moment. Kathleen Salvador. I think Mr. Bryant brought up an excellent question and asked if they had brought any of their advertising literature with them. I think you should look at their advertising literature, their brochure, the Warren County guide, Chamber of Commerce. I think you would be very interested in what you found in that literature. Unfortunately, we didn’t bring that this evening, but we have that also, and that’s easily obtainable. MR. SALVADOR-And that literature does not list the Takundewide Management Group. You wouldn’t know they exist from that literature. The listing is simply Takundewide. You don’t know if it’s a hotel, if it’s a motel, if it’s a, whatever it is. It’s just simply, Takundewide, and that’s the presence, but the presence Takundewide makes is that of an overnight occupancy. That’s what they’re advertising, together with all of these other hotels and motels in Warren County, in the Chamber booklet. That’s the presence they make, and that’s what counts. That’s why the Health Department required the TR permit. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Gentlemen, we have a very simple task, and I’m going to ask you for your position on it. Do we think that this appeal is valid in that the Zoning Administrator incorrectly chose not to call this a new use? That’s what I believe the situation is. I would like to start with Mr. McNally, and go down the Board. MR. MC NALLY-I like cases to be heard on their merits, and I am happy to hear that the non- applicant decided to waive standing, because that does bring before the Board the merits of the case, and that’s something I think should be addressed rather than these piquen legal things that interfere with ultimate decisions. I don’t see the DOH permit as being necessarily involved in this appeal. It’s an indication of a usage for a temporary residence most certainly, but the evidence tonight is whether there was, I think, change in that usage, and I’m satisfied that the applicant has been renting these properties since ’84, excuse me, I’m satisfied that Takundewide Management Group or its predecessor has been renting these properties since at least 1984, when it was converted to single family residential use, and prior to that, as a bungalow colony, and I think the distinction is, before 1999, they did that without a Department of Health permit, but that didn’t mean that the use was any different before they got the permit. The use has always been the same. I look at single family owners as being able to rent their own property as they see fit, and this Takundewide Management Group, at least to the extent that it’s not like a motel or a hotels, is in accordance with like Friedman 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) in Schroon Lake, or Owen Davies, which is a broker renting properties, and engaging in a business, even in a residential zone, without any problem. So I don’t see that Mr. Salvador’s application, that the Zoning Administrator’s decision should be changed or overruled, has any real basis. I would not be in favor of Mr. Salvador’s position. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-I’m afraid I would have to disagree. I think that Mr. Salvador has raised some interesting questions, and quite frankly I think he has standing to raise these issues, and I submit that if we had more documentation, such as brochures and advertisements, I think perhaps it would clear the air, at least in my opinion, but at this stage of the game, I’m afraid I’m going to have to support Mr. Salvador in his position. MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-I’ve got to say that I agree with some of what Mr. McNally has said and something of what Mr. Abbate has said. Mr. Lapper makes some valid points about continued use, but I think Mr. Salvador has made a couple of points, one relating to the 10 bed issue, where it’s the management company and not the individual property owners that make that determination, and I don’t know. I think I would also like to see some more documentation from both sides relating to how these units are actually rented out. MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes? MR. HAYES-Well, it’s certainly an interesting topic, and clearly there are some issues here on both sides, but in this particular case, I think in my opinion, the controlling fact or group of facts is that I don’t think there has been a change of use in this property that would trigger a change, that impacted zoning to the point where something had to be acted upon. I think that, I agree with Mr. Mason that, as property owners, in this particular case, they continue to do what they have done, even to the point where they came to the Town with the appropriate filings to continue that use in a different fashion, and I also think that, I agree with his logic that the organizations that exist today, and I think Bob kind of pointed to this, the organizations that exist today corporately and their functions and definitions, whether it’s Takundewide Management, Takundewide Homeowner’s, in fact do what Takundewide Incorporated did in the past. So, I would be against the appeal, in this particular case, based on the fact that I don’t think there has been a change of use on this particular property. MR. STONE-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I have several thoughts. First off, one, I’m glad that Takundewide agreed to waive the issue of Mr. Salvador’s