The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-11-14 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR ÞEETIN6 NOVEMBER 14TH, 1990 INDEX Use Variance No. 83-1990 Marcel Demers 2. d/b/a Queensbury Automotive Area Variance No. 80-1990 Marcel Demers 4. d/b/a Queensbury Automotive Center Use Variance No. 82-1990 L. Rae Gillis 6. Notice of Appeal No. 1-90 Susan C. Popowski 16. RE: Docksider Restaurant Notice of Appeal No. 2-90 Attorney Philip V. Cortese 29. RE: Adicommco, Inc. Use Variance No. 84-1990 Richard Diehl 40. Area Variance No. 85-1990 Stanley J. Wawrejko 41. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEAlS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. IEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY MICHAEL SHEA JEFFREY KELLEY CHARLES SICARD JOYCE EGGLESTON MEMBERS ABSENT BRUCE CARR DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 18th, 1990: Page 14, Mr. Shea, halfway down the page, "which would then call for a recommendation to go to a one and a half garage, unless he wants to", I believe the word "remove", was left out, "remove the storage building"; Page 3, down at the bottom, Mr. Ray is speaking, second paragraph up, the garage is addressed as a barn, change barn to garage, in all those cases, page 3, page 4, where they relate to the garage as being a barn; Page 4, middle of the page, Mr. Ray is speaking, the problem is it's attached to, and that part of the sentence should finish, "the commercial garage"; Page 5, just below the middle, Mr. Kelley is speaking, "I would feel inadequate", at the very end of that, "and this building is too small", too small should be added; Page 10, sixth one up from the bottom, Mr. Turner is speaking, "he's asking for a private use on a commercial piece of property, and it's wrong for the house not with a garage", sib not to have a garage; Page 15, fourth one down, sib Mr. Carr is speaking, not Mr. Caro; Page 17, third Mr. Kelley down from the top, "Okay, because the thing, I noticed, is pretty well protected, obviously, from the street, but if you go around to Glenwood Avenue, everything is there and visible". tl)TION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JULY 18TH, 1990 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr September 26th, 1990: Page 22, second Mr. Kelley down, a third of the way down, it says, "what's the size of the second", and then there's a comma, sib "what's the size of the second floor, and has that got a second floor"; Page 24, in the middle, Mr. Kelley speaking, "if you finished off a basement, now you just added another 912 square feet of living space", following that, is sib, "now you're over the 50 percent of area increase rule, and it says, "I mean, for storage it would be okay, but not for living space", he was talking about having exposed basement; Page 28, at the top, Mr. Turner speaking, it says, "they put sonet tubes", sib Sono tubes in there tl)TION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26TH, 1990 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr ABSTAINED: Mrs. Eggleston 1 MR. TURNER-I'm going to change the agenda a 1 itt1e bit. I'm going to move Use Variance No. 83-1990 as the first item of business on the agenda, since this is the most critical variance request, and he has to have thi s to get the rest of the va ri ance, whi ch he needs, under Area Va ri ance. So, wi th that in mind, we'll take his application, first. OLD BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 83-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-lA MARCEL DEMERS D/B/A QUEENSBURY AIJTOtI)TIVE OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE 53 QUAKER ROAD FOR A SINGLE STORY AUTOtmTIVE REPAIR SHOP COMPRISING OF APPROX. 2,100 SQ. FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 103-1-13 LOT SIZE: 21,250 SQ. FT. SECTION 9.014 CHARLES JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Do we have any questions for Mr. Johnson? MR. KELLEY-I might have one, I guess. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me, could you just state your name, for the record. MR. JOHNSON-Yes, my name is Charles Johnson. MR. KELLEY-At one time, I thought I understood that this property was put on the market for sale, is that true or are you familiar with that at all? MR. JOHNSON-I don't know for sure, at all. MR. KELLEY-Okay. I can't ask anymore, if you don't know. MR. TURNER-Is that your only question, Jeff? MR. KELLEY-Well, I would have more, if I knew more about the sale of the property, or if it was still for sale. MR. JOHNSON-Is this something that happened in the past, that it was on the market? MR. KELLEY-Yes, I would have said, well, it was in this past year, and I guess I would want to have known, was the thought there, you know, did he take it off the market, and now he's just going to stay there and expand, or is he expanding and maybe going to try to sell it, in the near future, again, and if so, would he try to sell it for a use that it was allowed in the zone? MR. JOHNSON-No, to my knowledge, it hasn't been on the market, nor is he interested in selling it. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. SHEA-How is Mr. Johnson connected with the applicant? MR. JOHNSON-I'm acting as his agent, tonight. MR. TURNER-He's the agent. MR. JOHNSON-I'm helping him prepare the submissions for this process. MR. TURNER-He prepared the drawing. His name is on the authorized action. He's designated agent. I think what happened, when the present Zoning Ordinance was changed, that was a pennitted use, under Plaza Commercial, before, I think. MRS. GOETZ-This one? I was looking. MR. TURNER-Have you got the old one? Look and see. MRS. GOETZ-I didn't see it. MR. TURNER-That's what bothers me about the Use Variance. It's under Type II. MR. GOETZ-It's under Type II? Public Garage? MR. TURNER-Yes, that's how he got. It was a Type II use. MRS. GOETZ-And it went to Site Plan? MR. TURNER-Yes. 2 -' MR. SHEA-He's been operating in there for how long, since the zoning? MRS. GOETZ-Since '85, I think. MR. TURNER-No. '83, isn't it? MRS. GOETZ-So. it was considered a public garage? MR. TURNER-Yes, that's what it is. It's a public garage and, what, a gasoline station? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. JOHNSON-Is a public garage a permitted use. now? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. GOETZ-No. but prior, under Site Plan Review. MR. JOHNSON-A public parking garage is a permitted use in Plaza Commercial. MR. GORALSKI-I don't think this meets the definition of a parking garage. MR. TURNER-No. know we never saw it. I know that. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the applicant? MR. KELLEY-I guess, other than it says that it's a 14 by 42 single story addition, maybe you could just tell us what's going to go in that space. MR. JOHNSON-What currently happens now is. when somebody comes in with their car to get it repaired, there's no place for them to wait. They, basically, end up standing in the garage or outside on a ni ce day. What's goi ng to happen. he's goi ng to bui 1 d some additi ona 1 offi ce. take hi s current offi ce and turn it into a waiting area and, at the same time. he's going to add some extra storage for his materials. MR. TURNER-Well. it's for insurance reasons. too. to keep them out of the garage. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. TURNER-Any other questions of Mr. Johnson. It's a small, you know. the shape of the lot restricts, yes, remember. MR. KELLEY-Well, I remember the shape of the lot. because he added on. before. the sign, or something. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-It's got the right-of-way's for the power company and all this stuff going on. MR. TURNER-Yes. and then he's got to have room for his septic tank. and that doesn't give him much room to do much of anything. Any further questions? If there isn't. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CO_NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board, "No County Impact" MR. TURNER-They're meeting. tonight, that's approved. MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend that any motion be conditional. MR. TURNER-Conditioned on the County. MR. GORALSKI-It's my understanding that there was. the determination was going to be. "No County Impact". 3 ~ ~ STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-No further questions of the applicant? I will call for a motion. MR. KELLEY-I guess, one thing, if you looked at the requirements for a Use Variance, that's one thing. I guess, the fact that it was a prior conforming use, with Site Plan Review, I guess that's what you read, right? Does that shed any light on it and you have to look at it a little differently, or? MR. TURNER-Ri ght. I think it does. I think he I s got vested property ri ghts. I don 't thi nk you can make him stand to show reasonable return. MR. KELLEY-Right. I don't have a problem with it. It's just, if you look at Use Variances, how do you use the word "interpret". tlJTION 10 APPROVE USE VARIANCE (I). 83-1990 MARCEL DÐERS D/B/A ~EENSBURY AU10tlJTIVE CENTER, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The strict application of the Ordinance places an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. The reason being that the applicant has been in business at this location for a number of years and he actually is a preexisting use which has now become nonconforming because of a change in the Ordinance. He's asking for an expansion of this now nonconforming use and I believe he should be allowed to do this, since he's asking for a waiting area for his customers and it is believed that this is a requirement of the law that the customers have a place to transact their business that does not subject them to a hazardous environment. I think the variance is also necessary to preserve the applicant's property rights and that would be to continue to operate his business as he has in the past. I don't feel that the variance is detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance and that this would be the minimum variance to alleviate the specific hardship. There is no negative impact from the neighbors and, upon site inspection, I feel this applicant has done an excellent job in keeping his business clean and presentable to the public. This is contingent upon Warren County Planning Board approval. Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend that you, probably, get a second on that motion, okay. MR. TURNER-Yes, first. MR. GORALSKI-And then, before you vote on that motion, you should use that Draft SEQRA motion that we handed out, in your packets, and vote on the SEQRA, first. So, the first thing you need is a second on that motion. MR. KELLEY-Well, what about the County? MR. GORALSKI-You should include in your motion that this is conditioned on Warren County Planning Board approval. Mr. Turner, if you'd like, I'll read the SEQRA motion and somebody can introduce it and second it. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. I move to introduce and adopt the motion, as just read, in regards to the Environmental Assessment Form. MR. SHEA-Second. MR. GORALSKI-Vote on the SEQRA, first. AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1990 TYPE II PC-lA MARCEL DEMERS D/B/A ~EENSBURY AUTOII)TIVE CENTER OIINER: SAME 53 ~AIŒR ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE S10RY ADDITION OF APPROX. 580 SQ. FT. 10 AN EXISTING SINGLE S10RY BUILDING HOUSING AN AUTOÞlJTIVE REPAIR SHOP. lHE ADDITION WILL BE USED FOR OFFICE AND S10RAGE NEEDS. ADDITION WILL NOT MEET SETBACK FROM BANK STREET. (WARREN coum PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 103-1-13 LOT SIZE: 21,250 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 J CHARLES JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 4 MRS. GOETZ-This was tabled, last month, so that the applicant could prepare a proper application before the Board, which included the Use Variance request. MR. TURNER-Any questions for Mr. Johnson? He needs 19 feet of relief on Bank Street. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Mr. Johnson, I've got a question for you. The sewer is on LaFayette Street, right? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. It's also on Bank Street. MR. TURNER-Okay, but that means you've got to hook up pretty soon. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Weren't they doing that, today? MR. JOHNSON-I don't know if he's doing it now, but as a part of this expansion, he was going to hook up to the sewer, because this expansion is going to occur, in relation to that cOllll1ent about the 1,000 gallon tank needing to be moved, he's going to abandon the tank, the septic system, and hook up to the sewer. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-I thought I saw him doing that, today. MR. JOHNSON-He may already be doing that. MR. KELLEY-I just drove by and saw them working out there. It looked like they were maybe doing that. MR. TURNER-What would that do to the, if you put the addition on the back? MR. JOHNSON-It would fit there, however, the waiting area would now be located in the back, the office and waiting would now be in the back. MR. TURNER-I was just wondering what your traffic pattern was going to be. MR. JOHNSON-It wouldn't function. MR. TURNER-Okay, anyone else? Do you have anything, Mike? MR. SHEA-What is the wood guard, is that rail? MR. JOHNSON-Yes, that's already an existing site element, there. It's just a small, probably 12 inches up off the ground, bumper like guard rail. MR. SHEA-Okay. MR. KELLEY-I guess the variance is, he needs, what, 50 feet from Bank Street. MR. TURNER-Fifty feet, yes. MR. KELLEY-And he's only got 31. MR. TURNER-Yes, he's got 19. MR. KELLEY-That's the only one we're concerned with, right? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-Everything is okay. MR. TURNER-Already established, yes. MR. KELLEY-I don't know. That piece of property is tough. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the suggestion, he could put it around back, I think, you know, it's going to interfere with the traffic flow of the customers from the garage. 5 MR. KELLEY-Well, I mean, if you just looked at it, logically, you'd put it where he's putting it. MR. TURNER-Yes, right, just plain logic, is right. Okay. I'll open the public hearing on this one. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NOCOÞlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board returned saying "No County Impact" MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. tmTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1990 MARCEL DEtERS D/B/A QUEENSBURY AUTOtmTIVE CENTER, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: The practical difficulty has been demonstrated, given the unique shape and size of the lot. Special conditions apply to this lot that do not apply to others in the neighborhood. The relief sought is minimal in that the front yard setback would be 31 feet. Therefore, granting 19 feet of variance on front yard setback. Further, that the granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance, and, further, that public facilities would not be adversely effected. Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr USE VARIANCE NO. 82-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-5A L. RAE GILLIS OiliER: SAlE EAST SIDE, LOCKHART tmUNTAIN ROAD TO LEASE SPACE IN SMAlLER REMAINING STRUCTURE FOR USE AS LIGHT I NOOSTRY . 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 MRS. GOETZ-This was tabled, last month, so that the applicant had time to get further information. