Loading...
1997-06-18 r '" , , F Il E QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COP Y FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 1997 INDEX Area Variance No.22-1997 Tax Map No. 55-2-22.21 Michael Hayes 1. Use Variance No. 16-1997 Tax Map No. 36-1-1.3 Mike Barber 15. Area Variance No. 30-1997 Tax Map No. 8-9-4 Betsy Malman 15. Area Variance No. 33-1997 Tax Map No. 112-1-1 Notice of Appeal No. 3-97 Ervin L. Nash 25. Mark Benware 28. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ,--,,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY LEWIS STONE BRIAN CUSTER ROBERT KARPELES PAUL HAYES PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1997 TYPE II SR-1A MICHAEL HAYES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9L, 400 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON AN EXISTING LOT. THIS LOT DOES NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED 40 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 179-70 WHICH REQUIRES 40 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD PER LOT AS WELL AS THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-19, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 55-2-22.21 LOT SIZE: 0.62 ACRES SECTION 179-70 MICHAEL HAYES, PRESENT MR. J. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I'd like to excuse myself. MR. THOMAS-Yes, sir. If you'd read the tabling motion. MR. HILTON-The tabling motion is from the meeting date of May 28, 1997, for Area Variance No. 22-1997, a Motion to Table Area Variance No. 22-1997, Michael Hayes, and it was introduced by Chris Thomas, seconded by Lou Stone, signed and dated the 28th of May from Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. THOMAS-Would you read in there why, you know, where it says until further information. MR. HILTON-Until further information can be obtained as to when the lot in question was created, and at the time it was created, how many square feet were required for the zone. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Hayes, you submitted a couple of pages of additional information here. They look like deeds. I read through them and I couldn't find where this lot was described. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-I had to give you two deeds. One, which is Book 683. For the record, my name is Leon Steves, 683 on Page 681, and on top of the sheet, I've got it marked where the parcel's 55-2-22.21 and 22.25, and then I also submitted to you the parcel, it's 55-2- 22.55, which is recorded in Book 687 of the Deeds on Page 719. That deed is the duplex to the south of the lot we're now considering tonight. - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay, 22.21 and 22.25 are on the same deed? MR. M. HAYES-Yes, they were. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STEVES-If I may, the last deed I referred to is this parcel right here, the duplex. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STEVES-Okay. That was a part of that previous deed, which included both the duplex lot and this lot. MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, the outstanding question is, when was this lot created? MR. STEVES-Okay. It was created, then, the 28th day of November, 1986. MR. THOMAS-1986? MR. STEVES-1986. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that pre-dates the existing Ordinance. MR. HILTON-So in response to that, the zoning at that time was SR- 30, which required 30,000 lots. This lot being, I believe, under 30,000 square feet, we re-advertised it this evening not only for needing a variance from the minimum frontage on a Town road, but also from the minimum lot size that was required. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything you'd want to add? MR. M. HAYES-We'd like to answer some of the points that were brought up in the last meeting, if we can. MR. STEVES-This shows the hedgerow that was brought up as being on the adjacent property. It is on the property in question. We've surveyed it. We have marked it on the map, and you have copies of it. MR. STONE-So you're saying the property line is to the north of the hedgerow? MR. STEVES-To the north side of the hedge. MR. M. HAYES-The hedge is on our property, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-Questions were brought up as to the wetland. These are copies of the official wetlands filed in the Warren County Clerk's Office, showing the wetland as HF-3, is on the right hand side of the map. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The map indicates that that is not a DEC wetland? MR. STEVES-That's correct. I've also had that wetland blown up, showing the area immediately adjacent to it. MR. STONE-Leon, the one who testified that she had to sign something was this one? MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Now, on the wetland map, I just want to make sure that I know where I am. Now, on the wetland map. - 2 - ~ '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. STEVES-The lot we were talking about is this one right here. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Right. MR. STEVES-There were two ladies here last week, one here and one here. That woman right here lives right here. MR. KARPELES-Which is that lot. Okay. MR. THOMAS-But that whole thing is not a DEC wetland. MR. STEVES-No. MR. THOMAS-None of it. MR. STONE-So it just barely touches the furthest south one of the three that you own? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. STONE-It doesn't touch it, but I mean it comes close. MR. HAYES-Yes. We also wanted to address that one of the neighbors brought up that we were draining the water supply on Ridge Road. and I wanted to make it know that we're using public water supply, Town of Queensbury water, and also another issue with the water supply from Mrs. Kurimsky came up, that we plowed in her water rights and her pipes, which we have a deed here that actually my parents purchased the easement from her for an amount of money, I'm not sure what it was, for those water rights. MR. STONE-George, you said that we have to grant both of them to make this work? MR. HILTON-That's my understanding, yes. The date this lot was created, we're looking for lot area, and also frontage on a Town road relief. MR. STEVES-Additionally, Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about, we don't want to destroy that hedge. That makes a nice privacy hedge. We were contemplating, Mr. Hayes is contemplating, putting a driveway, if you will, to the south of the adjacent duplex and into the single family house, which would eliminate the need of destroying that hedge at all. MRS. LAPHAM-That's what you're showing on this map right here. MR. THOMAS-No, they bought the easement for the water rights. MR. STONE-That's with the water rights? MR. THOMAS - Yes. MR. KARPELES-Yes, right here. MRS. LAPHAM-This is the water rights map which I don't have. MR. STEVES-Well, we've got you inundated with paper tonight. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you'd like to add? MR. HAYES-Yes, and as I know one of the criteria here is not to diminish the quality and the character of the neighborhood. So we provided a map, also, of how many lots, how many houses are on lots of less than an acre right now, which there is 15 on Ridge Road itself, within 1,000 feet, and there's 37, including the roads around, that are less than an acre, houses which Leon will provide you that. - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. KARPELES-AII the ones that are shaded are less than an acre? MR. HAYES-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-How many are less than 30,000? Well, that seems to be the questions that we're, I mean, we're granting relief from an acre now, obviously. MR. STEVES-No. We're granting relief from the 30,000 Code. That's what we're addressing here. MR. HILTON-That's where it gets kind of confusing, because the 30,000 zone doesn't exist anYmore. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. HILTON-I'm just trying to see if I can find some answers to that right now. I think we'd be granting relief from the one acre. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's what I would go along with, the one acre, rather than the 30,000. MR. STEVES-Well, at the time the lot was created, 15 feet on a Town road was all that was required, and we're here because of that as well. Right, George? MR. HILTON-You're here for that as well, yes. MR. THOMAS-Because you're required to have a minimum of 40 feet now. That's why you're here. So that logic still applies to the existing zoning now is one acre, as it is 40 feet. So if we were to grant this variance, it would be from one acre, not 30,000 square feet. Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-How many square feet's an acre? MR. STEVES-43,560. MR. THOMAS-Is there anYmore questions for the applicant or agent? I left the public hearing open. No more questions? I left the public hearing open. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Please come to the microphone and state your name. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRISTINE SPINA MRS. SPINA-My name is Christine Spina. I live at 524 Ridge Road in Queensbury, and I'm the adjacent property owner to the proposed request for variance. I just want to ask a question. How many single dwellings are on how much acreage there? MR. THOMAS-There's 34 in the area on less than one acre. MRS. SPINA-No. I'm sorry. My question is regarding the cluster of rental properties right now, how many single dwellings are on how much acreage? I guess I'm just trying to, in my mind, get an idea of how many single dwellings right now exist on how much acreage? I know my house is an acre and a half, but I'm just curious, what is their acreage? Because there's six units, six single, is that correct, six single dwellings? MR. THOMAS-Well, there's three duplexes. So that's six dwellings. - 4 - ''-'"' '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MRS. SPINA-Okay, and how much is the acreage of that property right now? MR. THOMAS-The duplex just to the south of this property is 45,000 square feet. So that's, you figure, about half an acre. MR. STONE-No, just over an acre. MR. THOMAS-Well, per dwelling unit. MRS. SPINA-Per dwelling, yes. MR. THOMAS-And below that, I don't know if I've got that or not. MR. STONE-Well, the three properties immediately adjacent to the south, they're all the same size. They're all slightly just over one acre. MR. THOMAS-Yes. They're allover one acre. So there's about half an acre per dwelling unit. MRS. SPINA-Okay, and that's probably why it seems like it's so congested, because they're all situated in such a way that they're on the proper amount of acreage. MR. THOMAS-But I believe when these were built, well, that was the 30,000. No. MR. HILTON-Those other properties, I have no record as to when they were built, but the zoning before 1988 in this area was SR-30. MR. STONE-And as I understand it, George, to be a duplex, then, they had to be one and a half times the 30,000. That's why they're all 40,000. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 45,000. MR. STONE-45,000. I'm sorry. MR. HILTON-That's my understanding. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So they were, when these were built, those lots were the proper size for a duplex. That's the way the law was at that time. MRS. SPINA-Okay. I understand. I was just asking. MR. THOMAS-Now it's been changed from 1987. MRS. SPINA-Thank you for the clarification. I guess, as I stated in my last meeting, when I was talking about my concerns around the cluster of the rental units, my position still stands the same. I'm sure you all have seen the property. My personal comment relates to having a house in my back yard, of course, and the fact that the rental units have not proven, in my opinion, to be what should exist in the midst of completely residential area dwellings. I'm not the next door neighbor, as the Kurimsky's are, however, I would be the next door neighbor to another house in my back yard, and I strongly oppose it, and I really do believe, between the traffic, the congestion, just the cluster of little mini rental complex would deteriorate mY property, and the property surrounding it. So I guess I still stand opposed, and hopefully, if you all got a chance to get over there and take a look at what I'm referring to, you understand. The location is certainly becoming, that little location is becoming a very tight cluster, I keep calling it a cluster, cluster of rental units. Thanks. MR. THOMAS-I have a question for you. The applicant has a right to get a reasonable return on his property. What would you suggest he - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) put back there? What should he build back there? MRS. SPINA-I'm in the same position, except for I signed a letter wi th the DEC saying I would never develop anything back there. That's the difference. What would I suggest he put back there? MR. THOMAS-He needs a reasonable return on his property. MRS. SPINA-I do, too. MR. THOMAS-That's granted in the State laws. MRS. SPINA-I do, too. MR. THOMAS-So it's a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, okay. The lot exists. The only thing that it doesn't meet is today's requirements for road frontage, and square footage, and that's what he's asking relief from. What he's planning on putting on there is a single family dwelling. Whether he rents it, lives in it, leaves it empty, that' s up to him. That's between him and conscience, and his accountant. MRS. SPINA-Right, but you see, it's the surrounding neighbors who are going to, how shall I say, be effected by whatever he decides to do, and we've already had an example, over the last five years or so, as to what he's proposed to do and what he's continued to do, and I think you heard enough about the rental situations and the people moving in and out. So we've already had a sampling of what his proposed direction for business or whatever consists of. What do I propose he does with that land? I don't know. Why did he buy it to begin with? I mean, I bought illY property for privacy, frankly, and it was a lot of acreage. MR. THOMAS-Well, he might even sell it to you, if you'd like it. That way you can expand. MRS. SPINA-I can't answer your question intelligently, because if you really wanted me to tell you what I wanted him to do with it, I don't think you'd like to record it. Good question. What I wanted to do with the back of illY property was nothing, just leave it natural and wild and forever wild, and when the DEC asked me to sign that statement, I really didn't have any problem with that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? RICHARD TERRY MR. TERRY-My name is Richard Terry, and I live at 492 Ridge Road. I'm nearly adjacent to his property. I was out burning papers a couple of months back, and there was a little smudge. This fellow by the name of John O'Brien walked in off the road. Now my fire pit is 300 feet back from the road. There was a little smudge because of wet leaves in the pit. I was burning some personal papers, oncology, bank statements, whatever, because I didn't want them to go to the landfill, and he informed me that we have an Ordinance against open fires in Queensbury. We also have an Ordinance that says you need 40 feet of road frontage. How do you compensate one for the other? There was no conflagration as far as the fire goes. It was just kind of smudgy, that's all, and if this ordinance applies in this case, why doesn't the ordinance apply in the other case? MR. THOMAS-Because this was a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. If Mr. Hayes wanted to build on this lot when it was created in 1986, there would be no question whatever, a building permit would have been issued, right then and there, but since the Ordinance changed in 1987, it's like I told Ms. Spina there, that he's entitled to a reasonable return on his property. - 6 - -- "--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. TERRY-That's true, but he said he was building it for his grandmother? MR. THOMAS-I do believe he did say that. MR. TERRY-Why can't he put grandma in one of the rentals? I can't see a hardship there, worse than it is now. MR. THOMAS-My guess is that he wouldn't charge grandma, and he'd be losing a reasonable return on his investment. That's what he's entitled to. So, I can't answer your question about the burning ordinance. Mr. 0' Brien would take care of that. That's his bailiwick. MR. TERRY-But it seems if you have an Ordinance, you have an Ordinance. You should abide by it. MR. THOMAS-Like I say, you know, the fire ordinance didn't change, but the buildinq ordinance did. So, that's why we're here. We grant relief from the law. We don't make it. Thanks. Would anyone else like to speak? MRS. SPINA-Could I ask a question? Why was the Ordinance changed? MR. THOMAS-From time to time, the master plan of the Town of Queensbury has changed to, I would say, what, George? To go along with the changing conditions in the Town? MR. HILTON-I think that part of it would be changing conditions, reassessed neighborhoods, maybe. Existing conditions have a lot to do with why master plans and zoning ordinances have changed. Not being here in 1988, I can't speak to what decisions were made in changing the zoning of this area from SR-30 to SR-IA, but certainly there's a committee that looks into it, Planning Staff looks into it, reviews it, studies it, and for whatever reason the zoning was changed in 1988. MRS. SPINA-Could it have been proposed by residents or by the Zoning Board. MR. THOMAS-Well, there were public hearings at that time. Before anything like that is changed, they have a number of public hearings. Most recent in mind was the Waterfront Residential One Acre and Three Acre zones. They had, I know of at least four public hearings, in different parts of Town, so that people could speak to that, and then the Town Board did go through and listen to the people. For an example, I think that the law proposed a 10 foot side setback, and the Town Board settled on 12 foot for any lot 50 feet or less. So that was, you know, something that the citizens of Queensbury had suggested. Rather than 10 feet, they went to 12 feet. The Town Board listened, and that's what they went with, and I do believe they're going through another revision of the master plan again, right now. So there'll be other public hearings once they get their, you know, what they want to do. The public hearings will be open. You can have your input. Maybe they'll change this back to 30,000 square feet. Who knows? MRS. SPINA-So, technically, the Town of Queensbury residents proposed the change, or requested change and asked for approval. MR. THOMAS-Well, no, they didn't request the change. The Town Planning Department goes through and does a periodic review, like George said, to see what's going on, through re-assessments, through change. MRS. SPINA-And it must have been acceptable to the Town of Queensbury residents. - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. THOMAS-Well, the Town Board passed it, so they're the elected bunch. So the rest of us are all appointed. MRS. SPINA-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak opposed? ALICE HUBERT MRS. HUBERT-I'm Alice Hubert of 474 Ridge. I can't quite understand if the driveway that they're thinking of is 15 feet, and there was some disaster that might have occurred on this property up there, could a fire truck get in to save anybody? What about ambulance service and all of that, any kind of emergency? I can't quite comprehend, with the way it's built, that this could be a safe environment for the people, and I didn't understand before that they have Town water up there, but what about the sewers? I know they do not run up that far, although I assume they will some day. MR. THOMAS-Some day they will, but I probably won't see it. MRS. HUBERT-I hope I don't either. MR. THOMAS-As far as your 15 foot driveway there, Mr. Steves stated that they would probably bring in the driveway on the south side of the lot next door, okay, and they wouldn't use that 15 foot right- of-way because they would like to keep the hedgerow which, according to his print, his survey map he just surveyed, shows on their property, okay. The 15 feet is, at that time in 1986 when this lot was created, was all that was required on the road front, to have road frontage. Now it's 40 feet, because of the Ordinance change in '87. MRS. HUBERT-Well, I think they should stick with what the Ordinance was made for until such time that that is changed by the public. I think we ought to adhere to what the regulations say. MR. THOMAS-Like I said, this is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. Like I told Ms. Spina there, that in 1986 they would have been issued a building permit right away to build a house on that lot, with the 15 foot frontage and the 30,000 square feet. MRS. HUBERT-We were required to have three acres. We got just a little over. MR. THOMAS-And you're north of there, right? MRS. HUBERT-No, we're south. MR. THOMAS-You're south. That's not a different zone, is it? Is there a zone line in there? MRS. HUBERT-I thought that was all residential from. MR. THOMAS-Well, there's different types of zones. There's residential rural three acres, residential rural one, single family residential one. MR. HILTON-And depending on how long ago. The zone may have been three acres at one time and changed. MR. THOMAS-Yes, whatever it was required at the time you were building. I don't know when that was. MRS. HUBERT-1951, '52. MR. HILTON-It could have very well been three acres. - 8 - -" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes, it could have been three acres back then. MRS. HUBERT-It was. MR. THOMAS-But then as more people move into Town and expansion. MRS. HUBERT-We even had trouble trying to make a driveway into our property. They wouldn't give us a permit unless we did such and such a thing. The Town wouldn't cooperate with us at the time, either. MR. THOMAS-That is a State highway. driveway cut. You'd have to get a State MRS. HUBERT-Well, we still had problems. MR. THOMAS-You probably had them with the State, not the Town. I wasn't there. I couldn't tell you. MRS. HUBERT-Then after we got all that done, lo and behold they come along and filled the whole ditch up, but that's our problem, I know. MR. THOMAS-Well, you can call the New York State Department of Transportation on that, up in Warrensburg. The guy's name is Mr. Lennon. Anyone else to speak opposed? If not, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any additional correspondence come in? MRS. LAPHAM-No, not that I've seen. MR. THOMAS-All right. Steves? Anymore questions for Mr. Hayes or Mr. MR. STONE-This easement that you're talking about granting, this would go with the immediately south property. It would be in perpetuity, obviously. That would be the driveway in, and you'd still have the fairly wide driveway for the north most duplex, between that and the hedgerow? MR. HAYES-Yes. We feel that we'd be able to keep the hedge there as a nice separation and would alleviate any traffic flow for the driveway, to be just for that one house instead of trying to share one. You know the problems that happen with that type of circumstance. MR. KARPELES-Well, could you make that easement more than 15 feet wide? MR. HAYES-I'm not sure. MR. STEVES,- I better answer that. The Code calls for frontage on a Town road, ownership frontage. That's why we're here tonight. We have a 15 foot ownership on that Town road, or on the State road. We could widen it out to 40 feet right there, but then we are diminishing the frontage on the adjacent lot, and rather than do that, we thought that an easement would be a better way to bring that driveway in to the south and into the property. So you would have a physical as well as actual ownership upon that Town road. MR. KARPELES-If you had 40 feet frontage on that lot, you wouldn't even be here. Right? MR. THOMAS-Yes, they'd need it for the size. square feet. It' s only 3 0 , 000 - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. STONE-Yes, but Bob, they need 45,000 for this lot to remain legal. They can give an easement, but they can't give away the land. They can't attach it to the other piece of property. Right, George? MR. HILTON-Well, it gets kind of confusing, because they could do some boundary line adjustments. Potentially, I don't have the map in front of me, but they could do some boundary line adjustments, trade property get an acre and get 40 feet of frontage on a Town road and then they wouldn't need any variances, that's something they may be able to do, if they switched or if they did an adjustment with a neighboring lot, but they couldn't reduce the conformi ty of one of those lots. So, you know, potentially there's some things that they could do, where they'd be able to develop without even having to come for a variance. MR. STONE-But those lots still require, under the old law, they require 45,000 square feet. MR. HILTON-43,000, yes. MR. STONE-No. Under the law, it was 30 plus 15. Wasn't it, one and a half times the 30,000, that's the 45,000. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. STONE-That still would rule. MR. STEVES-Well, we don't want to get into that. MR. STONE-Okay. You don't want to get into that, so we won't talk about it. MR. THOMAS-All right. This is in the SR-IA zone. One hundred and fifty feet is the minimum lot size required. MR. HILTON-Minimum lot width. MR. THOMAS-Minimum lot width. MR. HILTON-Yes, and that's been interpreted as an average that's different from the 40 feet on a Town road, where if you have an average lot width of 150, then the lot would conform. MR. THOMAS-All right, and to throw another fly in here, Ridge Road from Quaker Road north to 149 is a regional arterial road, which requires twice the lot width. So it's 300 feet. MR. HILTON-Three hundred feet of average lot width. IF they have a shared driveway, however they're permitted to have the existing, or the required 150. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-So am I of the understanding that the 150 has to front on the road? MR. THOMAS-Yes. All right. Having said that, no one else having anymore questions for the applicant, I'll start and see what everybody thinks. I'll start with you, Bob. MR. KARPELES-Well, to be honest, I haven't formed a definite opinion. It's an SR-1 Acre zone, and there's already a duplex on that lot. So it would appear to me, and his lot was spun off from the other lot. It would appear that, it was a two acre lot, originally, or less than two acres? MR. STEVES-It's 70,000, something like that, yes. - 10 - -...-" ''--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. KARPELES-So it would appear to me that it's already the density that it should be, with a duplex on a less than two acre lot, but as I say, I haven't really formed a definite opinion. That's just my opinion right now. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-Well, I have a number of concerns. Once, certainly the 15 foot, that's an awful lot of relief for frontage on a Town road, particularly when we consider what the Chairman just mentioned that we're on an arterial. Secondly, the fact that the lot, even at formation, was not in conformity to the 30,000 square foot that it was supposed to be in the time in 1987, means that if I want to grant this variance, I have to grant two considerable sized variances. One from, if you want to talk about today, one from one acre down to 25,000 square feet or 23, and the 15 foot, and right now I'm leaning to not granting the variance, but as Bob, I want to listen to the rest of us, because that's what makes the decisions come about, when we all get our input. So I will listen for awhile. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-I think trying to balance this out, I look at the fact that the lot was established prior to the re-zoning to a single residence one acre. Having said that, if I were the owner and I was looking for a reasonable rate of return on there, I would look to be entitled to build something, and if someone came to me looking for relief from the original 30,000, not of 25, I don't think that is a substantial amount of relief, and of course the 15 foot frontage on the road would already qualify. So having said that, looking at it that way, and having the fact that they're going to bring in the road on the south side, I would be in favor of the applicant, provided he also agrees to make up some kind of a hedging material which would abut the Kurimsky ad the Spina properties to provide some kind of privacy. On the other hand, if what we're doing is looking at it as an SR-1 Acre zone, then I do have some reservations whether I would grant it, because dropping it from 43,000 square feet down to 25 is substantial, plus the 15 foot of frontage. So I'm kind of sitting on the fence a little bit, also. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree with Brian. It's a no win situation, and no matter what you do, someone's going to be unhappy, and there is, that is quite a dense area, but again, when he bought the property, he met most of the requirements, other than the 30,000, and I strongly believe you can' t deprive somebody of getting a reasonable return on their property. So I don't know how I'm going to vote. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll put this statement out, and those of you with question marks can go from there. Balance the benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, okay. Those are really the five things, there are five things we have to consider, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, whether request is substantial, whether request will have an adverse effec:t on physical or environmental concerns, whether alleged difficulty is self created. I'll start at the bottom one here, whether alleged difficulty is self created. This is a pre- existing, nonconforming lot. That's not, the answer to that one is no. MR. KARPELES-I don't know about that. - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. STONE-I will argue that, Mr. Chairman. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Go ahead. MR. STONE-The applicant had one, had a piece of property that was approximately 45 plus 45 plus 45, and 23. They chose to put duplexes on the lots, therefore requiring 45,000 feet to make the required setback. They could have went with three single family homes and had enough room left over for a fourth under the existing requirement at that time, the 30,000 square feet. For four, it would have to be 120,000. They have 168,000 approximately. So at that time, they did create their own problem, by putting duplexes. MR. THOMAS-At the time, that was the law, in 1986, when this lot was created. ' MR. STONE-That is correct, but they could have put in single families on 30,000. So it was self created. I'm not saying it's made me come to a conclusion yet, but it is, in fact, self created. MR. THOMAS-They were entitled to a duplex on 45,000 square feet at the time. MR. STONE-And that left them a lot that was substandard at that time. MR. THOMAS-That's true. MRS. LAPHAM-And also, weren't they only required to have 15 feet of frontage at that time? MR. THOMAS-At that time. MR. STONE-I'm not even talking about the 15. MRS. LAPHAM-But I mean, actually, they did what they could have done then. Right? MR. THOMAS-The applicant didn't know they were going to change the zoning to SR-1. MR. STONE-But the fourth lot was substandard at that point. It was not 30,000 square feet. It was 25,000, and they did not seek a variance at that time. MR. THOMAS-That's right. MR. STONE-It was a substandard lot. So therefore we could argue that it is self created. MR. THOMAS-I'll argue on that one. The request will adverse physical or environmental effect? Does anybody kick that one around? I could see some minor physical. see any environmental. have an want to I can't MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Because the house is going to, you know, will fit on the lot that they want to build. You'd be able to get the septic and everything else in there and meet all the other requirements. MR. KARPELES-It's an awfully low lying lot. I mean, it's hard to get back there to really see the thing. I wonder how suitable it is for septic. - 12 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. THOMAS-That's not our problem. That's the Town Board's problem. They're the sewer commission in this Town. MR. KARPELES-Does this have to go for site plan review or anything like that? MR. HILTON-They'd have to submit for a building permit, the septic location, you know, drawing a plot plan, showing it so that our building and codes people could take a look at it and see if they could adequately locate it on the property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. It's another house just like what' s around there. It's nothing unusual going in there. Whether benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. I don't see where he's going to get any more frontage without effecting the lots next door, either way. He's not going to get anymore square footage, without effecting the other lot next to it, next to that, and next to that. So, we don't have to answer yes or no to all these questions, just an educated guess. We have to balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. So, having said that. MR. STONE-I do have one more question. What is the size of the buildable area here when we take all these setbacks in that you've put on here, and how big do you propose the house to be? MR. M. HAYES-The house is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 square foot, which represents about four percent of the lot size, and we intend to meet all the State codes or whatever with the septic. MR. STONE-The house looked very small on that, it is small. MR. M. HAYES-It is small. This is a small house. MR. STEVES-The buildable area, you've got 11,000 square feet. MR. STONE-Eleven thousand, okay, thanks. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? Anybody else have anything further they want to say? I'll ask for a motion. Would anyone like to make a motion? Would anyone like to make a motion to table it until the next meeting to think about it? MR. STONE-I'll do that. MR. THOMAS-We've got to do something. Either move it, deny it, or table it, one or the other. MRS. LAPHAM-Doesn't it seem that after talking over it two nights that we would have enough information to go ahead and do something with it, rather than table it again? MR. STONE-Bonnie, I don't think it's a matter of having enough information. We have enough information, and the more I sit here, I mean, I would make a motion right now to deny, but I don't have the sense that, I mean, I'm perfectly willing to vote against it, but I don't want to formulate a motion if it's going to be voted down. I mean, I'm perfectly willing to state that I'm very concerned by the fact that it is a double variance that we're having to grant, and I see this self created difficulty. So if the consensus is that we should deny it, I'd be glad to make a motion to deny, but I don't want to put a motion on the thing that's going to be defeated. MRS. LAPHAM-See, and I'm very concerned about the idea of taking a person's usage and reasonable return from the property, and as far - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) as the congestion, the damage to the people was already done when the duplexes were put up, but that was an allowed thing at that time. A single family house is, and I live on that road, so if anyone would be bothered by it, I would be one of the people. Single family homes are allowed and desired there. I'm not thrilled with duplexes, but that's sort of retro. You can't do anything about it. MR. STONE-No. MR. CUSTER-I don't think we should table this. I think we have enough information. Unless you guys want to chew on it some more, I'm prepared to vote. I'm in concurrence with Bonnie. I look at this more as a pre-existing nonconforming lot looking for a smaller variance than, the zoning changed, and Mr. Hayes is entitled to a reasonable rate of return on that. The house is small, and based on those conditions, I move the vote. MR. THOMAS-Well, if somebody would like to make a motion, one way or the other, it doesn't matter. We'll see where it flaps and we'll go from there. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1997 MICHAEL HAYES, Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Ridge Road. The applicant plans to build a home on a pre-existing, nonconforming lot and is seeking 25 feet road frontage variance and is seeking 18,137 square feet of relief from the current zoning law, which is comparison to the original 30,000 feet required prior to the change of the law in 1988. The benefit to the applicant, it would allow them to build a house on the lot at this time. The feasible alternatives are limited, due to the nature of the area and what can also be put there. The relief is substantial relative to the current Ordinance, but not in comparison to the Ordinance in effect at the time the lot was created. Effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, as the residential nature which continues to recommend a residential type construction, and the difficulty, I would agree, is self created, in the sense that they carved the lot out, although there were some diminishing reasons why that had to occur. I would like to add that if we grant the variance, that the access be granted only through the easement in the property due south of the existing parcel, and that some form of a privacy hedge be put into the proposed project, on the north and west sides of the property. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. J. Hayes MR. THOMAS-It doesn't constitute a quorum. We've got to have four yeses and we've only got three. MRS. LAPHAM-Where does that leave us? MR. THOMAS-Try it again next week when we have another Board member here. That's the only thing we can do. It's a hung jury until then. So the newest member who happens to be out in the audience tonight will have to come up to speed on this thing. MR. HILTON-Yes. If you're going to table this thing, you should probably do that in the form of a motion, and you can bring it up again next week. - 14 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Yes. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-97 MICHAEL HAYES, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Until the June 25th meeting, so that a required quorum can be assembled to vote on this. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. J. Hayes MR. THOMAS-So we'll see if we can get one more yes, if somebody changes their mind. Good luck. MR. HAYES-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 16-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A MIKE BARBER OWNER: CANDACE BARBER 254 ROUTE 149, SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH WILL RESULT IN A TWO FAMILY HOME ON PROPERTY ZONED RR-3A. THE USE OF A TWO FAMILY HOME IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE IN THE RR-3A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES LISTED IN SECTION 179-15, RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRE ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/97 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-1.3 LOT SIZE: 10.68 ACRES SECTION 179-15 MR. THOMAS-Is Mr. Barber here, guess that one goes in the can. hasn't it? or his representative? Well, I That's gone past the 62 days, too, MR. HILTON-No, it hasn't past 62 days, but. MR. THOMAS-It's got to be close. MR. STONE-It was tabled May 21st. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that was the second tabling, wasn't it? MR. HILTON-It's the second tabling, but I think that tabling is also good for 62 days. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. HILTON-I guess we can try next month. MR. THOMAS-Well, we'll try for next month. response, guess what. All right. If we don't get a NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1997 TYPE II WR-1A BETSY MALMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 27 SUNSET LANE, OFF OF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WHICH WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 8-9-4 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION 179-16 WILLIAM HOWENSTEIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-1997, Betsy Malman, Meeting Date: Jun 18, 1997 "PROJECT LOCATION: 27 Sunset Lane PropQsed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage which will not meet the side and rear yard setback requirements for the WR-IA zone. The applicant is seeking a rear yard setback of 0 feet and a side yard setback of 10 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a garage for vehicle storage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives are limited due to the location of the home on this property and the steep slope on the driveway side of this lot. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 25 feet of rear yard setback relief and 10 feet of side yard setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It appears that the proposed garage would not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? A difficulty exists due to the steep slope on one side of the property and the location of the home on this lot which limit where a garage can be built. Staff Comments & Concerns: It is Staff's opinion that the granting of this variance would benefit the applicant and not adversely effect the surrounding neighborhood. Staff recommends that the applicant provide some type of stormwater management around any new garage such as gutters or drywells to help prevent stormwater from running down the steep slope on the driveway side of this property. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM-And there does not seem to be anything from the County. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Howenstein? MR. HOWENSTEIN-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to add to it or any comments you'd like to make? MR. HOWENSTEIN-I've been away for a couple of days, but this lady called me from where she lives, which is down state, and it seems that there was a disagreement with the people that own the back property, the vacant property, and they came to some sort of agreement for a three foot setback instead of a zero setback. MR. HILTON-We have public comment from that neighbor. At the time of the public hearing, you can read that letter, I guess, and that describes, there has been some conversation today, and I think the applicant and the adjoining property owner would agree on moving the garage off the property line three feet, just to give them some room, the Malmans, some room that when they're building it, they wouldn't have to go on their property to actually put the footings in, or, you know, construct the garage, and I think three feet is what they were both satisfied with. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to? Any questions for Mr. Howenstein? MR. STONE-Well, I would like to know exactly where the septic tank is. It appears here like it's under the deck? MR. HOWENSTEIN-That's right. As far as I understand it's under the deck. I didn't put it there, but that's where she pointed it out to me. MR. THOMAS-How high is it to the peak of the garage? MR. HOWENSTEIN-It's a 14 foot garage. about eleven feet, eleven feet, six. It would probably eight, MR. THOMAS-About 11 and a half feet? - 16 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. HOWENSTEIN-About that. MR. THOMAS-To the peak from ground level? MR. HOWENSTEIN-Right. MR. THOMAS-What's the siding on it going to look like? MR. HOWENSTEIN-Wood siding, the same as their house. MR. THOMAS-The same as their house. I think it's board and batten. MR. HOWENSTEIN-Right. MR. THOMAS-Staff comments said something about a drywell system or some way to curb the runoff. Is there any problem doing that? MR. HOWENSTEIN-Well, you have three feet to work with. I don't think there'd be any more runoff with the garage there than there was before. MR. THOMAS-Well, since it slopes toward the house, the property slopes toward the house and also down the hill, coming off that roof, it's going to shoot it on to that next property. So if you had gutters on that side with a downspout, into a drywell in the back of the garage. MR. HOWENSTEIN-I can mention that to her. I don't think she'd have any problem with that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Some way to keep that water from not only running on to the other property, but also running down the driveway, because some of the rains, if you were here today, it rained pretty hard, and I'll bet it did a pretty good job on that driveway today. MR. HOWENSTEIN-It probably did. MR. CUSTER-A pretty good job in the winter time, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. HOWENSTEIN-That would be a steep driveway any time of the year. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CUSTER-I know. I drove up it. MR. STONE-Well, the hill is very steep, yes. I'm concerned by the amount of relief wanted, because it seems to me that this garage could, we could minimize the variance given by putting that garage closer to the deck. I mean, one could say you could build it right against the deck, and really minimize the variance needed. There's a lot of room in there, isn't there? MR. THOMAS-I think an accessory use has to be a minimum of 10 feet, if I'm not mistaken. MR. STONE-From the deck? MR. HILTON-I think it's from the main structure. Let me look into that. MRS. LAPHAM-That would certainly minimize her enj oyment of her deck. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I thought because the swimming pool was the same - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) way. We've done a couple of those where it was not from the house but from the deck. MR. KARPELES-Right up against the deck, it would be attached to the house, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-It could be a foot away. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, or he could back off and have an attached garage in the rear and have just the deck on the side, I suppose. MR. STONE-The deck is, what, 12 feet wide, according to this, then. I think that's what I'm reading. MR. HILTON-Ten feet from a principal structure. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to get into these building and structure arguments? MR. HILTON-No, I don't. MR. STONE-The definition of a principal structure. We've got that. MR. HILTON-We have principal buildinq within the Adirondack Park, and we have principal use, which is separate. Principal use says "The main or primary purpose for which land or a building is used or occupied or maintained. When more than one (1) use is on a lot, the more or most intense use shall be considered the main or primary use." Now I'm not the Zoning Administrator, but I think in a situation like this, if it's 10 feet from the principal structure, which would be the house, this deck isn't a covered porch. It's not something that would count toward floor area or anything like that. I think as long as it's 10 feet from the main house, that would probably meet the definition. MR. STONE-So we're being asked to grant more than the minimum relief. MR. HILTON-No. MR. KARPELES-The deck is 12 feet wide. So you're right up against the deck, right? MR. HILTON-Right now the proposed setback from the main building appears to be about 20 feet. MR. THOMAS-Nineteen and a half, less three. MR. HILTON-Is sixteen and a half. MR. STONE-So there's six more feet. MR. HILTON-Yes. Well, I mean, it's six feet over what it has to be. MR. CUSTER-That draws in the question, just exactly where does that septic tank go? MR. STONE-I agree. That's why I asked where it was. MR. CUSTER-Yes. I tried to look at it. Obviously, there's been some repairs, coming through the driveway there. That's probably the distribution line, the leach field. MR. KARPELES-I tried to see where it was, too. I couldn't see it. - 18 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. CUSTER-It looks like it's under the deck. MR. THOMAS-Well, it says the leach field is in the corner. MR. STONE-The leach field, yes. MR. THOMAS-Is in the southeast corner. MR. CUSTER-There was discernable break in the macadam, kind of followed the distribution line, (lost word) or dug up. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, it's got to go under that driveway, that distribution line, down to that leachfield. MR. CUSTER-Well, using that, septic tank, it appeared to underneath the deck. I was trying to ascertain if the me by looking at up there, it was MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CUSTER-But if they move that garage much closer to that deck, it's going to be right on top of that septic tank. MR. THOMAS-Yes. from that deck as If not, I'll open in favor of, wish That's why I would like to keep it as far away we can. Any more questions for Mr. Howenstein? up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak to speak in favor of? Wish to speak opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRANK DILLON MR. DILLON-My name is Frank Dillon. I'm a 40 year resident on Sunset Lane, and I'm here to speak for the Dubins, who are the owner of the property, and I would request the Chairman if you could have read into the record at this time a letter from Mr. Scott Dubin, who is one of the present owners. MR. HILTON-That letter is in the file. MR. THOMAS-We'll read that in after all the public has had a chance to speak. MR. DILLON-Well, that would be most of my opposition. I'm really saying that it is my opposition to this, and I'd like to ask them if you would read that in as opposition that I am trying to portray to you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Go ahead and read it in, Bonnie. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Scott B. Dubin, Esq., 11 Sunset Lane, Assembly Point, June 18, 1997, Attention: George Hilton, Assistant Planner, RE: Variance Application No. 30-1997 for Betsy Malman, 27 Sunset Lane, Tax Map 8-9-4 "Dear Mr. Hilton: I am writing on behalf of my sister, Jane Dubin, and myself. Please read this into the record at tonight's Board of Zoning Appeals hearing on the above- referenced variance application. We own the property which borders the rear of Betsy Malman's property. We became the owners after our father, James Dubin, died in May 1996, and our mother, Beatrice Dubin, died less than two months ago. Our parents owned a residence on Sunset Lane for over 37 years and owned the property bordering the Malman property as well. We were unaware of this variance application until we received the formal notice last week (at my home in New Jersey). Therefore, we have not had the opportunity to "walk" the property and review the variance application. I have learned that the application seeks a variance to build a 14' x 22'8" garage on our property line, also known as a zero lot line. This morning we reached an oral agreement with - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) Betsy Malman. She agreed to modify her application so that there would be a three-foot setback of the structure. We would not oppose the application if it had a three-foot setback of the garage, including overhang. We would agree to this in the interest of accommodating our neighbor Betsy Malman. However, if the application is not modified and a zero lot line variance is requested, we would strongly oppose the application for very practical reasons: 1. If no setback, the structure couldn't be built without encroaching on our land (with earth moving equipment, ladders & materials) 2. If no setback, the structure could not be maintained without encroaching on our land to do such things as paint or repair siding. 3. If contractors were injured doing the above, we might be subject to a lawsuit by the workers and our insurance carrier might not cover the claim or costs of a lawsuit. A three-foot setback is quite small, but may be sufficient at least to allow room to walk around the structure or maneuver a ladder, within the Malman property. We hereby authorize Francis Dillon of Sunset Lane, Assembly Point to appear on our behalf at the hearing to make statements as he sees fit and answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Respectfully submitted, Scott B. Dubin" MR. THOMAS-Is there anything you'd like to add, Mr. Dillon? MR. DILLON-Other than reiterate the point that if the variance is given, as to at least three feet, there would be no objection from Mr. Dubin, and I'm here to object if it is, and to reiterate his objections, too, and I felt that it would be better to hear from him directly, and that's why I asked that the statement be read into the record. I don't have anything else to add, but I would answer questions, if there are any. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Dillon? I guess not. MR. DILLON-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You're welcome. Anyone else wish to speak opposed? JERRY BURKE MR. BURKE-My name is Jerry Burke, and I, together with my wife, my brother and my sister-in-law, own the adjacent property that's location 29. I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage to speak on this tonight, having had no prior notice of this, and no indication as to what the neighbors intend to do, but in general purposes, I have to be concerned about the impact it would have on the character of the neighborhood and on the value of our property. These are small building lots. This garage will definitely be crowded on this lot. It may, depending on its structure, impede the view that we have of the lake, that we enj oy from the back of the property. The property in this development is under considerable pressure, in terms of its value, and the value of these properties have diminished significantly. I say that on the basis of being the Executor for an aunt who owned property in the neighborhood, which we attempted to sell for over two years, with virtually no success, and only because of the absolute necessity to settle the estate, had to sell that property for about 45% less than its assessed value, it's appraised value. I think that an additional structure on this property may well change the character of the residential neighborhood, the resort neighborhood, if you will, that we enjoy with this summer property, and have a lot of concerns about it, not the least of which, as I said, is a total lack of information. MR. THOMAS-You did receive a notice? MR. BURKE-We received only this notice that came in the mail, with this bare minimum on it. Nothing else. - 20 - -. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. THOMAS-That's all that's sent out to anybody within 500 feet of the project, of the property lines of the project. They don't send out plans or pictures or anything like that. MR. BURKE-Well, I have no experience in that, but based upon what is in front of me, I have to object, because what they can envision in my mind's eye, which is all I have, may very well diminish the value of our property, and change the, develop a rather cluttered appearance on the next door property. MR. THOMAS-Does your lot sit higher? MR. BURKE-It sits somewhat higher, but again, not having any of the specifics, it's impossible for me to sit here and say. Frankly, I don't think I can look at a map now and make a judgement in the space of a glance at a map, and I have to speak for my brother who lives in Maryland. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Burke? MRS. LAPHAM-Where was your house, in relation to the Malman house? MR. BURKE-It is the adjacent property. MRS. LAPHAM-Up the hill, to the west? MR. BURKE-I don't know what direction. It's up the hill. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. Okay. It looks like a seasonal cottage? MR. BURKE-It is a seasonal home, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions? Thank you. MR. BURKE-You're welcome. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else wish to speak opposed? Any correspondence, other than the letter you read? MRS. LAPHAM-I don't think so. No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any more questions for Mr. Howenstein? MR. STONE-Yes. Last time we had a garage variance similar to this in the same area, we required that they gave us a plan, an elevation. We do not have any elevation with this application. So, all we have is an approximation of how high it's going to be. So it's kind of hard for me to judge, as the last speaker, exactly what this is going to look like. MR. HOWENSTEIN-Well, it's 14 feet wide, a 5/12 pitch, which would be very steep, in accordance with the rest of the house, that would be 35 inches, plus eight feet of garage. So that would be 11 feet, 5. MR. STONE-Eleven feet, five. MR. HOWENSTEIN-And that's about what we talked about before. I said somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 feet 6 inches. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but Mr. Burke's concern was the view, you know, how high is that going to be compared to what view he has off the back - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) of his house up there, on top of the hill, because I know the Malman house is a two story Cape, I think it is. MR. HOWENSTEIN-Which is directly between the lake and himself now. I don't see how this, personally, this garage in back of the Malman house would influence his view. MR. THOMAS-Without an elevation, we can't, or standing up on the Burke property, tell where 11 feet's going to be, to see if it would block his view. MR. HOWENSTEIN-You know that 11 feet is not going to be as high as the two story house that's already there. MR. THOMAS-Right. They can't see over the top of that two story house now. MR. HOWENSTEIN-Right. MR. STONE-I mean, I know standing in the back yard this afternoon, and looking out, you could see the lake from the back yard, and obviously the neighbor to the west could see the lake from his back yard now. If that garage is in there, I just don't know how much his view is qoinq to be obscured. MR. HOWENSTEIN-I really don't know either, but I know that's about what you'd have to have for the highest point. MR. THOMAS-Well, what do we want to do? MR. KARPELES-Well, I think this gentleman's got a very good point. I think he should be able to see what's going to be built there, and he should have that opportunity. I, also, would like to know exactly where that septic tank is. I think that should be located. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because you want to move that garage back three feet. What's the overhang on the side, a foot overhang? What's the overhang on the side of the garage? MR. HOWENSTEIN-Probably a 12 inch overhang. MR. STONE-And I heard the agreement was from the overhang. MR. THOMAS-Yes, from the overhang. So the actual building itself would be four feet back off the property line. So that'll be three and a half feet from that deck. So you're getting real close to that septic tank, and we'd like to really know where that septic tank is, and we'd like to see an elevation plan, a front and a side. MR. HOWENSTEIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-And if you could put some kind of marker up there, at the rear of the garage, as to how high it would be in the rear, because I imagine you're going to have to take some of that property down, to make it level, because it's not level in the back. MR. HOWENSTEIN-Right. MR. THOMAS-So you're going to be grading down. How much are you going to be grading down in the back, do you know? MR. HOWENSTEIN-You know, I've only been there twice. I would say probably, where he runs into the adj acent property that we're talking about now, with the lake view, it's probably maybe 30 inches high in that back corner. So you'd be taking out two and a - 22 - ~ '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) half feet there maybe, graded off even with the rest of the blacktop. MR. THOMAS-All right. So you take two and a half feet off the eleven and a half, say twelve, so it's about nine and a half feet above the existing grade, ten feet from the property line. MR. HOWENSTEIN-Right, and that existing grade is probably four feet lower than his yardage. MR. THOMAS-Where his property line is? MR. HOWENSTEIN-Right. So you're down around, a six foot man would have just about able to, if he stood right behind the peak. If you got a little bit off of the peak, you probably could see the lake, but I'll talk with Mrs. Malman and get everything together for you. Maybe you could do it next month, or take a look at it then. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We can do it next month. We'll have to do it next month. Yes. I would ask the Board members to go back up there and maybe go up on the Burke property and look, and visualize where this garage would sit, kind of sort of figure where it is. MR. KARPELES-I couldn't find the property line. I mean, I had trouble visualizing where the boundaries were of the property line. Could you have somebody put in a stake there or something? MR. THOMAS-It's probably, the two rail ends are on the property line, two rail fence. MR. STONE-The rail fence looks like it's back. MR. THOMAS-That's back, but the end posts, the farthest to the south is on the property line. MR. STONE-We have permission to go on your property, sir? MR. BURKE-You do. MR. STONE-Thank you. We know we have it to go on theirs. We have to be sure. MR. THOMAS-So if you see a bunch of strange people standing up there looking out, we're not tourists. MRS. LAPHAM-We're not strange, either. MR. BURKE-Will we get provided copies of these plans or other information? MR. THOMAS-They will be in the Planning Office. So you'd have to talk to George Hilton there and make arrangements to either have him send you a set or stop in and see him or whatever. MR. STONE-You can certainly make your own arrangement with the applicant, too. MR. HOWENSTEIN-So you'd like front and rear elevations. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and a side elevation. MR. HOWENSTEIN-And you'd like to know where the septic tank is for real. MR. THOMAS-Septic tank in relation, make that drawing so the overhang is three feet off that property line. MR. HOWENSTEIN-You'd like a story pole with a red flag on the top - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) of it, at about the roof elevation? MR. THOMAS-At about where the peak would be. MR. HOWENSTEIN-Roughly? MR. THOMAS-Roughly, from the existing grade, okay, because you're going to be shoving it into that bank a little bit. So if you could put a stick up there with a flag on top of, so we could stand up on top of the property line or stand up on the Burke property and take a look and see. MR. HOWENSTEIN-AII right. When will you fellows be going up there, or how much time do I have to talk to her about this? MR. THOMAS-Well, we won't be meeting for another. MR. HILTON-Well, first of all, the next meeting, I believe, is July 15th or 16th. It's the third Wednesday in July, but my suggestion was going to be that if you'd like, I don't know if you've closed the public hearing. You may want to re-open it, leave it open until the next meeting, so that we wouldn't have to re-advertise it and the public would have a chance to continue to comment on any new plans or any new information. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll re-open the public hearing on Area Variance No. 30-1997, Betsy Malman. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. THOMAS-For further information from her contractor, concerning a side and front elevation of the property and a stake in the ground to show us where the peak would be at the rear. Having said that, I'll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1997 BETSY MALMAN, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: For further information from the contractor. The further information would be a front and side elevation, and distance to the septic tank from the garage. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-All right. So, we'll get you on the agenda for the first Wednesday of July. MR. HOWENSTEIN-And I'll get the information to you by the second week in July, right? That would give you time enough? MR. HILTON-The first meeting in July is when it would be continued to, and that's the third Wednesday in July. MR. THOMAS-The third Wednesday of the month. MR. HILTON-And the information we would probably need a week before hand. So around the second week. MR. THOMAS-So if you got it there by the seventh of July, right around in there. MR. HILTON-Right. That works. - 24 - '- '-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1997 TYPE II LI-1A ERVIN L. NASH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE NEW ADDITION WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIRED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR THE LI-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-26, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 112-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION 179-26 ERVIN NASH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-1997, Ervin L. Nash, Meeting Date: June 18, 1997 "PROJECT LOCATION: 21 Boulevard Proposed proj ect and Conformance wi th the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing home. The addition will not conform to the front and side yard setback requirements for the LI-1A zone. The applicant is seeking a side yard setback of 18 feet and a front yard setback of 23 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build an addition to an existing home which would provide more living space. 2. Feasible alternatives: The location of other structures on this property and the floor plan of the existing home may limit where any addition can be built. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 12 feet of side yard setback relief and 27 feet of front yard setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It appears that the proposed addition would not have any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and would not be out of character from other homes in this area. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The shape of the ROW for the Boulevard, the location of existing structures on this property and the industrial zoning on this property which requires larger setbacks all make it difficult to construct an addition that will conform to side and front yard requirements. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff believes granting of this variance would benefit the applicant and not have a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, this construction would not appear to be out of character with other homes in this area. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-And nothing from our buddies at Warren County? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Great. Mr. Nash, is there anything you'd like to add? MR. NASH-No, sir. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll start you out. When you measured your 23 foot setback, where did you measure that to? From the house to where? The edge of the road? MR. NASH-The house to the edge of the road. MR. THOMAS-Is the edge of the road the front property line? MR. NASH-Yes, I believe so, yes. MR. THOMAS-Would that be right? MR. HILTON-I'm not sure the location, if the edge of the road is the property line, but with our tax maps, the house is presently located, and the new addition would be located 23 feet from the property line, as indicated on the attached map. - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay, and there was a question on Page Two about previous planning or zoning board determination, and the answer was yes, but you didn't say what it was. MR. NASH-I'm sorry. We needed a variance for a septic, two years ago. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-Would you have an elevation, what it's going to look like? MR. NASH-We haven't gotten that far yet. We figured we'd get the variance first before we started anything else. MR. STONE-Well, is it going to fit in to that open corner, if you will, between the extension in the back and the rest of the house as it comes out? MR. NASH-Yes. It's just going to square the house up. We're not going any further out in any direction. It'll just square the house up. NELSON SLEEZER MR. SLEEZER-It's going to be two story. The existing addition on the right hand side of the home is now one story. From that point to the front of the home, we'd like to do a two story addition. MRS. LAPHAM-Is it going to include the enclosed porch, or is that going to stay a porch? MR. NASH-The enclosed porch is going to come off, and there'll be a deck there. MR. THOMAS-Are you going to continue the roof line right down to that seven foot four inch width? It's just going to keep right on coming down? Because the existing roof comes down now to the. MR. SLEEZER-Okay. What we'll end up with is an unequal pitch on there. MR. THOMAS-Unequal pitch on the roof? MR. SLEEZER-Right. MR. THOMAS-Are you going to tie it in to the existing roof back up on the rafters farther? MR. SLEEZER-At the ridge, yes. MR. THOMAS-At the ridge, and you're going to do that for the whole side of that house? MR. SLEEZER-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-And what kind of rooms are you adding, just bedrooms? MR. NASH-It'll extend the two bedrooms that are upstairs and extend the living room and dining room downstairs. MR. STONE-So it'll extend rooms, not create new ones? MR. NASH-Right. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant before I open up the public hearing? I'll open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of, in favor of this variance? Anyone wishing to speak opposed, opposed to this variance? - 26 - ~ --.-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No, there isn't. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? All right. Lets see what you think. Bonnie, what do you think? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I think that what they're proposing is really not out of line, and is not going to be detrimental. I don't quite understand why they don't add more rooms, just to extend the ones they have, but that's their business, not mine. MR. NASH-The rooms upstairs now are really tiny. So, I mean, it's just going to make bigger living area, room upstairs. MRS. LAPHAM-I basically don' t have a problem with it because I don't think that it would hurt the area. All the other homes seem to be quite congested, and on very small lots. So I don't think they're doing anything that the rest of the neighbors haven't already done. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lou? MR. STONE-I agree. I have no problem, either. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-No problems. MR. THOMAS-I don't see any difficulty with this project, either. It'll make the house look better by squaring it off. There are other houses in the neighborhood that are in the same condition, that they have less than minimum setbacks, both on the side and the front, and it would benefit the applicant to make this addition so he can add to his living room, dining room and two bedrooms upstairs. So, I don't have a problem with it either. Having said that, I'll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1997 ERVIN L. NASH, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: On 21 Boulevard. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing home. The addition will not conform to the front and side yard setback requirements for LI-1A zone. I move that we grant the side yard setback of 18 feet, and a front yard setback of 23 feet. The benefit to the applicant would be he would have a larger living, dining and sleeping areas for his family. The effect on the character of the neighborhood would appear to be positive, as it would enhance the appearance of the dwelling, and pose no problems with health or safety. There appear to be no feasible alternatives to this variance, and the relief is not very substantial, since the existing addition already exceeds the setback requirements. The variance would appear to have no adverse - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The relief is 27 feet on the front and 12 feet on the side. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-97 MARK BENWARE APPLICANT IS APPEALING A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WHICH STATED THAT PROPERTY OWNED BY THOMAS MCDERMOTT COULD BE USED TO RIDE MOTORCYCLES IF THE PROPERTY WERE USED IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE WITHOUT ANY PHYSICAL ALTERATION. LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF SUNNYSIDE ROAD, WEST OF RIDGE ROAD, TAX MAP NO. 51-1-27.1 IN A RR-3A ZONE. MARK BENWARE, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Benware? MR. BENWARE-It's just gotten way out of control. It's gotten way out of hand. The community just, they just want it ended. I mean, you're looking at excessive temperatures in the summer time. You can't keep your windows open. The type of soil in the area we live in is like a red sand, and when it's not watered or wet from the rain, it's terrible. It's a dust bowl. Before we got the rain a few days ago, I saw sand going through the community. It looked like a desert, and it's been really quite over there. That just goes to show you. I mean, it doesn't take much to move that soil, and the noise is, when they are riding, is atrocious. It used to be the neighborhood kids, and basically that was the extent of it, you know, and now all of a sudden we're getting people from other communities, and it's creating a lot of noise, a lot of racket, a lot of people, and the community's just had it, that are opposed to it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. How long have you lived on Hewitt Road? MR. BENWARE-I've been up there, in July it will be a year. I built my home in July. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions? MR. KARPELES-Where is your home? MR. BENWARE-It's on 38 Hewitt Road. MR. KARPELES-We've got a map here. Maybe you could show us where it is. Is it this one? MR. BENWARE-Down the end of the street. There's one in the woods, down the end of the street. I believe I'd be here. MR. KARPELES-Well, this is the end of the street. MR. BENWARE-That's the end of the street? Then I'd be here. MR. KARPELES-This one right here that doesn't show any house? You say you just built. MR. THOMAS-Are you between two houses? MR. BENWARE-Actually, I'm right next to the Adirondack Park line, and on the other side of me on the right is a house. I'm directly behind the Myottes. Myottes run on East Road, and I run on Hewitt. - 28 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. THOMAS-Well, maybe this has been subdivided or something. We aren't going to worry about it. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, should we read the reason that we're hearing this appeal, the letter, as written by Jim Martin? MR. THOMAS-Yes. statement in. I just wanted Mr. Benware to get his opening MR. BENWARE-I'd like to comment on something that Mr. Martin wrote in a letter, pretty much trying to draw a close to anything that he could do in this situation, and it says here, testimony was made during the Board of Appeals hearing on the motorcycles, that the motorcycles have actively and continuously been ridden at this location since 1940. There is no documentation. Even though we know it's very visible, what's going on, there's no documentation. So that's just speculation. MR. THOMAS-There isn't documentation, but I think you'll find testimony that says that they have been. MR. BENWARE-Certainly. I'm just saying, there's no documentation here. So that statement that Mr. Martin gave me is just mere speculation. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Why don't you read Jim Martin's letter in now. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. To file, from James M. Martin, Executive Director of Community Development, Zoning Administrator, RE: Zoning Compliance Determination For Private Use of Motorcycles On a Lot Along Sunnyside Road, May 13, 1997 "I am writing this memo to confirm my determination regarding the private use of motorcycles on a parcel (tax map # 51-1-27.1) along Sunnyside Road in Queensbury. The question, as I understand it, is as follows: Is it a zoning violation to ride 'motorcross' style motorcycles in an open area of the above referenced lot? The question was addressed at yesterday's Town Board workshop. The determination I made as Zoning Administrator is that the nature of the motorcycle riding occurring at the above referenced parcel is not a violation of the zoning code. As a related issue this determination does not apply to the 'built jumps' existing at the site. The built jumps have been previously addressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals and constitutes an unlawful use of the property. Enforcement action will be initiated to have the existing jumps removed in accordance with the Zoning Board of Appeals ruling. The circumstances relating to answering this question are as follows: The parcel is 17.82 acres in size and contains one single family dwelling, the balance of the parcel is open pasture with some rolling topography; the zoning over the entire parcel is Rural Residential - Three Acre (RR-3A); the owners of the parcel, as reflected in the assessment records, are Paul and Thomas McDermott; the motorcycles are ridden by the owners son, Thomas, Jr. as well as other motorcycle enthusiasts from Queensbury and other communities; the motorcycles are unlicensed and are generally not road worthy; the nature of the riding is that it occurs in a circular pattern and involves multiple motorcycles at one time; to my knowledge, there is no fee charged to ride at this location; the riding does not occur at scheduled times but is random, sometimes daily, riding occurs at intervals from several minutes to several consecutive hours; the riding does not involve scheduled or advertised competition. The determination as stated above is arrived at after consideration of the above referenced circumstance; review of Chapter 179, specifically the definition for accessory use, land use, open space recreation use, recreational facilities, private, and section 179- 15 Rural Residential Zone; and minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing of May 22, 1996. In summary, the reasons for this determination are that the use is private; no fees are charged, the use is not associated with a scheduled event such as a tournament, - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) league or association; testimony was made during the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on 5/22/96 that motorcycles have actively and continuously been ridden at this location since 1940; the current zoning code makes no distinction between types, volume, or character of open space recreation activity such as motorcycle riding, furthermore, I have found no regulation over this type of use." Copy to Mark Schachner, Ralph Chambers, and Tom McDermott. That's it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to comment on? MR. BENWARE-I'd also like to comment on the last part that Mr. Martin wrote on there, as to types and volume. When I was getting ready to do my papers for my mortgage, the Harley Davidsen sign was coming down, and the off road bike sign was coming up, okay. Mr. Martin specified, there's nothing against types and volumes. Well, I've been married for ten years now, and going up and down East Road to see my in -laws, the McDermott shop was there, and Mr. McDermott obviously was very successful, because you could see the bikes come and go, you know, and that's great. I've got nothing against anybody trying to do anything in that situation, but when we went from purchasing a Harley Davidsen big, nice road bike, Harley Davidsen road bike, to taking it home, from Point A to Point B, it just passes by you in a split second. In this situation, we're talking about two stroke off road dirt bikes that ride around in a circle, like a bunch of amplified mosquitoes, for hours on end. That's just the way it is. It could go days, weeks, it could go two weeks without it, like it has just prior to this, but the whole point is, is we're getting people from everywhere. It's no longer about the kids and the community, it's hey, here we are. Come see us. Well, I just spent $80,000 grand last year on a mortgage, and if I wanted to, I couldn't sell that house, and I know a lot of my other neighbors feel the same way. I work 11 to 7, you know what I mean? When we first started talking about mediation, he went and talked to Tom. He went and he saw us, okay. Tom presented him with a presentation, and he came to see us, and we told him, you know, we're just people who went to that area of the community to find out what, best case scenario and worst case scenario, what we could do, and, you know, I'm just trying to be fair, whatever, what not, with the fact of being somebody that's going to stand for the community. There was no best case, there was no worst case scenario. The folks in the community that were opposed to this, they just were like, what do you mean, worst case scenario, Mark? We just want it out of there. I said, well, we've got to look to be fair and partial. They said, no, you don't understand, we want it ended. I said, well, hey, you know, we'll bring it up to them, the proposal, and see what they say. I mean, for God sakes. I'm 31. Most of that community, in that area that I see, probably 80% of them are middle aged to retired. If I'm sleeping, working and I'm there for a few hours during the day, and it drives ill.§. crazy, can you imagine what it's doing to these seniors? They've lived there for 30, 35, 40 years, and now all of a sudden, the last couple of years, you've got to put up with anywhere from six to eighteen bikes. I've got nothing against anybody that wants to do any kind of business. I hope he thrives in the sales and service. It's not the issue. The true issue here is, I think you give an inch and he's taken a yard. It's just gotten, it's wrong. Two stroke off road dirt bikes are loud, and you put it to the excess of a half dozen to fifteen bikes, I'll tell you what, it's seriously loud. The last time we came in here, when the Town Board said to us, you're going to have to go up and see the Board of Appeals, one of the ladies, one of the Board members over here in the corner said, she was commenting on the riding. I was commenting on the riding to the excess, and I said something about a Sunday, and she said, I have to agree with you, Mark. I ran into a friend of mine that was up at the Country Club, up at the Country Club, and they could hear them clear as a bell. I'd just like a little peace. That's all. I'm just looking for a - 30 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) little peace. Instead of just being somewhat agreeable or whatever, it comes down to this. It's too bad, because I mean, I am a new member, but I have family there, that's been there 30, 40 years, and they didn't have to listen to this in excess, just this recent, you know, when McDermotts went out on Route 4, and his son, his younger son came in, and he wanted to start a sales and service shop, it's just, the people in the community, kids in the community, or young adults, they see a lot out back, they're like, hey, there's a place to ride. The next thing you know we've got them coming in in trucks and trailers, out of State plates, you name it. It's just gotten out of hand. That's all. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Benware before I continue on? Before I open the public hearing, the Town Attorney is here, and I think he has a little speel he wants to give us, you know, concerning this and concerning the last Zoning Board determination of November '96, I believe it was. MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. Basically, I just wanted to kind of go, describe procedurally, historically, how we got to where we are. Real briefly, last year the Zoning Administrator made a determination that the jumps, the manmade jumps were unlawful, but that the motorcycle riding appeared to be a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and could continue, and this Board, that was appealed, and this Board confirmed the determination, and as I understand it, the jumps were taken down at one point, and then this spring, some additional jumps were put back in, and then that appeared to precipitate the most recent determination, the one that's on appeal now, the one that you read before, dated May 13th, which again says that the motorcycle riding itself appears to be a pre-existing, nonconforming use, although the jumps are not, and that he's begun an enforcement action, as far as the jumps go. MR. BENWARE-What do you mean by a pre-existing, nonconforming, that this has gone on? Without documentation, that's speculation. MR. FRIEDLAND-The Zoning Administrator made that determination that it was a pre-existing, nonconforming use. Last year this Board confirmed it. He's made the same determination again, and that's on appeal right now, and that's the issue that you have in front of you, is whether the motorcycle riding is a pre-existing nonconforming use, and if so, then you should probably confirm your determination again, like you did last year. If you find that it's not. If you find that it's not a pre-existing, nonconforming use, then you would not confirm the determination. Just as a general leqal principal, generally, what they say "a mere increase in volume" is what the court cases say, in a pre-existing, nonconforming use is okay, but a change or enlargement of the type of the use is not okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Could you say that again? MR. FRIEDLAND-Sure. MRS. LAPHAM-Because it sounds like you're saying the same thing with two different sets of words. MR. FRIEDLAND-It's sort of hard to pick out, but just a mere increase in numbers or volume is all right. It does not make a pre-existing, nonconforming use somehow unlawful, just because the numbers have increased, but if the use actually changes in some essential, fundamental way, that's not okay. Just for example, if you have a, I'm making this up. If you have a bar that's a pre- existing nonconforming bar, and if the numbers that come to that bar increase, if you have more patrons, that's all right. If he changes to a restaurant, that's not okay. MR. STONE-How about riding through a cornfield, and then riding where a cornfield is no longer? - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. FRIEDLAND-That's a tougher call. MR. STONE-Because I remember from previous testimony, it ~ a cornfield, and there were paths through the cornfield, I think from the previous, when you heard it, I was not on the Board then, but that's what I recall, and now there is nothing but empty field, and obviously the motorcycle riding. MR. FRIEDLAND-All right. Well, what happened last year, apparently, was that he built jumps and made an actual track out of it and built the jumps, and again, this Board determined that the jumps were not okay, but that the fact that they'd been riding for a number of years was all right, and it was a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and that could continue. MR. BENWARE-See, there we go with the pre-existing, they were riding for a number of years. You show me documentation. I know it's happened . You know it's happened, bu t there is nothing written down, nothing documented. I hate to see that come back to a grandfathered clause, because there's nothing written down. MR. FRIEDLAND-There doesn't have to be anything written down, all right. MR. BENWARE-You mean to tell me that I could tell you that 30 years ago I was a pig farmer up there, and that would entitle me to have pigs? MR. FRIEDLAND-If there was a hearing about that tonight, and there was testimony presented to that effect, and this Board found, in fact, that you had a pig farm for 30 years, that would be correct, okay. If this Board found that there was conflicting testimony, that you never did it, and they believed the conflictinq testimony, then they would find against you. That's up to the Board. MR. BENWARE-That field's changed a number of times. I've seen corn, I mean, I think my mother-in-law told me that back, years ago, there was horses and, you know what I mean? That's changed a number of times. MR. CUSTER-I'd like some clarification. I live in a one acre zoned lot. If I have my own motor bike, and I want to ride it 100 times around my piece of property right now, I can do that. George? MR. HILTON-Yes. I would think that, as far as the Zoninq Ordinance goes, there's nothing that says that you wouldn't be able to ride your bike. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, but to expand that, would Brian be allowed to invite 50 of his friends? MR. FRIEDLAND-I mean, we shouldn't get too far afield here. We have a specific issue before you, and that's this specific case, and you need to determine whether what has been determined by Jim Martin to be a pre-existing, nonconforming use, whether it's still that or whether it's fundamentally changed and it's no longer. MR. CUSTER-See, I'm not even so sure it's a nonconforming use. MR. FRIEDLAND-But that was the determination that Jim Martin made. MR. CUSTER-He had the right to do it anyway. nonconforming in the first place? So why was it MR. FRIEDLAND-Again, we have a Zoning Administrator determination of that, and that was confirmed last year by this Board, and now we have a new determination that basically says the same thing, and it's up to you. I mean, I'm not telling you what to say. It's up - 32 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) . to the Board, after the hearing. MR. CUSTER-I'm trying to weigh this and balance it. MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, when we open up the public hearing, you'll hear both sides, and there'll be people telling us that there was motorcycle riding there in the late 40's, 50's, and 60's, and I can remember back in the late 50's and 60's seeing motorcycles going around there. So, I just dated myself, but what the hell. All right. Is there anything else you'd like to say, before I open the public hearing? MR. BENWARE-I guess that's it. Just the issue of the noise and the dirt and the dust, you know, that's what we're discussing, and the fact that, I mean, the numbers got out of hand. Like I said before, I've got nothing against anybody that wants to do anything, but when it gets out of hand, to inconvenience you to the point where you can't even sleep, to perform your own job, to earn a living, that's when I've got to say something. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BENWARE-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You're welcome. I'll open the public hearing now. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this, speaking in favor of this notice of appeal? MR. STONE-That's against the motorcycles. Right? MR. THOMAS-What I'm saying, if you agree with Mr. Benware. If you agree with Mr. Benware, and you'd like to speak, now's the time to do it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RALPH CHAMBERS MR. CHAMBERS-My name is Ralph Chambers. I've lived on the Sunnyside Road almost continuously since 1944. I bought a lot from Marty McDermott in early 1956, and built a house. The first couple, three, four years, there was dust balls coming out of the field. There wasn't any motorcycle riding there. Maybe occasionally somebody took a ride around, but nothing to speak of. Then after a while, Carlton (lost word) he rented from Elva and he planted corn, and he would leave out one row so they could ride down between the rows and back without disturbing the neighbors, and then that property passed through a fellow over on Dean Road, who also raised corn. So, my saying is, I've been there for 40 years. I've known Tommy and knew Paul and all them for all this time, but the attitude to the neighbors has been terrible. My wife's car was in the garage and this morning, yesterday morning we took it out and there was a half, a quarter of an inch of dust on top of it, for example, and all the neighbors, dusting the windows and the houses, women would complain they can't keep their houses clean. We tried to form a committee to get allowable access, but the majority of the neighbors all signed, they wanted to get rid of it. They didn't mind the shop. What they did mind was them building the track out there, and the track is probably relatively new, maybe three, four years old, serious riding, and so it's kind of difficult. I know I used to work shift work years ago, and I lived in the community for over 40 years. So you read the list, the number of neighbors that signed against it. I think there were 23, 25, all of them are against it. So that tells you just abo~t how popular that track is. So, in my personal opinion, we've lived in this Town. I've been a fireman for years. We've done things for the community, and now we're asking the community to back us up on something. I know that Tom put in for a permit to build that - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) garage, not to build a track, and the neighbors signed it because they wanted to help them out, but now it's gone the other way, and they're not being looked at with any favor. MR. STONE-Mr. Chambers, are you still a fireman? Are you still involved with the fire department? MR. CHAMBER-Well, I'm a little bit. MR. STONE-I see that, but you're still knowledgeable about the fire department? MR. CHAMBER-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Is this field, in any way, effecting the fire department, its equipment or anything that might be concerned with the public safety? MR. CHAMBER-Well, (lost words) grass fire on it before now. MR. STONE-I don't mean that. I mean, the equipment. Is the dust possibly hurting the equipment? You mentioned a quarter of an inch of dust. What's it doing to the fire equipment? MR. CHAMBER-Well, it gets in the station the same way, probably not bad, because it's a two stall garage. The doors open, but still and all, ask anybody and they feel very strongly, not against Tommy or even his son, but they're very strongly against this track. MR. KARPELES-How has it changed over the years? You say that they've had it there for 40 years. Specifically what has changed, the number of motorcycles, the type of motorcycles, the way the track is laid out? MR. CHAMBER-Well, there never was a track laid out until a couple, three years ago. They went from a four cycle to a two cycle, which rev up with not much mufflers or anything on them. MR. KARPELES-When did all this start? MR. CHAMBERS-A couple, three years ago, when Tom was forced to go to Route 4 to build a shop for his Harley Davidsens. MR. STONE-What do you mean forced? MR. CHAMBERS-Well, they wouldn't recognize him if he had a shop on a non major road. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CHAMBERS-So when Tom moved out, in come the son. MR. HAYES-"They" being Harley Davidsen? MR. CHAMBERS - Yes. Harley Davidsen forced him to move, or he'd lose his dealership. MR. THOMAS-Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in favor of? DIANE YAGAR HAYES MRS. YAGAR HAYES-Hi. I'm Diane Yagar Hayes, and I'm representing my mother, Bertha Yager, and she owns 10 plus acres adjacent to McDermotts, and also that acreage is on Ridge Road. So hers, the big, long strip between Kip Grant's house. MR. STONE-Could you show us here where it is? Is it this piece of - 34 - '- .-./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) property you're talking about? MRS. YAGAR HAYES-Yes. right here. This piece right here. This whole thing MR. STONE-Okay, and the trees are on your property? There's a tree line back here. MRS. YAGAR HAYES-Yes. The trees are really right on the property line. My family also had motorcycles, and we were friends with the McDermotts, in the 60's, when I was growing up as a teenager, and we all remember them using around the cornfield, I don't ever remember a time when there was no cornfield. Maybe there was, but I don't remember it, since '65, and when they rode motorcycles, it was just around, maybe it was through, but it was for fun and it was for sport, but it was not a competitive thing, like it is now. The nature of it has changed in that way, and the corn would hold the noise and the dust and people, for the most part, did not ride on my mother's land, although the local kids used to push their bikes across Ridge Road and ride across my mother's land, over to get to McDermotts. So there was always a couple of treks through mom and dad's property. Well, last year, when all this blew up so bad, my cousin and I, we went over and posted the land, totally. It's totally posted, and the land has great big huge ruts where numerous motorcycles and cars and probably those all terrain vehicles go through. It's not just a little line like you would see for a motorcycle. These are, like you could drive in there, and in two or three places where her land meets the cornfield, last year there was construction debris where someone had just opened up this area, and backed in and dumped debris and trees and I took photographs of that last year. I didn't bring them with me. I didn't think of it, but I was there again this spring, and there's at least four times more trees and debris. There's either an old washing machine or a dishwasher. My land now, my mother's land, is being used as a dump, and it's not coming in from the main road. It's not coming in from the back. It's coming in from where that cornfield used to be, and there's a great big, huge pit that the kids apparently have dug, a burn pit. It's like eight feet across, and I understand that there's been some problems with the fire truck was called there, a couple of times the neighbors called and said that they could see flames from their homes, on my mother's land, and there was tons and tons of beer cans allover. So they're partying even there at night, and have potentially destroyed the value of this 10 plus beautiful level building. MR. STONE-You're saying, the ruts that you described earlier, have happened since you posted it? MRS. YAGAR HAYES-Yes, and they have installed a jump on mom's land, a jump, on my mother's land, and there's great big, huge holes in the ground. I don't know what fun that would be riding in, but they're allover the place, and you guys are welcome to go on there, if you would like to take a tour through there. You will die when you see how it's been torn right down. So the use has really, something drastic has happened with that usage, that now people are having access to that cornfield that are dumping in on my mother's property. I don't believe, in my heart, that that's the McDermott people. My family and they're family have been friends for 50 years, but somebody has access to that now that they didn't have before. The usage has changed. MR. THOMAS-Anyone have any questions for Mrs. Hayes? MRS. YAGAR HAYES-And the property value, as you may imagine, is probably right down into the dumps. I don't think I could sell that land now if I had to. MRS. LAPHAM-You say these people are not driving in from the main - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) road? MRS. YAGAR HAYES-There are two or three areas where they have made great big, as wide as for a truck or a car to go through, from the cornfield into my mother's property, and there is one access area that goes through to Ridge Road, the original one. MR. STONE-When you say cornfield, which property are you talking about? MRS. YAGAR HAYES-McDermotts. MR. STONE-McDermotts, okay. You're describing where they race as a cornfield. MRS. YAGAR HAYES-It was always a cornfield all those years. MR. STONE-Okay. about. I just wanted to be sure what you were talking MRS. LAPHAM-And that's where they're making the big driveway, so to speak, on your mother's property? MRS. YAGAR HAYES-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-Not from Ridge Road or from Sunnyside Road? MRS. YAGAR HAYES-No, and that's right, right where that access road is is where all the junk has been dumped, and that's also where the big burn pit is, and that's also where the beer cans are. It's really a mess. MR. THOMAS-Is that it? If you've got anything more to say, now's the time to say it. MRS. YAGAR HAYES-No. I guess that's it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Last time, in favor of? FLORENCE TURNBULL MRS. TURNBULL-My name is Florence Turnbull. I live on Sunnyside Road with the back side of my house facing that farm land. I've lived there for 40 years. Now, this lady says that there's been motorcycles riding out there before that or whereabouts. I'm not sure about that. I do know that there were motorcycles riding, once in a while, and I can't say as I object to that because Tommy was working in the shop then. I'm sure a lot of them went out for a demonstration after he repaired their machines. That makes sense, but they weren' t doing it as a ritual as they are now. Here's an example, if I may. This picture was taken of a jump with my house in the background, to give you an example what the dust is. The day that that picture was in the paper, there was four or five, maybe six of them out there rumbling around in that dry climate. You would never know it, unless you saw it, you wouldn't believe it. MRS. LAPHAM-If this is supposed to be unorganized and so forth, why are there numbers and all that? MR. STONE-I motorcycles? think, are the numbers permanently attached these I mean, that's for competition when they compete. MRS. TURNBULL-I have talked with some of our local politicians, and they, too, are opposed to it, but they won't come forward and say so. Aside from the dust, we're really complaining about, worries about getting into our homes, and the laundry, and sitting outside. - 36 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) You realize what it does to the air pollution? These same kids that are riding these machines are riding through that dust. They're going to wind up with consumption. You mark my words. It's not doing them any good. I could say a whole lot more on it, but I'm sure you get my point. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions? One more time. In favor of? RICHARD KUBRICKY MR. KUBRICKY-Richard Kubricky, I live on Hewitt Road. My property is 25 feet from the road in between my property and McDermott's property. What concerns me is, I thought we had this problem, as far as the motorcross track, settled in the last time it was appealed here. The track's been there for a couple of years now. Prior to that, they did ride motorcycles. My kids rode out there, and what concerns me is that the track is still there, the motorcross track is still there, and that seemed to the point of contention, is the excessive use of that field. If the field was left as a cornfield and they rode occasionally, like when Tom, Sr. had the motorcycle shop, it would be no great problem. The problem being that it's gotten beyond just the neighborhood kids riding there, and now that people outside of the community come there, have no connection with the community, and that local neighborhood, so have no feeling about what they do there, and the attitudes got to be, you know, like they'll come up and park right along side the road there, and then just go out and race real hard. It seems to me there's a violation of the original variance granted to Tom, Sr. for this motorcycle shop, that if the motorcycle shop was conducted the way it was originally, under the original variance, which the neighbors supported, I can't see any great problems. If they want to repair motorcycles and then go out and road test them out in the field, that's fine. We can live with that. Like Mr. Custer said, they have a right to use that field if they want to. The problem being, it's gotten beyond just the local people. It's gotten to be outsiders coming in there and riding real hard and creating a lot of dust and noise is so bad that you can't, at times, sit there. I think that it could be handled if they put some strict restrictions on that and controlled the use of that property. It's like a car. An ordinary car comes in your driveway and just stands there and idles it, or drives in and drives out. You can tolerate that, but if he stands there and keeps gunning it and gunning it, and gunning it, and does it for an hour or so, that same sound, at the same noise level, which is legal, suddenly becomes very annoying and very agitating, and that's the problem that we're facing here, that there's no question they rode motorcycles there for years. It's just that the use has changed, and I can't understand why the motorcross hasn't been enforced, returned to its original state, as it was, I understood that they had to comply with that, and they still haven't done that. I'd like to see Tom, Jr. make a success of that business there. I admire the guy that wants to work that hard, work his regular job and then fix motorcycles on the side, but they also have an obligation to the neighbors. You can swing your arms all you want to, but you come down on my nose, and then you're infringing on mY rights, and that's what's happened here. His ability to use his field is infringing on the rights of our neighborhood people to have a community that they can enjoy and like the lady said, Mrs. Hayes said that property values, I probably should have gone to Grievance Day and grieved my property and got a reduction in my taxes, because the value of my property has decreased considerably because of it, and I'd like to see, I admire the patience of the people that are involved that sit in judgement on these situations, but I think there's got to be something done that we can enjoy ~selves, too, and I thank you for your consideration. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) GERTRUDE VANDUSEN MRS. VANDUSEN-My name is Gertrude VanDusen, and I live at 172 Sunnyside Road. My home is on the south side of Sunnyside Road. My family also owns vacant land on the north side of Sunnyside Road across from my home, and bordering the McDermott land. I can look out my front window and see one of those man made hills on this field. Now perhaps I wouldn't even be here tonight if what it says in this appeal had been carried out. That the property would be used in its original state without any physical alteration, and that has not, even though the Zoning Board of Appeals did say that, the last time we were here, that has not been followed. They were taken down, some, but never completely down, and this summer they've been built up again, perhaps in a different way, but I can see a hill that I never saw before. Now I said I've lived there for 50 years. Okay. I only complained about motorcycles once, until about two years ago when this motorcross stuff started, and that one time I complained because the people that were riding in the cornfield started riding across my lot across the road from my house. So we got word to Mr. McDermott, and he stopped. That's all there was to it. I always thought that Mr. McDermott ran a good motorcycle shop. We were one of the families that signed the petition to grant him the variance. We discussed this with him. I've never had any complaints with his motorcycle shop, but I think this riding is being done on a separate piece of property than the motorcycle shop is, and also the riding is not directly, most of the jumps and so forth are not directly in back of the motorcycle shop. They're in back of the property that we people own on the Sunnyside Road, where we live. They enter from the road that's perhaps in back of the shop, in back of some property they own there, but that's not where they've got the jumps and do that riding, from mY observation anyway. When we came here at our last meeting, and I think that Mr. McDermott got up and stated that whatever happened at that meeting, that would be it, and I believed him, that that would be it. I didn't think we'd be here again tonight, because I felt that we've always been able to trust him. When he was in the shop, he was a good neighbor. I expected what he said was going to be happening. So I was quite surprised to see that the hills didn't go down when they should have gone down, and that things were started there again this year, really I thought this was not right, and I will tell you right now, if the riding that's going on now, was going on at the time that he came for this petition to be sign, I never would have signed it, because we weren't having the riding then that we have now. We never had any complaints, as I've said before, but what has been happening in the cornfield the last two years is a definite change, a definite change. There's been a big increase in the number of bikes using that field at one time, and the terrain of the land has definitely been changed. The Town has no noise ordinance to protect us. We have to listen to that. I know it has been questioned, but I don't know what can be done to make that happen so these bikes can have mufflers or make it quiet, more quiet if they ~ going to be allowed to continue to ride as they're riding now. The bike riding on this field, I feel, is definitely an infringement on the quality of life that one expects and deserves when living in a residential area in the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. One more time, anyone in favor of or agreed that wants to speak, that agrees with Mr. Benware? CEMILE RENAUD MR. RENAUD-Yes. My name is Cemile Renaud. I live on 15 East Road, directly across from the cornfield. I'm opposed to it being a motorcross area, which I say, I've been there about 11 years. My wife's been there 50 years. I don't know if Mr. McDermott realizes that his property is being used to transport the material that the lady was talking about over to the woods, but if anybody wants to - 38 - '''"- ,. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) know who it is, I'm here, because I see them go through it three, four times a week, transporting the brush over, and it's Mr. McDermott's property that's being utilized for this purpose. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, if you know who it is, do you know that it's the motorcycle people? MR. RENAUD-No. It's not the motorcross people that are bringing the brush and stuff. MRS. LAPHAM-Then you're saying it's outsiders that have removed? MR. RENAUD-People from Sunnyside that are in the trucking business are transporting it across Mr. McDermott's property, which are friends of Mr. McDermott's. I don't know if he realizes it. Maybe his kids realize it, but maybe Mr. McDermott doesn't realize it. MR. THOMAS-Well, we're really not interested in what they haul across that track, other than a motorcycle. MR. RENAUD-Yes, but his property is being utilized to tear up somebody else's property and dump trash on it. MR. THOMAS-That's really not what we're here for. We're here to talk about the motorcycles. Now if you want to talk to Mrs. Hayes about it, fine, but it has to be outside this room. MR. RENAUD-Like I say, during the day, I can't keep mY windows open. I have to use an air conditioner during the day, and at night's the only time I can open my windows because of the dirt. I have three vehicles, and I have to wash them to get the dirt off them. That's about all I can tell you. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions? No? Okay. Thanks a lot. One more time. That's it. Then we have to go to the other side. JOANNE MYETTE MRS. MYETTE-My name is Joanne Myette, and I've lived there for 33 years, and it is so that they used to ride around the field. This has all changed. There never was a bike track out there. There is now. Noise. You can't stay outdoors. You can't talk outdoors. You have to go inside. You can't hear one another. So I'm just here to say that this never was like it is now. Never. It's all changed. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions? MR. STONE-I do have a question. I noticed in this picture we were given, that this person had a number on his bike, which means that he competes somewhere. Do a number of these bikes, and I would ask anybody who has been here, do a number of these bikes have numbers on them permanently attached? MRS. MYETTE-Yes. MR. STONE-So they do. STAN PRITZKER MR. PRITZKER-Ninety-five percent of them. MR. STONE-Ninety-five percent of them. Okay. MRS. MYETTE-They keep saying that this has always been. If it's always been, why weren't we complaining before. In the past two years, it has changed. I just want to get that fact across. We - 39 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) can't go outdoors and enjoy ourselves anYmore. We just can't, and I don't think that's fair. That's all I've got to say. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. All right. Opposed. Anyone wishing to speak opposed? STAN PRITZKER MR. PRITZKER-Hi. My name's Stan Pritzker. I'm an attorney, and I represent the McDermott's. Before I speak, I would like to give out some documents if that's okay. I have a letter to submit, which kind of summarizes my presentation, and we also have kind of as a petition from people. The following people do not object to the current use of the track, and I'd like to give this out. I have copies for everybody, if that would be okay. MR. THOMAS-Go ahead. MR. PRITZKER-Thank you. Some of the issues are somewhat technical. So I thought it would be best to put them down in writing. MR. THOMAS-I'll do the same thing for this petition that I did for the other one, just count the number and state there's a number of people and read the heading to it. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. PRITZKER-I'd appreciate it if you could take a moment to peruse the letter. MR. THOMAS-I'll have the secretary read it into the minutes right now. MRS. LAPHAM-The number of signatures that appear in the petition are 53, and again, like the one from the other side, I'm not differentiating into how many are duplicate. "The following people do not object to the current use of McDermott's field." As of June 10, 1997, there are 53 names, and as I said, I didn't go down and try to ascertain which ones are the same indicating married people who might have signed separately. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Could I ask a question? Are those people all residents of that area? MR. PRITZKER-Yes, they are. MR. THOMAS-Most of them are Sunnyside Road. MRS. LAPHAM-Almost all were Sunnyside. There's a few on Dream Lake, Wagon Trail, Bardin Place, but that's all that area, if I'm not mistaken. MR. THOMAS-Would you like me to read this letter in now? MR. PRITZKER-It might be kind of boring if it's made part of the record, that's okay with me. If I could discuss it, I would just appreciate it if the Board was able to take a look at it. MR. THOMAS-Well, in order to give everybody a fair chance, it should be read into the record. MR. PRITZKER-Sure, I have no objection. MR. THOMAS-So, we'll read it in, and then you can hit the high points, low points, whatever you want to hit with it. MR. PRITZKER-Okay. Thanks. - 40 - "--' '---" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Stan Pritzker, Attorney at Law, RE: McDermott property, this letter was written on June 18, 1997, "Dear Chairperson and Members: I represent Thomas O. McDermott, Harold L. McDermott, and Alma Ruth McDermott, owners of a 1 7 . 82 acre parcel of land located in the Town of QueensburYi Tax Map No. 51-1- 27.1 As I understand it, there is currently an appeal of James M. Martin's determination of May 13, 1997, wherein he stated that, 'the nature of the motorcycle riding occurring at the above referenced parcel is not a violation of the zoning code.' (emphasis in original). Before we set forth why we support Mr. Martin's determination, I would like to address a procedural issue. On May 22, 1996, the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals affirmed Mr. Martin's prior ruling which affirmed the right to ride dirt bikes on the McDermott property, but stated that the built jumps needed to be removed because they were not a pre-existing, non-conforming use. Section 179-98 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance provides that, , [a]n appeal from an action, omission, decision or rule by [the Zoning Administrator] regarding a requirement of this chapter may be made only to the Zoning Board of Appeals within sixty (60) days of such decision or action.' It appears to me that Mr. Martin's decision was originally made in May of 1996 and was the subject of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on May 22, 1996. No one appealed Mr. Martin's decision with respect to the McDermott's prior non-conforming use. Further, if the prior non-conforming use had not been approved at that time, then why would the issue of the jumps ever been addressed? Since there is a sixty (60) day statute of limitations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, it is our position that the appeal of Mr. Martin's decision is time-barred. Moreover, Mr. Martin's May 13, 1997 memo was merely a reiteration of Mr. Martin's previous position. We do not believe the reiteration of this positive revives the appeal to the ZBA for statute of limitations purposes. Without waiving this objection, we whole-heartedly endorse Mr. Martin's determination which affirms the right of dirt bikes to ride on the McDermott's land. We believe that Mr. Martin's determination logically and correctly interprets the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. We further support the determination which, in essence, reaffirms vested rights accruing to those engaged in non-conforming, yet pre-existing uses. More particularly, we specifically support the following analysis: 1. The McDermott property at issue is located in a Rural Residential 3-acre zone, defined in §179.15 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The McDermotts have established a prior non-conforming use which pre- dates the Zoning Ordinance. See, 5-22-96 minutes of Queensbury ZBA meeting and 5-13-97 letter by James Martin. 3. Pursuant to §179.79 of the Zoning Ordinance, such use 'may be continued and maintained in reasonable repair but may not be enlarged or extended. . . " subj ect to certain exceptions which are not relevant. 4. As such, the track, as it existed before the ordinance was enacted, may be used in conformity therein. 5. However, the use cannot be' enlarged or extended'. 6. The ZBA previously declared that the 'built jumps' were an enlargement in use and therefore not pre-existing or, in layman's terms, not grandfathered. 7. The jumps therefore needed to be removed, but the McDermotts have the right to permit others to ride on the property in a manner conforming with the pre-zoning ordinance usage. We support this position and urge that it be affirmed and ratified by the Zoning Board of Appeals, which we believe already did so in 1996. With respect to jumps, please note that the large bulldozed jumps have been removed. While the McDermotts do not concur in the determination that hand-shoveled jumps create a non-vested, non- conforming use, it is their position and promise to smooth out the hand-built jumps on the track. The McDermotts also disagree that an increase in use by additional motorcycles constitutes a change or enlargement of use. See, Town of Ithica v. Hull, 174 AD2d911, 913 (Third Dep't. 1991) Town of Gardiner v. Blue Sky, 213 AD2d790, 791 (Third Dep' t. 1995). To that end, a meeting with John S. Goralski, Zoning Administrator, has been set for this week. Jumps that are created by dirt bikes and naturally occurring land - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) contours will be left undisturbed. Any hand-made jumps, whether created by shovel or otherwise, will be reduced to natural terrain. While our position is that the Zoning Board of Appeals has no jurisdiction to act with regards to complaints concerning dust and/or noise, the McDermotts wish to be good neighbors. While issues of noise and dust are not relevant to this hearing, the McDermotts have authorized me to re-open the communication between those living in the neighborhood to attempt to develop a set of guidelines to be followed by users of the track. The only way in which a true compromise will be reached is if the two parties sit down together. As such, we propose that representatives should begin a dialogue immediately, possibly with the help of mediators, to work out a lasting solution in the best interests of the community. While it is not part of this hearing, it should be remembered that the McDermotts provide a track to be used by residents of this community, including youth, who have greatly benefitted. Learning to ride a motorcycle in the dirt saves lives because it develops the reflexes needed to negotiate normal highway traffic without the risks inherent in street riding. The McDermotts do this at no charge and have never sought a commercial advantage from the arrangement. They assume all the risk and liability related to this endeavor. In summary, the McDermotts are committed to operating the track in a safe and community-friendly manner. We invite all opponents of the track to work with us to this end. Sincerely, Stan L. Pritzker" Copy to clients and to John S. Goralski, Zoning Administrator; Mark Schachner, Esq. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. PRITZKER-Thank you for reading that long winded letter. I'm also a motorcyclist myself. I've been riding motorcycles for a long, long time. The first issue I'd like to address has to do with the issue raised in Paragraph Two, Page One, concerning whether or not this appeal should even be heard, on the basis that it's well beyond the 60 day statute of limitations. It's a technical issue. It's a legal issue. It struck me when I reviewed the papers that we were reiterating the same thing that was previously determined, i.e. that the track is a pre-existing use. I don't believe that's a fair subject for appeal right now, because I think it's time barred. It's not a substantive issue, but it's a procedural issue that struck me. MR. THOMAS-Well, lets stick with that. We'll ask the attorney here to kick back at you. See what he says. MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. The Zoning Ordinance says that anybody has 60 days to appeal a determination of the Zoning Administrator's decision. The Zoning Administrator's decision is dated May 13, 1997. It's clearly within the 60 days. It's not time barred. I think you can go ahead and hear the appeal. MR. PRITZKER-That's fine. I just wanted to make it part of the record, and having preserved that objection, just move on to the substance, which I think is more important. We basically believe that we have established a pre-existing, nonconforming use. You'll hear testimony tonight, again, if you wish, from those who have ridden on the property since the 40's, establishing what type of use the property has undergone. As an aside, just historically speaking, the motorcycles in the 40's and 50's, and for the early part of the 60's, were in fact four stroke motorcycles, four cycle engines, as opposed to two cycle engines. Not much of a difference with respect to the loudness, though. Because now, where you might here a four stroke engine nice and quiet, like an Americade or nice big Honda or something like that, those bikes were not quiet, and I think you'll hear testimony to that effect. The old BSA's, the old Triumphs, the old Grieves, with straight pipes, they were louder than the bikes are today, much louder. They never had silencers, okay. So that's just one issue that I think you will - 42 - '-- --'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) hear about, because I think it's relevant. With respect to what we need to do with the track, we're accepting, right now, the decision by Jim Martin, that the jumps, the man made jumps, and/or the bulldozed jumps, created a different use, and we will, and we commit ourselves to take those down. I'm going to meet with, John wanted to meet with me tomorrow, but I said, since it's raining, I won't be able to ride him around the track. So we'll probably wait a couple of days until it gets a little bit nicer, okay, but we are committed to taking that down, and there's a distinction between natural terrain, that goes up, and berms that get formed by riding a bike over and over again. A berm is kind of a bank term, if you will, that a motorcycle creates when you drive. It happens, and those things have been on the property forever. They had to be on the property previously. You could not ride a dirt bike on a piece of property without creating a berm. It would be impossible to make a turn, and I think you'll hear some testimony regarding that. With respect to the issues, you heard a lot about them tonight with respect to noise and dust. I do not believe, with all due respect, the Board has jurisdiction over those issues. I don't believe there's any Zoning Ordinance, as well, that would regulate those particular issues. However, having said that, I think it's crucial that the McDermotts work together with the neighbors, and create a coexistence that could meet the needs of the prior pre-existing use, along with their needs, and I think it's critical, but 'I think we have to start from a position. It's sort of like when the Palestinians had to say, yes, Israel exists. We have to start from a position that the track exists, and lets deal with it, and we could make accommodations. I know Mr. McDermott, sitting next to me, has tried to do that, and I'd like to try to start again, from a clean slate, and make it so it can work for everybody. Finally, I would just like to note a few things. We talked about the petition, but it's interesting to note that in my letter, I wrote it before I even witnessed the petition. I never even saw it, but I think there's five or six riders on this that are under 10 years of age, and it's an absolutely wonderful experience for a kid to learn how to ride a dirt bike, and it's really hard to do these days, because everybody's afraid of liability. Nobody wants to let you ride on their property, even though there's a Hold Harmless law in New York State. It's very hard to do that, but dirt riding is a wonderful activity for children, and it really does help you learn to ride a street bike, and we know how many street bikes there are, if you were up here the last couple of weeks. Just a couple of things I'd like to address that I heard from some of the folks that spoke against the track. I think the woman's name was Diane Yagar Hayes, I believe that was here name, and she spoke about what I consider some very significant issues, perhaps not relevant tonight, but it's important to note that my clients are not authorizing trespass onto anyone else's property. They don't authorize drinking on that property. They don't authorize dumping, and we'll call the police if we see that happening. It's not something to do with the track. It's something to do with the nature of the world we live in today, I suppose, but there's no, we are not authorizing anybody to do that. In essence, we want to work together with the neighborhood. We want to work together with the Town. We're going to do what we said with the jumps. We're going to meet with John, and we're going to go out there and take care of it. Any questions? MR. THOMAS-Back when the Harley Davidsen dealership started, back in the late 40's, I believe it was. MR. MCDERMOTT-We didn't pick up Harley's until the mid 70's. MR. THOMAS-The mid 70's. MR. MCDERMOTT-It was BSA, Triumph, Rickman, OSA, we had quite a few of them in there. - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. When they first opened the shop, it was? MR. MCDERMOTT-BSA. MR. THOMAS-BSA. Okay. Did BSA make a two stroke, back then? MR. MCDERMOTT- I thought they did. My father would be able to answer that, like that, but most of them were four strokes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Like I said before earlier, I remember seeing motorcycles going out around there, and the ones that I saw were more or less road bikes that were like maybe they had been shipped there, put together, not licensed yet, and your father took them out and just took them around the cornfield there, just to make sure that they ran all right. Everything was together. Everything ran right before he delivered it. That's what I remember. Okay. I don't remember any two strokes being out there, any jumps. I remember the cornfield. There was no jumps, or anything like that, and it went right around in a circle. There wasn't any through the middle or through what they would call the infield, with jumps and stuff like that. There was nothing like that because there was the corn there. Do you concur with that? MR. MCDERMOTT-Not completely. The corn didn' t get started planting in there until either '75 or '77, somewhere in there. Before that, it was a grass field, and there was trails on a lot of it. I was very young then, and I remember it. There was a big stand of pines in the middle, not tall pines, but pines in the middle. There was trails up and down the tree hills, where now the fire house, sold or donated some land to the fire house, and they filled in one of them. There was hills down there we used to ride on, up over a jump. As a matter of fact, two of those hills are still incorporated in my trail, track, whatever you want to call it. As my grandmother needed money, they rented for corn. Every year the corn went down, we made trails every which way out there, and I can remember as, like I'm saying, back when I was a kid and they first started planting corn out there, the first year that corn got cut down, we were out there with tractors and a drag and we were making tracks, and a few of the neighborhood kids, including Mr. Kubricky's kids, were out there helping us make jumps and stuff for people to ride on. Every year that the corn got knocked down, we tried to go out there and ride in some kind of a trail, track, and when the corn was up, we had to respect the corn, so we went around the outside and one trail down the middle. As soon as the corn went down, we were riding allover the field, and I've been riding there myself since I was four years old. I'm 30 now, and the corn has not been there since the 50' s or 40' s or whatever they're talking about. Maybe every other year or so or something like that, but we've always had a trail there, some point in the year, trail, track some kind of way to go around the field different than the previous year. It gets old. If you make one trail, and you go back and forth, it's going to get really boring. So if you change it, knock it down, re-ride another one, and when you do ride in, you get corners with four, five foot berms in them, and I knocked them all down last year, knocked down all the jumps last year. They said we could ride it in again. Now we're getting dirt piles, like I said, again, as high as that. Yes, we did build some with shovels and, yes, we will take those out, but if I want to change it again, do I have to make the corners that are now flat, or can I cross those corners, because that was built by a motorcycle. Can that now be, my jump, this way so I can make a corner the other way. Do you know what I'm saying? Because it's not something we built by hand. It was built by the way the motorcycle rode it in. If we change our trail and cross that, we can use that as sort of a jump. MR. THOMAS-You're getting legal on me. I really couldn't call that one. That's really an enforcement issue, I would say - 44 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. PRITZKER-This is something I told John, when we walked the track. We can go over some things, and we could look at areas that I would consider berm, areas that I would say is a built jump, and we'll talk about them, and we'll go over them. With respect to the dealership, he said there was BSA, Triumph, Rickman and OSA. Two strokes became popular in the 60's and 70's, okay. Before that, like I said before, what was ridden in motorcross, big, loud, four stroke singles with straight pipes. Okay. They'd strip the bikes, as you noted, and they'd put a straight pipe on it. Sometimes they'd stick on knobby tires. They'd crank the fender up. They'd put a different sprocket on to change the gear ratio, and they'd do a bunch of things, and they'd ride what were, well, you'll hear Mr. McDermott, perhaps, discuss that in more historical detail than I can, because I didn't ride those, but I know about them from my reading, and my history in motorcycling, but they were very loud, and they created berms, and you always ride on a track. Now I do believe if bulldozers came in and made, I didn't see what it looked like in '94, like a super cross track or something like that, that is different. MR. STONE-Mr. McDermott just alluded to something that has concerned me. Whether or not it has an effect on where we're going, because we are in very technical terms here, but when you create a berm, like when you ski, you create moguls, but when you start going across them, perpendicular, now they become a man made jump. MR. PRITZKER-Yes. MR. STONE-They are a manmade jump. MR. PRITZKER-That's true. MR. STONE-They were not there. MR. PRITZKER-Well, they're man made, but they would be a pre- existing use because they were man made before. It's exactly what the BSA Victor made. MR. STONE-They weren't there. If you start with a flat piece of land, and you put a track on it, you will develop a berm. I agree, but then if you go perpendicular to that, it sounds to me that that's a man made jump. MR. PRITZKER-Yes, but that's the type of man made jump that was being utilized pre-zoning, and we believe we have a vested property right to continue that, and that's a fair question, though, and it's something we'll talk about, you know, but that's the whole idea. If you go back and take a look at the way these bikes were riding back then, I guarantee you Tom Sr. created a bunch of berms in his time, pre-zoning. MR. STONE-But Mr. Martin said no man made jumps. MR. PRITZKER-When I spoke to John, when I spoke to him, he told me that that was okay. He specifically told me that, but I said, lets go over and lets look at it. Okay. I spoke to him about it yesterday. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. PRITZKER-Any other questions? MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? No? MR. PRITZKER-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you'd like to add? - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. PRITZKER-I think we have a bunch of people that want to say something, but I do appreciate it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. MCDERMOTT-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak opposed? Anyone does not agree with Mr. Benware? MEMBER OF PUBLIC-May I say something else, in conjunction with what I was talking about before? MR. THOMAS-Well, after everybody that's on the other side, opposed. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-All right. TAMARA BAPP MRS. BAPP-My name's Tamara Bapp, and I live at 160 Sunnyside Road. I just had a question on the picture that was shown to you about somebody riding. Could you please tell me the number on that bike. MR. KARPELES-705. MRS. BAPP-Okay. I know for a fact that that was the only bike out there that day. The Post Star came to take a picture of that. There was not six other bikes out with that. There was only, and that was it. I just wanted to make that clear to everybody, and also my kids are dirt bike riders, and I don't want to see them give up that. I mean, they love it. They race. They go compete and everything, and a lot of our neighbors do, and I just don't want to see it given up, because it's practice for them. I don't know what else to say. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak opposed? KEVIN D. MONAHAN MR. MONAHAN-My name's Kevin D. Monahan. I don't live in the Town anymore. I live in Salem, but I grew up in Sunnyside, and I would like to speak about the track, give you a little history about what's gone on in there over the years. Is that okay? MR. THOMAS-Fine. MR. MONAHAN-Okay. I grew up in Sunnyside. I started riding motorcycles probably 1968, 1969. I learned how to ride by going on Tom McDermott's Sunday morning ride, which he had every Sunday, and we left, eight 0' clock, nine 0' clock in the morning, unmuffled bikes. There would be anywhere from eight to twenty-five guys would go on this every week. Every Sunday. It was a ritual. They'd come from allover the place, come from Albany, you name it. We'd go out and we'd ride in the woods, four or five hours, come back, ride around the field, and that was our ride, you know, that was our big deal. That was what I looked forward to. I had an opportunity, I started racing motorcycles in 1973. When I started riding, the bikes had like four inches of travel, very limited. If you got a foot off the ground it was a big deal. It was scary. In 1975, they came out with long travel bikes, which had like eiqht inches of travel. So what I would do is I'd get all the neighborhood kids together, out in McDermott's field, and I'd have them dig a hole, and they'd dig the hole and they'd put the dirt on the other side, so it would make a dip, and then I'd come out of the dip and over the pile, and that's how we made the jumps. At some point, I'm going to say the late 70's, they started putting corn in the field, and we had the trails, in between the corn rows, - 46 - - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) and as soon as the guy, when he was out there cutting the corn, I was down trying to get the tractor running so I could bring the drags up and make a track, and it was the same kind of deal, you know, we'd drag it, a course, you know, serpentine course. I'd get the kids to help me shovel the jumps, and we had a track, and we had in the spring, and then just before the guy would come, we'd knock the jumps down and he'd do his plowing deal and then we'd make the trails around the outside of the trail, at the outside, and as far as being close to the house, before the corn was planted, back in the early 70's, the track, we went around the whole perimeter. I mean, we went 10 feet off the property line down the whole property line, on unmuffled bikes. As far as the noise issue goes, I did a test the other day. I have a decibel meter, and I did a 1973 Honda CR 50, which was, is a two stroke motorcross bike, and at 20 inches, it was 120 decibels, and I did my 1996 KTM 300, same test, half throttle, at 20 inches, and it was 93 and a half decibels. Markedly less noise. I have a BSA 500, which I always raced unmuffled, and I'm sure it's at least 120 decibels. You can't even stand behind the thing it's so loud. I think it's, there was a time when the cornfield was in that it wasn't, you know, there wasn't a race track out there every day, and when the guy quite planting corn, these guys built a modern half way decent practice track. I mean, it's not by any means a full on race track. It's a pretty good practice track. It's not really very technical. The jumps aren't really that big. It's just a place to ride, you know. I think it's a real good thing for these guys. It gives them something to do. It teaches them a lot. I was lucky. I got to race on the professional circuit. I got to see the whole Country. I got to be on t.v., the whole nine yards. It's really something I would have never gotten if I'd played baseball or football or any other team sport. It was just my thing. It just worked for me, and I think it's an opportunity that maybe some of these guys might have, you know, the young kids especially. It keeps them busy. It kept me busy. I think it's a real good thing, and I think the dust definitely is an issue, but they want to address that issue because it's no good to ride in the dust. The' motorcycles, if you blow up a bike these days, it's $500, $600 to get it fixed, you know, and with the dust, it plugs the filter, that blows the bike up, you know, you're out $500. Nobody wants that. They want to water the track, and they want to, you know, mulch it down, do whatever they can do to keep the dust down, but the noise issue is, as far as I'm concerned, not even an issue. If you had been there in the 70's, you know, 20 unmuffled bikes leaving at eight 0' clock in the morning on a Sunday is certainly a lot noisier than eight motorcycles at 94 decibels riding for two hours on a Saturday afternoon or six hours or however long. That's pretty much all I wanted to say, that I can think of. MR. THOMAS-Okay. opposed? Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak TOM MCDERMOTT MR. MCDERMOTT-My name's Tom McDermott, Sunnyside Road, owner, operator of a Harley Davidsen agency, and I'm no good at speaking, but I've gathered everybody's feelings, and their opinions here tonight, once more. Ralph, I was not forced to go to Route 4. Mrs. Yagar, I believe, I didn't invite any motorcycle riders to throw beer cans on your property, and I did try to control it when I was living there, and I thought I was doing a pretty good job, but I don't live right there any more. Mr. Kubricky's sons learned to ride and drive cars allover that field, and I think they appreciated the fact, and I think Mr. Kubricky did, and he's entitled to his opinions expressed here tonight. Mrs. Turnbull, I helped your son at eleven o'clock at night out there get a spark plug, get his snow mobile going, in the winter night. - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MRS. TURNBULL - MY: son? MR. MCDERMOTT-Yes. Years ago, when you and I were younger, and the noise didn't bother either one of us. MRS. TURNBULL-You should have told me about it then. MR. MCDERMOTT-He's a good boy. You wouldn't spank him. I never spanked mY children. The business was grandfathered. The variance they're talking about was nice of them to agree to allow me to expand the business, to do more business, to pay higher taxes in Queensbury, and sales taxes, and I appreciate everybody that helped us get that new building up, which we needed badly. Since that's outgrown itself, we've had to move out, because there's no way we could continue to expand there, and I'd like to do what Mr. Pritzker just said. Lets see if we can get together with more open minds, instead of bickering. Lets get the thing ironed out. Lets try to get the dust down. Lets try to set some hours. I understand we tried to do this, and we got a flat no, just throw us off our land, you're not going to do it. I'm sorry. DICK CUTTING MR. CUTTING-Good evening. My name is Dick Cutting, and my wife and I have owned property across from the McDermott's for almost 40 years. During that time, there have been motorcycles riding, every year, either through the cornfield, around the cornfield, in the cornfield or any place else. Through the years, I have found them to be cooperative, noisy, sometimes a problem. I have been a motorcycle rider since 1936. That's before a lot of you were born. Before that, my uncles, my father, my grandfather, they were motorcycle riders. I have a grandson who is a motorcycle rider. He rode over on McDermott's property. I have two qreat grandsons, 10 years old and 7 years old, that have graduated from 50's to 60's. Now they are starting to ride 80 cc motorcycles. Where are they going to ride, or learn to ride, if you take McDermott's field away from them? If you will notice the gentleman over here on my left side, toward the rear, wearing a black shirt, if he'll stand up and turn around, you will see a list of motorcycle races. All right. I have had a problem with motorcycles, with the motorcycle riders. For several years, we had motorcycle riders on the lake. Up until last year, and a lot of the new people around the lake kept calling me up, calling me up, what are we going to do about the motorcycles? I say, get on your bikes and go join them. If you can't beat them, which is exactly what I have been doing in the past years. As I said, I had a problem with them. My wife had a problem with them. I went out and I spoke to them. The next time they plowed their track, right in front of my house. My wife could sit there, watch me, watch the grand kids, watch the great grand kids, all of us out on the ice, no problem. They had a couple of motorcycles that were really noisy. I spoke to the fellows about it. That motorcycle isn't there anymore. It left and didn't come back. They have been cooperative in every way. At one time, they took tires out, made a track. When they got through racing, all the tires were picked up. We have a very, very cooperative group of motorcycle riders. These fellows travel allover the Country representing the Town of Queensbury. Where do they practice? The only place they can practice is right here at McDermotts. Back in 1984, we had a problem, well, before that was the snowmobile problem. In 1984, it was the three wheelers. If you'll remember the picture in the paper, Don, the Town Clerk at the time, put in 001, on my three wheeler. I taught riding. I taught ATV's. Now, ever since 1984, I have been paying every year, registration, insurance and license, half of which, according to the State, half of that money is supposed to be put in for a trail for me to ride on. I don't have the first foot of ride, space to ride. If I want to get on my machine and go for a ride, I've got to go over in McDermott's field. Right now you say, well, hey, that guy's 82 - 48 - '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) years old. He's too old to ride. Forget it. I've ridden there every day this week, and I intend to continue riding as long as I'm able, not the three wheeler or the four wheeler, which I also own, but one of my two motorcycles. Right now, the only place I can ride is over at McDermott's, because, hey, where's my trails for ATV's? No place, but I can go over there and ride. Whatever happened to, I don't know what you'd call it, jurisprudence, perhaps? Mr. Martin said that it was legal to ride over there, as long as they're flat track. Tom has agreed to a flat track. Flatten it out, or there was a question about berms, whether they've crossed them the wrong way, man made? Well, I guess he's going to have to just get out there and drag them and flatten them out. He has offered to be very cooperative with the neighbors. This I happen to know. At one time he offered to plant 10 rows of corn down on that site. Cut down the noise, cut down the dust. He has a water truck lined up. He doesn't have it on the property that I know of. Maybe he does have, but they have a water truck there. When it gets too dusty, take that water truck out and fill it and wet down the track. They're willing to restrict the hours, restrict the days. The people, if they would get together, stop this fighting head to head. Lets get together, say this is what we will agree on, the dates, the times, the hours, lets water the track if necessary, lets do whatever's necessary, but lets stop the fighting. Lets keep a place for the people to ride. Let these young fellows ride. One thing you will never find a motorcycle rider is on drugs or drunk. Never. If you do, you're probably going to see him in an ambulance somewhere on the way to the hospital, but these young fellows do not drink, and they are not on drugs, and I want my great grandsons, and my great, great grandson, which I do have, by the way, yes, I do. He's only about 7 months old now, but if I have mY way, some day he'll have a motorcycle, and he'll be riding over at McDermotts, and that's what I want. I want the whole family over there at one time. You want a six generation picture, hey, I'm all for it. We're all going to ride over to McDermotts, and we're going to do it legally, and not be a bunch of bandits, which we have to be to ride our three and four wheelers. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak opposed? BRUCE KILMARTIN MR. KILMARTIN - I'm the man with the shirt. My name is Bruce Kilmartin. I live in Glens Falls, and my kids ride up there whenever they get the chance, when it's not dusty. We're doing the series, which is on the back of my shirt, and my son, he's been taking second in the first two races. There's four more to go. McDermotts has helped me out in the last couple of years. I mean, like the other man said, $500. It's more like $1,000, maybe $1500 in the bikes, and that's every year. Two grand a piece, I've got probably double that already into, but it's a great place to ride. I mean, we don't have any other place to ride. You can't ride in Glens Falls. You can't ride in my yard. Like he said he could. I know that for a fact. I can't even ride it across the street or start it up in the driveway without somebody complaining. Now McDermott's has helped ill§ out, helped my kids out and they'll help a lot of other people out, too, but we'd like to continue riding up there, maybe win one of these races. We've been close, second, that's close enough, better than last, but no practice time means last. We'd like to continue riding up there, and like he said, you know, we have a water truck. It's not there yet, but we've tried to compromise and whatever else we've had to do, but all they want to do is fight it, like he says. I'd just like to see it continue and carry on and maybe win one of these races. It would be worth all that money I put into these bikes. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else opposed? - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) TAMMY BAPP MRS. TAMMYBAPP-My name is Tammy Bapp. I live at 136 Sunnyside Road. I have two children that are eight and nine years old that ride on the track out there. They really enjoy it. We're all adults. I really think that maybe we should come to some kind of compromise with it. I think that it keeps my children out of trouble. I think it's very easy for children to lean the wrong way these days, and my kids really enjoy it, and I just wish that we could all be adults and come to some kind of compromise. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else opposed? Last chance? MR. PRITZKER-Are the May 22, 1996 minutes part of this record tonight? Since they were cited by Mr. Martin in his memo? MR. THOMAS-I would say that we could make them a part of this meeting. Jeff? MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. They're referred to and relied on by the Zoning Administrator in his determination. So I would say it's part of the record. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We will make it part of the record. MR. PRITZKER-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak, one side or the other? MR. KUBRICKY - Yes. All the people that spoke that were against Mark Benware are all the people that don't live on the property that surrounds the field. Myself, I live on the field itself, and the same as Mark and the rest of them, but everybody else that is on the other end don't even live surrounding the field. So, I mean, it's great for them. They don't have to listen to the dirt, the dust. They send their kids over, or whatever. I can't see it. I'm 62 years old and I'm retired. I want to enjoy what little bit of life I've got left. I'm not listening to motorcycles at all hours of the night or all hours of the day, or have to keep my windows closed. I mean, they can speak all they want, but like I say, they don' t have to surround that field. I do. My house is no farther than here to that wall from the field. TOM MCDERMOTT, JR. MR. MCDERMOTT, JR.-Hi. I'm Tom McDermott. I live on 147 Sunnyside Road. A lot of people were saying they were coming from out of State. People were coming from out of State. That's crazy. People have things on their van that says things like Team Honda. Well, it doesn't mean that they are Team Honda, the people that race professionally. That means they feel good about themselves when they put this on their van. It's like putting chrome rims on your car. It makes you feel good personally. It makes you ride better because you're thinking now you're part of this. As far as people coming from out of town to ride, that would be like yOU guys saying to people, you can only use the softball fields of Queensbury if you live in Queensbury. Where would your softball leagues be? They wouldn't be anywhere near the size they are. I have friends that live in Glens Falls. I have friends that lived with me as a kid who live in Glens Falls now. We rode together as kids in my field, and now they have to come up to my house to ride wi th me, because we're going to ride together. We always are. Not just Glens Falls, Fort Ann. It's not like we're coming from Jersey or Maine, you know, to come down here and ride at my track. It's not that big an attraction. It is blown out of proportion quite a bit sometimes about people coming from allover. It's not that, really that bad. As far as practice, it is qood practice. You go to the races and try to compete in motorcross and you haven' t - 50 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) ridden any kind of a motorcross type of situation in a month, you're either going to fall down and get hurt, or you're going to get blown out of the water. You've got to have somewhere to ride. I've been riding there my whole life, and we just can't just say no. I mean, lets do something, work together. I came up, I gave them five or six ideas of things I could do to try and meet them half way, and I came up with a blunt, no, you can't do it. It's not right. Lets get together and do it right. Lets go three days or something, anything. We've got to talk about it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else, one way or the other? anything more you'd like to say, Mr. Benware? Is there MR. BENWARE-I've got nothing to say. MR. THOMAS-No? Okay. MRS. TURNBULL- I would just like to clarify a situation. This young lady said that I claimed that that picture I showed you was four or five machines running. That's not what I said. I said that picture was taken and the day that it was printed there was four or five, maybe six machines out there. The only reason I showed you that was what one motorcycle can contaminate the air with. Imagine when you get a group, and there has been, at times, and I don't remember when this was, but Mr. Chambers can say how many there were, maybe 15 or 20 at a time. Now that was not just recent, but that was in the early part of the spring, but I wanted to clarify what I said about that picture I gave you. The other thing I thought I'd like to add is everybody had a piece of property that had been farm land at one time and let this kind of a condition exists, can you imagine what Queensbury or any other Town would be like? You wouldn't be able to stand the entire Country. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? MRS. TAMMY BAPP-I did just want to make one point, that as far as how many are out there, like I said, my husband, and I have two children. My brother-in-law lives two houses down the road on Sunnyside Road. He has two children, and my brother-in-law. There's six people right there. You can't say that these people are all coming from out of town. I think that if you look at the list that, you know, the people signed, that they do condone the riding there, that a lot of these people are riders that do live locally, and I do feel that we have just as much right as anyone else. No, we are a younger generation, but yet we are adults, and we are willing to compromise, but it doesn't seem like the older generation is willing to make the same compromise. They want it all or nothing, and that's just not fair, and that's not right. I'm sorry I didn't finish before. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-I have a question for you. bother YOU where YOU live? Does the noise and dirt MRS. TAMMY BAPP-Actually, it doesn't bother me because I condone it. I mean, yes, they are loud, but they aren't any louder than they were years ago, and it isn't any more dustier than it was years ago, and what I do disagree with is snowmobiles going through my yard at three o'clock in the morning and through my back yard, and I'm sure that they're intoxicated, but I never complained. That's their fun, you know what I'm saying, but yet on the other hand, when it comes to our fun, there is a complaint, and it just doesn't seem fair. MRS. LAPHAM-When you just said "years ago", how long have you lived there? MRS. TAMMY BAPP-I' ve lived there since I was 11 years old, on Sunnyside Road with my grandmother. I'm now 26 years old. So, 10, - 51 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) 15 years, that I know of. My husband's family has lived there all of his life, that I know of, and he was born in '65. So, you know, there's 30 years. Anyothers? Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You're welcome. Would anyone else like to speak? HENRY SCHWAEBLE MR. SCHWAEBLE-I want to make it very short. My name is Henry Schwaeble. Before I moved to Sunnyside East, 15 years ago, I lived on Upper Ridge Road, where I built a house in the 50's and 60's. My neighbor across from me was Ron Jeckel. He had a motorcross raceway across from me, on the mountain. When they had races, which they had very often, he was selling motorcycles at the time, those racing bikes from England, and the noise was even louder than what you experience here, but I worked for his father, and respectfully, so I didn't make much opposition about that, and he was a very good neighbor: Sometimes in the winter, I came out in the morning, my driveway was plowed first. I didn't know who did it. Sometimes he came over. He had a longer driveway, and did mine without mentioning anything. So, my other neighbor, the husband had a stroke, and sometimes he sat outside when he recuperated, and the noise bothered him very much, and so his wife didn't know what to do, and she asked the neighbors how they felt, and naturally some of them complained, some didn't, but they didn't make a petition drive or went to the Town Board or made something, really complained, and so she talked with Mr. Jeckel, or she called him and told him the situation, and lo and behold, without interference from the Town or any other citizen or anything, he ceased. He cut it down, and eventually eliminated the race track and the problem was solved, and nobody was involved, no Town, no Board and no neighbors, and everybody lived in peace ever after. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thanks. One more time. Would anyone like to speak? MR. BENWARE-I want to say something. I kind of agree with a lot of people that are here tonight, both sides. If this type of situation in the Town of Queensbury, if this has to exist, why do we have to be at each other's throats? Why doesn't the Town of Queensbury, as a community, have something for every enthusiast, every sport? You've got recreational parks. Why don't they have some place for these guys to ride? Why have we got to be at each other's throats? Why have we got to inconvenience these people and us people at meetings? Why do I have to stand here and say, dammit, I'm a tax payer. Do you know what I mean? I want peace and they've got to come over here on the other s ide and say, dammit, I'd like to ride a bike. I want to go out. Why does this have to happen? I mean, I pay damn good taxes. There's people here that have been paying taxes 30, 40 years. Why have you got to inconvenience everybody? Why have we got to be at each other's throats? MR. THOMAS-That I couldn't tell you. MR. BENWARE-Why can' t some of the taxes of Queensbury, that community, as it says on all of your papers, Queensbury, a nice place to live. If you want to make it a nice place to live, set up programs and stuff like that so people don't have to be at each other's neighbor's throats. Because I can imagine that there's a few neighbors here that would like to call me, as a neighbor, a few choice names. Do you know what I'm saying? I just can't believe all the money and taxes and stuff that goes on, and this cannot be contained in an area for people to ride, for people to play tennis, for people to shoot baskets. You've got all that. You've got football fields. You've got softball fields. Why can't you give these guys a place to ride so that they don't disrupt the community doing the things that they like to do. Do you know what I mean? - 52 - ',--- _/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) I'm not saying I'm for, and I'm not saying I'm against them, but basically what we're doing here is we're trying to find a happy medium, and by trying to find a happy medium, we're coming to YOU, saying, hey, man, you're getting our tax money. Why don't you give something to these people so in turn everything works together. MR. HAYES-Unfortunately, that's not our decision, though. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BENWARE-Well, it's got to be somebody's decision, because somebody's getting paid to come up here and listen to us in the evening, you know what I mean. MR. THOMAS-Where did Betty go? Did she leave? I wish she was here when you were talking. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but where are you going to put it? Nobody wants it in their back yard. MR. BENWARE-That's right. Nobody wants it in their back yard. Look at the area of Queensbury. You mean to tell me there isn't some area where you guys can put a track, and you can't inconvenience people, and by the same token make everybody happy? MR. CUSTER-The Town isn't going to want to absorb that liability, either. (Lost words) I'm in that business, and nobody would sell it to them at any cost that would make any reasonable sense. Who in their right mind's going to ensure a motorcross track in a municipality in this day and age? They're absolutely out of their minds. I'm in that business, we wouldn't touch it. That's Mr. McDermotts property. An insurance company doesn't care what goes (lost words). I'm just making a statement. As far as a tax payer, putting in a motorcross track is not a realistic process. MR. BENWARE-How about the County trails? I mean, hey, a snowmobiler can go from here to wherever. They get to cruise all over the place. Those guys have got a place to ride. I heard that when the motorcross people tried to go up on the snowmobile trails, the snowmobile clubs have a fit. Who the hell are they to have a right to say anything? These people that ride motorcycles have got just as much right as the guys that ride snowmobiles. Seeing as how the County is paying for it, there isn't any more of a liability. I'll tell you what, I've been to snowmobile shops. Those babies, all they are is (lost word) rockets. Do you know what I mean? Six of one, half dozen of another. MR. STONE-You certainly can approach the Town Board, and we have a member here. MR. BENWARE-That's old news, been there and done that. MR. STONE-There's a Recreation Committee in the Town of Queensbury. You can approach them, and see if they're interested in doing something like that. It is not in our jurisdiction to do that. MR. BENWARE-I just hope the Town of Queensbury does not come to the address of this, well, it's not an inconvenience in mY back yard. You can' t see it from my back yard. You can't hear it from my back yard. I hope you guys address the real issue here. Try to find a happy medium somewhere. Do you know what I mean? Why inconvenience one group and inconvenience another group, because they're both tax payers. They've both got houses. They've all got mortgages, because I tell you, I, for one, with (lost words) mortgages, unless somebody with a motorcross, unless somebody comes up to me with a trailer (lost words) trailer and has got motorcross bikes in the back, I'm not going to be able to get rid of it. I am not going to be able to get rid of it. - 53 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. STONE-You've indicated that you understand both sides, and I heard a willingness, on the part of the owners of this property, to talk, and to come up with some kind of compromise. I heard that, and certainly that sounds very logical to me, but that's not our jurisdiction either. We will make our determination when everybody's done talking. MR. BENWARE-You've still got 50/50 tax payers, 50 pro, 50 against, in percentage, and one way or the other, you're not going to make one group happy. I just wish the Town of Queensbury would address and approach this in the manner that they should, so they haven't got to inconvenience the tax payers that are paying their salaries. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'm going to close the public hearing. No more comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Is there anything you wanted to say, Jeff, concerning anything legal? MR. FRIEDLAND-I don't have comments, other than you to look at the record before you and either confirm or reverse the Zoning Administrator's determination. Obviously, if you don't feel comfortable. There's been a lot of issues thrown out on the table. If you feel you need more time, I'm sure you know you do not have to decide that tonight. You have 62 days after tonight to make a decision. I'm not suggesting you should delay it, but if you feel you need more time, you have the time. MR. THOMAS-Well, we'll go through the Board here and see what everybody thinks, and go from there. MR. HAYES-I have a question for Jeff, if he could re-clarify the point of law, as far as enlargement of the nonconforming use. What was that test that you said, as far as precedent wise? An increase in volume doesn't necessarily constitute? MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. I'm not sure I said it was a test, per see What I said, at least what I think I said was that a number of courts, in cases that have addressed this, have said that, generally speaking, just increasing the volume of use does not make what's otherwise a pre-existing, nonconforming use unlawful. Okay, just a mere increase in volume is the way a lot of courts say it, "a mere increase in volume", does not make it unlawful, but a change in the use itself, a fundamental change in the use, such as, I think my example before was from a, you know, a bar to a full service restaurant, that is an unlawful extension of a nonconforming use. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets talk about this one. Brian, what do you think? MR. CUSTER-My understanding of the determination of Mr. Martin, Mr. Martin's determination was that motorcycle riding is allowed on this property. I'm a big believer that people have property rights in this Country, and if that's allowed to be used there, then he should continue that. This government, federal, state, local, keep infringing on people's property rights all the time, and barring any other ordinances that prohibit that, I'm going to let this thing stand. MR. THOMAS-Hang on a second. I'm going to open the public hearing back up. We had a letter. MRS. LAPHAM-That just surfaced. - 54 - ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MRS. LAPHAM-June 18th, 1997 "To Whom It May Concern: We are responding to a proposal that we received in our mailbox recently. This proposal was in the form of a letter which was in regards to a motorcycle track to be constructed in our neighborhood, on the property of Thomas McDermott. We are in full opposition to this proposal. There are several reasons that we feel the way that we do. We have lived in our home for 38 years, and after that long of a time then why should our lives be disrupted in such a way? First of all, the noise that will be created will be just unbearable. We would not even be able to open up our windows, let alone sit outdoors to enjoy the weather. This area is residential and is neighborhood zoned, not motorcycle or commercially zoned. If the track were to be away from people's homes, then the situation would be entirely different. Why should people in this neighborhood be forced to sit in their homes because it is too noisy to go outside? It just cannot be justified. Also, the dirt that will be flying everywhere is another major concern that needs to be addressed. People again would not be able to open up their windows, due to the dirt that would envelope the insides of our homes. There would have to be constant cleaning and maintenance by all to our properties on a daily basis. What a nuisance that would be. Most of the people in this neighborhood are retired, and they would like to settle in early each night, and they just aren't able to clean so thoroughly all of the time to get rid of the dirt and dust. We have a family member in our home that has severe breathing problems. He currently has enough trouble breathing the regular air without adding contaminants to make his breathing process more laborious. This type of business in this specific area is simply just not conducive to this quiet, settled neighborhood. There will also be heavy traffic in this area, as well as participants and spectators of this track alike. This motorcycle track is simply way too close to people's homes to be acceptable. It would upset the lives and homes of everyone within a three-mile radius, at the very least. In Summary, here are three (3) votes against this motorcycle track. The noise and dirt/dust will create such major problems all throughout the affected neighborhood. We would be in support of this track if it were to be proposed in a different location that is not anywhere near people's homes. After all, why should residents of this neighborhood spend their retirement years working to keep their homes (indoors and outdoors) clean, and why shouldn't everyone be able to sit outdoors and enjoy peace and quiet without the commotion of motorcycles? We feel the answer is clear. Thank you for your consideration of our opinion. Lawrence Durkee Pauline Durkee Heidi Durkee Please note that we are unable to attend this meeting due to an illness in our family" JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I didn't intend to speak this evening, but after hearing Mr. Custer's comments, I feel compelled to participate. Mr. Chairman, is not the issue before the Zoning Board this evening that of whether or not motorcross activities, be it a race track, whatever it is, competition riding, that that constitutes a new use on this property. Is that not the issue? MR. THOMAS-The issue is whether motorcycles can be ridden on that property or not. Yes, or no. MR. SALVADOR-Define motorcycles. Motorcycles were allowed on that, are allowed on that property, to the extent that they are motorcycles of the pre-existing use. Are motorcross type motorcycles to be equated with the motorcycles that were ridden previous to the Zoning Ordinance? MR. THOMAS-I think you'll find that in certain court decisions, - 55 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) technical innovations, you know, not all motorcycles are going to be like they were in the 1970's. There's technical innovations. Like the one gentleman said, the travel on his was like one inch, and now they're up to maybe, eight, nine, ten inches. MR. SALVADOR-Did the motorcycles of yester year, which are allowed today, did they need a track. Did they produce dust? Did they produce noise of the level we have today? MR. HAYES-That's why we had testimony to determine that fact. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll close back up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are you done, Brian? MR. CUSTER-I would just like to add that, having said what I said, I think everybody knows where I stand. I'm pretty clear on that. I do respect the McDermotts and the people that support them, and the fact that they're opening this up to compromise, and I think that's the important issue here. The thing is, in my estimation, (lost words) this is an allowable use. It should be allowed to continue. Having said that. It's there, and you work to try to make some kind of neighborly concessions, so that you can mitigate this to a reasonable standpoint. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I also agree with Mr. Martin's determination, that it's, that this is a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and it should be allowed. I am closer in age to a lot of people that have come to speak, and these young men who are my age have been riding on those trails in one capacity or another or as long as I can remember, in fact, some of them used to wear motorcross stuff to school, even, and as I look on the sheet and see their sons and daughters are riding, too, to me, it's the same usage. I don't have any problem with it. I also agree with Brian, while I don't think that they'd have to necessarily compromise, I think it certainly is admirable that they are and that it's always in everybody's best interest to arrive at a win/win situation, particularly in a close knit community like Queensbury. I think that that's a positive step, and I'd like to see that continued. So I would oppose this appeal. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-Well, this is a very narrow issue. We are not asked to condone dust. We are not asked to condone or be against noise and pollution. The narrow issue is, is this land being used for motorcycles? Has it been used for motorcycles? Is that an allowable use? Unfortunately, our law is not very clear about motorcycles. They're not even in the definitions in our use, and we've had a previous situation where we'd look long and hard to attempt to find something about motorcycles, they're not there. I understand the problem, however. I was out there yesterday. I walked on the field. There wasn't a motorcycle in sight, but the wind was blowing, and the dust was horrific. There is no doubt that it is a very difficult place to live, but as I say, this is a very narrow issue. Is motorcycle riding on somebody's private property an allowable use? And it is. I certainly agree with the determination made by the Zoning Administrator. I would have liked to have seen tonight, I tried to give an opening, I would have liked to have seen the fire department say that their hoses, their pumps are all clogging up because of dust, and it becomes a safety issue. Then we have a different reason. I did not hear that - 56 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) tonight. I'm sorry I didn't hear it, but I really feel that, based upon all I've heard tonight, on this very narrow issue, I have to go along with the Zoning Administrator. I strongly encourage all sides, and there's more than two I think here, but all sides to sit down and work out an acceptable compromise. It might even be necessary, having gone by the field yesterday, to establish a regular schedule of watering, even when there isn't a motorcycle in sight. This certainly would keep the dust down all of the time, but again, going back to the very narrow issue, I have to vote to deny the appeal. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, first of all. I've got to say, I disagree with Mr. McDermott, Sr. I think he is an effective speaker, and I think he has the respect of all the people here. I noticed that, and I noticed that the last time, and I'm surprised that he has let this come to this pass. The last time we were here, I thought that this was going to be resolved, that the people were going to get together, and it hasn't happened, and I think Mr. McDermott could make that happen. I think he would be the leader type. I wonder if we're not making this too narrow an issue. Do we have to say yes or no, or can we say yes with conditions? MR. THOMAS-It's yes or no. MR. FRIEDLAND-You're either confirming or reversing the determination in front of you. This is not a variance where you can grant the variance with attached conditions. There's either a confirmation of Mr. Martin's decision, or you're going to reverse it. MR. KARPELES-Well, the last time we put the condition on that the bumps would be removed, right? MR. THOMAS-Well, that wasn't a condition. That was the, you know, the bumps were not pre-existing, nonconforming. The bumps were something new, so they had to be taken out, because they didn't conform to the zoning. MR. KARPELES-But wasn't that a condition of our? that didn't happen. I really am. I'm surprised MR. THOMAS-Well, that's an enforcement issue. MR. KARPELES-Yes, well, I thought it was qoinq to happen, and I thought everything was going to work out to everybody's happiness, but I have to go along with the rest. If it's a choice of either having the track there or not having it there, I have to say I think it should be there, but I think that it should be in such a manner that people can live there. I also went out there, and I was amazed. There was dust an inch deep, and I just, I don't remember seeing that, even a year ago. So I think something's got to be done here, but I have to go along with, I like the track there. I have grandchildren that ride motorcycles and go karts and I like to see that. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I tend to agree with the rest of the Board, particularly Mr. Stone. It's a very narrow issue, and we either confirm or deny the appeal, and I think that we deny the appeal because no one has proven to my satisfaction that this was not a pre-existing use. From what I can see, it's been in use for the last 40 years, and again, it's too bad we don't, you know, we don't deal with the issue of dust or noise or confusion or cars or parking or anything else. We just have that very narrow window. I will say the neighbors do have my sympathy. I don't think I can - 57 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) imagine anything more unpleasant than listening to motorcycles hour after hour, and having dust, and hopefully you can all reach a compromise, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote against having a motorcycle track there. MR. THOMAS-Before I say anything, I'd like to ask George that, since Mr. Martin is not here anYmore, and that John Goralski is now the new Executive Director of Community Development, does Mr. Goralski's opinion parallel that of Mr. Martin, in this case, more or less? It doesn't have to be exactly word for word. MR. FRIEDLAND-I think the determination that's on appeal is this one right here, and I'm not sure it matters whose name is on it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Even though he's no longer employed by the Town? MR. FRIEDLAND-Correct. It hasn't been revoked, revised. This is the determination that was appealed. This is the one that's in front of you, and I don't want to speak for Mr. Goralski, as to what he thinks. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. I just wanted to see if there was, you know, because somebody else could say something, John could say something completely different, and we wouldn't be here. So, anyway, I agree with the other Board members. I think the track has a right to be there, but I don't think it should be the way it is now today. I think it should be reverted back to the way it was before zoning came in. That means the jumps are out, but as far as the noise, there's no noise ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. I don't know what we can do about that. Dust. I don't know what we can do about that. The Zoning Board is here to give relief from the law. We don't make the laws. We don't enforce the laws. We just give relief from it, and we also make determinations on appeals like this. We're very limited as to what we can do by law. I would go along with the rest of the Board members, and state that Mr. Martin's letter, I would uphold his letter. So, having said that, as I voted the last time, in the last letter of May of '96, I voted then to uphold the letter that he had written then. Having said that, I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-97 MARK BENWARE, Introduced By Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: The applicant is appealing a decision of the Zoning Administrator which stated that the property owned by Thomas McDermott could be used to ride motorcycles if the property were used in its original state without any physical alteration. That the Board finds that it remains a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and based on that fact, that the Zoning Administrator's findings were correct in our estimation. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-But I do hope the neighbors get together and maybe somebody in the Planning Department can referee some kind of agreement or like that, but that motorcycle track was pre-existing, nonconforming, but it's used today. George, Double A Provisions, should that be advertised, because we have to change the motion. MR. HILTON-We've got a little, we're working with them. They may want to amend their variance, in which case they'll be on in July. So we will work on that, and we'll bring it to you when it's ready. - 58 - '--- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Have you heard from Jon Lapper about that sign at the Northway Plaza, whether he wants to withdraw it? MR. HILTON-I spoke to him. He indicated to me that he was going to withdraw it. I'm expecting a letter confirming that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I guess we're all set. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Does anybody else have anything they want to, for the good of the Board? On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman - 59 -