standing, but it bothers me that that was even a question, and I think maybe that’s something I would like to refer back to the Chairman for his position on the zoning re-write that’s going on. I think there should be a way for any citizen in this Town, if they think that the Zoning Administrator has made a mistake, and is allowing a commercial activity in a residential zone, I think it does effect every citizen in the Town, and I think every citizen should have the right to appeal and to be able to do it without hiring a lawyer to bring a formal Article 78 or whatever in court. They ought to be able to do it in front of this Board as an initial reaction, and I think that should be cleared up. That being said, I’m torn both ways. If I look at this group of properties as individual properties, which technically they are, then I have to agree that probably the activity of renting the properties has not changed over the years. It may be that the corporate entity that’s the Management Group has or hasn’t changed their activities, or has gone from longer to shorter term, and I don’t think we have enough information to really know whether they’ve changed from renting monthly or weekly to renting for two days or three days. If I had to decide tonight, I guess I would also go against the appeal and support the Zoning Administrator. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t perceive that there’s really been any change in usage, other than the fact that, you know, they have applied for the Health permit, and that was granted. I do respect Mr. Salvador’s right to appeal what he has appealed, but nonetheless, I think that its clear to me that these properties have been rented for a long period of time, almost continuously, and whether or not they’re rented for one night or a week or a month, whatever it happens to be, I think that, nonetheless, that they still have been in rental usage for quite some time, so I don’t see that we should question Chris Round’s reading that he gave to us. MR. STONE-Okay. I am persuaded, by the Takundewide Group, that the use has not changed. As far as the issue of standing is concerned, I agree with Mr. McNulty here, in terms of his concern about standing even being raised, and as far as I’m concerned, as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I don’t care whether there’s standing or not. The merits of the case can be presented to us, and we can make a decision. If it goes beyond that, then it’s out of our hands. It’s in the courts, but 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) if someone comes forth with a valid appeal, and this is a valid appeal. I’m not, even though I’m not in favor of it, it’s a valid appeal, as far as I’m concerned. Somebody, Mr. Salvador in this particular case, has seen something that he thinks is wrong, visa vi the Town, and a State agency. It’s a valid appeal, and as far as I’m concerned, anytime something like that comes along, and I may be opening a Pandora’s Box, but I certainly would consider it, because I think, as I said the other night at the Town Board meeting, it is every citizen’s right and obligation to bring notice to the Town administration if they see something that they think is wrong. It may or may not be, when you get into it, but they have a right and obligation to do so. Having said that, going back to the merits of the appeal, I am persuaded by the arguments by Mr. Round’s position that the use has not changed on the basis of what I’ve heard tonight, and I am prepared, and I will do it myself, and one of the reasons I do that, is that I think Mr. Round is right, that a new use has not been initiated on the subject property. As Mr. Salvador, his words are that a new use has been initiated, and I don’t think it has. MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 6-2000 JOHN SALVADOR, JR., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-And that’s all I have to say, I believe, Craig, isn’t it? Do I have to give the reasons? MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. STONE-I don’t think so, in this particular case. AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Himes MR. STONE-We have one more piece of business on the agenda, that concerns Mr. Salvador. Mr. Salvador made a formal, under “Other Business” is where we are right now. Mr. Salvador asked me, as the Chairman, for five minutes of time, with a timer to verify, and we are all going to set our watches. You said it, you said five minutes, and we’re going grant you five minutes. I have no idea what you want to talk about, but you said five minutes. Have you got the watch? MR. ABBATE-I’ve got it. MR. STONE-Okay. Go. MR. SALVADOR-Once again, good evening, gentlemen. I have requested this time to say a few words for the record of this meeting, as these comments pertain to the Zoning Administrator’s letter of July 13, advising that I lack standing to bring Appeal No. 6-2000. Of the two reasons Mr. Round th cites for my lack of standing, I would like to address both his determination that the Takundewide noncompliance matter has no apparent bearing on our facilities or operations, and that the actions of the New York State DOH do not necessarily require the Town to act, it is understandable that the bearing of certain of the Town’s decisions not be apparent to Mr. Round, since he has never walked the walk through the maze of rules and regulations that have been erected in this region, that