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-You read them, the last time (referring to Staff Notes). MRS. GOETZ-Yes, but are they new ones? MR. GORALSKI-No. I just wanted you to be aware, you've got notes, last time. If you'd like to read them, again, you can. You don't have to. MR. TURNER-What new information do you have for us? MR. HATZ-I have some, here. I apologize for not being able to get it to you sooner. My name is Scott Hatz and I'm here on behalf of Mr. Gillis, again. Mr. Gillis is also here to answer any questions you may have. Essentially, we were trying to gather information to show that Mr. Gillis could not have a reasonable return on the property, if used pursuant to the Zoning, as it applies, now. You have some information in front of you which, essentially, states that, as residential property, without the buildings, it would be worth, approximately, $42.000. The cost to take down the buildings would be $32,000, leaving a $10,000 return. The cost, for residential purposes, with the buildings existing, is approximately $10,000, again. There is a good deal of information on the cOlllllercial aspects of the property, if used pursuant to the Site Plan Review zoning uses. Most of them are deemed to be inappropriate, conversion, renovation costs, especially for the large building which is, due to its make-up, it is structurally sound, as Hilltop Construction and Howard Beatty both indicate, but the make-up of the interior of the building is such that it prohibits almost any use, whatsoever. The smaller building might be able to be used for a few purposes. Hilltop Construction indicates that the cost to renovate it, for those purposes, such as a greenhouse or similar use, would be extensive. In fact, for a greenhouse, it would be more than the cost to build and bring in a new greenhouse. So, based upon that information, it's our opinion that he can't get a reasonable return if used or sold to be used for those purposes. Additionally, he.!! able to get a reasonable return, at the present 6 '- time, if we can obtain a Use Variance, because he is able to obtain rent, approximately $1000 a month, which, at a return of $10,000, he would yield equal the total for the property, as zoned, in a matter of 10 months and so he is able to receive a reasonable return by renting the property out. Again, it's our opinion that the unique circumstances are met by the fact that there are these large, obsolete buildings, that were lawful structures and have, really, no use, whatsoever, at the present time, and, as far as any detrimental effect on the neighborhood, it would be our opinion that, in fact, this would be less intrusive than some of the Site Plan Review uses, such as dog kennel or conmercial greenhouse or other uses, in that, as we talked about at our last meeting, October 24th, the number of employees and the number of vehicles going on to the property would be far less, with this use, than would be if there was a commercial greenhouse or a dog kennel, which would have a higher traffic pattern and, plus, additional noise and additional work crews, etc., there to man those facilities. So, even though it's termed Light Industry, because it is a manufacturing use, per se, they are putting together products within the building, they're simply making use of the existing smaller building to put together the products, and that's it. There's no retail sales on the property, no signs. Nothing is being done. I guess there would be some heat put in the building on one end of the building, for winter use, and that's really the only alteration that would be done, so the building and the impact would remain, essentially, as is. In fact, as we are all aware, there were Use Variances granted, in the past. Top of the World Autobody was in there for a period of years, and he had a variance which expired, from my understanding, when he left, but the impact of that, we believe, was greater than the existing, now, with these uses and the neighbors, in fact, most of them, when polled, and I gave you a list of the neighbors who have supported us last week, weren't even aware that this was going on. In fact, part of it's been going on for 18 months, so we think that that speaks highly, that there is very little impact on the neighborhood. My understanding is, from the time Top of the World Autobody received their variance, and used the property for autobody work, until the present time, although lots have been sold, across the street, for residential purposes, there's only been one house, actually, built in the surrounding area, in the last five or six years, and it's my understanding that, at the present time, none, in the near future, at least, are contemplated. MR. TURNER-Okay, any questions? The tenant in the front has 75 by 50 feet of the building. The tenant in the back has, what? MR. HATZ-Bi ll? BILL BUNTING MR. BUNTING-About half and half. MR. TURNER-Half and Half. Alright, it says, in here that the building was built in '55, on a concrete slab, three sections with middle section unheeded. Two end sections are rented and currently in use. Nobody's in the middle. MR. HATZ-Is there a middle section? MR. BUNTING-I'm Bill Bunting, Performance Trailers. When I took over the Top of the World Autobody section, there was only one partition in the building, when I moved in and that was, approximately, about 50 by 50, when I moved into it, and I just took the partition down and moved it back another 25 feet, that was, approximately, where the middle section was, originally stated. MR. TURNER-Well, this is current in the building. Somebody didn't look at something. MRS. GOETZ-This Mr. Beatty's comment about the poultry house is in fair to good condition. That seems inconsistent with what was said at the last meeting, by Mr. Gillis. I can't remember, exactly, but one of you seemed to indicate the poultry house was, like, in terrible condition. MR. HATZ-What we 1 earned from Hi 11 top Constructi on and Harwood Beatty is that the structure of the large poultry house, I believe is what you're referring to, is, it's actually structurally sound. Interior, I don't know if you've ever been in it, it's very, very chopped up, with lots of small compartments on all levels, and it's the interior that would need a lot of work, essentially, prohibitive from any use, but the actual structure of the building, from what I read in these reports, is in good shape, probably better shape than Mr. Gillis might have even realized. I don't know. MR. SHEA-The good news is, the building's in good shape. The bad news is, that there's no use for it. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. SICARD-And it isn't worth anything. MR. TURNER-Do you guys feel comfortable? Do you want to look at this further? To get it handed to you 1 i ke thi s. MR. KELLEY-I know. There's a bunch of stuff in there. Just, quickly, looking through it, I think his surmnation kind of makes sense, that the land value appears to be around $4200 an acre, by his comparative 7 -- analysis. there, he cited three or four different properties around the Town. and that part seemed to be current, in tenns of the dates and the sizes of the property. So, the $42,000 seems feasible for 10 acres. MR. TURNER-For 10 acres, yes. MR. KELLEY-Because I think there was a nei ghbor or somebody that bought the lot across the street that was five acres for $20,000. MR. TURNER-$20,000. yes. MR. KELLEY-I mean, that number seems to hold up okay. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I think, to remove, they're talking about removing both buildings, and they came up with $32,500. I don't know. I have no idea whether that's reasonable or not. I mean, I don't know the excavation or the demolition business to know whether that's way out in left field. or not. MR. TURNER-Five hundred yards of fill, where's the fill going to go? MR. HATZ-I'm not in the demolition business, either. MR. GORALSKI-The fill would be to fill in the holes that the existing foundations. MR. TURNER-I know, but the ones on a slab. How about the chicken house, is that on a slab? RAE GILLIS MR. GILLIS-Part of it, but there would be a hole. MR. TURNER-There would be a little bit of a hole. MR. SHEA-I feel more comfortable with the fact that there really is very little use for these buildings, and it is going to be costly, to whatever degree, but costly, nonetheless, to take the buildings down and use them for residential purposes. MR. TURNER-I agree with that. MR. SHEA-And then, even at that, that doesn't guarantee a sale. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. SHEA-I think, therefore, that maybe one of the larger issues, although we thought that proving the return on investment, here, on the reasonable return on the property was a major issue, last time, and that's why we recommended it be tabled. I still do believe that, but I feel more comfortable with that, at this point in time. I think. now, for me, in any event, the issue is the existing use on the rental basis. and how it impacts the neighborhood. MR. TURNER-Yes. that's my question. Anyone else? We left the public hearing open. I'll got to a public hearing, while the other members are looking over the application. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NOCOMNT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Linda Koslozki, dated November 5th: "I'm writing to you in regard to the proposed re-zoning of 14 acres of land located on Lockhart Mountain Road which belongs to Mr. L. Rae Gillis. It is proposed that the zoning be changed from five acre rural residential to light industrial classification. The purpose of this is to allow the continuation of birdhouse feeder and boat trailer manufacturing businesses. At the last Board meeting. this issue was not acted upon. Mr. Gillis was given time to prove hardship in this matter. While it is not the intention of this writer to deny anyone a means of earning a living, it is my hope that the Board's primary concern will be to conserve the integrity of the environment. If the Board decides to grant Mr. Gillis the variance, I hope you will, one, stipulate that no further development of the 14 acre parcel be allowed, either by the present owner or by any future owners, with the intention of preventing the development of an industrial complex in the midst of a residential neighborhood. Two. stipulate the specific industries that will be allowed on the subject property. wi th the purpose of preventi ng haza rdous effects to the envi ronment. Your consideration is appreciated." 8 MR. TURNER-Alright, do you want to speak to the character of the neighborhood. Do you think there's an impact on the character of the neighborhood? MR. KELLEY-Well, I don't know. If you look at the Use Variance and you look at the four criteria you have to contend with, I think the last one, where it tal ks about, would the variance be detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance or property in the district, that one I could struggle with, maybe. MR. TURNER-Yes, I'd have a struggle, yes. MR. KELLEY-I mean, the trend that I see up there is that, here he's sold lots across the street, residential five acre lots to people, I would assume, are going to put houses on them. The Top of the World, the real estate portion of it seems to be going along and I think to allow businesses in there.. . MR. TURNER-Well, the time that the Board allowed the autobody, there, Top of the World wasn't a reality, yet, the condos. A lot of things have changed, since then. MRS. EGGLESTON-The lots were vacant across, weren't sold, either. MR. TURNER-Yes, and I think the idea to limit the use of the building, at the time, was, if, down the road, that thi ngs were goi ng to change, there'd be a handl e on it, because it was still, the cha racter was still there. It was still residential. MR. KELLEY-You look at what the rural residential five acre zone, the purpose of it is, and they talk about, to enhance the open space and rural character of the Town, and the pennitted uses talk about, single family dwellings and private garages, timber harvesting hunting and fishing camps. I mean, it sure sounds like it's supposed to be a residential zone, RR, right. I don't know. I mean, theoretically, it has to pass the four tests and you get to that one, and it stops. I mean, maybe he did show that he can't yield a reasonable return, which, maybe that's what this all states. It kind of looks to be that, but I don't know that it's a help to the neighborhood and what's going on. MR. TURNER-No. MR. HATZ-If I could speak to that issue. I think, in order to establish a Use Variance, we have to show that we cannot do any of the pennitted uses in the zoning, and those include Site Plan Review uses, which, if you look at what would be allowed with Site Plan Review, in that very same area, if you're looking at cormnercial greenhouses and dog kennels and riding stables and things that would be far more intrusive to a residential, five acre residential, then these buildings which were existing and are existing, that's a fact that that is there, that bring in a matter of a few cars and a couple of employees, a day, as opposed to what could come in there, under a cOlll1lercial greenhouse, which is something the Town has deemed that they, with Site Plan approval, would put in there, and I don't know what the neighbors would think, maybe, like, on the week before Easter going to greenhouses or with dog kennels, but I'm sure you're going to have a far greater traffic in and out of there, off that road, with dog kennels and riding stables, you're talking about animals and they're boarding and breeding and everything that brings with it and what we're saying is that this is far more in keeping with the purposes of the zoning because, and I think, I don't want to get caught up in the tenn "industry" and "businesses" up there. These are just a couple of people who are using a structure to put together products. There's no question they are businesses, but they're far less intrusive than those businesses which would be allowed under there, under Site Plan Review, and in order to get a Use Variance, we have to show that we can't put any of those business in there, under Site Plan Review. So, if you deem that we could put one of those in there, you could shoot us down, on that ground and, at the same time, it appears you're saying that this far smaller business is too intrusive to put into the neighborhood and it seems like there's a Catch-22, here. If we show that we can put one of these far bigger commercial greenhouses or dog kennels in there, we can't get a Use Variance, for something that seems far smaller, with less traffic impact and noise. Most of the people, as I say, Mr. Bunting's been there 18 months. Most of the neighbors didn't even know he was there, when they went around asking. I'm sure they would know if a cOlll1lercial greenhouse was there or a dog kennel. MR. KELLEY-All right. Let me ask a question of, maybe, Pat or John that is, let's say you had this piece of property and there were no buildings on it, and you went to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. If you proposed one of the uses, let's say it's a Type II use, does that mean you automatically get it, or can you be denied that use? MR. GORALSKI-Actually, I hate to pass the buck, but I think our attorney should answer that. MS. CORPUS-If it is a Type II pennitted use in that area, that use is pennitted, by right. The Planning Board would look at various factors, parking, vehicular traffic, whatever, and detennine whether that plan that's presented before the Board is the best plan available, for that particular site, and it can be denied, based on the plan presented. If the applicant chooses to come back with a different plan, taking into account the Planning Board's various recommendations, and all those recolll1lendations are met, the Planning Board would have a difficult time denying that project. 