The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-10-24 ~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING FIRST SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24TH, 1990 INDEX Area Variance No. 80-1990 Marcel Demers 2. d/b/a Queensbury Automotive Center Sign Variance No. 81-1990 73 Quaker Road Associates 4. Notice of Appeal No. 2-90 Philip V. Cortese 6. RE: Adi, commco Inc. Use Variance No. 82-1990 L. Rae Gillis 7. Notice of Appeal No. 1-90 Request for appeal by Susan C. Popowski 19. RE: J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider 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 lOllING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24TH, 1990 7:30 P.M MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY CHARLES SICARD MICHAEL SHEA JEFFREY KELLEY JOYCE EGGLESTON BRUCE CARR DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS lONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES August 22nd, 1990: Page 7, second paragraph from the top, the last sentence, the part, "I think we should protect ourselves, too, because how can you make a motion on something that is stated to be something that it might not be, is what it should be; Page 8, at the bottom, the long paragraph that says, Mrs. Burnham, sib MS. Burnham; Page 15, a typo, where it says Mr. Kelley, sixth line down, sib of, instead of it, in front of Mr. Potenza; Page 15, down toward the bottom, where Mr. Fortini is describing where the street is, it says, "it's off Sandford, sib Sa.!!ford, all the way through; Page 29, seventh 1 ine up from the bottom, Mr. Turner is speaking, "that was the old Finch Pruyn development. They built a lot of houses up there, years and years ago, development and they built MOTION TO APPROVE AUGUST 22ND, 1990 MINUTES, AS CORRECTED. Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE September 12th, 1990: Page 30, in the motion by Shea, second to last line of the motion, "since this variance request is a, sib, socially, not sociably MOTION TO APPROVE SEPTEMBER 12TH, 1990 MINUTES, AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kelley September 19th, 1990: Page 19, starting at the bottom and coming up, the first Mr. Kelley, the second sentence says, "a half inch would be 16 feet, so it would probably meet the ten feet in the back; Page 21, starting at the top and coming down, the third Mr. Kelley, it kind of looks like a paragraph there, the last two lines, if you start in the middle, it says, maybe, and still be able to get the boat in, it says, still be able to, sib get the boat in; Page 34, up at the top, Mr. Kelley is speaking, the second line, but I've seen a lot of people come in here, and we've told them, can you offer other alternatives, sib; Page 40, in the middle, Mrs. Eggleston, there's a we're you asking the same question, sib were you asking the same question, a typo MOTION TO APPROVE SEPTEMBER 19TH, 1990 MINUTES, AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner 1 --- NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Goetz NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1990 TYPE II PC-IA MARCEL DEMERS D/B/A QUEENSBURY AUT(lQTIVE CENTER OWNER: SAME 53 QUAKER ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE STORY ADDITION OF APPROX. 580 SQ. FT. TO AN EXISTING SINGLE STORY BUILDING HOUSING AN AUT(lQTIVE REPAIR SHOP. THE ADDITION WILL BE USED FOR OFFICE AND STORAGE NEEDS. ADDITION WILL NOT MEET SETBACK FROM BANK STREET. (WARREN COUNTY PL\NNING) TAX MAP NO. 103-1-13 LOT SIZE: 21,250 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 J- MARCEL DEMERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Before we start, Mr. Demers, when you went in and got the application and you filled this out, you didn't apply for an expansion of a preexisting, nonconforming use, which you have to apply for. So, it wasn't advertised as such, only in the fact that it was an Area Variance. MR. DEMERS-I see. MR. TURNER-It's not an allowed use in that zone, now. MR. DEMERS-So, what's my next step, now? MR. TURNER-You've got to apply for that part of the application. It has to be re-advertised. So, we won't be able to hear it, tonight. MR. DEMERS-I see. MRS. GOETZ-Could I just ask a question? Who should pick up on that, because it seems like a burden for the applicant? MR. TURNER-Well, I think, the way it was explained to me, and Pat explained to me, when he came in, I guess he didn't speak to anyone. Did you just go in and get an application and fill it out, or what? MR. DEMERS-I just stopped in and picked up an application and filled it out, for a variance. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's what happened. MRS. COllARD-To answer Sue's question. Normally, I would review this, before, but I was away and, therefore, I guess it didn't get reviewed. MR. TURNER-She was away. MRS. COllARD-So, if you, I'm Pat Collard, Zoning Administrator. If you would come in and see me, tomorrow, I can talk with you about this, and get you going for next month. MR. DEMERS-So, I see. So, I've got to re-apply. MR. TURNER-You're right. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, this part of the application could be heard or tabled by the Board. MR. TURNER-We could hear it or table it, right. MR. CARR-We probably should hear it altogether. MR. SHEA-You're going to have to advertise it, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. You want to hear the whole package, right? MR. SHEA-Yes. MR. CARR-I think that's smarter. MR. SICARD-I don't think it's the fault of the applicant, that this happened. 2 MR. KELLEY-Does he have to pay another $50? MR. TURNER-Are you going to waive his $50, or what? MRS. COLLARD-I was going to ask you if we couldn't just revise this application for next month, instead of making him fill out a whole new application and 13 more copies. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. Just revise it. MRS. COLLARD-It could be re-advertised, but couldn't he just add that to these existing applications? MR. GORALSKI-Somebody's got to pay for the re-advertising. MR. TURNER-What's the minimum cost? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. We can find out from the Post Star what the actual cost for that advertising is. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-My thing would be that, I mean, he didn't mess up knowing. I mean, should he be stuck with the burden of the cost? MR. GORALSKI-It's two separate applications. It's a Use Variance and an Area Variance. MR. TURNER-And an Area Variance. It's one of each. MRS. COLLARD-Normally, the way this progresses is, the applicant comes in and talks with Dave or I, and we write up a referral form, and neither Dave nor I have seen this gentleman to talk with him. MR. DEMERS-No, I went in and spoke. I don't remember who, now. MR. GORALSKI-I spoke to you when you brought the application in. MR. DEMERS-Is that right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. DEMERS-Okay, and you're the one that gave me the applications to fill out, right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. DEMERS-Well, why didn't somebody tell me about this? MR. GORALSKI-Because I wasn't aware that you hadn't spoken to Pat. MR. DEMERS-Okay. So, now I've got to wait until next month. This can't be waived? MRS. COLLARD-I'm afraid not. MR. DEMERS-Okay. Thank you. tl)TION TO TABLE AREA VARIMCE 110. 80-1990 MARCEL DEMERS D/B/A QUEENSBURY AUTOII)TIVE CENTER, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Tabled for proper re-submittal of the application before the Board. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Marcel, do you understand that you have to go in and file for a Use Variance, along with the Area Variance? MR. DEMERS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay, both of them? 3 MR. DEMERS-I'll be in tomorrow to see Pat, and she'll straighten me out on it. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 81-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-lA 73 QUAKER ROAD ASSOCIATES OWNER: SAlE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAFAYETTE AND QUAKER ROADS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING SIGNS AND ADD NAMES. A MAXItlJM OF FIVE TO APPEAR ON THE SIGN. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 104-1-4.32 LOT SIZE: NIA SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE LOIS FAIRCLOUGH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Are you representing the application? Could I have your name, please. MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-Lois Fairclough. MR. SHEA-Lois, what are the other names that you're intending to put on the sign. Do you know, now? MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-No, I do not. MR. SHEA-You don't know any of them? MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-The radio station has requested their name to go on the sign, but I don't know if that will be their call letters or what. MR. SHEA-So, you know one of them. You know a business. MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-I know ~ business, right, and I'm Ridge Appraisal Services. I'm on the sign. MR. SHEA-Okay. MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-The other spaces are vacant, which is why we requested up to five and, when the sign was designed, it was designed so that another name could go under mine, and adjacent to mine and the next one. MR. TURNER-Is there a directory inside the foyer of the building? MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-Yes. MR. TURNER-And that doesn't suffice? MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-Well, it would be a hardship for all of us, in so far as we chose to rent in that structure, in order to have visibility, and, right now, only "25" appears on the building, which we feel is nice. Obviously, if we have to go to signs on the building, we all felt that that would be detrimental to the building and Quaker Road, as a whole. I mean, there are other facilities, on Quaker Road, which have signs, either on the building, or billboard type signs, in front of the building, and, since this was a preexisting sign, and discreet, we felt that this was the nicer way to go. I mean, I would, personally, hate to encumber the building with our names on the building. MR. SHEA-So, if you were to be granted a variance to allow up to five names on the sign, you would then forego any signage on the building? MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-Yes. Right now, all we want to see, on the structure, is "25", which is our new address. It used to be "73". MR. SHEA-What would happen, given the possibility of the interior building being further subdivided and additional tenants beyond five, which is what you're requesting now, coming at a later date? What would happen to those tenants? MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-I'm the Property Manager and I make those detenninations and there is .2!!.!l. five on the sign, that's a maximum of five, period, that's policy, absolutely. MR. SHEA-So, then you would understand, fully, that, if you were to get a tenant that was will ing to pay a hefty leasing fee, there, but with no ability to have their name out on the sign? MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-That exists, currently, with Mallincrodkt, in the back of the building. Although they have the majority of the space, they have no signage. MR. SHEA-Okay. MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-We're already in that situation. 4 -- MR. TURNER-How much area of the building do the other businesses compose? How much does Mallincrodkt have? MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-Mallincrodkt has 27,000 square feet, at the moment. MR. TURNER-Okay, what's the building size? MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-The building size is 47. MR. TURNER-That's 20,000 square feet. MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-And they have no signage. MR. TURNER-You have 20,000. You said they have, there's 47,000 in the building, and they've got 27,000, that leaves you 20,000. MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-Yes. So, the rest of the tenants occupy 20,000, right, with VanGuard being the major tenant and the rest of the spaces are small. MRS. GOETZ-If we should grant a variance, it would go with the property, and I'm thinking ahead. At some point, you may not be involved with the building. MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-Right. MRS. GOETZ-So that we might want to think of conditioning any variance to be not more than whatever is being requested. I mean, I believe that you would do what you say, but what if, at some point, you weren't there and it changed completely? MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-Right. I don't think the owners would have problem with a conditional variance. MR. SHEA-The only thing that I would say is that I believe that it is necessary, within limits, to apprise customers of the kinds of businesses that are in that location, and it is a well kept property, and it's a good project, there's no question about it. I, personally, don't have a problem with it, given the fact that they would forego additional signage on the building, which they're, obviously, entitled to, and, further, by limiting the number of businesses that are on the sign, it's my opinion that, I don't have a problem with it, personally. MR. TURNER-Okay, and you're aware of the fact, did you read the 15, under General Reg's? MR. SHEA-Yes. MR. TURNER-Name, or assumed name of the owner of the property in which it's located, principal business or businesses conducted on the property, brief identification of products or services available. This is the text that would be allowed, it says, be limited~, vacancy, no vacancy, price information. MRS. GOETZ-Well, first of all, don't we have to determine if we think a variance is needed? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHEA-I think one ~. MRS. GOETZ-I do because I think the purpose of the Sign Ordinance is to have control on signage and this building has the potential of so many different kinds of uses, just because it's such a large building, that I would be for having this be a variance proposal. MRS. EGGLESTON-I just think it's such, we looked at it, and this really looks nice and, for myself, I think it makes much more sense to allow the names on here, and keep them off the building. MR. TURNER-Yes, I agree with that. MRS. EGGLESTON-I really don't have a problem with it, if you want to restrict it to just the five. The lady has no objections, so I, for myself, I don't have a problem with what's being asked. MR. SHEA-Further, it really is more of an office use, than a retail plaza. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's not a plaza. It's an office building. Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. KELLEY- I can ki nd of see why it mi ght not need to have a vari ance, but, at the same time, si nce it's not specifically mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance, maybe that's why it needs a variance. 5 -- MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I think Susan's probably right. I mean, we wanted to get control of signs, so we probably should give it a variance. MR. SICARD-Is it necessary we know who's going to be on that sign? MRS. FAIRCLOUGH- I cannot answer that because the spaces are vacant, but the letters wi 11 be the si ze of the Rich Appraisal Service letters and I did give everybody a photograph, so you can see the difference. MR. TURNER-You're limit will be five. MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-Right. MRS. GOETZ-We should say that in our, if we make a variance, because this is nice, the way it's streamlined, and I like it. MRS. FAIRCLOUGH-I do, too. MR. TURNER-Okay, I guess the decision is that we'll hear it as a variance. So, I guess we don't have any further questions. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO C_ENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact" Queensbury Beautification Committee approved MR. TURNER-Okay, no further questions of the applicant? A motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE NO. 81-1990 73 QUAKER ROAD ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: I believe, since the present zoning is PC-lA, and that the present use is more of a professional office use, excluding the present Ma11incrodkt use. Further, since the applicant is willing to forego any signage on the building, I move to approve the Sign Variance, as proposed. Further, that this granting is conditional and allowable only to present ownership, and limited to five business names. Further, that the granting of this variance is not detrimental to the Ordinance. We have reviewed the EAF and found no negative effects. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Before we go on to any further business, let me just make one brief announcement. The last item under Notice of Appeal No. 2-90, has been tabled by the applicant. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, if the Board wishes to table that, they would have to pass a motion. MR. TURNER-The applicant's requested it be tabled, by letter. MS. CORPUS-Does the Board concur with that? MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-That would require a formal motion. MR. TURNER-You want a motion? MS. CORPUS-Yes, please. tlJTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-90 ATTORNEY PHILIP V. CORTESE REGARDING ADICOtItCO, INC. DENIAL OF SIGN PERMIT, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for it's adopti on, seconded by Bruce Carr: 6 -' As requested by the applicant. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE USE VARIANCE NO. 82-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-SA L. RAE GILLIS OWNER: SAtE EAST SIDE, LOCKHART tWNTAIN ROAD TO LEASE SPACE IN SMALLER REMAINING STllJClURE FOR USE AS LIGHT INOOSTRY. ONE TENANT BUILDS BIRD HOUSES, THE OTHER BUILDS BOAT TRAILERS. TAX MAP NO. 23-1-29.1 LOT SIZE: 13.74 ACRES SECTION 4.020 C SCOTT HATZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. HATZ-Scott Hatz, on behalf of Mr. Gillis. MR. TURNER-Do you have anything further to add to these things? MR. HATZ-Well, I don't know if you have any questions, initially. I don't know if you're familiar with it. There is a map attached. What we're attempting to do is get Use Variances for two businesses and the smaller of the two hen houses that were in existence for quite awhile, this particular building has been there since 1955, the larger one since 1938. MR. TURNER-How long has the trailer manufacturing business been there? MR. HATZ-I believe that was in February of 1989. I have the owners of the businesses and Mr. Gillis, here, and they can address some of the questions regarding the specific businesses. MR. TURNER-How about the fe11a that builds bird houses? MR. HATZ-I believe, August of this year? DAVID EDMUNDS MR. EDMUNDS-Right. MR. HATZ-There have been variances granted in the past. MR. TURNER-Yes, we know that. MR. HATZ-What we're hoping to do is, basically, to continue that. In fact, we have a petition, some of the neighbors are in support of this, and most of them weren't even aware that, in fact, these businesses were ongoing. This just, we feel, demonstrates the fact that there is little impact on the neighborhood. MR. TURNER-How many deliveries do you get, a week, of steel, up there, for boat trailers. BILL BUNTING MR. BUNTING-Once a week. My name's Bill Bunting. MR. TURNER-How do you unload the steel? MR. BUNTING-I hand unload. Sometimes, it's once every two weeks, once every three weeks. It depends on how the orders go. We don't have a lot of room in there. MR. TURNER-What size trailers do you build? MR. BUNTING-We build, like, 16 to 30 foot long trailers, utility trailers, a few of those. MR. SHEA-How many employees do you have? MR. BUNTING-One, just one employee. MR. TURNER-One, besides yourself? 7 --' MR. BUNTING-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And what was the date that you started operation of that? MR. TURNER-'89. MR. BUNTING-February. MR. KELLEY-February of '89? MR. BUNTING-Yes. Besides my steel deliveries, my other trailer components, I usually have trucked in Roadway and they pack them in a pallet and I pick them up at Railway because Roadway doesn't like coming in the driveway. It's bad, anyway, because they come straight in and we've got to carry farther than I can carry it out of my pickup truck. I can pull that right inside. MRS. GOETZ-Mr. Gannon's finished, when did he vacate the property? MR. HATZ-I believe he vacated in 1986, the Top of the World Auto Body. MRS. GOETZ-And then his variance only went with his operation. MR. HATZ-According to the record I have, that variance was granted to the applicant only. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Then, I was wondering how the new businesses thought they could go in? MR. HATZ-I have a copy of, well, the businesses in there now, weren't aware that there was a Use Variance required. When they were made aware, that's when they came to us and we came here. MR. TURNER-When was that? MR. HATZ-When did you call our office? MR. TURNER-No, when was it discovered that you were there? MR. BUNTING-Bill Bodenweiser came to see us. It was about the end of August. He was passing by. MRS. GOETZ-When you first went in there, why did you think that you could go in there? MR. BUNTING-Because Top of the World Auto Body was in there and the Wooden Boat Works was in there. MR. TURNER-Mr. Gillis didn't make you aware that the application expired with the.... MR. BUNTING-No. MR. EDMUNDS-I think Ray was under the impression that the variance went with the property. MR. HATZ-I believe there was another Site Plan approval granted, also, for a wooden boat works. I'm not sure the date of that. I've got a copy of that. Site Plan approval was approved, for this same building. MR. TURNER-When? Is there a date on that? MR. HATZ-No. Not in the minutes I have. MR. TURNER-I don't remember that, at all. MR. GORALSKI-I believe it was 1986. MR. HATZ-Richard Roberts signed the minutes. MR. TURNER-I remember the Auto Body shop. MR. HATZ-I believe it was because of that Site Plan approval, when it was granted, that they were under the impressi on they coul d, now, someone else coul d move ri ght in si nce, in a sense it's the same business, anyway, it's a boat works'. MR. TURNER-Do you live in Town, Mr. Bunting? 8 '- MR. BUNTING-No. MR. TURNER-Did Mr. Bodenweiser make an inspection as to your building, in respect to the fire code? MR. BUNTING-He was driving by to inspect a chimney on the other side of the mountain and he saw cars in the front of Dave's business and he wasn't aware of any business being in there, and he just drove in and gave us a few things that he wanted done and we did them, all except the Sheetrock on the wall, which I'm waiting to find out whether I want to spend the money and put the Sheetrock on the wa 11 or not. MR. CARR-How many trailers do you build? MR. BUNTING-About 100 a year. MR. CARR-About 100 a year. How's business going? MR. BUNTING-It's good. MR. CARR-Is it picking up? MR. BUNTING-Yes. MR. CARR-Do you expect to expand? MR. BUNTING-If I expand, it would have to be in another building, because this building is limited use and I started off with one trailer and sold that and I don't have a lot of money, and that's why I'm in, up there on Top of the World. MR. TURNER-How much space do you utilize, in the building? MR. BUNTING-I use about half of the building, right now. MR. TURNER-75 by 50? MR. BUNTING-75 by 50. MRS. GOETZ-How does that Site Plan impact this? MR. TURNER-Well, it's 7-85, so it looks like it might have been 1985. MRS. GOETZ-Does this change anything, the fact that they did have a Site Plan Review? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. TURNER-Because I think auto body came after that. MR. HATZ-It was before that. MR. TURNER-Before? Well, then they went in there, they weren't allowed in there, ei ther. I don't know how this got by the Planning, Marine Engines. What equipment do you have in the building, that you need to use? MR. BUNTING-I have two welding machines, two 200 amp Mig Welders. I have a hydraulic press, an air compressor, and that's, basically, it, hand tools. MR. TURNER-Power saw? MR. BUNTING-No, well, I have a power band saw, 100 metal cutting band saw. MR. TURNER-Yes. The problem I have with it is the fact that Mr. Gillis has already sold lots, across the road, to residents. Evidently, the market is there. He just hasn't done anything with this because it's already been occupied by these two services businesses. MR. HATZ-To do anything, as far as residential lots, would take the removal of these buildings, which would cost quite a bit of money. MR. TURNER-The hen house is structurally inappropriate for any business. Would that be correct? MR. HATZ-Right, that the only, I mean, that's one of the reasons we're here. 9 .....-" MR. TURNER-The only building that's really of any value is the one that they're in, the 50 by 150. MR. HATZ-Right, and even that's only of a limited value. They're just of the type of business that just needed some enclosed space to operate in. Any other type of business would require extensive, from what I understand, some extensive work done to allow another use in there, anyway. These types of uses are just small, they just needed a place to put together their product, and that's why this seemed to be the type of building that they could do this. MR. TURNER-I know, but that's really a Light Industrial use, all of it. MR. HATZ-I understand, and that's why we're here. MR. TURNER-I know that's why you're here. MR. HATZ-But I believe that the Top of the World Auto Body Use Variance would have required far more traffic to the place, with the cars coming in. He has no customers that come to the place. He delivers the trailers out, when they're finished, himself, as does Mr. Edmunds, I believe. He takes the product out. He has a UPS truck, I guess, which will pick up, once in a while, but they don't have retail customers come in and purchasing. Whereas, Top of the World Auto Body would have had quite a few vehicles coming in. MR. TURNER-He was individual owner, individual operator. He only worked there by himself, I believe. Is that right, Mr. Gillis? Because I remember the application. He came as a sole operator, sole employee, Mr. Gannon? MR. GANNON-He had one employee. MR. TURNER-He had one? MR. GANNON-Yes. MR. CARR-Well, Ted, what was the rationale behind allowing an auto body in a Residential Zone? MR. SHEA-They hadn't sold off any lots, at that point. It was pretty rural. MR. TURNER-Well, I think, at the time, I think that we allowed it there. There wasn't a lot of building activity up on the mountain, nothing. There was nothing going in, in respect to Mr. Gillis had this one building, and we thought, I guess, at the time, the rationale was that the impact was not that great and it would be, pretty much, contained within the building, but I think this one's a different story, now. Now, you've got two businesses in there. MR. CARR-Yes, but they are contained within the building. MR. TURNER-They're contained, but they're in a Residential area which they don't belong, not this type of business. MR. CARR-I kind of disagree that an auto body was a less... MR. TURNER-Well, that maybe that rationale wasn't right either. MR. KELLEY-Yes, but that was prior to the existing Zoning Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-What was the zone, then? MR. TURNER-It was, probably,.... MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe the zones within the Adirondack Park changed, significantly. MR. TURNER-No, they didn't change at all. So, they would have been RR-3. MR. CARR-So, the same zone was there, the same potential for development was there. MR. TURNER-Yes, but, previous to granting the other variance, Mr. Gillis hadn't sold any property, whatsoever. MR. CARR-But the potential was there. MR. TURNER-The potential, I mean, he has sold it, directly across from these businesses. MR. HATZ-But these lots were purchased with businesses being operated out of that building, based upon The Top of the World and the Site Plan Review. 10 --- MR. TURNER-That might be, but if I was going to pay that kind of money for a lot. on Lockhart Mountain, I wouldn't want any businesses across from me. MR. HATZ-I understand that. but these people paid that money with these businesses there. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but I think we've got some letters that directly go against that. MR. HATZ-Stan Gannon was there, in 1986. when, I believe it was Mr. DeCaro, purchased those lots. while Top of the World Auto Body was operating in there. He didn't leave until that year. and then, pursuant to the Site Plan Review approval. there was the boat shop being operated in there. when those lots were purchased. so that it was aware that it was going on. MR. BUNTING-The Zoning allows agriculture and commercial greenhouse. which would have a larger, visual, impact on the land than what we currently do. The combined impact of our two businesses is less than Stan's Auto Body and it's less than a commercial greenhouse or any type of agriculture ever would be. MR. HATZ-We've got. just repetition. here. most of. a good numbers of neighbors and they're all, have no opposition to it. In fact. several of them. when they were approached. weren't even aware that there was anything going on in there, and it's been going on there for a period of time. now. MR. BUNTING-The bottom line is, you never see us, hear us. It's invisible. MR. HATZ-To attempt to put some of the Site Plan Review uses in there would require far greater impact for kennels. and a far greater renovation's required. Here, there's, essentially, no renovations because they just need an enclosed building. MR. BUNTING-There's actually been property improvement, since we've been there. MRS. EGGLESTON-I must say, however. the outside didn't look too good. MR. BUNTING-No, but it looks better than it did a year ago. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I didn't see it a year ago, but there's a lot of debris scattered around. MR. BUNTING-I mean, we actually did get to a point. under the direction, basically. of Mr. Bodenweiser who. basically. said, if I were you. I would not do anything else. I mean. I've only been in there a month and a half. and I was, acti ve ly, spruci ng thi ngs up. I mowed the 1 awn. myself. personally, and we're inside the building. We're contained. MR. EDMUNDS-We have a garbage pick up, now. every other week, which we didn't have before, things did stack up. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me, the gentleman in the sweater and the tie, could you just state your name. for the record? MR. EDMUNDS-Yes. My name's David Edmunds. I also live right down the road from that area. I live on Lockhart. In fact, I've lived on Lockhart and never knew Stan's Auto Body was in there, except for his sign, and I never knew Bill was in there. until I went down and inquired about the space. MR. HATZ-I don't believe either of you have signs? MR. BUNTING-No, no signs. MR. EDMUNDS-No. need a dry building to put together bird feeders. MR. TURNER-Any further questions. for any of these people? LARRY GRAY MR. GRAY-I'm Larry Gray. live four houses away from the farm of Mr. Gillis. MR. TURNER-Are you speaking in favor of the application? MR. GRAY-Well. yes. MR. TURNER-Alright. well. we're not to that point. yet. MR. GRAY-Okay. MR. TURNER-I'll let you speak when we get to the public hearing. 11 MR. TURNER-Any more questions? Jeff? MR. KELLEY-In the application, it talks about the cost to tear down, I guess, is it one building or both buildings, as being 30,000? MR. TURNER-Both. MR. HATZ-That would be both. Mr. Gillis was given an estimate by Kubricky Construction, for the large building, of $20,000, that was a couple of years ago, based upon that, we just took half of that for the smaller building. MR. KELLEY-And I guess he's saying that, or the application states that that's a lot of money and, apparently, is prohibi,tive, at this time. MR. HATZ-Well, one, he doesn't have that money to do it, and, certainly, short of tearing the buildings down, he's not going to be able to sell those as residential lots. If he tore them down, the return would wouldn't make it sensible. In talking to him, he wouldn't be able to do that and sell those as residential lots. He certainly can't sell it, for any use, with those buildings on there. The only thing that he can do, to get some kind of return on the property, is to see if he can get a Use Variance to permit these smaller businesses to go in there. MR. TURNER-What are the taxes on the piece of property? RAY GILLIS MR. GILLIS-They run a little over $2,000 on that whole piece of property. MR. TURNER-That's total taxes? MR. GILLIS-And, by the way, when my variance was granted, before, it only took about one week for the agent, my agent, to get up there, insurance agent, and I've had high insurance ever since, whether it was granted to me or the tenant, and they haven't dropped it, either. MR. TURNER-Your total taxes are, that's school, land, everything? MR. GILLIS-Right, and, without this variance, if it's not granted, there's just no way I can keep the place. MR. TURNER-What would be the price on the lots, if you split the property, or if you divided the property? What would you sell them for? MR. GILLIS-I could only get three, because I'd have to have five acres for my own house. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, how much did the ones across the road sell for? MR. GILLIS-They averaged about 20 per lot. MR. TURNER-$20,000 for a five acre lot? MR. GILLIS-Yes. MR. SHEA-And you're intending on keeping one for yourself, correct? MR. GILLIS-Yes, well, I haven't done anything on that side, the main side, no. MR. HATZ-There's no subdivision or anything in place, for the remaining land he has. MR. GILLIS-No, no subdivision. MR. HATZ-He would have to go whole expense of subdividing it and getting approval for that, then tear down the buildings. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HATZ-What it would be is the house is situated, somewhat in the middle. He would probably be able to get two lots to go down the mountain, but where these buildings are, he would only be able to have one remaining lot. It would be a little bit larger than five acres, and you would have to tear down these buildings, to try and sell that one remaining lot and we just don't think he would be able to get any return on that, whatsoever. 12 '- MR. GILLIS-Yes, to tear those buildings down and remove them would be, it would take everything I could get for that one lot. MR. TURNER-Where the hen house is? MR. GILLIS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I was just looking at the Type II Site Plan Review uses that were mentioned in there and they talk about this Animal Husbandry and Agricultural uses, dog kennels, riding stables. I didn't look at the inside of that building that these two gentlemen are in, but it might have some of those uses that could go there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Commercial greenhouse. Certainly, there's enough acreage, there. You could probably use it for a farm type situation. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I guess the fact that the buildings are there, at one time, it was good that they were there, and now it's bad that they're there, but I don't know that that's our fault. It's probably a product of the times. It was something you created. MR. HATZ-I believe that a building of that nature would be the unnecessary hardship that would allow for thi~ to be granted. These are old and obsolete for most all uses, essentially. Those other uses would require, I believe, far more extensive remodeling, to turn that into stables or a commercial greenhouse, and I believe those uses would have a far greater impact on the surrounding neighbors, through increased traffic coming in, than these gentlemen do. They have very little traffic coming in there, at all. MR. GILLIS-You'd have more outside activity. MR. HATZ-Yes. It's a very small, self contained building that these people are in, and that's really all they're asking for. I think those other uses would have a far greater, in every way, on the neighborhood, you know, coming into kennels or commercial greenhouses and such. MR. TURNER- I guess my poi nt was, even with the hen house there, the hen house, as it is, cannot accommodate any business, whatsoever, that I can see. MR. HATZ-The larger one. MR. TURNER-The larger one. MR. GILLIS-The larger one. MR. TURNER-It's structurally insufficient. It's just cut up so that you couldn't even utilize it. It would cost you more to utilize the building than it's worth, so you'd tear it down, that would be the first thing. You'd tear that down. If you were going to do anything with the property, that would go. MR. CARR-So, there's 20,000 that's, really, out of the calculation for us, because that house, as Ted is saying, or that hen house, can't be used for anything. So, if you're saying that, the cost of tearing down that building should be added to your hardship, well, it can't be, because it can't be used for anything. MR. TURNER-It's not suitable for anything. MR. HATZ-I believe that, in fact, creates the unnecessary hardship. You have an obsolete building that was there, prior to the zoning, and now, what I guess I'm hearing is, in order, if you want to do it, tear it down at a rather large expense is your only option, and I believe that's what the Use Variance is for, to avoid that unnecessary hardship on Mr. Gillis, to come up with $20,000 more, and that was a couple of years ago, just to tear that down and still have the other building and still have nothing he can do with that property. He'd have to tear down both of them to try and get a lot to even sell, and, what we're saying is, if you tear down both of them, you're probably not going to recoup, even the money it took him to tear them down, if you sold that. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think Mr. Gillis also told us it was mortgaged and he couldn't tear it down for that reason alone. 13 -- MR. GILLIS-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-You know, take one building and take it down, because there was a mortgage on it. MR. GILLIS-Right. MRS. GOETZ-It seems conceivable, to me, that someone might purchase the property and take down the buildings, after they purchased the property. MR. HATZ-Purchase, as a residential? MRS. GOETZ-Say that was sold. MR. HATZ-But what would they pay, if they were going to have to spend $30,000 to take them down? MRS. GOETZ-But it's conceivable that, if somebody had the money, you know, it could happen. MR. TURNER- If the ri ght came along and sai d, I want that pi ece of property, and he said, I'll gi ve you X number of dollars for it, and I'll take that hen house down, you're going to take it. MR. CARR-The problem is, there's been no evidence that compliance with the zoning has even been attempted. MR. HATZ-We11, compliance would require tearing the buildings down. MR. CARR-Not necessarily. You could list it for sale, or list it for rental to a greenhouse, or whatever. I mean, it just seems that these businesses went in there, through ignorance or whatever, and now we're being asked to accept them there because they're already there, and so, they're already there, no one, you know, but there's no evi dence before us that's sayi ng you know, that comp 1 i ance with that zone is possible, or is not possible. MR. HATZ-Well, what we're saying is that these businesses have been continuing there. Since 1983, there have been businesses in the residential area and thi s Board, in fact, granted one variance, granted another Site Plan approval. MR. TURNER-This Board didn't grant the Site Plan approval. We only granted the variance. MR. CARR-But I think those were variances that were given specifically to a person. I think the thought of the Board, I was not on the Board at the time, but I can only imagine the thought of the Board was that, as times change, and as businesses change, they want to keep a hand on what type of businesses go in there and whether any business should be allowed on that property, and now, as I understand, what Ted's saying is, that there's more residential development that wasn't there, back in 1983, but now it's turning into a residential neighborhood, and maybe Light Industrial uses are not appropriate, there, anymore. MR. TURNER-Right, and the people that are coming along and buying the property are buying the required acreage, road frontage and everything. They're complying with the Ordinance. Like Bruce says, you haven't said to us, well we can't do these different things that are allowed under Site Plan Review, related to that zone. You haven't mentioned a word about that. I agree with this dissertation that you're comi ng in and aski ng us to accept the fact that, because they were there, they shou1 d still be there. MR. HATZ-Well, I would indicate that the cost of trying to comply with any of those Type II Site Plan Reviews would be prohibitive, because of the remodeling that would be required on these buildings. MR. KELLEY- Yes, but those buil di ngs aren't goi ng to go away, you know. Just because they're there, doesn't mean that they should be used for a Light Industrial use. MR. HATZ-Well, what we're saying is, we can't get a reasonable return on our property because of the type of building that.li. there, and the fact that those buildings are there, and now we're coming here to try and see if there's a way we can get a return on the property. MR. CARR-But all I hear is that you're telling us you can't, but I haven't seen that you've even tried to. MR. TURNER-Seen the proof, yes. You haven't made any attempt to recoup. MR. CARR-I mean, a lot of people come in with Use Variances about, but they bring in realtors. Well, we've tried, for two years, to sell it, this property, and here's an affidavit, saying they've actively tried to market thi s pi ece of property and they can't sell it because it's not worth anythi ng, as a residential lot, or, we've listed it for rental, to anybody who wants to fann it, or whatever, and saying, nobody's even approached us. I mean, there's been no indication that that's ever taken place. 14 -- MRS. EGGLESTON-On this map that you gave us, it shows Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Are 5 and 6 the ones this Mr. DeCaro owns? MR. GILLIS-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, they are directly across, really, one of them is, from the, well, they both are, really. MR. GILLIS-They're both on the market with Caldwell Bankers. He's just an investor. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. SHEA-When you sold the individual lots, Mr. Gillis, did you go through a realtor? MR. GILLIS-All but one, two. Two. MR. SHEA-And what realtor? Was it the same realtor for all properties? MR. GILLIS-No. MR. SHEA-And what are the years that you sold off those parcels? MR. GILLIS-Let's see, '84 was the first one. MR. TURNER-And that was Number 5 or 6? The one directly across? MR. GILLIS-The one that says, proposed, was in '84. MR. SHEA-So, that one went off in '84? MR. GILLIS-Yes. That was a business transaction. MR. SHEA-I'm just trying to get a sense of when the last one was sold. MR. GILLIS-And then, these two, and this one, they sold at the same time, in '86. MR. SHEA-Okay, and these two? MR. GILLIS-This one, just sold. MR. SHEA-This year, 1990? MR. GILLIS-In '89, and this one in '88. MR. SHEA-And, in the sale of those properties, you used a couple of different realtors, correct? MR. GILLIS-Right. I had Tallman Realty for these two, and this one, and this one I didn't have, and this one I sold on my own, and I had Caldwell Bankers and Realty World on that, and there was another one. Barber was in on this one, too. There was two involved. MR. SHEA-Mr. Hatz, what Mr. Carr is saying, and, for Mr. Gillis, as well, is that, for the granting of a Use Variance, it's very difficult criteria for us to take a look at and rule on, and, for the time that I've been on the Zoning Board, all of those that have been before us, for a Use Variance, have brought concrete evidence to the fact that it is, truly, an economic hardship. That may, in fact, be the case, here. We simply do not have evidence to that effect. We do understand that, if you tear the building down, that there is going to be a cost associated with that, but, how that relates to the marketability and, therefore, the profitability of the sale of the existing property that Mr. Gillis may sell off, at some future date, we don't have anything before us to really evaluate. We'd like to have something before us to evaluate. On this sale of the prior lots, at $20,000, that may very well have been well below market value, and might have been because of the existing structures across the road, which would be in your favor, if that were the case. We don't know that, either, but, as a suggestion, maybe a conference and discussion with some of the realtors and some kind of conclusion or statement from them might, certainly, improve Mr. Gillis' position, for us to better understand the situation, because, right now, we don't see enough evidence, at least I don't, of economic hardship, and there may very well be it there. MR. GILLIS-There is. MR. SHEA-It could be, but we have to.... MR. GILLIS-Without it, I've got to sell the whole place. I'll be honest. 15 MR. HATZ-In that light, would it be possible for him to request a tabling of our application? MR. SHEA-That's up to you. MR. TURNER-That's up to you. MR. HATZ-We would like to request that this be tabled, so that we can get together with these realtors and put something in front of you, regarding the actual numbers. MR. KELLEY-Could I make a request? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-As part of, if it ends up being tabled and you do come back, could you, when you talk to your realtors and whatever, do some market analysis, you know, of other, comparable, five acre lots, and what they sold for? MR. HATZ-Okay. MR. KELLEY-In similar areas, so we can see, maybe these were sold cheap or maybe that was the going price or whatever. MR. HATZ-Okay. MR. KELLEY-Give us a little insight, here. MR. CARR-Yes, I'd also like to know realtors position, as to the marketability of these parcels, with or without the houses. MR. HATZ-Right. MR. CARR-A more accurate figure, as to how much it would cost to remove those houses. I heard it was $20,000, a couple of years ago, and then you're just taking that figure and giving us 10. MR. HATZ-Well, it was $20,000 for the one building. MR. CARR-Right, and then you're taking it to the small building, but that's a couple of years old, too. So, I'd like to compare that to what the realtors say the property is worth. I mean, I think that would help us detennine whether or not it's a reasonable return to take the houses down and sell the property. MR. HATZ-Okay, certainly. MR. TURNER-Did you get an assessment on that chicken house, as to what it is, where it is, structurally, whether it's feasible to remodel it or whatever? MR. HATZ-Okay. Remodel as what? MR. TURNER-I don't know, that's what I'm waiting to hear. MR. TURNER-Do you want to go back in the chicken business, Mr. Gillis? MR. GILLIS-No way. MR. TURNER-Your request is to table? MR. HATZ-Yes, it is. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-You should hold a public hearing, Mr. Turner. MR. TURNER-Alright, we'll hold it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LARRY GRAY MR. GRAY-Larry Gray. I just live four houses away from Mr. Gillis' property and this summer was the first I even knew these fellas were in this building. They are very quiet. I've got to admit, because I didn't even know trailers were being built, nor did I know Dave had his craft shop, assembling 16 -- bi rd feeders, in there, and I have talked to a few of the other nei ghbors on our road, and hadn't seen any trailers. I mean, I would have, if he, if there was a lot of traffic, I would have seen something, but I live right at the foot of Lockhart Mountain Road, and hadn't even seen a boat trailer being hauled out of this place, but.... MR. TURNER-You wouldn't see any steel trailers going up there, because they only go during the working hours. You'd be off to work. I know they go there. MR. GRAY-Yes, well, I live right there, is all I'm saying, and all of us neighbors have signed that he may be allowed to keep earning a living, both of them, helping Mr. Gillis out, because Mr. Gillis, and everything that's been said, before you, on their behalf, has been true, in my opinion. Everything in their application is absolutely true, except that demolition cost, I think it would be a lot more than $20,000 for that huge building, that's my opinion. It's a huge place. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. GRAY-It's going to cost a fortune to tear that down and I just think their families depend on your decision and it's, Mr. Gillis has got enough financial problems, right now, for, this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and he's being very honest with you. MR. TURNER-Well, we're not questioning his honesty. MR. GRAY-I just wanted to speak on his behalf, and, again, I'm not related to any of these people. I've only known them since this summer. MR. TURNER-We're looking at the use of the land, that's all we're looking at. MR. GRAY-Yes, and I think, when it's all analyzed, I'm glad that you've asked for more infonnation. There hasn't been any new houses built on our road, any where near this building. MR. KOSLOWSKI MR. KOSLOWSKI-I built one directly across the street from there. MR. GRAY-You did? I'm sorry. I haven't seen it. l'd just like to say one other thing. Bill has one employee and Dave, I've only seen him with one or two people in the place. It's a limited use. As I said, I don't believe they're causing any noise. None of us people, maybe this gentleman can say what's been going on. I haven't seen anything? MR. TURNER-Any weekend work there? MR. GRAY-No, none, none that I have seen. MR. TURNER-What's your hours, Mr. Bunting? MR. BUNTING-Usually work from about 8:30, 9 o'clock in the morning until 6 or 7 at night? MR. TURNER-What days, Monday through Friday? MR. BUNTING-Monday through Friday. Sometimes Saturdays. I go in and stack trailers up and deliver them. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. GRAY-And the only other thing I'd like to say is I'm not crazy. I just have not seen his house built off the road, in the woods, that's all. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-Mr. Edmunds, are you the sole employee? MR. EDMUNDS-No, I have two other employees. MR. CARR-Two other employees? MR. EDMUNDS-Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. KOSLOWSKI 17 -- MR. KOSLOWSKI-My name is Koslowski. I 1 i ve di rectly across the road, and I wi sh to be opposed to the motion, because of the traffic on the road, tractor trailers, steel delivery, UPS trucks, all of them, all of the above. The UPS trucks even use my driveway to make U-turns and I don't approve of that at all. MR. TURNER-How many deliveries of steel do you see, a week? MR. KOSLOWSKI-I wouldn't doubt that once a week is accurate, and I teach school. I have summers off, and I have seen the trucks. MR. TURNER-How many UPS trucks? MR. KOSLOWSKI-Daily. MR. TURNER-Daily. One trip? Pick up? MR. KOSLOWSKI-As far as I know. MRS. GOETZ-Is the UPS truck a large UPS trailer, or a regular size? MR. KOSLOWSKI-It's a big, square van type thing. MR. TURNER-Van type. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Could I just ask, well, I'd like to ask John Goralski, because you're on Queensbury Central Fire. Couldn't they have a fire drill, one of those controlled fire things, at that place? MR. GORALSKI-Typically, the fire departments will not do that because of the insurance and problems involved in setting the fire. MRS. GOETZ-Really? MR. KOSLOWSKI-And that road is quite icy, in the winter time, coming up the hill, and the tractor trailers going up and down there, it's pretty horrendous. MR. BUNTING-Excuse me. They don't deliver when it's inclement weather, they don't. MR. TURNER-They don't because they can't get up either side. MRS. EGGLESTON-Sir, where are you located? We were looking at this map. MR. KOSLOWSKI-Directly across the street. I'm one of the ones that bought one of those $20,000. MRS. EGGLESTON-Which lot? MR. KOSLOWSKI-I don't know the number. MR. TURNER-Could you show us where you live? MR. KOSLOWSKI-Right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Number Two, is that right, sir? MR. KOSLOWSKI-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, so you're not directly across from this operation. You're across from Mr. Gillis' house. Is that right? MR. GILLIS-No, he's not directly across. MR. KOSLOWSKI-Ri ght. MR. GILLIS-He's across from the field, not even my house. There's no structures across from him. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, thank you. Did you pay $20,000 for the lot, sir? MR. KOSLOWSKI-Yes, I did. MR. EGGLESTON-Thank you. 18 - MR. BUNTING-Could I say something. I don't want to start a fight or anything, but this gentleman asked me for a job, last summer, so I couldn't have been that bad of a business. MR. KOSLOWSKI-I was fully aware of the welding business being there. I was fully aware that he was operating without a Zoning Variance and I didn't report it, and I was fully aware that someday he'd be caught, and here we are. MR. GILLIS-I'd like to say something. This gentleman had his house delivered and he stored a lot of it in that same building, until he was able to take it out and use it as he needed it. MR. TURNER-Okay, we're not going to get into that. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Angleo De Caro, to Ms. Susan Goetz, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary, dated October 23rd, 1990 (attached) MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 82-1990 L. RAE GILLIS, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Tabled for further information from the applicant, at the applicant's request. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MS. CORPUS-Mr. Turner, did you state whether the public hearing would be left open? MR. TURNER-The public hearing will be left open. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-90 J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT REQUEST FOR APPEAL BY SUSAN C. POPOWSKI REGARDING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AS OUTLINED IN THE MEMORANDUM DATED AUGUST 29, 1990 REGARDING PAUL BARTON (SITE PLAN NO. 17-90). ON THAT DOCUMENT, AN ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY DEFINITION OF -FLOOR AREA- AS IT AFFECTS THE DOCKSIDER OUTSIDE DECK. MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. COLLARD-Mr. Chairman, I was just reading, in the Ordinance, that Section 12.060, this appeal should have been advertised and notices sent. MR. TURNER-12., what? MRS. COLLARD-12.060, Page 104. MR. TURNER-I've got it right here, Notice of Public Hearing. They didn't do it? MR. GORALSKI-No, it was not done. MRS. GOETZ-We shouldn't hear it, then. MR. TURNER-We shouldn't hear it. Okay. That takes care of that. I would move to table. MR. 0' CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, not bei ng the person who fi led the appeal, I guess, I don't know what we're going to do. Let me give to you, if you will, just a copy of some different particular provisions of the Ordinance, and I don't know if you can, I guess, I don't know, do they have to entertain the appeal, even if all we're talking about is Mrs. Collard reading a part of the Ordinance and not making an interpretation? MS. CORPUS-According to the Zoning Ordinance, it specifically states that any appeal from the Zoning Administrator's decision shall ~ published in the official newspaper and notices shall be sent out. MR. O'CONNOR-I ask the question, facetiously, and not particularly of you, but why do, why is someone entitled to file an appeal by a one page letter, where an applicant has to file 14 copies of the Bible and everything else that came since the Bible was printed. MS. CORPUS-I do not know whether the Town has a form for an appeal. MR. TURNER-There's no forms for the appeals. 19 MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I would suggest that we get some, that maybe we won't get involved with these things that are really meaningless, but are going to take up a lot of time. I also have a problem wi th the fact that the appeal, as even it's provi ded for in that Secti on, doesn't requi re any noti ce !2. the parties that are particularly involved and impacted. The only reason that we know about this is because we have a Site Plan application going on, and we're constantly in and out and talking to Staff about the Docksider and, aside from that, if we didn't have something else pending, I don't think we would have notice of it, and I think that's a real fault of our Ordinance. MR. CARR-Well, you would, because it's got to be noticed and everything. I would imagine they would get a notice. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, public notice in the newspaper would have been... MS. CORPUS-Yes, the applicant and the adjoining would have to be noticed. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I would differ with that, Karla, because if you say, an appeal of this nature is a generic appeal. It's a question of whether or not a deck is included in the parking calculation, for a building. That's going to be applicable throughout the whole Town, and if you tell me that you're going to notice everybody in the Town that's an adjoining landowner, I'm going to be very upset with the expense that you're going to have. MS. CORPUS-I don't believe, Mr. O'Connor, that it's generic in that form. In the form that it took, it was a specific question to a specific interpretation for a Site Plan. MR. O'CONNOR-I would beg to differ with it. I understand it would have more impact upon us, but the ruling of this Board would be a ruling that would be a precedent that would go to any question of the same nature. MS. CORPUS-It may have far reaching impact. I don't disagree with that. I believe the question, though, was.... MR. CARR-Yes, but isn't that, any ruling we ever make has that same effect? MR. O'CONNOR-Basically, my point is, if you read the definition that we're talking about, you're talking about off street parking, and it says, twice, it's relative to the building, and then you have to look at definition of Building, and Building says, that it means ~ structure, which is permanently affi xed to 1 and and covered by a roof, and what we're tal ki ng about, here, is an open deck. MR. GORALSKI-I thought we were tabling this because we weren't going to have a public hearing? MR. O'CONNOR-I believe that is food for thought. MR. TURNER-Okay. I have a motion to table the Notice of Appeal. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-90 SUSAN C. POPOWSKI, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: Due to lack of information. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-We've got one more item of business, and it's in reference to the application of Weller, F.W. Webb Company. It's indicated to me that the people within the 500 foot distance were not notified of this application. I guess there's been some calls in respect to the application, they want to be re-notified. I talked with Paul, today, in reference to it, and Paul suggests there is case law to support some aspects of not rehearing it, but it was his suggestion that we rehear the application, then we have a motion to, a unanimous motion, a unanimous vote on a motion to approve, to rehear the application. MR. CARR-To rehear, that needs unanimous? MR. TURNER-To rehear, yes. MR. CARR-How many calls were there? MR. TURNER-I'm not sure. 20 '~ MS. CORPUS-There were six people who weren't notified. MR. TURNER-Six people. MR. CARR-Were they all against it? MS. CORPUS-No, there was only one verbal, as far as I know, one verbal person who claimed that they did not receive notice and did not attend the meeting, were not sure the others attended or not. I checked the minutes, and I did not see anything in the minutes with the others names in there. MR. TURNER-No, there was only one woman that spoke. MRS. EGGLESTON-One lady, lived right there. MR. TURNER-Nobody else. MR. SICARD-Supposing, Karla, this is reversed. The sale is in, pretty much, in motion, right now, the sale of the property. MR. CARR-Should we, I mean, maybe this is improper, but should we poll those people, because, I mean, if only one really has an objection to it. I mean, what's the sense of going through all the expense and time and everything, to rehear it. MRS. EGGLESTON-But, how legal would we be, if they weren't notified? MR. CARR-Well, Paul Dusek's saying that, without a unanimous... MR. TURNER-Do you want to hear his thoughts on it? He's here. We can get him. MS. CORPUS-Paul is here, if you'd like to talk with him. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER- Yes. MS. CORPUS-We did the research, today. Would you like me to get him? MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-While we're waiting, did everybody have a chance to look at the proposed Sign Ordinance changes? Remember, I brought the subject up, and then everyone said they hadn't seen the proposed changes? MRS. EGGLESTON-Not only have I seen it, I asked Lynn Potenza, I had the occasion to tal k to her, when they were going to act on it, and she told me, hopefully, soon. They were working, it was in the works. MRS. GOETZ-But I would like to see the Zoning Board send a letter to the Town Board, just encouraging' them to act on it, whatever way they want to act, because, in my opinion, the businesses need this new Sign Ordinance. It's not a new Sign Ordinance, but they need some of the changes. MR. TURNER-It'll clear up a lot of.... MRS. GOETZ-It will. It will clear up a lot of..... MRS. EGGLESTON-How long have they had it, Susan? MRS. GOETZ-Several months. When did we finish, Pat, March? MR. TURNER-March. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, maybe a letter would be appropriate, then, from all of us, or from the Secretary or the Chairman or whatever. Maybe that would give the boost they, I did, as I say, though, mention it to her. MR. SHEA-Why don't you have it as a point on the agenda for our next meeting? You bring it up for a motion to write a letter to the Town Board. MR. TURNER-We can do it, right now, if you want. 21 MR. SHEA-I'd like to look at it, first, and that way it'll give us all a chance to really go through it, thoroughly. You can bring it up for a motion and then draft a letter that we can all sign. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. COLLARD-I'll try to get you a copy of the Sign Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-When you go through it, are you comparing it to the other one? MR. SHEA-Well, I'm familiar with the other one, but I haven't had a chance to go through all the new one, yet. MRS. GOETZ-I hope you like it. It seems to clarify a lot of things. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, the old one sure had a lot of loop holes. MRS. GOETZ-I know. MR. TURNER-Okay. Do you guys want to do that? Mike has made mention he hasn't had a chance to read all of it. Make a motion, next meeting, to send a letter to the Town Board and see if we can get them to act on the proposed Sign Ordinance, signed by all of us? MR. KELLEY-Yes, because I'll put this off, forever, unless I have a date I've have to have it done by. MR. TURNER-Paul, we want your input as to the application of F.W. Webb, your cormnents you made to me, today. PAUL DUSEK MR. DUSEK-For the record, I'm Paul Dusek. It was brought to my attention that you had an application before you, by a Webb Plumbing? Is that the correct title? MR. GORALSKI-Actually, the application was by James Weller. MR. TURNER-Jim Weller, Professional Engineer. MR. DUSEK-My understanding is that the application that came before you was heard and, ultimately, a decision was made. My understanding, also, is, though, at the time it came before you, the Planning Department had failed to give notice to all property owners, within 500 feet of the proposed site, where the variance would be granted. It's my understanding, Karla, I think you determined, now, that there are six property owners that were not notified? MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. DUSEK-We have heard from one, a Mr. Sabo? MS. CORPUS-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Now, to the extent that the six did not have any opportunity, whatsoever, to know about it or participate, I'm not quite sure of those facts, obviously. MR. GORALSKI-It was published in the paper. MR. DUSEK-It was published, but they didn't receive the written notice, required by the Ordinance. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. DUSEK-We did some research on this. A number of things have come up. First of all, the Board, of course, if you feel it's in order, you, certainly, regardless of what the other laws may be, you have the right, by unanimous vote, to rehear the case, and give new notices out. That's a right you have. The only contingency the Statute places on it, the Town Law, is that the applicant not be prejudice. Now, it's my understanding that Webb has not yet received Site Plan approval? MR. GORALSKI-That's right. They withdrew their application. MR. DUSEK-Okay, so then they, probably, have not done anything at the site, I can imagine, so that they could probably, I don't believe probably claim prejudice. MR. GORALSKI-No, they haven't. 22 MR. DUSEK-So, you have that as an option, if you wish to address the concerns raised by the residents in that area who feel that they did not have a fair shot, at that hearing. That's one way of handling it, which, from a legal standpoint, I suppose, that's probably the best way of handling it, if you want to get out from under those claims. Now, I have to also tell you, though, that I researched out the issue of lack of proper notice, and what I find is that the court cases, basically, are very few, and the reason for it is that, most often, people who don't know about these type of things, this is my sunnise, is that people who do not know about these things, don't find out about them until after the 30 day Statute of Limitations time period runs, in which to sue the Board, so you probably don't see too many suits. In fact, there have been some cases, that I did find, where they were dismissed for that very reason. One case involved a gentleman who found that a variance was granted next to property that he owned, and that a garage started going up, and, approximately, 45 days later, when all this was transpiring, he then sued the Zoning Board of Appeals, saying, I didn't get notice and I should have, under the Ordinance, and the courts said, yes, you know, you're right, but the 30 days has elapsed and you didn't bring your lawsuit in time, so, therefore, you're out. The Zoning Board decision stands. Also, they said, by the way, even if the Zoning Board decision did not, you know, even if you had sued, timely, we find, as a general proposition, that the Zoning Board decision should still stand, because the failure to notify you is not what the courts consider jurisdictional. Now, the only problem I have with that is, I found that one case, but that case relies upon other cases, where the courts said, we're not going to overturn the Zoning Board's decision on that basis, but, in those other cases, the applicants were actually at the meeting, and opposed it. They didn't get fonnal notice, and they complained about this, later, but the courts said, because you were there, we're not going to let you get in under that. We're not going to let you get the Zoning Board's decision tossed aside, under that theory. Now, what would happen, I think, in a case like this, what if one of these people who did not get noticed decided to sue, obviously, the first thing we would raise is the Statute of Limitations questions, which I understand there may be a defense, there. The second thing we would raise, obviously, is the issue of, that this is not jurisdictional, anyway, court. The concern I have though, is that I don't see that the court decisions that we're looking at are all that strong, in that area, and my understanding is, that if he's over the Statute, he's only over by a couple of days, at this point. MR. GORALSKI-The decision was filed on September 20th, so four days. MR. DUSEK-He's probably over by four days. MR. CARR-Was it just brought to your attention, today? MR. GORALSKI-No, he, Mr. Sabo approached me, it'll probably be, it's at least two weeks ago. Yes, it's about two weeks ago, I would say. MR. CARR-So, he missed his legal filing, but he did bring it to your attention within the 30 days. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Yes, and when he brought it to my attention, I brought it to the Attorney's office attention, and I also recommended that ~ consult an attorney, as to what his options were. MRS. GOETZ-Was it just an oversight, in noticing? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, what happened was, we get the 500 feet from the tax map, and it so happened that that one section, those six lots, were on a different page in the tax map. So, it was just missed. MR. CARR-Where are they? MR. GORALSKI-Where are they? They're on the other side of the Boulevard. It's Adirondack Pools? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-And the neighboring properties on that side of the road. MR. CARR-So, they're real close to him, too. MR. TURNER-Yes, right across the street. MR. KELLEY-It would be Rand M Auto Supply and the Tire Warehouse. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, the Tire Warehouse. MR. TURNER-Yes, right across the street. MR. CARR-Can I ask one other question? You said that the application of Mr. Weller, and F.W. Webb has been withdrawn from Site Plan? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Apparently, F.W. Webb is planning on buying additional property from Seeley's, in order to improve their Site Plan. 23 MR. CARR-So, really, the plan that was proposed to us, and on which the variance was granted, is not going to be the plan that goes before Site Plan Review. MR. GORALSKI- Yes, the property is the same property. The Si te Pl an that they showed you wi 11 change and, I believe, if they buy more property, they would have to come in for a Use Variance on that new piece of property, also. MR. CARR-Is that correct, Pat? MR. TURNER-It's Highway Commercial. MR. KELLEY-Yes, it's still in the zone. MR. TURNER-It's still in the zone. MR. DUSEK-My guess is, if they're extending the nonconfonning use on to property that was previously not authorized, they probably would. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. SHEA-So, he'll be back. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, if we went back and reheard it, would it be like starting from scratch, and you would take in the consideration of the new property and do it all in one sweep? MR. DUSEK-Yes. MR. SICARD-Paul, it's my understanding, just rumors, probably, that that property, now, is well in the area of being sold. Weller does not own that property. Weller is, I guess, he's the contractor. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. SHEA-No, Joe Roulier is. MR. CARR-Joe Roulier. MR. SICARD-Joe Roulier. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, he was here that night. MR. SICARD-Yes, he was here, and I understand that he's well into the fact that the property is going to be sold to these people. They've made some agreements. I'm wondering, now, what '11 happen if we reverse, just happen to reverse our decision, at this point? Where does that leave the seller? MR. SHEA-Well, no one is suggesting we're going to reverse the decision. MR. KELLEY-No, but it's possible. MRS. EGGLESTON-It was close, last time. MR. TURNER-It was three to two, the last time. MRS. EGGLESTON-It was very close, and I was very undecided. MR. DUSEK-Okay, maybe I can answer that question, though, for you. Alright, let me explain to you what would happen, though. I think maybe this'll go to answer your question. The way the procedure is contemplated, under the law, is that you, first of all, would decide whether or not you want to do a rehearing. At that rehearing, at that point, you would consider whether or not the applicant is prejudice, okay, and the law requires that you do this, because you really shouldn't be overturning decisions, if they are going to be prejudice. So, you would hear that part of it. So, when you, ultimately, heard the whole thing, you would probably have a couple of different matters before you. You'd have one, whether or not there's prejudice, if you did want to modify it. Two, you would probably, from what I'm hearing, then, have a new application before you, to add additional land. So, you'd have to decide whether or not the Use Variance should extend to the new property, and the last thing, of course, is whether or not you want to mOdify, in some way, your previous decision, whether you want to overturn it or not. So, basically, it's my opinion that you would have, at that point, the option of, after hearing all the facts, making a fresh decision. So, you're not, just by taking action to rehear, you're not bound. Now, obviously, to the extent that there's a difference of opinion on the Board, that may, having a rehearing may, obviously, effect the outcome. I can't tell you it won't, because if you're... 24 MR. SICARD-Will the owner be notified? MR. DUSEK-He would have to be, as part of it. MR. SICARD-I mean, now, at this point. MR. DUSEK-He would not be notified if, he does not have to be notified if you want to vote to hold the rehearing. MR. SICARD-Until the decision is made, by the Board. MR. DUSEK-If, like, say, tonight, you decided you wanted to do a rehearing. He doesn't have to be notified of that, but he does have to be notified of the rehearing, itself, and have an opportunity to come before you and make his case. MR. CARR-And then, what's he going to present to us, since he has withdrawn his Site Plan? MR. SICARD-He lost a sale of $100,000. MR. CARR-And my feeling is, also, if they revised their plans, even, and don't buy more land, but increase the use of that land, wouldn't they also have to be before us, because it's an expansion of a nonconforming commercial use? MR. TURNER-It's a use not permitted in the Highway Commercial zone, for starters. MR. CARR-Right, and we've granted them a variance, based on a specific square footage of a building that they proposed, right? Now, if they're new plan comes in, no? MR. GORALSKI-Correct me if I'm wrong, Paul, but what they did was give him a variance to use that property for a Light Industrial use. They did not approve the Site Plan. MR. DUSEK-That's correct. MS. CORPUS-Right. It was non specific. I have it in front of me. MR. DUSEK-But I think what Bruce is getting into is, what if he, now, changes that, to add on more property. MR. CARR-No, I'm al so tal king about, if he stays within the boundaries of the property that was presented to us. MR. DUSEK-Okay. Maybe.l misunderstood you, then. MR. SHEA-But, that's for the Planning Board Site Plan Review, isn't it? MR. SICARD-I think we should restrict it to that, not to the new piece of property. I don't think that has any bearing on it, at this point. MR. CARR-No, it doesn't, but I just want to know, if he comes up with a new design on the building that has a 10,000 square feet more, okay, will he be back before us, or not? MR. DUSEK-No, not necessarily. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. DUSEK-If he complies with your variance and the Ordinance. MR. SHEA-He has to go to the Planning Board. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. KELLEY-We gave him the use, not the design. MR. SICARD-That's right, Jeff is right. We gave him the use, not the design. MRS. GOETZ-I have a question, Paul. I wasn't here, and, if we did decide to rehear, would I participate, at this point? MR. DUSEK-At the second rehearing? MRS. GOETZ-On the second. 25 '- MR. DUSEK-Sure. There's nothing in the law that I could find that would indicate that. first of all. anybody who was not here doesn't have a right to participate in. either. the re-vote. to rehear it. or the ultimate hearing. MR. SHEA-I'd like to say one thing. that if anyone. here. is contemplating rehearing this, to avoid any possibility of a suit. by those that were not in attendance or were not notified. the only thing that I would guess is that, if it were to reheard, again. and the vote were to be reversed. that the potential lawsuit from Roulier would be far more devastating. MR. DUSEK-Certainly to be considered. That's correct. It's one of those situations. again, where you're looking at, this Board has been there a number of times. I know. because I've been there with you. where you're looking at suits from both sides. MRS. GOETZ-But don't we have to look at it from the right way to deal with people? MR. DUSEK- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-If I were the person that hadn't been noticed, I would want to have a rehearing. and I don't think that we should be intimidated by lawsuits, all the time. I think we should look at, it is something to consider. but... MR. CARR-Sue, I agree with you. 100 percent. We shouldn't be intimidated by a lawsuit, but when looking at the fairness to all parties. I'm also looking at the applicant who went through a very long meeting, went through a very detailed meeting. and the vote. I mean, I think, if somebody is aggrieved by not being noticed. there ~ legal recourse for that person. being a lawsuit to us, whether it's a major lawsuit or a minor lawsuit. really doesn't play into it. but they do have rights. and. as was pointed out by John. of the Planning Department. when they first brought to the attention of the Planning Board. they were recommended. it was recommended that they seek legal advice to come within the 30 day, if they wanted to appeal our decision. I know my personal feeling is not to rehear this application. MRS. EGGLESTON-1'm going to say, though. I think our attorney was leaning towards the proper thing to do would be to rehear. Did I read you right or I didn't? MR. DUSEK-Yes. I was leaning towards that, only because. in my mind, a rehearing gives you all options. and it saves. everything, basically. Now. I understand, if you have a closely divided Board. there's a possibility that the thing could go differently and we're, once again, exposed to a lawsuit. MRS. EGGLESTON-Should that be our concern? MR. CARR-Well. I think our concern is to do what we feel is right, in this situation. MR. DUSEK-I think that maybe is best. It's the type of thing where.... MRS. EGGLESTON-And our attorney advises we should rehear. MR. CARR-That's his advice. That's one man's opinion. MRS. EGGLESTON-See. live been a victim of not being entitled to all of your rights and 1'm strongly opposed to people not getting what's due them. MRS. GOETZ-But she's been a victim of the Zoning Board of Appeals. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. so if there's people who are left out of the process and we have a chance to correct it, since nothing has happened on the property, yet. We don't know that it's sold. Charlie has heard a rumor. but we don't know that. Why not correct it while it's still in the early stages. If I had been afforded that opportunity, when what happened in our neighborhood happened. I would feel so much better about the Board. MR. CARR-Sure. but I guess my opinion is that Mr. Sabo is the only one of the six who has made this an issue. He has been advised that he may have legal rights. if he should decide to pursue them. and. as of today's date, he has not pursued his legal rights, and I can't see cluttering our agenda. I can't see putting the applicant through a very. it was a very good discussion on the pros and cons of this. and it was a very close vote. and I can't see, I feel it may be prejudicial to the applicant to have them go through the whole process. again, for one person. that we know of. who is concerned about our decision, but has chosen not to do anything within his legal time frame. MR. SHEA-What of the situation where Ted indicated. if we were to re-vote this thing. if we were to vote to rehear it, that you would want to or have to have a unanimous vote? MR. DUSEK-The law requi res that you have a unanimous vote. 26 MR. SHEA-So, if it's not a unanimous vote, it's not heard. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. TURNER-It's not heard, that's right. Well, I've got to allude to Joyce's situation, and this is the same situation. Here's another case of not being notified, and I think the guy has a right to be heard, even though he's got a legal position to take. I think it's up to the Board to rehear the application. MR. KELLEY-What if the guy, financially, is not in a position to go through with a lawsuit? MR. TURNER-Yes, that might be the case. MR. KELLEY-Because he didn't get notified, we're putting an unsuspecting individual at a great expense. MR. CARR-Wait a minute. We've got John Goralski saying the man ~ financially capable of. MR. GORALSKI-Wait a second, I'm not saying that on the record. MR. DUSEK-Some of this, unfortunately, I wish I could, in some cases, I've been able to come to you and say, you're decision was a nullity, and I'm sure you remember the one that I told you about, that that happened in, and that was very easy for me and it was for you, because then you had to go through a certain procedure. In this instance, I'm not able to give you that good, hard core, advice, what I can tell you is that the rehearing is open for you, and if you find that there's prejudice to him, then you, simply, can decide the way you decided, before, or, if you feel that there's more than you've learned, at that point, or you find the circumstances are different, then you can decide differently. Now, obviously, if you don't do anything, we're not going to be sued by Webb. Now, if Mr. Sabo sues us, do we have some defenses? We sure do. I mean, we'll raise, obviously, the Statute of Limitations. We'll also raise the fact that the courts have held that it's not jurisdictional, and we'll take it from there. So, you know, I don't want to mislead you, in that regard, to think that we can't defend against it, but what it is, it's a judgement call, on your part, to make, as to whether, as a matter of policy, you want to give people an opportunity to be heard, where they didn't get a chance. I guess that's really what it boils down to. MR. SHEA-What about the issue of prejudice? How does that work? You talked about that as being the first issue that we would have to address. MR. DUSEK-The law makes a statement, in the Section that allows you to re-open hearings, and it makes a statement saying..... MR. TURNER-He doesn't have any vested rights in the property, yet. MR. DUSEK-Right, that's what you would want to look at. MR. TURNER-That's what you're looking at. MR. DUSEK-Like, if he comes in and says, because of your variance decision, you know, I did such and such, then you're goi ng to exami ne that and see if that's something that has cost him and is prejudicial to him and then you're going to weigh that and what you decide, at that point. MR. SICARD-What was the price of the property, did you say? MR. TURNER-$190,OOO. MR. SICARD-$190,OOO? That's what we're talking about. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHEA-There was one person who was not here that evening, or two? MRS. GOETZ-Me. MRS. EGGLESTON-There was six of us. No, there was only five of us, wasn't there? MR. CARR-Of us? MRS. GOETZ-Let's see what the vote was. MR. TURNER-It's right in there. It was a three to two vote. MRS. EGGLESTON-Three to two, there was five of us. I don't think Charlie was... 27 -- MS. CORPUS-Only Mrs. Goetz was absent, at that time. Yeses, were, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, and Mr. Shea and Noes were Mr. Kelley and Mr. Turner. MR. TURNER-So, it was four to two. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, remember, because I couldn't make up my mind. MR. SHEA-That's right. MRS. GOETZ-Four to two? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SHEA-A Board member, certainly, has the right to change his mind, if it was reheard, correct? MR. DUSEK-Certainly, yes. MR. KELLEY-That's been done before. We've had votes where it was a tie and we've had to re-vote, and somebody had to change. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of Paul? MR. KELLEY-Well, the vote has to be unanimous to rehear it, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-That's correct. MR. TURNER-Is there a motion to rehear it? MOTION TO REHEAR USE VARIANCE NO. 68-1990, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr MR. SICARD-What's the vote, yes or no? MR. TURNER-Yes vote is to approve, no vote is to deny. It's gone. That took care of it. MR. DUSEK-That takes care of it. It's a tough decision for all of you. I know. That's one of those things were you just have to make your best judgement call. MR. GORALSKI-There's something else here I just found, or Karla just found. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-This is a memo from Stu Baker, to The Zoning Board of Appeals, dated October 24th, 1990 (attached) MRS. GOETZ-Did they ever look into the dock permit on that application (Area Variance No. 73-1990 Thomas J. Babcock)? That was one thing that came up, that night. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. MRS. EGGLESTON-Can you refresh us, which one is the Babcock? MR. GORALSKI-It's on Glen Lake. MR. TURNER-The one on Glen Lake. MRS. GOETZ-Next to Corrigan. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, okay. MR. GORALSKI-And the letter is addressed to Mr. Turner, from Thomas J. Babcock, dated October 24th, 1990 (attached) MR. CARR-I mean, we don't need to table it, do we, because he's already re-submitted? 