in actuality allow the noncompliance which I speak of, to have gone unrecognized for several years. In your resolution, you said the use has continued, but it wasn’t a legal use. It wasn’t a legally permitted use, and that’s the basis. It has to be a legal use. What compels the Town to act is my individual U.S. Constitutional right to equal protection of the law. This protection is enumerated in the 14 th Amendment, Section One. In relevant part, the 14 Amendment reads, “No State such make or th enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of equal protection of the law”. As you allow Takundewide to operate in noncompliance, as a temporary residence, okay, in noncompliance, that impacts my affairs, and I’ll explain. Because of my participation on the Town Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, I became familiar with Town Law Section 272, wherein the New York State Legislature defined the content of a Town Comprehensive Plan. Section 272 reads, in relevant part, that the plan may take into consideration the regional needs and the official plans of other government units and agencies within the region. Our Comprehensive Plan and our Zoning Ordinance does not mention the New York State Department of Health with regard to their permitting of temporary residences. Another item is, all or part of the plan of another public agency. Our Zoning Ordinance doesn’t mention the Lake George Park Commission. We all know the foundation that the Comprehensive Plan gives to a viable Zoning Ordinance. No plan, no Comprehensive Plan mentioned, no Zoning Ordinance mentioned, and that’s where we are. Of the public agencies other than the Town of Queensbury with which we interface, there are four agencies who’s regulations have a significant impact on a commercial operation, whereas a residential use is virtually untouched. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) That’s what we have here. We have Takundewide doing the same thing we’re doing, as a residential entity, and we’re a commercial entity. There are different impacts. Just take one OSHA has jurisdiction over the commercial resort and lodging facility that we operate. They do not require a residential resort marina facility, such as Takundewide, to comply with their regulations. Not only design and construction standards, which have to be met, but record keeping. Most of the heavy fines that OSHA issued today are for failure to keep records. Isn’t that nice? We have to keep records. We have to comply. They don’t. The U.S. Justice Department has recently promulgated new regulations dealing with barrier free access for physically and mentally handicapped. As you know, those commercial entities engaged in recreation and exercise activity have the obligation to provide barrier free access for both their employees and their patrons. These requirements have yet to reach the residential type operations, or those considered private. Takundewide, doing the same thing we are doing, doesn’t have to meet those requirements. We have to furnish audio visual smoke detectors, smoke alarms, audio visual, lot of expense. They don’t. These alarms have to be in every single bedroom, every single bedroom. Where we have multi bedroom units, we’ve got to have multi alarms. Okay. We have to supply the handicapped telephones, so that people who have hearing aids can. MR. STONE-Volume control, you mean. MR. SALVADOR-Our telephone receiver can be adapted to their hearing aid so they can hear it. Okay. That’s a requirement. They don’t have to. Entrance locks. Entrance locks have to be self- closing, automatic, lever actuated. Okay. They don’t have to do that. We do. That’s a costly thing. You’re talking $400 to $500 a unit, plus the keying and the security that goes with it. Bathroom fixtures, lever operated bathroom fixtures, ADA accessible facilities. They don’t have to do that. Now where this comes in is, Takundewide applies for a building permit. They go to site plan, whatever they have to go to, a variance. They are not held to these standards. Their design doesn’t have to incorporate this. Ours does, and that’s the difference. Same use, different standards. How would you like to take a bathroom in an existing unit and make it handicap accessible? You’d have to knock a wall down some place. We have to do it. They don’t. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in 1982, had a dock registration and marina permitting program. Takundewide, the old Takundewide, applied for and got a commercial marina permit. Because they were a commercial entity. They were involved in the sale and service of certain things. They stated it on their application, and they received a permit. Okay. (lost words) anymore. Today, if you’re a commercial entity on Lake George and pay $2.50 a lineal foot for your dock, if you’re residential, all you pay is $25. My 30 foot dock cost me $75. Takundewide’s 30 foot dock cost them $25. Same use. Same use. Recreation uses, I am regulated on recreation uses, by the Lake George Park Commission. Takundewide is not. They’re residential, absolutely no regulation. Okay. Their dockage is as a Homeowner’s Association. That’s how they get theirs, and you heard the gentleman say they’re renting their docks out. The New York State Department of Health, for only a portion of their units, how they do this, I can’t tell you, I really can’t tell you, but only half of their units come under the regulatory