9 -- ~" MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. SHEA-How long was the time from when Top of the World Autobody vacated their rented space, until the new tenants came in? MR. GILLIS-L. Rae Gillis. After Top of the World Autobody moved out, my son was in there, for a short time, right after, and he's the one that started a Site Plan Review. When Mack Dean was... MR. TURNER-In reference to the motor repair, or the boat repair. MR. GILLIS-Boat repair, right, and he moved out, in April of '86, and then the Wooden Boat Works came in, in September of the same year, and Mr. Backus did the work for him, and nObody seems to know where that is. I don't know. MR. SHEA-But the questi on is, was there an extended peri od of time when there was no acti vi ty there, or has there always been some kind of continuing activity. MR. GILLIS-Right, always been. It's just a matter of two or three months in between, that's all. MR. SHEA-Okay. MR. TURNER-I don't think he answered his question, though. When did Top of the World vacate the property? MR. GILLIS-I think it was the beginning of '86. MR. TURNER-Mr. Bunting moved in in February of '89, right? MR. GILLIS-'89, yes. There was two, in between. MR. BUNTING-And there was the Wooden Boats in the place, when I went to look at the building. MRS. GOETZ-Was the Wooden Boat Works at Site Plan Review? MR. TURNER-Yes, that's the one that we saw the last time, remember? Nobody remembered it. MR. SHEA-My pOint in asking is to try and determine the amount of activity, ongoing activity, usage, in that building and it's impact on the neighborhood, which is zoned residential, but they're always, seemingly, or, apparently, now, has been some kind of low level commercial activity, there. MR. GILLIS-Right, there has been. To my knowledge, there's never been a complaint. I'm sure if there was, somebody would have been up there. MR. TURNER-Well, you weren't here, the last time, but the Fire Marshal picked this up, on inspection. MR. KELLEY-I guess the other way, Mr. Chairman, to look at it, would be is, if we should look at it with the idea of saying, okay, maybe there's a way to let them use the buildings. We could probably do something with a time limit on it, right? MR. TURNER-You could limit the use to the applicant, two employees. You could limit, period. MR. KELLEY-I mean, the idea of a site plan is to say, alright, here's these various different uses that could take place there, and the site plan is to look at it and say, well, have you got an over abundance of cars or traffic or, who knows all the questions that you could ask for all those different uses. We're saying, alright, if there's been a use there and, for the most part, it hasn't been objectionable, I think the thing is to be able to control it and not lose track of it, which, in the meantime, may be able to let Mr. Gillis get some kind of a return on his property, until such time as, either the land value goes up, greatly, to the point where the land is now worth so much somebody would buy it and spend the $30,000 to tear the building down and still come out ahead, or, I suppose you could wait until they fall down, but that could take forever. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I think if we know what's there, and we limit the size of it and a time frame, as to once that business moves out, then they've got to come back and apply for another Use Variance. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's what I'm saying. MR. KELLEY-Or, maybe go for a Site Plan, if it's one of those uses, or something. At least we know what's going on and maybe both parties can come out of it, us and Mr. Gillis, with some kind of a reasonable alternative. I don't know. 10 -. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think I agree with Jeff. I have great sympathy for Mr. Gillis, because it's nice to be able to keep your property up, and we all know taxes and everything are really tough, today, and these gentlemen could always find another place to go and do their business, but Mr. Gillis still has to pay for all of the maintenance, up keep, whatever, of the property, and, right now, the market isn't good and I don't know if we could work something like.... MR. TURNER-Well, there's a 50 foot buffer required, you know, between residential and... MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I can't see where that would be so bad, for myself. MR. HATZ-We would have no problems with reasonable conditions being placed upon the Use Variance, at all. MR. TURNER-Well, the only problem I have with it is that, since the last time the Autobody was there, that Mr. Gillis has sold the property off, across the road. Now, evidently, somebody is going to build there. MR. HATZ-Right. I understand that. MR. GILLIS-Those buildings were there. MR. TURNER-I know. I'm not saying that, but I'm just saying, the character of the neighborhood is going to change, even though your buildings were there. MR. KELLEY-Well, the whole thing about that is, Ted, if you looked at it is, okay, the people bought the property across the street, knowi ng those buil di ngs were there, and there was some use there, most of the time, other than, maybe a month or two. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay, I think, obviously, they knew something was taking place, there. If we say, okay, lets grant these two guys their use for as long as they're there, when it ends that's, maybe the time, now, you take a new look at it. MR. TURNER-Yes, right, I agree with that. MR. KELLEY-Now, these people now have their houses. They're going to be in here because they're going to get their notice of a new Use Variance. They're all going to come in here. Now, you're going to have a whole lot of neighborhood objection. Maybe that's the time to say, well, now we can't do it anymore. The time has come. You've either got to tear them down, or you do what you've got to do. MR. TURNER-Yes, you could limit it to the use that's there, presently, no expansion, no altering of the buildings or anything, buffer it. MR. KELLEY-Right, he's going to get outweighed, after a while. All of a sudden, these people are going to be here. Then you aren't going to be able to, maybe, get this variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-But by then, maybe, the market and things would be better or somebody would be willing to buy or whatever. MR. KELLEY-Well, hopefully. MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually, the uses don't appear to be overly disruptive to a neighborhood. MR. TURNER-Mr. Bunting, could I get you up to the microphone. In the process of building your boat trailers, you said you had limited machinery in the building, a saw, a couple of big machines, right? MR. BUNTING-Yes, I have a band saw and two big machines. MR. TURNER-How much outside activity is there in front of the door? MR. BUNTING-Just, nothing. MR. TURNER-Where do you do your painting? MR. BUNTING-In the building. Some of the big stuff I'd send down to Top of the World Autobody. just paint the smaller trailers. MR. TURNER-Okay, but there's no outside activity? 11 MR. BUNTING-No outside activity at all. MR. TURNER-Where do you store your finished product? MR. BUNTING-I put it outside. If I start building, sometimes we build three a week, when the weather's good, and I'll stack them up, in a stack. MR. TURNER-How many do you ship? MR. BUNTING-I only deliver three or four units at a time. I won't make a one trailer delivery. MR. TURNER-Yes, but do you deliver once a week, every two weeks? MR. BUNTING-Yes, once a week, usually on a weekend. I make my delivery on a Sunday. MR. TURNER-Alright, when the steel comes up, it comes up in the summer time. You said in the winter time you pick it up down at the bottom of the hill. MR. BUNTING-I usually meet them down by Bayberry Corners. They won't come up that hill, in the winter. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. BUNTING-I take a boat trailer down. I meet the truck there. We throw it on there, and then I run it back up. MRS. GOETZ-I have a question, regarding mention of the buffer zone. Do you need a buffer zone? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I thought that was, a 50 foot buffer shall be required, adjoining corrmercial and industrial zones. MR. GORALSKI-Zones. MRS. COLLARD-Zones. MR. GORALSKI-Not uses. MRS. GOETZ-That's what I thought. So, they don't need a buffer. MR. TURNER-No, I guess not. MRS. GOETZ-And the problem of those buildings is not going to go away. This isn't going to be the end of it. MR. SHEA-Well, if we're talking about making this partly conditional on the number of employees there, I suppose we should ask Mr. Bunting and the other gentleman, back up and find out how many employees are used and required. MR. TURNER-Mr. Bunting's got two. MR. BUNTING-I only have one employee, plus myself. MR. TURNER-Well, we're counting you. MR. BUNTING-Counting myself. DAVID EDMUNDS MR. EDMUNDS-I actually have a full time, a part time, and myself. I spend the majority of my time in my office, which is not in the same building, but I have two employees. MR. TURNER-What do you have for machinery? MR. EDMUNDS-My name is David Edmunds. Machinery, I have a very small drill press, from Sears Craftsman. MR. TURNER-A band saw? MR. EDMUNDS-I don't even use a band saw. I have a Sears two horse compressor. We, basically, all my wood is cut somewhere else. I bring in parts and pieces and put them together. MR. TURNER-Is it cut to size, or? 12 - MR. EDMUNDS-Yes, it's cut to size, cut to shape. It's painted when it comes to me. We assemble polycarbonate brown plastic circles that are cut elsewhere. It's all parts and pieces that come in and we put the plastic on the wood and the wood goes in a bag and it goes in a box and it goes on a UPS truck and away it goes, and that's all we do. MR. KELLEY-Is there a name for your business? MR. EDMUNDS-Yes, it's American Pie. It's a DBA. MR. KELLEY-So, you're looking at yourself and two people, then? MR. EDMUNDS-Right. I have a full time and a part time. MR. KELLEY-So, we're saying the three people maximum would be the maximum number you'd need? MR. EDMUNDS-Right. MR. BUNTING-That's myself, too. I I d 1 He to, in the spring, possi bly, have one other employee, so it would be three. I would also like to have three employees. as a maximum, including myself. MR. KELLEY-All right. And the name of your company was? MR. BUNTING-Performance Trailers. MR. TURNER-Will there be any internal expansion, inside of the building, with an additional employee? MR. BUNTING-Internal, no. MR. TURNER-Are you going to add more machinery? MR. BUNTING-No, that's it. MR. TURNER-You've got all you need, right? MR. BUNTING-That's it. MR. KELLEY-You said the Fire Marshal had been there and inspected both your places. MR. BUNTING-Yes. MR. KELLEY-All right. Were there any requirements you had to do? MR. BUNTING-Yes. He gave me five or six things written on, I did everything, fire extinguishers, chain the acetylene tanks up. I had to put chains on them. We did re-wire. We put a new service in the building, and the only thing we didn't do is put the 5/8th sheet rock fire code wall between the two, because I was waiting. I didn't want to spend a load of money for nothing. MR. KELLEY-Okay, right. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know you did say you'd made efforts and you cleaned up a lot around the outside. If, somehow, tonight, we got this to work, would you people, or Mr. Gillis be willing to clear away the debris that still was left around the premises. MR. BUNTING-We'd actually enjoy doing that. MRS. EGGLESTON-You would see that that would get done, the three of you? MR. BUNTING-Yes. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? All right, motion's in order then. I can understand Mr. Gillis' position, but I was going to ask him another question. Mr. Gillis, could I ask you another question. In the future, are you looking to tear that poultry building down? Are you going to do something with it, the poultry building. MR. GILLIS-The big one, the four story? MR. TURNER-The big one, the poultry building. MR. GILLIS-I would like to tear it down, in the future, yes. MR. TURNER-What are you looking at? Have you got any ideas? 13 MR. GILLIS-No. I don't. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think you told me it was mortgaged, didn't you, when we were out there, and for that reason, you couldn't. MR. GILLIS-Yes, right now. I might have some problem, right, at the present time, yes, but, hopefully, if I can strike the right guy, or more than one fella, we might be able to work something out, in the future, on that building. MR. TURNER-You don't see yourself ever doing anything with it, do you? MR. GILLIS-No. MR. TURNER- I mean, MR. GILLIS-No. as far as doing anything constructive, as far as remodeling the building or anything? MR. TURNER-It's kind of a big chore to take on, isn't it? MR. GILLIS-It sure is. Tom A1briecht, he would. He said he would. He advised me to. MRS. GOETZ-Like, do what? MR. GILLIS-Apartment houses. He looked across that. He couldn't believe it was built in 1938. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GILLIS-He said, that hasn't sagged an inch. MR. TURNER-Did the Chapman's build that? Chapman's built that, didn't they? MR. GILLIS-No. Sterns. MR. TURNER-Stern, and then Chapman. MR. GILLIS-Stern, yes, then Chapman. John built the lower building, this one story house. MR. TURNER-Okay. Okay, Jeff. Thank you, Mr. Gillis. ÞOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 82-1990 L. RAE GILLIS, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The variance should be granted based on the following information, and that is that there is a specified unnecessary hardship that this applicant has and that is the existence of two prior existing buildings and these were used for the purpose of raising hens for the egg business. This was a former chicken farm and they sold eggs. The buildings that exist are an important part of this variance because of their unusual size. One building being 50 feet by 150 feet, a one story building, and the second building being 162 feet long and 35 feet wide, but it's four stories high. This is a very large building. We've seen pictures of it. The difficulty is that they can't be used for any of the permitted uses under Site Plan Review and the cost to demolish them was shown to us with an estimate from a local contractor and the cost of removal is $32,000. The property itself was appraised and the raw land value was appraised at around $42,000. Again, the hardship here, is that Mr. Gillis could only sell this land for approximately $10,000, if a would be buyer were to pay for what the land was really worth. It's because of these facts that Mr. Gillis cannot yield a reasonable financial return. The types of businesses, there are two, which we want to grant this variance for, seem to have a minimal impact on the neighborhood and we feel we can control this by imposing the following restrictions: the restrictions would, One, limit the variance to Performance Trailers and American Pie. The other limitation would be that both businesses have agreed to be limited to no more than three people, each. Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr MR. GORALSKI-You still have to address SEQRA. (SEQRA motion was read). MR. KELLEY-So moved. 14 MR. TURNER-I'll second it. Vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr (END OF FIRST DISK) 15 - NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-90 SUSAN C. POPOWSKI REGARDING DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT TAX MAP NO. 38-4-2 RE~EST FOR APPEAL BY SUSAN C. POPOWSKI REGARDING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AS OUTLINED IN THE MÐDRANOOM DATED AUGUST 29TH, 1990 REGARDING J. PAUL BARTON (SITE PLAN NO. 17-90). ON THAT DOCUÞENT, AN ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY DEFINITION OF -FLOOR AREA- AS IT AFFECTS THE DOCKSIDER OUTSIDE DECK. SUSAN POPOWSKI. PRESENT MR. GORALSKI-There should be a letter from Susan Popowski. MRS. GOETZ-Read letter from Susan C. Popowski, to Zoning Board of Appeals. Town of Queensbury, dated September 25th, 1990 (attached) Letter from Patricia Collard. Queensbury Zoning Administrator. To Queensbury Planning Board. dated August 29th. 1990 (attached) MR. TURNER-Okay. is the appealer in the room? Okay. do you have anything to add to this? MRS. POPOWSKI-Yes. If you don't mind if I make a short statement. I'm Susan Popowski. I drove four hours over here, last month, and this issue was tabled, with no courtesy to me. No one even spoke to me. I have. driven back. again. tonight, because I am very committed to the issue at stake. MR. TURNER-You didn't identify yourself and we didn't know you were in the room MRS. POPOWSKI-I'm sorry. I assumed that you knew. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. POPOWSKI-Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize. I own property on Glen Lake. It's been in my family for 75 years. I am approximately five houses away from the Docksider Restaurant. MR. TURNER-Which way? MRS. POPOWSKI-To the east. We are next to the Glenmore. the west side of the Glenmore. I have no illusions as to the effect that I will have by doing this. I didn't do it for that reason. I did it because of my commitment and my feeling that we have a terrible problem in that neighborhood, at this time. The prior variances that have been given to this establishment. regarding the deck and regarding the setbacks for their new expansion, in my feeling, are not in the best interest of Glen Lake. I stated. in the letter. the reasons why I feel that way. I feel that. if we are going to call the deck part of the restaurant. it becomes part of the restaurant. There are going to be 44 seats on that deck and to say that these people are not going to park anywhere. doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I have seen the cars allover that road. We have a playground, there. We cannot maneuver through that area, at this point in time, without any expansion at all, it is, currently, unacceptable, what has happened to that neighborhood. It is dangerous. There's no place to walk. I am concerned for the safety of .!!!at parents, my children, my nieces and nephews and everyone else in that area. I think, also, that we are splitting hairs over the definition of a tavern. I think we all know there's a bar there. The sign for that bar has been there for years and it is clear to everyone that 1 know, that there is a bar there. Now, we can all say that there's no bar there and we can say there's no deck, but there are still going to be the cars from these people, on Glen Lake Road, and we have a terrible problem there. The purpose of the Ordinance, from what I can read, and it is quoted there, directly, is to protect the community, and the values and the neighborhood and it is to protect, particularly in an area like that, where we're talking about the Lake. It is to protect all the natural resources in that area. If you choose to ignore this, I feel we are going to have a terrible, terrible problem, much worse than we already do have. The citizens of Glen Lake, particularly those in .!!!at neighborhood, can only rely on this Board to do the right thing. We have no other recourse. You are aware of the problems on Glen Lake Road. You are aware of the problems of Glen Lake, itself, and what has happened to that Lake, what is happening to that Lake. This is your community and I feel you owe it to yourself and you owe it to the rest of us to uphold the purpose of this Ordinance, which is to protect the community, to protect the neighborhood, particularly, from the safety hazards at stake. You can choose to vote, obviously, however, you wish, but what's right is right, in my mind, no matter how you vote. MR. TURNER-Before you sit down, I have a question for you. In '87, did you come before this Board? MRS. POPOWSKI-In '87, I was not aware of that variance. I didn't find out about that variance until very recently. MRS. GOETZ-Why would that be? MR. TURNER-You must have received notice. You're within 500 feet of it. MRS. POPOWSKI-I was not aware of the variance, at the time. I'm in Vermont, and whether it ever made it through the mail, I have no idea, but I was not aware of the variance, at that time. MRS. GOETZ-You are the property owner? 16 - MRS. POPOWSKI-My parents were, at the time of '87, actually. I am the property owner, now, that may be why. MR. TURNER-Okay, that's why. MRS. POPOWSKI-That may be why, yes, that's very possible. MR. TURNER-They didn't relay it to you. MRS. POPOWSKI-However, the issue is really not whether we were aware of the variance, because the fact is, if you gave them a variance for the deck, then I feel it just has to be counted in the parking. The deck is there. There's nothing we can do about that, now. They have that variance. MR. TURNER-I take a little bit of issue with you, over the restaurant and the tavern. Most eating places have a bar in them. MRS. POPOWSKI-That is true, but most of them do not adverti se it as a bar and most of them do not encourage bar use and there's a big difference between a place that I would go, just to have a drink, and that I would go to have a drink, before I have dinner. There's a big difference, I think. I think you have a multiple use, here. MR. TURNER-I don't think so. MR. KELLEY-I've got some questions. I don't live over there. I know where it is, but I don't live there. You talked about problems in the neighborhood. Could you be more explicit, as to what you think the problems are? MRS. POPOWSKI-I am addressing, mainly, here, because I feel this is the relevant issue, here, I'm addressing the traffic problems, because I think that that's the only thing before you, tonight. I think there are other problems and I don't know whether they are of your concern. I'm assuming that you're just going to deal with the parking, tonight, as regards to the deck, and the requirements for spaces, that is my concern. We have a terrible noise problem, that is another problem, but I don't think that's the issue, here, tonight. I'm assuming the parking is your issue, here, tonight. I'm concerned with being able to get through the road. I'm concerned with the cars and boat trailers going in and out of that parking lot. There is no room to maneuver, there, at all, and on weekend and weekend nights, or even during the week, that's a very busy place. It's a very successful business and a very busy place. MR. KELLEY-And you say the parking problems, in other words, you're saying that they park on the road? MRS. POPOWSKI-They're allover the place. Well, the lot's full. They have to go on the road. Where else are they going to go? You have to have parking for the number of seats you have, that's the reason there's an Ordinance, and if you don't have enough spaces, which I don't even believe they have now, they have to go somewhere. If it expands, then where are they going to go? MR. KELLEY-Okay, I don't know. I'm asking you, because I haven't seen them on the road, so I don't know. MRS. POPOWSKI-Yes, well that's my feeling. You need to drive over there in July. You need to see what it's really like. MRS. GOETZ-I'm just looking at the Definitions. In the Definitions for the Zoning Ordinance, Page 11, under Floor Area, Gross Floor Area means, B. COßlßercial Industrial, the total area in square feet within the exterior walls of a building or structure and when applicable, the sum total of all floor areas of the principal and accessory buildings or structures under single ownership or business. Now, would this deck be considered accessory structure. MR. TURNER-You'd have to look up Structures. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, it says, all floor areas. MRS. GOETZ-Of the principal and accessory. MR. TURNER-Buildings and Structures, you'd have to look that up, in that buildings are identified or supported by columns, walls, and a roof, a building. MR. SHEA-It has to have a roof over it, and the deck does not. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's got to have... MRS. POPOWSKI-If that's under your regulations, however, if you give somebody a variance, then you are saying they are the exception to the rule. Therefore, you have allowed them to use the deck as 17 -./ part of the restaurant. You established that, in this particular case. It's not your standard, because, obviously, your Ordinance does not say that applies to everybody, but, to me, once you give somebody a variance and say, okay, that deck can become part of the restaurant, then it becomes part of the restaurant. You've allowed it to become part of the restaurant and, therefore, you have to account for that in the parking. MR. TURNER-The deck's not identified in the Reg's. MRS. POPOWSKI-But ~ identified it, in the variance in 1987. You made it part of the restaurant. Itis not in the regulations, true, but you allowed it to become.... MR. TURNER-It's relative to parking. MRS. POPOWSKI-We can play semantics all night long, and I understand where this Board's going to go. I am not stupid. MR. TURNER-I have a right to disagree with you. MRS. POPOWSKI-You have every right to disagree with me. I can only say to you that the purpose of this Zoning Ordinance is to defend the cOlmlunity, the safety, and the traffic hazards, and all the problems that are entailed in a cOlIIßercial venture, like this, and it would certainly seem to me that the interest of Glen Lake and that neighborhood should be of some concern to this Board. MRS. GOETZ-There are deficiencies with this document, okay. MRS. POPOWSKI-I know that. I understand that. I have read it and I can see them. MRS. GOETZ-And I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, because we need to use common sense, and when this thing came before us, I remember bringing up the fact that we already had a variance on this property. The thing I feel that we need to deal with, here, is, what the Zoning Administrator uses when she makes a decision, and I can see, by reading it, what she used. It might be a deficiency. MRS. POPOWSKI-Well, I can see the definition of Restaurant. Right. My problem was, not the definition of the restaurant. I understand that, and I understand what she used. I think what happened was, the fact that the variances existed, I think, just got lost in the shuffle, you know, I mean, why wouldn't it have. There's no reason why you would automatically think, well, gee, did they have a variance in such and such. I understand that. However, I wanted to point out that they did, in fact, get a variance to make that deck. Now, the variance was given for spill over from the restaurant. When the restaurant was full, the reason for that deck was so that people could use it as the restaurant and, to me, roof or no roof, you have said that people can sit on that deck and eat there. Now, these people are going to drive cars, and the cars have to go somewhere. Now, you can play semantics all night long, but I'm the one that's going to see these cars all over the road and I've got to try to get by them, and I'm the one that is concerned about somebody on that road being ki lled. That road's been dangerous for 20 years and it is absolutely out of control, now. MRS. GOETZ-I don't think anybody could argue with what you're saying, but could I just finish, because I think we have to look at it from the legal point of view, and what criteria we should be using, in saying whether or not the Zoning Administrator made the right decision, and it seems like this could be a deficiency in the Ordinance, that that type of thing wasn't included in the parking schedule, but we have to look at, did she make the right decision, based on what she had before her, and, in my opinion, up to this point, I think she did make the right decision, based on what she had to work with, not that it was the right thing, in the Ordinance, and that there is a deficiency, perhaps. MRS. POPOWSKI-But when you give somebody a variance from your Ordinance, don't you, in fact, change the Ordinance, with regard to that person? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. GOETZ-Not as far as the parking schedule goes. MR. TURNER-It only goes with the property, that's all. MRS. POPOWSKI-Well, then, I can only come down to common sense, and I hope to God, I hope, that whoever gets hurt on that road, is not someone in my fami ly, that is all I can say, and I hope you can all sleep at night, when it happens. I can't say anything else. You can do whatever you feel you have to do, but that is how I feel about it and that is how my neighbors feel about it. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? MR. KELLEY-Amongst ourselves, well, I think I'll ask, while you're here, I know where the place is. I've been there, but I didn't happen to notice, are there street signs on the road that say no parking? 18 MR. TURNER-No. MRS. POPOWSKI-No, but it doesn't make any difference to me if there are, because people are going to go somewhere. Where are they going to go? You can say, No Parking. but they still have to park somewhere. They can't park on the playground. MR. GORALSKI-The Town Board has recently established a No Parking Zone in that area. MR~. POPOWSKI-That's fine, but that still doesn't make any difference. They can't park in the Lake. They've got to park somewhere. MRS. EGGLESTON-But they can be told. MR. KELLEY-Well, they're going to park in the parking lot. MRS. POPOWSKI-Who's going to tell them? Are you going to throw them out of the restaurant and say, half the restaurant's empty, but we don't have enough parking spaces? MR. TURNER-They're going to be ticketed, now. MR. KELLEY-Well. if you go to the drive-in theatre. and it's full, what do you do? You leave. MRS. POPOWSKI-But people don't do that. You've got to understand. they don't do that, and who's going to stand there and call. every five minutes. the police to come down on Glen Lake Road. let's be realistic. MRS. GOETZ-It's not going to happen. MRS. POPOWSKI-It's not going to happen. is right. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. okay. Other Board members, do you think that I'm assessing what's in the Zoning Ordinance, properly. as far as the parking schedule, as it exists right now? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHEA-It's a simple fonnula to follow, as to the number of parking spaces allowed and that will be pennitted. based on the prior variance. I think the crux of the matter is that, if this lady feels the way the majority of the people in the neighborhood feel, and that may very well be the case. when the last variance was granted, didn't seem to be that overpouring of sentiment. here, at the time, and the variance for the increased square footage to add on to the building, the parking should always be and, I think. at the time. was part of the issue, but it didn't seem to be a major problem, at the time, and I think that was probably one of the reasons that the variance was granted for the expansion and the expansion of the deck, but, at the time, no one seemed to. we talked about the penneability and the percolation of the parking lot and the runoff into the Lake. We talked about the side setbacks. the shoreline setback. We talked about the visibility. We talked about the impact on the Lake. There was some discussion on the impact. as far as traffic, because we know it is a busy establishment. but I don't recall this kind of sentiment and, if it had been as strong as this lady is expressing it. now, maybe lesser square footage would have been approved, and, therefore. the fonnula then applied to that would have necessitated fewer parking spaces. and then, possibly, not an overflow problem into the road. but none of that occurred. What did occur is that the variance was granted and the Zoning Administrator has applied the fonnula for the number of parking spaces allowed, by way of the way that the Zoning Ordinance is written. We're not factoring in the deck because it's not part of the fonnula It does not have a roof on it and it's not part of the floor plan. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think I differ with you. MRS. GOETZ-You do? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think if you read the word "Structure" and then go to the definition of a Structure. MR. KELLEY-It doesn't look like it has to have a roof on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. It says, !!!.t object constructed, installed. or pennanently placed on land, to facilitate land use and development or subdivision of land, including. but not limited to. buildings. sheds. single family dwellings, mobile homes. signs. it says nothing about a roof, all above ground tanks. fixtures. additions. alterations, etc. So, why, under the Structure, would that not make that part of the Floor Area, Gross Floor Area? MR. SHEA-I also recall one of the reasons that we allowed the deck to be there, and the size that it was. is that we all agreed that it's a summer business and that people want to be out on the deck. during the summer. It's not like the restaurant is going to be completely filled with people, during the midst of the summer. and the deck be filled. I think Mr. Barton said. at the time. that the reason he wanted a bi gger deck is because they all want to be out on the deck. They don't want to be .!!!. the restaurant. .n MRS. POPOWSKI-No, I believe he said, in his variance request, that he wanted the deck, because of the restaurant filled up so quickly. That is a quote from the variance. Now, unfortunately, at the time, MR. SHEA-I recall it the other way. MRS. POPOWSKI-This was three years ago. This business has, obviously, done very well, in three years, and more power to it. I think that's wonderful. I'm not against successful businesses. However, now at the expense of the neighborhood. Now, I'm sure, when this issue came up in '87, it certainly didn't occur to me and it didn't occur to anybody that this was going to expand and become what it has. Unfortunately, we don't all have that kind of foresight, and I'm not one to come out and start screaming about something before it has any impact on me and, perhaps that's being a little bit selfish, but I'm not going to fight something if I have no reason to fight it, and I wouldn't have had any objection to it, because I didn't realize anything about all the parking regulations, all the zoning. I mean, I didn't get into this, reading Zoning Regulations at night, until very recently, and I didn't anticipate this happening, and I would have assumed that a Board, when they allow a deck like that, would, somehow, say, and it was not in any of the discussion, the parking, when this was done, that they might say to themselves, okay, is this going to make a difference in the parking situation? Now, obviously, it didn't get addressed and we have a problem. Now, I don't know where we go, from here, but we've got a problem. I'd like, maybe, my question answered. Could you answer it for me, Pat? MRS. COLLARD-Well, first of all, the definition that you're quoting from is not part of the parking definition. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it relates to the total, the floor area and the gross floor area, which does relate to the parking. MRS. COLLARD-No, this Section 7.071 relates to computing parking spaces. determination, is used in computing square footage for a building permit. 85, is used for parking. This definition, in my This definition, on Page MRS. EGGLESTON-Which number is it, Pat? MRS. COLLARD-On Page 85, Joyce. MR. TURNER-We addressed the issue of structure versus building in one application, the Great Escape, when we determined that a structure was not the same as a building, the definition. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, when you did that and you have open areas like that, what did you contemplate for parking? I mean, if that whole restaurant is full, and the deck is full of tables, where are the parking spaces allotted for the people on the deck? MR. TURNER-In answer to your question, I think, at the time that we addressed the issue of the deck, I think most of the Board members felt that the use of the deck was very minimal. It was a seasonal use and seasonal, in that sense. You know, rainy days, nobody would be out there, anyway. Nights, buggy, nobody's going to be out on the deck. We addressed that question. We didn't talk about parking, relative to the deck. MR. SICARD-Let's see what O'Connor's got to say. I'd like to hear what they have to say about the restrictive parking of the Docksider. I'd like to see what they say about the crowded situation and so forth. MR. TURNER-Yes, okay. Any further questions? MRS. EGGLESTON-Not right now. MR. TURNER-Okay. We might have some later. Alright, Mr. O'Connor? MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor, from the law firm of Little and O'Connor and I'm hear representing Paul Barton who owns the Docksider, but I think this is a question of an appeal from the Building Administrator, and I think the Building Administrator is best in the position to respond. I've got some comments I would like to make. I don't know if you have any additional. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe you should open the public hearing, Mr. Chairman. MR. TURNER-Alright, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING, OPENED MRS. COLLARD-I feel that my response was read by Sue, that's all been said in that memo. 20 -- MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Basically, I'll digress for a minute, then, from the issue that I think is really before the Board, because I think you're simply being asked, did the Building Administrator correctly read Section 7.071, right, and, I think, if you read that Section, you'll find that the word "Structure" does not creep in there, at ~ll. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-It simply says, building, and then building is defined, elsewhere, within the Ordinance and, no where within the definition of building, does come the definition of deck. The whole reason that we're here is because we have, pending, a site plan application before the Planning Board, based upon two variances, which this Board granted, in this year, not in 1987. The 1987 variance is before our present Ordinance. I think it's before our present Definitions. The deck became nonconfonning, in October of 1988, when the new Ordinance was adopted and, from that point, forward, with proper notice to all the neighbors, a variance was granted, for our proposed expansion, that was before this Board, I think, in July. I wasn't representing the applicant, at that time. Since that time, the application has been part of the Site Plan process, before the Planning Board, and, maybe for your own infonnation, what we're talking about, here, is really a renovation, a redesign of an existing use, and a use that's been on Glen Lake for, probably, 50 years, maybe longer. I don't know how long Sullivan's operated it, as a business, before it went through the most current owners, ever since I've been on Glen Lake, in the 1950's, it's been there, as a business. We're not introducing a new use to the neighborhood and, in fact, at this time, we're not really talking about a big expansion. We're talking about 14 seats. A lot different than, maybe, what you looked at. We're talking about one additional bar seat. We're going from 15 to 16. We're talking about three additional seats, and an area by a fire place, for a waiting area for people that are going to have tables, and we're talking about additional, ten dining spots. So, we're talking about 14 seats, and we are redesigning, entirely, the septic system. We are redesigning, entirely, the site drainage, that will take drainage from the site, itself, from the parking lot, and from off site, that comes across Glen Lake Road, and that's where most of that drainage in that area comes. It comes off of Sullivan's Place or the road just above Sullivan's Place. We're talking about decreasing the other uses that are presently on the site and, really, are a trade off, to the 14 seats that we're asking for. Right now, we've had up to eight or nine, I forget which. I think it was nine seasonal rentals of boats, on the docks that are there. That's going to bè discontinued. We are only going to have two seasonal rentals for boats, on those docks, and those are going to be to people who are in the illlTlediate area. People who won't need to drive to get to their boat. There are a couple of families that have always kept a boat out there, and they will be allowed to continue that, but we're not going to have nonresident or non-Lake area people using the dockage for seasonal dockage. As part of our application to the Planning Board, and I admit that I'm digressing, we are limiting the number of day launches that we're going to allow on our ramp. We're not going to have any more than five trailer boats, from our site, at anyone time, and that's going to be a condition of it. We end up with, when we take the seasonal dock spaces away from, or the seasonal use of rentals, we end up with 14 spots that are actually usable for Lake residents to come to the site, and a lot of the business, during the SUlllTler, when the deck is open, which is in question, here, is from the Lake, and most people come in with the pontoon boats or party boats or whatever you want to ca 11 them, and they come. They use the dockage. They don't use the pa rki ng lot. We've gone outside of our application, entirely, and gone to the Town Board, about three months ago, and asked them to post Glen Lake Road. They are in the process of adopting provisions that will allow them to post it. So, if adjoining neighbors have complaints, they can have some remedy of that. They're going to post it, as I understand it, there's a public hearing on the 19th, and we would welcome all the support that we can get, if people think that there's a problem on Glen Lake Road, for the posting of it, from Sullivan Drive, Sullivan Place, on the east, which is by St. Mary's Bay, up to Chestnut, which is almost by Birch, and Paul Naylor suggested that. He suggested an area, widen enough, on both sides of the Docksider, to discourage people from parking outside of the prohibited area and walking to the Docksider. Part of what you said, Mr. Kelley, if the parking lot does become full, even though we're going to decrease our usage and the demand on the existing parking, they just aren't going to go there. They aren't going to have a place to go, and we really don't think we're going to have a problem. We've presented this to the Glen Lake Association. We presented it, first, to the Board of Directors, then we presented it, last night, to a meeting that was called, especially for this, on special notice to everybody who was a member of the Glen Lake Association. The finn of Miller and Mannix reviewed the Site Plan application, on behalf of the Glen Lake Association, so that there would be an independent voice looking at it, to see if there was any impact upon the Lake or any impact upon the neighbors. They adopted a resolution that they saw no negative impact upon the Lake. They applauded the fact that we're going to cut down on the seasonal dockage. They applauded the fact that we're going to take care of off site drainage. They applauded the site, and this is all part of the resolution, that we're going to limit the day use that's on the Lake. We've got petitions that we've submitted, as part of Site Plan Review, which, I think, have over 60 signatures, almost, maybe even 70 signatures, all in favor of this, all Lake residents, in fact, if you will, the three irmnediate neighbors, immediately between us and the last speaker, all have approved this. People who, this is going to have more impact on than, perhaps, it would them. So, what we've done is, really, put together a package that has some favorable impact. It does not have a negative impact upon the Lake. It doesn't have a negative impact upon the neighborhood. It doesn't have a negative impact upon the Town, but, that aside, I'll go back to the issue. I think it's simple. I don't know how it gets raised to a question, even, of interpretation, because, really it's a question of reading. You're talking about a particular issue. You're talking about parking 21 -- and there is a schedule and it sets forth the requirements of the schedule and the schedule says that, for a restaurant, parking is detennined by the square footage of the building and the definition of building is elsewhere in the Ordinance. The Section that referred to, Mrs. Eggleston, has to do with Gross Floor Space, and I think that ~ used by the Building Department for detennining Building Pennit. It's also detennined in one other provision in the Ordinance. If you look in the size of the buildings that are pennitted in each zone. You can have Gross Floor Space, and I think I got into that discussion with a shopping center application I had before you, what was Gross Floor Space, did we have to include entranceways and cormnon areas in a shopping center. That's the only place that Gross Floor Space, I think, is defined or used, or that definition is used, within the Ordinance. It's not used as part of the definition for parking and, secondly, I would address the second issue that Mrs. Collard touched upon and I think the speaker spoke of. This ~ a site with multiple uses and that Section on Parking says that each use shall be assessed it's own parking requirements. Our operation of a bar is incidental to our operation of a restaurant. If you take a look at the definition of restaurant, it says, facility for selling food, other than a tavern. Tavern is where the principal sale is of alcohol and we can show, and we've demonstrated to the Planning Board, or will be demonstrating to the Planning Board that, for July of 1990, our sales amounted to 71.5 percent, for food, and 28.5 percent, for alcohol beverages. For August of 1990, it was 72 percent food, 28 percent alcohol beverages. For the first three quarters of '90, it was 67 percent, 33 percent, and, for '89, it was 60 percent, 40 percent. What's happening is, Paul Barton has made a conscious decision to abandon the marina type aspect of the business and to concentrate on the restaurant business, and abandon the bar business. He wants to have a year round restaurant facility. He's busy, busy, busy during July and August. Right now, it's not that busy. If you had 15 cars over there, toni ght, and I wasn't there, but I was there, 1 ast night, there were, maybe, five cars. We hope to increase that a little bit better, during the winter months, and we think we have adequate parking. We don't think we're going to be a burden, and we, certainly, are going through all kinds of review, before the Planning Board, as to our Site Plan Review, as you started to talk about, earlier applications. So, I don't think there's any question that the Zoning Administrator, although I often disagree with her, in this particular instance, has made the proper interpretation. One, the parking is required for the restaurant, by definition of Building, not deck, and that the operation is restaurant operation and not a tavern, and we shouldn't be double dipped, and assessed what the fonnula would provide for tavern and for restaurant. Do you have questions of me? I have references, if you want. MR. TURNER-Any questions? MRS. EGGlESTON-I guess I might have one. This is a very blunt statement. It says, for any building having more than one use, parking space shall be required, as provided for each use. You said there are multiple uses? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, how do you get around, this is very blunt. There aren't any, if one of the uses is 25 percent and one is 75, the ratios that you gave, how do you rationalize? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I'll give you the exact facts, if you want. For the restaurant operation, you're talking 3,082 square feet, or you're talking 88 seats, so, it gets to a matter of whether we're talking 21 seats, 21 parking spots, because of seats, or 31 spots, because of the square footage of the building. In our proposal, we're being assessed at 31 seats, because of the size of the building. You take the larger. For a restaurant, it says, one parking spot per 100 square feet of building, or one for every four seats within the building, and, in fact, I think, even if we went and included the seats on the deck, the seats on the deck don't increase it, even if you use the seats, in total. You still would be talking, if you added the 44 seats that are on the deck, you'd only be talking a total of, like, 108 seats, and you'd be talking 27 seats, by seat calculations, as opposed to still, the higher square footage, which is 31. We're assessed two spots for the apartment use, which is upstairs. We're assessed three spots for the employees and we're assessed 10 spots for our boat launch and that's being in the sense that it's five cars, plus five trailers, and that's, basically, it. When we get all said and done, and we use all the calculations that you want, we're talking about a required 41 spots and we have 45 on the Site Plan Review. We have an excess of four spots. Excuse me, in that calculation, we had 36 seats for the restaurant. We had 3577 square feet. We had done a calculation where, if we had the deck, and the deck was required to be included, we were going to eliminate a section of the restaurant and that's what got us down to the 3,000 feet, but, as finished, with the addition, you're talking 3577 feet, within the building, and that's 36 seats. MRS. GOETZ-I went in there for the site inspection, but I don't honestly remember. Is there a bar? MR. O'CONNOR-There's a bar as you go in. MR. TURNER-As you go in. MR. O'CONNOR-Straight in and to the right, problem there, and if you really go take I've been in the restaurant many times. I live at Glen lake, during the sununer. or straight in ahead of you, I guess it would be. The biggest a look at the site, and I was amazed, when I really, I did. I've been on the deck many times during the surmner, because You don't know that the kitchen is behind the bar, on the 22 west end of the building, okay, and, probably, about, four to five hundred square feet, considering the fact that they've got an 8 by 8 walk-in cooler inside the kitchen. That kitchen's not much bigger than many house kitchens, and they run the restaurant out of that. Part of the reason that they run the restaurant out of that is, over in the other end of the building is where they have all their freezers. They've got their dough machine. They've got some stuff over there. It just is not well, it's not set up for the restaurant that it is, and that's the whole reason. If you take a look at the septic system and the drainage systems that are being devised and the expense of putting them in, you know, for 14 seats, themselves, they probably wouldn't be justified, but the idea of trying to make it into a year round, healthy business that can operate in an efficient, safe manner, that's what the whole thing's about. It's not an expansion. It's not for the purpose of attracting loads more new business. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the Ordinance is clear. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And I think that's what your task is, that's what your job is. Was the Ordinance properly interpreted by the Administrator? Was her decision correct? MR. TURNER-Okay, anyone else wish to be heard? MRS. POPOWSKI-We can gloss this over and we can make it all sound just wonderful, with a soothing proposition on what's happening, here. Now, if the reason for, this really is getting way beyond the issue, but if the reason for expanding is to improve the facility, I own a restaurant. I know what it's all about. If this is the reason, then you really don't need to add seats, at all, and if we're going to talk about all this wonderful decrease in the need for parking, I'm thrilled, because I went down there, on a Wednesday night, in August, and there were ~ cars in that parking lot, for the existing restaurant. Now, we are, now, talking about adding 14 seats and they're going to be used here and there and everywhere. The parking lot's going to get smaller because of the septic system. I'm just trying to deal with reality. I realize it doesn't fit into the nice little words and all the legal terms and the Ordinance and everything else, but the reality is, 59 cars on a Wednesday night in August, and I don't know where you're going to go, from here, but I'm going to say it, again, we have a problem and somebody has got to do something about it. MR. TURNER-Okay, thank you. Public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-The only question before us is the interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator, as to Definition 97 ß, that's the only issue before us. Is she right or is she wrong? MR. KELLEY-If you read it the way it's written, not necessarily saying it's right, but if you read it the way it was written. MR. SICARD-I think that street parking should be a problem for the Town and not us. I think if they park on the street, if the signs are up and it's done properly, they should be ticketed. MR. TURNER-If they park in the street, they're in trouble. They're going to get ticketed. That will give them reason to ticket, and I don't think, as a business person, that Paul would want that to occur, anyway. I don't think he does, that's why he designed the place like he has. Alright, lets rule on the appeal. Do you agree the Zoning Administrator's right, in her definition? MR. KELLEY-I do. MR. TURNER-I do. Do you have a motion? MR. KELLEY-Is that what we have to do? MR. TURNER-Yes, lets have a motion to either agree or not to agree. toTION ON mTICE OF APPEAL m. 1-90 SUSAN C. POPOWSKI THAT THE mNING ADMINISTRAlOR DETERMINED THE mNING ORDINANCE PROPERLY WHEN REFERRING 10 SECTION 7.071 OFF STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION, LETTER B. FLOOR AREA FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING PARKING RECJ,IIREJENTS SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE IIORlmNTAL AREA WITHIN EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE SEVERAL FLOORS OF A IIJILDING, EXCWDING THE BASÐEJfT, CELlAR, AND ATTIC AREAS, USED PRIMARILY FOR STORAGE OR SERVICE. ALSO, THAT THE OUTSIDE DECK IS mT ADDRESSED IN THE mNING ORDINANCE, AS IT PERTAINS 10 THE PARKING SCHEIIILE COtFUTATION, Introduced by Susan Goetz, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner 23 "- NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr MR. O'CONNOR-Mrs. Goetz, would you object to, maybe, a simpler way of saying she was correct in determining that the square footage of the deck not be included in the calculation for the restaurant requirements of parking, as well as what you've said, so that there's no question. That's what you've said. MRS. COLLARD-I didn't say that, though. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you saying that the deck is not included? MRS. COLLARD-I'm just using the definition to compute parking, per 7.071. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Aren't you saying that the deck is not included? MRS. COLLARD-Not necessarily. MR. TURNER-Because that is the issue before the Planning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think you did, in your letter. MRS. COLLARD-Alright, in my memo. I apologize. You're right. MR. O'CONNOR-And I think that's what's been appealed. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's before the Planning Board. MR. COLLARD-Alright, you're right. MR. O'CONNOR-Is the deck included or not included, and you're saying that it's not included. MRS. COLLARD-You're right. MR. GORALSKI-It's not included in the Puking Schedule. MR. O'CONNOR-It's not included for parking. MR. GORALSKI-It's not included in the Parking Schedule. MR. TURNER-It's not included in the Parking Schedule, right. MR. O'CONNOR-In the calculations per the parking schedule. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MRS. COLLARD-Alright, we'll go with that one. MRS. POPOWSKI-Why don't we add, as per your Zoning Ordinance, so that we know that there is a flaw in the Ordinance, and at least we can go from there. Why don't we admit, at this point, that there is a problem with the Ordinance, and get it in writing. So, that this doesn't all come screaming back at us, in five years. I don't plan on being out of that property. I plan to be there for the rest of my life. I'll be back, believe me. So, why don't we clarify that, a little bit more, right now, if we can. If the Ordinance is deficient, is there some way we can't state that, in the motion? MS. CORPUS-I believe that, legally, that would not be grounds for the Board's interpretation. The Board is limited to the Zoning Administrator's decision before it. MRS. GOETZ-Pat, I'm looking at your memo, on the question about the number of uses, also. MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-And then, when you say, the principal use of this property is the operation of the Docksider Restaurant, is that the answer to that question about the number of uses? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-You know, rather than specifically saying, there are so many uses on the property. MRS. COLLARD-Well, I was replying to a question from the Planning Board, in this memo, and they wanted me to define the number of uses on that property and that's what I was doing in this memo, as well 24 '-....-- ~ I was telling them that there's a restaurant and there's a boat launch, and there is an apartment. MRS. EGGLESTON-And where is the bar? MR. SHEA-Part of the restaurant. MRS. COLLARD-The bar is part of the restaurant. MR. TURNER-It's part of the restaurant. MRS. GOETZ-So, you do not consider it a separate use? MRS. COLLARD-The bar? MRS. GOETZ-Right. MRS. COLLARD-No. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MRS. POPOWSKI-Excuse me, but I don't interpret her letter as, I may be wrong, but your letter really doesn't say that there isn't a tavern there. All your letter says, or the memo says, is that the restaurant, as defined, is a place, other than a tavern, that's the definition of a restaurant. MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MRS. POPOWSKI-But it doesn't say that there isn't a tavern there, that is not part of this memo. You just said, the restaurant is defined as a place and that's the principal use. MRS. COLLARD-Right. MRS. POPOWSKI-But this does not exclude the fact that there is a tavern there, or can be interpreted to be a tavern, there, and that it is another use. Her memo, I don't believe, says that. MR. TURNER-No, but just let me clarify one thing. The definition of a tavern is that the principal. Do you want me to read it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, read it. MR. TURNER-Tavern, principal income is derived from the sale of alcoholic beverages. MRS. POPOWSKI-Okay, if we're going to talk about, now, we're going to include, here, a marina and a boat launch, perhaps, okay. Now, they're not the principal source of income, but they are another use, on this property. Because there is one main use, it does not exclude the fact that there are smaller uses. The tavern does not have to be the main use. It can exist, however, and still be a use. They're not mutually exclusive. Why would there be? If I go there to have a drink, I have to park. I may not choose to eat, and I know many people that go.... MRS. COLLARD-This is the way the Ordinance defines it. I didn't do it. MRS. POPOWSKI-I realize that. No, I'm not arguing with this interpretation. I think you've interpreted it as just to say the definition of a restaurant, but it doesn't exclude the fact that there is a tavern on that property and that judgement, I think, still has to be made, not here. MR. SHEA-There is not a tavern and a restaurant. There is restaurant. MR. TURNER-Restaurant. MRS. COLLARD-And a restaurant serves beverages. MR. SHEA-Restaurant's defined as the majority of the sales being for food. Tavern is the majority of the sales being that of alcoholic beverages. It's one or the other. This happens to be a restaurant. It also happens to have other uses, that being a boat launch and an apartment. MRS. POPOWSKI-And a marina. MR. SHEA-But it is not a tavern. It's defined and any way that I think that anyone can look at it, based on the definition as restaurant, and that's what Mrs. Collard's letter refers to. MRS. POPOWSKI-I realize what she has said. She has just defined it as a place, other than a tavern. I realize that, but I'm not saying, I don't think she actually made the step and said, in this letter, and I don't think it should be in the motion, that she denied the fact that there is a tavern or could be a tavern. I don't think that really came to issue, here. 25 ',--- MR. SHEA-I don't see it as being germane. It there is no tavern, here. MRS. POPOWSKI-Well then, why don't we keep it out of the motion, then, that's fine. I'd just as soon see it out of the motion. That if it's not germane, I'd like to see it not in the motion. I mean, this is bad enough. MR. O'CONNOR-By raising the issue of the determination, in the appeal, I think we're entitled to a clarification of it. I think Mrs. Collard was responding to a Planning Board inquiry, is this a tavern and a restaurant, and, by you saying, it is a restaurant, marina, and apartment, what you are saying, it is not a tavern? MRS. COLLARD-That's correct. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-The tavern is incidental. The bar operation is incidental to the restaurant, and they should look upon it as a restaurant, marina, and tavern, and I think if they have that clarification, it will make things much simpler. MR. TURNER-You said that, restaurant, marina, and tavern. MR. O'CONNOR-Restaurant, marina, and tavern. MR. TURNER-Leave the tavern out. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-That's what your reply was. MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Our problem is, we don't have the inquiry that the Planning Board gave you. MRS. COLLARD-And I left it in my office, unfortunately. MR. O'CONNOR-So, we're reading half a letter or listening to half a phone conversation. MRS. GOETZ-Is the public hearing closed, or am I getting confused, here? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is. MR. 0' CONNOR- (Referri ng to the moti on) I don't thi n k you addressed the appeal. She di d address the deck. She did say the deck was addressed in our Ordinance. It wasn't included. You're saying it was not even addressed. MRS. GOETZ-I said it was not included in the Off Street Parking, in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. GORALSKI-It's not addressed in the Ordinance. MRS. COLLARD-In the Parking Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-Parking Computations. MR. GORALSKI-I recommend that you vote on the motion on the table. MR. O'CONNOR-Read back your motion and see if you said that, Sue. MRS. GOETZ-I can't read it back, but Maria can read it back. MS. GAGLIARDI-Read motion back. MR. TURNER-Alright, vote, please. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, are you going to address the question of whether or not a tavern is to be considered a separate use, on this property, as determined by the Zoning Administrator? MR. SHEA-There is no tavern. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we would appreciate a motion to that effect, if you're in concurrence with that thought. I think you're correct, but I want to have it clear, and I want to have a record clear, so that, when I go to the Planning Board, they don't end up sending something back here, for another month. 26 MR. KELLEY-Was that part of the appeal? MRS. POPOWSKI-This wasn't part of my appeal. I believe we were talking about the deck, and I believe that motion ought to just stand as it is. MR. KELLEY-I agree. MR. TURNER-I know what you're saying, Mr. O'Connor, but it's not in here, and she's correct. Here's the notice, right here. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I would take exception. I understand your ruling, Mr. Chainnan, but I would ask council, when she puts the decision into appeal, the decision, itself, is an appeal. I've asked for an interpretation, or an explanation, by Mrs. Collard, saying that the principal uses were A, B, and C. Did she mean that it not included a tavern. She has indicated, in her narrative, that it did not include. MS. CORPUS-Mr. O'Connor, if you wish to appeal part of the Zoning Administrator's decision, and bring it before the Board, you may do so, however, Mrs. Popowski has detennined what parameters her appeal has taken, and she has detennined that that is not part of her appeal and the Board and the Board is restricted by that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I take an exception to that ruling, if that's the advice you're glvlng the Board. We're just going to be back here, next month, to detennine whether or not a tavern is an included use on this premises. MS. CORPUS-You do have that option. MR. SHEA-I don't think it relates to trying to define it as a tavern, whether it is or isn't. I think the appeal was, with regards to the deck. The deck is a structure. It's not a use. MR. O'CONNOR-It's not a building, you mean. MR. TURNER-The issue that Mr. O'Connor's relating to is the fact that, before the Planning Board, the issue is, the discussion of whether there is a tavern on that piece of property and they're relating the parking computations, as related to being a tavern and a restaurant. MS. CORPUS-The Planning Board can bring that issue before the Zoning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-It's my understanding that the decision of the Zoning Administrator was being appealed, and that's the way it was advertised. It wasn't advertised that it was a particular portion of the decision. MR. GORALSKI-If you read what was, this .i!. what is advertised: "Request for appeal by Susan C. Popowski regarding Zoning Administrator's decision as outlined in the memorandum dated August 29, 1990 regarding J. 