28 ~ MR. TURNER-What it is, it's to strike the application from the tabling procedure, take it right off, and make him, he's going to re-submit a new application. MR. GORALSKI-No, he's not withdrawing. MR. TURNER-He's not withdrawing it? MR. GORALSKI-As far as I know, the original tabling, did you put a time limit on the original tabling? MR. CARR-We probably said, why don't you try to come back next month, like we tell everybody. MR. TURNER-When he was here, he was here the last Wednesday of the month, so he couldn't file then, so we said, well, you'll be back in November, and he said, yes, if I get my infonnation together. MR. SHEA-It sounds like he doesn't have his infonnation together. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I spoke with Mr. Babcock, today. Apparently, he cannot locate his contractor. MR. TURNER-Yes. He said he had problems with him, when he was here. If that's the case, then I'd move to have him pay for the re-advertising of the application, when he gets all his infonnation back. MR. CARR-Well, it's not a re-advertising situation, though. is it, Ted? MR. TURNER-Yes. it is. MR. CARR-Why? MR. TURNER-He's going to change it. He's going to change the design of the deck and everything. It might entail different measurements and everything. MR. CARR-Okay. Fine with me. MR. SHEA-His neighbors want him to start from scratch. It sounds like he wants to start from scratch. He didn't have it together, here, that night, anyway. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. GOETZ-And, there, was the matter of the dock pennit. MRS. COLLARD-What was it? I wasn't here. MRS. GOETZ-It came up, when we did the site inspection, Mrs. Corrigan, next door, said that he expanded the dock, wi thout a pennit, and when she went over there and asked if he had a pennit, the person building the dock laughed in her face, that's what she said, and it came out at the public hearing. and that was one thing that somebody was going to look into. So, when he comes back. it would be good to have that infonnation. MR. TURNER-Motion is to have Mr. Babcock pay for the re-advertising. II)TION TO HAVE .. BABCOCK PAY FOR THE RE-ADVERTISING OF HIS APPLICATION, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea. Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. CARR-If advertising is required? MR. TURNER-Well, I think it's going to be, Bruce, because, evidently. what he's saying is, he's going to change some dimensions. MR. GORALSKI-I think it's up to the Board to say if re-advertising is required. MRS. COLLARD-Wouldn't it be a whole new application, if he's changing something? MR. CARR-Yes, if he's changing things, it's a new application. MR. GORALSKI-Currently, this application's tabled. 29 MR. CARR-And if it's tabled, if he comes in with new plans, what's the effect, in your office? Do you just put it back on, and it doesn't go up for re-advertising, right? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. CARR-So, Ted, what you're saying is, let's require him to re-advertise because of the new plans? Okay. MR. TURNER-One other question, Huntz? What's the status of the deck and the stairs that violates the shoreline setback on Lake Sunnyside? MRS. COLLARD- I remember di scussi ng, wi th Mr. Huntz, the fact that, if he kept everythi ng under 100 square feet and five feet off of the shoreline, that there was not a problem with that. I have to get over there wi th one of the guys, with a tape measure, and see what si ze the deck is, because Mr. Huntz is out of town, now. MR~ TURNER-Okay. Alright, that's all I have. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 30 . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pt_nning Department F Il E COpy -NOTE TO FILE- By: October 15, 1990 John Goralski Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: x Area Variance - Use Variance == Sign Variance _ Interpretation SubdmsiOD: Sketch, Prelim· - - mary, _ Site Plan Re9Ïew _ Petition for a CbaDge of Zone Freshwater Wet1aDda Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Area Variance No. 80-1~90 Applicant'. Name: 11arce1 Der.:ers d/b/a. Queensbury -Auton".otive Center MeetiDg Date: October 24, 19Ç'O ............................................................................................ The applicant proposes to construct a 588 square foot addit ion to the Queensbury Automotive Center. This property is unique in that it is triangu1~r in shape and fronts on two streets. There is a small area behind tbe builrlin~ which coulð accoM!'1odél.te the ,roposed square footaf,e and peet the setba.ck recuireM.ents. To build in this area the 1000 gallon septic tank would have to be relocated. :::'his is B.n extremely t.¡ell kept site. There should be no nep.e.tive impact on the neighborhood or on the ordinance. JG / pt~ .-._----_.._.~- · - . ; J ç ( J !.. t_ COpy TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: October 15, 1990 By: Stuart G. Ba!<er Area VariaDce Uee Variance -,- S· 1I:F . ~ 1p yarlaDce _ Interpretation Other: SubdtriIIioa: Sketch, Prelim' - - mary, Site Plan Rniew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Application Number: Si~n Variance No. 81- 1990 Applicant'. Name: 73 Quaker Road Associates MeeÛIIØ Date: October 24, 1990 ........................................................................................... The applicant is requesting a vari~nce frOM Section 6. 103 (4) (see attached) of the Sign Ordi~ance to add a ~axinun of 5 business na~es to the e:dsting free standinz si?,n. The Z"nino,: Adninistrator J"'Iade this t.:1~terrdnation based on the definition in the ·Sip;n Ordinance of a shc1)ping center. (see attached) The Boarf should deter~ine if a variance is necess~ry. Of:ice bui1~in0s, while an allowable use in a PC-IA zone, are not defined in the Sign Ordinance. Section 3.100 (7) states "Business names shé'.ll be allO\'led, net to include advertisin~ ~essa?es." Section 5.100 (15), Gen2ra1 Re~s., states that "the text on each sign shall be lirn.iteð to the fol1O\.¡Ín.~: . b. Principal business or businesses conducted on the ?roperty." If. the Board deter~ines that no variance is necessary, a notion should be passed clarifying the role of Section 6 of the Sir,n Ordinance as it pertains to office buildings. :!:f the requested variance is deened necessary, all five criteria on ~a3e two of the application must be net before the Bo~rd can ~rant the variance. SB/pw .__._.._~-_...- .- -- ..~~.~,- ,. L ""'- "'..... TOWN OF QUEENS BURY OOMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION -- fiLE COpy Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 11 Owen Avenue Queensbu17 tit. Y. 1280) To . (X) Warren County Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Planning Board (X) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals ( ) Applicant . Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. l280! Date ,10/8/90 ReI Sign Variance #81-1990 - 73 Quaker Road Associates 25 Quaker Road We have reviewed the request for.~) Variance, ( , Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the fOllowing recommendations. (X) Approval ( ) Disapproval The following resolution was passed: s~ggest we approve as is wi th the understanding that there be no wall Slgns. In addition to the above landscaping. screening and planting provisions. the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve, 1. Non-conforming signs. 2. Plastic or artificial trees. shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans),the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees. shrubs or plants. and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted. as agreed. ~ submitted, ¡¿: ~,f-L Ro ert . Eddy, Chái~ -~-----_...- .... . ., - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ptSllnning Department -N OTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. Yark, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: October 23. 1990 Lee A. York Area V8riaDce -y- U. Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation SubdiYiaioa: _ Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, Site Plan Reriew - Petition for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Other: ApplicatiOD Number: Use Variance No. 82-1990 Applicant'. Name: L. Rae Gillis MeetiDg Date: October 24, 1990 ............................................................................................ The request is to vary the use on a property zoned RR-5A. The property currently has a residence on it and an abandoned hen house and a 50' x ISO' building. There are currently two business' operating in the 50 x 150 building. They are Light Industrial. This property received a use variance June 15, 1983 (minutes attached) to have an auto repair shop on the premises. The variance went with Mr. Gannins' use (Top of The World Auto Body) of the property only. The tests for a use variance are as follows: I) Reasonable Return: The applicant must demonstrate an inabi lity to realize a reasonable return under any uses permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The application (attachment I) discusses the use of the property for residential purposes and the cost of reMoval of the existing structures. The other uses listed under Rural Residential are not addressed. These inc 1ude: group camp, dog kenne 1 and riding stab 1e, animal husbandry, agricultural use, veterinary use, and cornnercia1 greenhouse. There also must be proof presented to the Board applicants inability to realize a reasonable return. included in the a~plication. substantiating tl,e This has not been -J- Use Variance 82-1990 2) Uniqueness: The applicant must prove that an unnecessary hardship exists because of: (a) exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property, (b) lot shape or legally existing prior to th~ date of the Ordinance. The applicat ion indicates that the property is set in a "hollow" and less marketable for resident ial purposes than other areas. The topography itself does not make this property unique or exceptional. The fact that the applicants residence is in the same "hollow" would indicate that the area is suitable for residential purposes. The unique features which do exist on the property are the buildings. The zoning on the property is Rural Residential which does allow for agricultural uses which the buildings were originally used for. The applicant did, however, have a previous variance to use the buildings for a commercial use. Since the decision of the Board was to limit the commercial use to that particular business, it would indicate that there was consideration given to the preexisting structures but a hesitancy for long term change of use on that property. 3) Character: The applicant must prove that the requested modification will not change the quality of the neighborhood. In addition, the "spirit of the Ordinance or Local Law should be preserved". The rational for having zoning districts is so that uses in the community do not come in conflict. In fact this is one reason why a 50 foot buffer is required between residential and commerical and industrial zones in the Town. The purpose of the Rural Residential zone is: To enhance the natural open space and rural character of the Town of Queensbury by limiting development to sparse densities. Steep slopes, wetlands, limiting soils and marginal access to' populated areas often characterizes such areas, warranting said densities. The purpose of the Light Industrial zone is: Provide opportunities for the expansion of light industry without competition with other use types. Highway oriented and research businesses need opportunities appropriately located near major highways from which they receive their materials and to which they dispense their products. The applicant states that because there are currently few residences within the immediate vicinity and because the area is heavily wooded and the building set back from the road, the light industrial uses should not impact the neighborhood. The applicant did state earlier that he has recent ly subdivided and sold off several lots on the westerly side of Lockhart Mountain Road directly across from this property. It would appear from the application that this residential neighborhood wit 1 he ,.. þ , ... . -- .~ Use Variance 82-1990 more heavily developed in the near future. A light industrial use may be inappropriate. Mr. Gillis' petition also states that the proposed business' are not of a commercial nature, therefore, there will be little, if any, traffic on Lockhart Mountain Road. There are no traffic studies done on bird house and boat trailer manufacturers, however, raw goods have to be delivered, finished goods have to be moved and employees have to get to and from work. The concern with granting any variance for a non-residential use in a residential zone is that a variance runs with the property. The uses which are listed under Section 4.020-N, Light Industrial should be reviewed with regard to this site and petition. LAY/pw -~-_._-_..._- -- ,130 Zoning Board Page 4 June 15, 1983 VARIANCE NO. 835 - L. Rae Gillis, Lockhart Road To use an existing building as dry storage Chairman asked Mr. Gillis what kind of storage and Mr. Gillis answered 'just storage'. Chairman then asked what kind of repair work in the other building. Mr. Gillis said auto body repair. ~hairman then noted that what you are planning on doing there is Just to recycle the buildings. Would you be requiring any signs. Mr. Gillis added that possibly something would be needed. Mrs. Goetz was concerned with just what kind of storage would be in the building. Mr. Gillis then answered dry storage only. Mr. Turner asked if he was contemplating renting space and Mr. Gillis said no. Mr. Gannin explained how he planned to do auto body work in the smaller building. The Queensbury Town Planning Board recommended approval. Mr. Sicard recommended that if it were approved it be approved for the tenancy of Mr. Gannin as owner operator of the auto repair shop. Motion by Mr. Sicard, seconded by Mr. Turner, all voting affirmatively, it was RESOLVED THAT the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby approves Variance No. 835 is hereby approved for the owner-operator of the auto repair shop, Mr. Gannin and for household storage for Mr. Gillis. This variance is- to go with the applicant only. Approved. VARIANCE NO. 836 - William Threw - South side Sherman Ave. To manufacture concrete products and store equipment on property situated at the south side of Sherman Avenue. Mr. Threw was represented by Attorney Robert Stewart who stated that the property consists of 25 acres. He mentioned planned removal of a shac.k )fI the property ~ ~ .A ~ ... -- ~:' VAl\lAltE 10. Ba2 -Iq'lð OSIGI 288 Carroll Street Brooklyn, NY 11231 October 23, 1990 Ms. Susan Goetz, Secretary - Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Queensbury 531 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804-9725 Dear Ms. Goetz: My name is Angelo De Caro and I own two 6-acre parcels of land on Lockhart Mountain Road directly opposite the site where Mr. Gillis is considering leasing space for use as light industry. Please accept this letter as my statement regarding Mr. Gillis' intention that I am firmly against any industry, light or otherwise, diminishing the natural beauty in this section of the Town of Queensbury. The traffic resulting from the condominiums at Top of the World added to the potential for industry would seriously reduce the desirability for residential development. Lockhart Mountain Road currently possesses a rural atmosphere and natural beauty rarely found. If it were not that I will be out of town on business, I would have attended the meeting scheduled on October 24. I hope the good people of Queensbury agree with my position. As you state on your letterhead "Home of Natural Beauty. . . A Good Place to Live," why not keep it that way? Sincerely, á{!./~O ~ Ai L ". .,~ . ,.... Ii - '- -- fILE COpy TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI.~ Depm1meat ·NOTE TO FILE· Mrs. Lee A. Yark, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: October 3. 1990 By: Area VuiaDce 0.. Vmiaace - Sip V.....œ ---x IDt.,...tatiaD SubdiYWœJ Sketc:Ja. _ PNJimiury, Site PlaIa Reriew - == PetitiOD far a ChaDøe of Zaae Fre8b.at.. WetlaDda Permit FiDaI Other: Notice of Appeal AppUcatba Ham"" Notice of Appeal No. 1-90 AppUcaat'. Hamel By Susan Popowski regarding J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider Restaurant M_ttaø Datea Wed., October 24, 1990 ......11.........11..111111'................................11'11111...111.'................ The Zoning Board of Appeals has received a request from a citizen for an interpretation of the Ordinance. This regards the Zoning Administrator's written decision on the necessary parking for the Docksider Restaurant (attached). Mrs. Collard has cited definition number 97B which is: 97. "Floor Area, Gross Floor Area" means; A. Residential - The area in square feet within the exterior walls of a dwelling unit, not including attach~ garages, porches, decks, etc. B. Commercial, Industrial - The total area in square feet within the exterior wal1a of a building or structure, and when applicable, the sum total of all floor are.. of the principal and accessory buildings or structures under single ownenbip or buaiDeu. Mrs. Popo.sld does not agree with this determination regarding the deck, and believes that the intent was to include all areas used for dining in the parking calculations. She cites the Docksider Variances given on May 20, 1987 (attached). The motion states that the deck il allowed to expand the bar and restaurant use. Since outlide dining il becoming more prevalent in the Town, it would be helpful to have a standard regarding parking for such. Ã, <: ..- -- -- Susan C. popowski RD 1, Box 1734 Lake George, NY 12845 September 25, 1990 Zoning Board of Appeals Town Of Oueensbury Oueensbury, NY 12804-9725 Dear Board: This is an appeal from the zoning Administrator's decision as outlined in her memorandum dated August 29, 1990 re: Paul Barton/ Docksider Site Plan #:17-90. On that document, Administrator Collard has attempted to clarify the definition of "floor area" as it affects the Docksider outside deck. In effect, she excludes the outside deck in computing the number of parking spaces for the restaurant. In 1987, the Docksider Restaurant requested an area variance to accommodate clientele for the summer season. In granting area variance (,1254A), the zoning Board combined with it a use variance (,1254B) to include approval to expand the non-conforming use of the bar and restaurant (emphasis added). The Board went on to say, "This doesn't add to impact on neighborhood". Because the Board earlier approved expansion through the area and use variances and contemplated a more intensive and expansive use of the restaurant to include outdoor service, it is wrong now to consider parking only for indoors and not include the expansion of 3 years ago. Once the variances were granted, it is unreasonable to expect that parking will only be necessary, as the zoning administrator suggests, for the seating within the interior of the building, and not the additional outside seating as well. In essence, since the Docksider sought variances in 1987 it is inconsistent not to include the earlier-approved expansion in present deliberations regarding parking. The Docksider should not be able to have it both ways--to have the variance granted for more intensive use of the property in 1987, and yet in 1990 have this pertinent earlier expansion excluded from the Board's consideration. Respectfully yours, fS'/ Susan C. popowski cc: (1) patricia Collard, zoning Administrator (2) Oueensbury Planning Board ~ . . - . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Sly at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 ;- ~ ~ r í L ::.: rn~'1 \ . .~. _ lJ' MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: QUEEflSBURf'LANNING BOARD PATRICIA ·.LARD zœuI' ~ISTRATOR AUGUST 29. 1990 PAUl BART.-oocKSIDER SITE PW I: 17-90 JE©l ~~~. . ~{ AUG 3 ~!~Jlt DATE: RE: ,ANNING a ZONIN' ""EPARTME.... Dear Board: In reply to yf1I6 request that I clarify the definition of floor area as it relates to the ettside deck and the number of uses present on the property, I offer the follC1ing: floor area for the purpose of computing parking requirements sha11 .. the sum of the horizontal area within exterior walls of the severa) flows of a building. Therefore, the outside deck is not considered in computtlg the number of parking spaces. The principle lSe of this property is the operation of the Docksider Restaurant. A res_rant is defined in the Queensbury Zoning Ordfnance as a place for the pr~tion, serving and consuming, indoors of food and beverages other than a tave..... Therefore, the parking shall be computed per the parking schedule for the rstaurant, marina, and single family 1 iving area above the restaurant. Park1,. requfremen~s for the boat launch are not listed in the parking scheduled. Iherefore, per Section 7.070 of the Ordinance, the Planning Board may establ1s11 parking requirements consistent with those specified in Section 7.072. If I can be of tlrther assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, '---7~~ f' PATRICIA COlLARD PC/jjd cc: PLANlI. DEP~ DAVID HATII Ma DEAJI ..,... OF NA rURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE ro LIVE" SETTLED 1763 -- 315 Wan-en County Planning Board recommended disapproval. Mr. Muller MOVED DENIAL of Sign Variance No. 1252. The applicant cannot support any hardship or any difficulty that needs to be substantiated. Passed S yes ( Sicard, Goetz, Muller, Behr, Kelley), 1 abstain (Turner). SIGN VARIANCE NO. lZS3 Allens Arts and Crafts Mrs. Goetz read the application to maintain existing freestanding sign (10 ft. by 4 ft. double faced aluminum - all metal framing) on the property situated on Route 9, Zayre Plaza in an Urban Residential 5 and Highway Commercial 15 zone. The application stated that the view of shopping buildings from Route 9 is obscured traveling north by a bank in front of the property, traveling south by a curve just prior to the property. In addition, a passerby would think the Zayre Department Store is the only store at this loca tion. Mr. Behr said that everything else on the pylon should be considered; all the stores cumulatively, not just individually. Mr. Sicard MOVED to TABLE Sign Variance No. 1253 to get more information regarding all other signage on the property. Mr. Muller seconded. Passed U~u"ftimoualy. ARRA VARIANCE NO_ 12.~A And USR VARIANCE NO. 12§4B Docksider Restaurant Mrs. Goetz read the appli~ation for an area variance to build a patio deck with less than required setback from the lake and for a use variance to expand nonconforming bar and restaurant on the property situated on the north shore of Glen Lake in a Single Family Residential 30 zone. The application also states that the business has existed for over 40 years and would not create any additional adverse effect. J. Paul Barton, owner said that the expansion is needed to accommodate people for the summer season. There are 26 seats in the front room which fill up very quìckly. Mr. Barton said that he has had many people ask about having a deck added on so that they could be closer to the lake. Mr. Behr questioned the actual distances from the lake. He said the east shoreline cuts in very sharply and towards a big tree. Mr. Barton said his closest point to the lake is 15 feet. Mr. Behr question the front setback stating that it isn't 50 feet as shown on the map; it is a 26 foot setback. 12 .---.-,-.~._".---.,- · 3/0 Mr. Behr asked if there would be a canopy over the deck. Mr. Barton said no, not at this point. Mr. Turner was concerned about the noise factor. Mr. Barton stated he has been in operation since July 19, 1985. He said he has year round activities (picnics, etc.) and broom ball in the winter time. The activities are a great part of his business and has never had any complaints from neighbors. Mr. Dean stated that he has been present at the Docksider Restaurant during the winter season when they have had broom ball games. He said that on a number of occasions the players have gotten excited and banged their brooms on the boards; the noise echoed over the lake. He added that he expected to hear complaints (to the Building Department) about the noise but never received any. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Behr asked if he intended to use the deck during the same hours as the existing establishment. Mr. Behr was concerned about the noise from the juke box. He asked if it could be heard from outside. Mr. Barton said the juke box is inside. In the summer time, most all windows will be opened but the music won't canoy that far. There won't be any juke box outdoors. WalTen County Planning Board recommended approval of the area variance. WalTen County Planning Board recommended approval of the use variance, commenting that neighbor's concerns be examined. Mr. Sicard MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1254A. It meets all criteria of the ordinance. This shoreline isn't a true shoreline at the present time. The relief granted is a minimum. . Front setback is 26 feet from the lake. This is in lieu of 50 feet. The side setback is approximately 13 feet rather than the required 50 feet. Having granted this area variance, the Zoning Board is combining the request in Use Variance No. 1254B to include approval to p.~Anñ the nonconformin¡ use of a bar and restaurant to Allow reasonable return. This doesn't add to impact on neighborhood. Mr. Kelley seconded. Paaaed Un.wüftlou.ly. USE V ARIANCB NO. lZ55 Gates Enterprises Mrs. Goetz read the application to construct a fast food restaurant on the property situated at 97 and 98 W. Main Street in a Highway Commercial 15 and Urban Residential 5 zone. A portion of the property can be used for fast food restaurants, diners, bars, etc. but the balance of the property is restricted to duplex residential use. 13 ._------ PHILIP v. CORTESE ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW 17 MOHAWK PLACE AMSTER.DAM. NEW YOR.K. 12010 ~)~~ ~ OCT161990 .~/ (518) 843-5622 FAX (518) 843-5624 ~ aIGMIN( DlMMMIM' ¡ . ... L \. October 15, 1990 Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 531 Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804-9725 Attention: Mr. Goralski Re: Adicommco, Inc. - Denial of Sign Permit ZBA Meeting Date: October 24, 1990 Dear Mr. Goralski: Pursuant to my secretary's phone conversation with you on Monday, October 15, 1990, I understand that she explained to you that I will be out of the country on October 24, 1990, and will not be able to attend the meeting with regard to the above captioned matter. I understand that your meeting for the month of November is set for November 28, 1990 at 7 p.m., and request that the above matte~ be adjourned until then. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. PVC/clh regard to this Thank you for your matter. cc: Adicommco, Inc. - ~, - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804·9725 (518) 792·5832 TO: The Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Stu Baker, Assistant Planner ~ - DATE: October 24, ] 990 RE: Area Variance No. 73-1990 Thomas J. Babcock The Planning Department received the attached letter today from Mr. Babcock requesting that his application be "tabled until further notice". Given the concerns of Mr. Babcock's neighbors regarding the proposed deck, the Board should consider requiring Mr. Babcock to pay for re-advertising once he has submitted the requested information. If this is the desire of the Board, a resolution to this effect should be passed. The Planning Department would then forward the resolution to the applicant for his information. SB/pw Attachment "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 · I F~OM:KONICA FAX TO: 5187925203 OCT 24. V390 11:35AM P.02 .FILE COpy October 24, 1990 Mr. Theodore Turner, Chairman Queensbury Zoning Board RD #5 Box 409 139 Meadowbrook Road Queensbury, NY 12804 Dear Mr. Turner: I am writing in reference to Variance No. 73-1990, Type II. At the September hearing, the above application was motioned and approved for tabling until adequate site drawings and past permits could b. reviewed. To this date, I have not received any correspondence in reference to the building departments findings. I would like to have this variance/hearing tabled until further notice so that I can: 1. Reconcile the differences between our surveyed property and the tax map on file with the county 2. Find a new contractor who will develop a more complete and specific drawing of the deck I would also like time to discuss my ideas with my neighbors. Sincerely,__ ~. . ~:--4---··C~~" -·~¡;~;:7 ?.1:;:'~~ Thomas J. Babcock cc: Alice Corrigan Cal Powers stuart Baker ._------~---