program, although they’re all interlocked. They’re all interlocked. We have to post our permit. They check when they come to us. This is the checklist of Health Department items that they check. Surface drainage, insect, rodent, weed control, pesticides, refuse storage handling and disposal, children under 16 properly supervised. Do you know what that costs a facility like ours to accomplish? Competent person in charge. I had to take first aid. I had to take CPR. I have to have this because of the Health Department. They don’t. Okay. We have to have spine board at our pool and beach. They don’t. Medical, nursing, electrical safety, maintenance, safe, clean water type, linen and bedding storage, drinking glasses. We are required to have the glasses that we furnish in the room sanitized. You don’t just wash them under the faucet put it back on the shelf. They’ve got to be taken to a machine that has proper detergents, proper temperatures, and processed, that costs money. Takundewide doesn’t have to do it. The same use, and they don’t incur the costs. Lighting and ventilation. Ventilation’s a big thing now, in the lodging industry. Ventilation is a big thing, and we’re having to alter our facilities to comply. They’re renting to the traveling public. What are they doing for ventilation in their facilities? Water supply, source properly developed and protected, disinfection being properly maintained, adequate water quality and pressure, water quantity and pressure, free of apparent cross connections, modifications additions approved, operation records maintained and submitted, required monitoring being performed, complying with the water quality standards. We’ve got to take water samples quarterly, send them to an independent laboratory, and the results go directly to the Health Department, and we have a license to maintain a public water supply. Okay. Residential owners don’t have to do this. Residential properties don’t have to do this. Food service, they’re not in that. Sewage facilities provided and maintained, no untreated sewage discharging to groundwater. Toilets and showers are checked, pools and beaches. We have to test the chemicals in our pool three times a day, three times a day. MR. STONE-I would agree that you have lots of regulations, and that they don’t. Any more points you want to make? Mr. Abbate’s watch is not a very good watch. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Good. Fire safety. Fire safety’s a big one now. Okay. Fire safety, employee training, emergency plan in place and functioning, training sessions you have to have. MR. ABBATE-Five minutes is up, Mr. Chairman. MR. SALVADOR-You fellows take this lightly, okay. MR. STONE-No, Mr. Salvador, we do not. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Salvador, I happen to think you’re right. MR. STONE-You’ve made some wonderful points. MR. SALVADOR-If I’m so right, let me continue. MR. STONE-I have no problem with you continuing. I just wanted the point made. MR. SALVADOR-Now, Mr. Round has made the point that it’s not necessary for the Town to act. MR. STONE-You’re going to a different issue. MR. SALVADOR-No, I’m not. I opened my comments with, I’d like to address two issues. One, that. MR. STONE-But we have already ruled that he made the right decision. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I understand, and when I did this I knew you’d do that. What compels the Town to act is my individual right, okay, and that you’re not necessarily required to, let me tell you where the Town has acted. Let me tell you where the Town has done just the opposite of what Mr. Round says they don’t have to do. We enforce the Uniform Building Code. We didn’t invent that Code. That’s a State Code. We didn’t have to do that? We didn’t have any obligation to do that? We have a public health officer and a public health board in this Town, and they’re supposed to administer the public health code. This is part of the public health code. An important thing here is Takundewide can come in here anytime, and they are a conforming use. They’re a residential use in a residential zone. We have been there also since the beginning of time. They said 1954. Our resort had its start in 1956, and we’re a nonconforming use. Where else would you put a resort marina? We’re a nonconforming, there’s a big difference there, a big difference for a commercial property to be a nonconforming use. This also, Mr. Stone, you’re very familiar with this, tax assessments. They’re assessed as residential property, doing the same thing we’re doing, okay. We’re assessed as commercial property. There’s different criteria. There are different criteria. Now, I’ll give you an example here of where the Town took action, took action, okay. In 1989, we received a visit, an unannounced visit, from the following four people, Lieutenant William Crane from the Lake George Park Commission carrying his gun, Dan Olsen from the County, Dave Hatin from this Code Enforcement Officer, and Dr. Evans, the Public Health Officer of the Town. What was the purpose of their visit? The reasons for the joint inspections involved, over the past few years, due to the increased number of complaints to the Lake George Park Commission and the Public Health Officer in regards to pollution, marinas, and jurisdictional problems that have arisen in regards to the Lake George Park Commission and local municipalities. The Town of Queensbury took action. They didn’t