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. Public Hearing: November 14, 1990" MR. 0 'CONNOR-O kay. before the Board. restaurant? When it says, as regard that decision, the whole decision, the whole letter is Is there anyone on the Board who feels that this is a tavern, exclusive of the MR. TURNER-I don't think that's at issue, right now. MR. KELLEY-If you need an interpretation, come back and file for one. MR. TURNER-I know where it's going to put you, but that's the crux of the matter, right there, and that's where we're going to stand on it, unless you want to appeal it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. TURNER-The motion stands. MR. O'CONNOR-As to the motion that was made, the word that you used, within the motion was, not considered, is that what you used, or not addressed? MR. TURNER-Not addressed, I believe. MR. O'CONNOR-Would you have any objection to a motion saying that that, substituting, "excluded", as opposed to not addressed? MRS. GOETZ-I have a problem with you trying to put words in my mouth. That's my motion and we've had the vote. I honestly feel that the subject is closed. 27 --' MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I addressed my comments to the whole Board, Mrs. Goetz, not just to you. MRS. GOETZ-Well, how does everybody else feel? MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't have a problem with your words. MR. TURNER-I don't. Do you, Jeff, do you have a problem with her wording? MR. KELLEY-I voted for it. I voted, I voted. If I didn't like it, I guess I shouldn't have voted. MR. TURNER-Okay. (End of Second disk) 28 -- - NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-90 ATIORNEY PHILIP V. CORTESE REGARDING ADICOIII:O, INC. DENIAl OF SIGN PERMIT TAX MAP NO. 110-5-2, 235 QUAKER ROAD PHILIP CORTESE, PRESENT MR. CORTESE-My name is Phil Cortese and I represent Adi, commco with regard to their application for an appeal of decision by the Zoning Administrator denying a permit for a sign. Adicommco is in the business of putting up standard advertising panels and, recently, concluded an agreement with Mr. Seeley, who is the owner of the property, to use that piece of property for a sign. Now, as I understand it, the Seeley family had a billboard on that location for over 20 years. As a matter of fact, the use of the property, for a billboard, preexisted the Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted in 1976. So, the use was already existing, at the time. As a matter of fact, the billboard that was on the Seeley property is not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and the re-construction of it, by Adicommco, in July of this year, was to put the billboard, or the standard advertising panel, into conformance with the Sign Ordinance. Adicolllllco did not believe, initially, that they needed a permit for this, because there was already an existing billboard. When they were told that a permit needed to be filed with the Zoning Administrator, they did so, immediately. The Zoning Administrator, then, after a couple of exchanges, made a ruling, based on Article 5 of the Sign Ordinance, indicating that no new advertising panels are to be put up. The argument contained in our Notice of Appeal, basically, is, first of all, this is a standard advertising panel, which is a specific definition and that is, a board that's 25 by 12 feet, no more than 25 by 12 feet. Secondly, what Adicommco is doing is simply putting up a sign that now conforms with the Zoning Ordinance and is taking down a sign that had not been in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and, as a matter of fact, had never been in confonnance with the Zoning Ordinance, since it had been initiated, in 1976. The difficulty situation that Adicolllllco is in, here, is that by putting up the sign that they're putting up, they are coming into compliance with the Sign Ordinance. Had they opted to use the sign that the Seeley family had, on the piece of land, the Zoning Administrator could have come in, under the Sign Ordinance, and required that it be torn down, because it did not conform with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. So, what they're doing is, they're taking a use that preexisted the Sign Ordinance, they're taking a billboard that had been there for a period of, approximately, 20 years, that did not conform with the Sign Ordinance, and they're replacing it with a standard advertising panel, which does, in fact, conform with the Sign Ordinance. Now, in the Definitions Section of the Sign Ordinance, there is a separate definition for advertising panels and a separate definition for standard advertising panels. What Adicommco's putting up is a standard advertising panel. It can be seen by the engineer's drawings, which are attached to the Notice of Appeal. The only other thing that we'd point out, at this time, is that, in the Town of Queensbury, not a half a mile from this location, is a sign going up, where an old billboard used to be, and this sign, as I understand, the sign has a permit. It's a Tom Certoma. It cannot possibly conform to the Sign Ordinance. I have some originals of the sign that Adicommco is putting up, which shows the existing billboard, right on the location, which I'll pass around to the Board. I also have some pictures of the sign, again, not half a mile from this location, also in a commercial manufacturing district, as this is and you'll see that this sign cannot possibly be conforming to the Sign Ordinance, yet, it is being allowed to go up. MR. TURNER-Where is this sign supposed to be? MR. SHEA-It's just west of Taylor Welding Supply, on the boulevard. MR. CORTESE-Right. MRS. GOETZ-It's a brand new sign? MR. SHEA-No, this one, here. The wooden one. MR. CORTESE-This old one. MR. TURNER-Is that Mike Baird's sign? MR. SHEA-No, it's not. MRS. COLLARD-I don't know where that is. Where is that? MR. TURNER-It's between Jerry's and Taylor Welding Supply. MARTIN SEELEY MR. SEELEY-Martin Seeley. That sign that I have noticed, also, going up looks like it's being built by a couple of high school kids, is directly west of Taylor's, just before the bar, tucked back in, right on the curve, opposite the entrance to the cement works. MRS. GOETZ-And you said that this sign has a permit, this new one? I thought that's what you said. MR. SEELEY-There's none posted. 29 '-- MR. TURNER-There's none posted there. MR. CORTESE-We would say upon infonnation and belief. We don't know whether or not that sign has a pennit. MRS. GOETZ-Well, thank you for bringing it to our attention. MR. CORTESE-You're very welcome. What we really want to bring to your attention is the fact that Adicormnco, which is in the business of putting up these signs, that this sign, by the way, exceeds the requirements, the sign that Adicormnco is putting up, exceeds the requirements of your Sign Ordinance, with regard to wind, pounds per square inch, wind resistance, and is a steel sign. MR. TURNER-Well, if you've got a pennit for it, you've got to meet those qualifications, anyway. MR. CORTESE-Yes. I understand. MR. TURNER-That's part of the pennit. MRS. GOETZ-I'm trying to understand why the sign pennit was denied. Pat, this is on the Adicormnco, did you deny it because part of the sign was down at this point. MRS. COLLARD-No. I denied a pennit for the new construction. MRS. GOETZ-Based on? I'm trying to understand why you denied it. MRS. COLLARD-Based on the Section of the Ordinance that states that no new advertising panels shall be constructed. MRS. GOETZ-And that's my question. The way it looks, here, in the picture. It looks like half of it is down and half of it was still there. MR. SHEA-They stopped construction. MR. SEELEY-Could I shed some light? MRS. COLLARD-Sure. MR. SEELEY-In 1973, the spring there of, there was a billboard there, that had been there since the late, as I'm told by the old timers in the neighborhood, had been there since the late 40's or early 50's and was viewed, going up Boulevard, along preexisting Quaker Road. Mr. Krebs, who owned imperial furniture, just up the street, approached me and said, hey Martin, that old billboard's getting ready to fall down, why don't we replace it with a new one. Where upon, we had the bulldozer there. We pushed the old billboard down, which was !. lot larger than the one that Mr. Krebs and I built. It was very close to the size of the one they are now planning on building. We pushed it over, the two of us built the primitive structure you see, which worked for many, many years, and has been left vacant. At some time, many years ago, we were issued, and I don't have the exact date, we were issued a little license plate, and, unless somebody's removed it, it's still there, on the old billboard that still stands along beside the new one, which we understood was a State license for a billboard, that all billboards had to have them and the State just sent it to us. We nailed it up on the center, on the south side of the billboard. When Mr. Krebs left his furniture store, the agreement was that I would provide the land. He would provide all the materials. I would help him erect the billboard, and he would maintain it and do all of the repainting, because he was an old sign painter and he did that for many years. When he retired, moved to Florida, the billboard just kind of went by the wayside. I was approached by these people, to replace it. We saw no problem, whatsoever, because we already had a State license for the billboard and it preexisted any zoning. MRS. GOETZ-But it was gone, altogether, at one point? MR. SEELEY-Only for a matter of days. Like I said, I bulldozed the old one down and, in the next week, we erected the new one, which you see, probably, in the pictures. Where you see part of it off, knowing that that old billboard, that I put up, was going to come down, I sent one of my fellas down, because they're going to build the new one, and we sent him down to see if he could salvage the plywood. Well, the pliwood was completely rotted and eaten by ants, so you see part of this face of the new billboard off. We stopped. We said, well, we'll just bulldoze the thing over, later, because there was no salvage. MRS. GOETZ-So, half of it had been there, but half of it's been gone, for awhile, is that it? MR. SEELEY-Only since they started construction. MRS. GOETZ-So, at some point, it was all gone, altogether? 30 ------- MRS. COLLARD-No. MR. SEELEY-No. MRS. GOETZ-That's what I'm trying to understand. MR. SEELEY-The only time there has not been a billboard there, since the late 40's, was about a week, duri ng the time, in between the constructi on of the 01 done, the fi rst bill board on the site, and the one I built. MRS. COLLARD-Back in the early 70's. MR. SEELEY-That was in 1973, early summer 1973. MRS. COLLARD-Right. Sue, it's 1973, is what he's talking about. MR. SEELEY-That billboard you see, there, in your picture, has been there since 1973. MR. TURNER-The blue and white one? MR. SEELEY-The blue and white one, right. MRS. COLLARD-Right now, you've got half of an old and half of a new. MR. SEELEY-Exactly. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. SEELEY-I started to demolish the old blue and white one because we thought we could salvage some materials out of it. There was no salvage. It's rotted, and that's where we quit. MR. SHEA-I have a question for Mr. Cortese. Adiconmco is in the sign building and leasing and then sale of advertising, correct? MR. CORTESE-Yes, it is. MR. SHEA-So, they're very much aware of the kinds of regulations in the very states. Do they do business in states other than New York State? MR. CORTESE-They do business, mainly, in New York State, but different Towns have very different regulations, with regard to signs. Some Towns have no Sign Ordinances, whatsoever. MR. SHEA-But, in recent years, with a trend away from road signage and large billboards, for example, in Vermont, they're not allowed, at all. I would imagine that this company is very much aware of the sensitivity of these things and how they must go about replacing or erecting new boards. MR. CORTESE-They're very careful about this. In this instance, they really did not believe that they needed to have a sign permit. They're building a 12 by 25 foot double faced signed. It's not like they were hiding this from anybody. This is on a major road. Also, this is a steel constructed sign. We've poured concrete foundation. So, it takes some time to construct it. There was never any intention, on the part of Adi, COIIIIICO to sneak this past, in the Town of Queensbury. The assumption was that because Mr. Seeley already had the State permit that you need, for these kind of signs, and because the sign was already existing, that they could go ahead and replace the existing sign, which does not conform to the Ordinance, with one that does conform to the Ordinance, and they admit, in the papers, that they were wrong, that they should have applied, and the minute they found out they should have applied, they did, and they found out by a stop work order, and, as soon as they got the stop work order, they applied for a permit. MR. SHEA-I guess my question, maybe, to Pat, is, that if the sign conforms to the regulations, as far as size and construction, then it is allowed, so long as it meets those requirements, correct? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. SHEA-You can't build a ~ one, on a new site. MRS. COLLARD-Can't build a new billboard. MR. SHEA-Right, a new billboard, is that correct? MRS. COLLARD-According to this section of the Ordinance, yes. 31 "-- -- MR. CORTESE-As I interpret this section of the Ordinance is, you can't go out and take a location, where there has never been a billboard, and build a billboard, that's what I interpret this. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CORTESE- But I don't interpret the Si gn Ordi nance as sayi ng, no new bi 11 boa rds ever, because, in the preamble, excuse me? MR. SICARD-It must conform to the Ordinance. MR. CORTESE-That's correct, because, in the preamble, it says, regulating existing and proposed advertising, existing and proposed advertising, outdoor advertising signs and signs of all types. So, the intention of the Ordinance is to regulate, not to completely exclude a particular type of advertising, first of all. Secondly, the section that the Zoning Administrator refers to, which is Section 5.100, Subsection 17A, says, no new advertising panels. Section C says that standard outdoor advertising panels maybe continued and maintained in any C and M zone, but not double decked. This is not double decked. This is not a new advertising panel. This is a standard advertising panel, as defined in the Ordinance. It's a use that had been existing on that property, since, as Mr. Seeley testifies, today, since the 1940's. So, this is not a new use, whatsoever, for this piece of property. What it is, is it's taking a use that had existed and had not conformed to the Sign Ordinance, and turned it into a conforming use, in accordance with the Sign Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-But, the thing is, a brand new advertising panel doesn't conform to the Sign Ordinance, that's the point. The use was there, but not that particular sign. MR. CORTESE-Right. This is a replacement of an existing advertising panel. MRS. GOETZ-And that's the part that isn't allowed. If you were just maintaining and, maybe, upgrading the existing one. MR. CORTESE-It's the part that's required, under the Penalty Section. MR. TURNER-Are you talking about Penalty for Failure to Maintain? MR. CORTESE-Nonconformi ng Si gns. I'm referri ng, now, to Secti on 7.100, Nonconforming Si gn whi ch is in conflict with the provisions of the Ordinance, will be brought into conformity, in all respects, or shall be removed within 10 years of the effective date. Now, the Ordinance was not enforced, with regard to this. It says that the nonconforming sign will be brought into conformity. The nonconforming sign, currently on the property, is being brought into conformity, in accordance with Section 7.100, called Nonconforming Signs, first of all. Secondly, under Penalties, Failure to Maintain, the Penalty Section is 10.100, and this would be Subsection 3, if the sign is not maintained 1.!l accordance with the Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator can order it torn down, and actually charge the property owner for the demolition and removal of the debris. We get into a situation, here, where you can interpret the Zoning Ordinance as regulating signs, or you can interpret the Zoning Ordinance as arranging it so that, eventually, every