sit back and say, we don’t have to do it. They took action, okay. Now the significant thing here is that all the marinas on the east side of the lake were inspected. This was 1989. Dr. Evans, our Public Health Officer, was a part of this inspection team. He wrote this report, okay, but you know one marina they missed in this inspection? The Mooring Post, and of course Takundewide. Takundewide’s not a marina. They’re a residential. They missed the Mooring Post, but it was shortly thereafter that Dr. Evans came to this Town and got his variances to building his house across the street. Well, he wasn’t going to aggravate the Mooring Post at this time, was he? He wasn’t going to go and pull an inspection on them, and write it up on the front page of the LGA news. He wasn’t going to do that, was he, but the Town can take action when it wants to. That’s my point tonight. Also in this, it’s written up here that the Town is currently reviewing site application for construction of a 24 hour toilet facilities at our facility. We were doing that. We were in the process of site plan review approval from this Town to change the entrance doors on a building so that we could access the toilets from the outside, okay, from the outside of the building, so they would be accessible 24 hours, rather than only when the building was open. We had to go to site plan review for that. This Town and Mr. Hatin turned our application over to the Americans with Disabilities Act Office, downtown, okay, and the entrance to that building had to be made handicap accessible. That’s in 1989. Did you ever hear of anybody else having to do that? Marinas on Lake George, 24 hour toilets? The Town can move when it wants to, Mr. Stone. It just chooses to be very selective. Thank you for your time. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) MR. STONE-You’re welcome. I would repeat something that Mr. Lapper said this evening, that you are to be complimented for the efforts that you do to bring things to people’s attention, and you have. MR. SALVADOR-But it’s a dead end street, Mr. Stone. It’s a dead end street, and this is what discourages this sort of activity that I do. This is what discourages it. You can’t fight City Hall, what people tell you, and you’re living proof. MR. STONE-We have a couple of minutes to approve. MR. BROWN-There’s also an extension of a tabling motion. It’s the last thing on the agenda. The Bogert tabling motion ends today. They’re going to be in next week. It’s just a technicality. Table it for one more week. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, I missed that. Okay. Yes. MR. BROWN-The file’s in the box here if you want to read the old tabling motion. MR. STONE-On what basis? MR. BROWN-The 62 days runs out today. MR. STONE-Why? I don’t understand. MR. BROWN-They just couldn’t make it to the meeting. There’s a letter in there stating they couldn’t make it. They’re requesting tabling until next week. MR. STONE-There’s a letter. All right. Let’s read the letter in. It should be in the record, if we’re going to do this. MR. BROWN-Sure. It should be a June 22 letter. nd MR. MC NULTY-Yes, okay. I think this is the one. It’s addressed to attention of Craig Brown, Zoning Code Compliance Officer, from Karen M. Bogert, dated June 22, 2000, “Please find enclosed an addendum to our original variance application that needs to be forwarded to the members of the Zoning Board. We have provided an original and fourteen copies. When arranging the schedule for the meeting dates in July, please put our application on the agenda for anytime during the week beginning July 24, we are also available the week beginning July 10 if additional dates are being th added to the schedule. Please be aware that due to circumstances beyond our control, we are not available for any dates during the week of July 17 and we need to be at the Zoning Board meeting. We greatly appreciate your assistance. If you have any questions or concerns, you can reach me during the day at”, and she gives a phone number. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION THAT, ON THE BASIS OF THE REQUEST BY PETER AND KAREN BOGERT, I MOVE THAT WE EXTEND THE TABLING FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Through the end of July, so that they can be on the agenda for the July 26 meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes MR. STONE-We’ve got two sets of minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 15, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR JUNE 15, 2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/19/00) Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mr. Himes June 21, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FOR THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mr. Himes MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Stone, I still have April 20 and April 26 that haven’t been corrected, either. thth MR. STONE-What were the dates? MS. GAGLIARDI-April 20 and April 26. thth MR. HAYES-We’ve got to find out who was here. MR. STONE-Who was here. I don’t know who was here. Do you have a copy? MR. BRYANT-I have April 26. th MR. STONE-Good. April 26, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 26, 2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Himes MR. STONE-April 20, we don’t have it. We’ll have to look for it. All right. I move we adjourn. th MR. MC NALLY-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 50