single sign will be torn down and removed. If it's the intention of the Sign Ordinance to tear all signs down, eventually, it should say that, and the preamble should not say what the preamble says. MR. TURNER-Mr. Cortese, can I interject? MR. CORTESE-Certainly. MR. TURNER-Under Definitions, Article 2, at the top of the page, 1. Advertising panel, sign relating to a product, servi ce, acti vity, busi ness, or establ i shment that's not on the premi ses on whi ch the sign is located or freestanding sign larger than 150 square feet, commonly called a billboard. MR. CORTESE-Right. MR. TURNER-That identifies a billboard. MR. CORTESE-That does identify a billboard. MR. TURNER-Right. So, then, it goes over, further, here, to say, 17, that no new billboards will be constructed. MR. CORTESE-Well, I understand that. Could I also point out that advertising panels is one definition. Also in Definitions, under 23, is a definition for a Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel. So, there are two separate definitions, here, and Number 5 refers to two separate sections, as far as I'm concerned. One dealing with no new advertising panels. In this case, we're not putting up a new advertising panel, in accordance with the Definition under Subsection 1. We're putting up a Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel, in accordance with the Definition under Section 23. So, yes, we're not putting up, and I agree with the Zoning Administrator when the Zoning Administrator says no new advertising panels. We're 32 -' not putting up a new advertising panel. We're putting up a Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel and there are two separate definitions for those, and if you do the square footage on them, you'll find that they come up to two separate sizes, for signs, if there are two separate definitions, and two separate Sections, under the Subsection that the Zoning Administrator is referring to. MR. TURNER-The first one says, larger than 150 square feet. MR. CORTESE-I understand that, and the second one says, Standard Outdoor Panels. MR. TURNER-Right, and it identifies it by 25, horizontally, and 12, vertically. MR. CORTESE-If you'll permit me, as .!.. interpret the Sign Ordinance and I understand, and I don't mean to tread, whatsoever, on your jurisdiction, here. I appreciate that it's your job to interpret it. It's my job, simply, to make the arguments. As I understand the Sign Ordinance, having read it, now, any number of times, the intention of the Town of Queensbury is not to allow for those advertising panels that we see, in the pictures that I passed out. Those are not to be allowed. What is to be allowed are the Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels, like the ones being built by Adicormnco, because there are two separate definitions, one for Advertising Panels and one for Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels, and the Sign Ordinance contemplates a regulation, not an exclusion. If you don't allow any other Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels, then the Ordinance would need to be rewritten, so that, over a certain period of time, where owners of Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels could then advertise their investment, say, over a 10 year period. After that 10 year period, there will be no new signs, literally, period, and, as a matter of fact, in some jurisdictions, given that kind of ameturization, these advertising companies are required to take the signs down, after an ameturization period, that is a chance for them to recapture their investment. Nothing in the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance indicates that, nothing whatsoever. This Ordinance talks about regulation, not exclusion. What Adiconmco is trying to do, they want to make it as nice as possible, as far as Outdoor Advertising Signs go. They're trying to conform to the Ordinance. They're trying to take a situation that didn't conform, and turn it into a conforming situation. It's in a Conmercial Manufacturing District. They have not put up a Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel in a Residential District. This is a Cormnercial Manufacturing strip. MR. TURNER-I'll tell you, the idea behind the Advertising Panel and Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel was to get rid of them, eventually, down the road, get rid of them. MR. CORTESE- I understand that, but I understand that that may be what your idea is, but that's not what your...... MR. TURNER-And that's why it says, no new ones to be constructed. MR. CORTESE-But that's not what your Ordinance says. MR. TURNER-I think it does. MR. CORTESE-I very respectfully disagree with you, and would indicate to you that my client has expended, will be expending over $10,000, based on a fair reading of the Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Well, I think, if I were a company in that kind of business, that I would check with the proper authorities, before I even attempted to do anything. MR. CORTESE-And the Ordinance provides for a penalty for people who have not gotten a permit, prior to the beginning of construction. As a matter of fact, we sent, with our application for a Sign Permit, the appropriate amount money, taking into account the penalty, and that check was returned by the Zoning Admini strator. MR. TURNER-Okay, but, let me ask, have they put up any advertising panels in this area, previous to thi s one? MR. CORTESE-I'm not sure, in the Town of Queensbury. JOE DIAGASTINO MR. DIAGASTINO-They're all up. They've been up. They were constructed. They've been here. They're all grandfathered in. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but have you put any new ones up, any place near here? MR. DIAGASTINO-My name is Joe Diagastino. I'm the General Manager of Adiconmco and I was responsible for getting a lease from Mr. Seeley. To answer your question, sir, no, we haven't. We've taken some down . MR. TURNER-Why did you take them down? 33 MR. DIAGASTINO-Because the property owner, the property was being developed for other reasons. MR. TURNER-Alright, but were you ordered to take any down, any place? MR. DIAGASTINO-No, sir. MR. TURNER-They were taken down because of poor maintenance? MR. DIAGASTINO-No, sir. They were taken down because of the current person that owned the property wanted to develop the property. MR. TURNER-Yes, okay. MR. DIAGASTINO-So, we had no right to be on their property, because our lease was up. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. KELLEY-Yes. The sign that you applied for the permit for was 25 feet wide and 12 feet high? MR. CORTESE-Right. MR. KELLEY-Okay, and if I read this, it says that a Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel, somewhere, here, I thought it said that it was 25 feet by 12 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. Page 23, under Definitions. MR. KELLEY-Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel. Twenty five feet, horizontally, and twelve feet high. MR. CORTESE-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay, so, you're saying you have a Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel? MR. CORTESE-I'm saying that what is being constructed on that site, at this time, is a Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel that are replacing Advertising Panels that were there, way before the Sign Ordinance took effect. There were four signs there. We're replacing them with four signs. MR. KELLEY-Okay, so you're saying it's a Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel, and you go up to the top of this Number 17. It says, Advertising Panels shall meet the following requirements, and one of the requirements is, under C, that it be a Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel, and you just said, that's what you have, okay. So, now, you go back up to A, and it says, no new Advertising Panels shall be constructed. MR. CORTESE-That's correct. MR. KELLEY-So, why are we having this discussion? MR. SHEA-There's a difference between Standard Advertising Panel and Advertising Panel. There's a distinct difference. MR. CORTESE-That's correct. MR. KELLEY-It says, all advertising panels shall be Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels. MR. CORTESE-But there are definitions, here. There is, under Definition, Article 2, there is a separate, distinct definition for Advertising Panels, and a separate, distinct definition for Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels. They're treated as two separate items. The Ordinance says no new Advertising Panels, and, when one reads the Ordinance, in its entirety, and one assumes, on the face of the Ordinance, that regulation is meant, and not absolute exclusion, as one must reasonably do, when you read the Sign Ordinance, then the purported intent of the Town Council was to bring these Outdoor Advertising Signs to a standard that would be recognized, and they set forth the standard by setting forth the dimensions. What they were excluding, by excluding Advertising Panels, were people who just put boards up and plastered things on them, put boards of any size. MR. KELLEY-Wouldn't those be off premise signs? MR. CORTESE-That's not what Advertising Panels says. As I understand the Sign Ordinance, all of those signs, like the one that I showed you, or like the one that's being replaced, here, will be excluded, and only Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels would be allowed. So, the clutter of all these little different signs will be gone, and the only signs that will be allowed will be Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels, of a specific height, of a specific distance from the road, of a specific wind resistance, 30 pounds per square inch. The sign Adicommco is putting up is 40 pounds per square inch, designed by an engineer. 34 MR. SHEA-I don't know for a fact, but I would guess that, when the Sign Ordinance was written. it was not to exclude all outdoor advertising. I mean. I can't imagine why that would be the pervasive thought. at the time. I can imagine that the Ordinance would try to regulate and monitor and, probably. eliminate, if not alleviate, the tacky signs. if you will. and all of the different shapes and sizes and I think that that's probably why there is. if not as much as we would like it to be. but. still. nonetheless, a distinction between Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels and Outdoor Advertising Panels. MR. CORTESE-If I might make the analogy that Mrs. Goetz made. You may not like the Zoning Ordinance. with regard to its definition of parking requirements. but, nonetheless. it is up to the Zoning Board of Appeals to interpret the Ordinance that is in front of them. It's the province of the Town Council to change the Ordinance, if the Ordinance needs to be changed. but I would suggest that it's not fair to have people rely on a Sign Ordinance. who's fair reading allows for Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels, only to then come before a Board, who would say. well. that's not what we really mean. What we really mean is, we don't want them. If the intention of the Town Council is to not want them, that's fine. and I don't have any argument with that. but the public has to have notice of that. It has to be done fairly, so people understand that. as a matter of fact. and as a matter of Town Policy. Queensbury will not have these. So, in a situation like that, you would not have preamble language that talks about regulation. Regulating existing and proposed advertising, not even just existing, but also proposed. that's all that I'm asking for. As much as I appreciate you might not like the Ordinance, I'm asking you to interpret it. In this case. what I would believe would be favorable to my client. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Michael, even more reason to get the new Sign Ordinance adopted. The thinking was that they didn't want to have !!!..l billboards in the Town of Queensbury, although that may not be what's in the writing of the present Ordinance. but. honestly, and I see the point. MR. SHEA-Are you talking about the new one, or the one that we're supposed to be looking at, now? MRS. GOETZ-The old one. The present one. MR. SHEA-The present one. MRS. GOETZ-Honestly, because I was involved with it. We wanted to get rid of all billboards. Standardized, SOAPS. we called them, but we knew that you couldn't. right away, and. hopefully, by attrition. when they fell down, and so forth and so on. get them out of here. It was a chance to get them out. MR. CORTESE-I understand, but that's not what the Ordinance says. MRS. GOETZ-I know it's not what the Ordinance says. We have a new proposal. which isn't your problem. but it's a good reason to get it adopted. MR. CORTESE-May I sympathize with you by telling you I'm the City Attorney for the City of Amsterdam and we are currently revising our Zoning Ordinance and it's been back and forth with the Planning COßlßission and we're trying to resolve a number of issues like this, but the Zoning Ordinance we currently have, which is old. 1965, we are operating out of. We may not like some of the decisions that necessarily and logically flow from it, but, until we get our new Ordinance in place, which we're working on. we're operating out of the existing Ordinance, and that's what I'm saying. I can appreciate tha t you mi ght not want somethi ng. but you have to be fa i r about how the Ordi nance is read. by a reasonable person. MR. TURNER-Okay. any other questions? Anyone else wish to be heard? MR. CORTESE-Are you opening the public hearing? MR. TURNER-Yes. it's open. I'm sorry. I thought I mentioned that. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEELEY-Just one other statement that I didn't anticipate. when they first approached me, until I heard they were going to pay me. It didn't bother me. one way or another. but I didn't anticipate one iota of a problem putting up a new sign. if it fit with the criteria that was demanded by the Ordinance. because it was grandfathered in. There had always been a sign there. ever since, before I could remember. and I saw no problem for them. whatsoever. in replacing a homemade looking billboard. with their sign. MR. TURNER-Okay. Public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further questions of Mr. Cortese? 35 - MR. SHEA-I'd like to make one comment and I think that Mrs. Goetz would appreciate this more than anyone because she's been the greatest proponent of trying to get a new Sign Ordinance in here that will really work well and benefit everyone and that is that it always seems as though we find out about these difficulties, whether they confonn or not, when someone, pretty much, in most cases, by their own volition, makes application for pennit. Good evidence of that is that I have seen this other sign tha t has been referenced, here, thi s homemade wooden job, and I've seen it go up for a couple of days. I never thought anything about it, so I'm as guilty as anyone, but we don't have good enforcement. We find out these things from the people who are being effected by them, and the people who make no application, and the things go up, and they stay up, longer than the people who are coming forward, trying to do this thing within the regulations. It's just a cOlllllent on enforcement, for what it's worth. MR. TURNER-Could I ask you a question, Pat? MRS. COLLARD-Sure. MR. TURNER-Down on the Boulevard, right across from Taylor Welding Supplies garage, there's a new sign that says Mike Baird Signs with his telephone number on it. Does he have a pennit for that? MRS. COLLARD-He didn't have to get a pennit for that. That was an existing billboard. MR. TURNER-Just a change of copy? MRS. COLLARD-We don't get pennits for change of copies on billboards. MR. SHEA-He repaired that. MR. SEELEY-No, that's a brand new sign. That is of the same age, and there was two or three of them, if you remember, years and years ago, along the canal. They were the same age, the same style, that the one that preexisted the one that 1 built, in 1973, they have, over the years, been knocked down, rebuilt, and re-done, because Mr. Krebs also took care of the upkeep and the painting of those, too. MRS. COLLARD-All I know is, in the past couple of months, he repaired that. MR. CORTESE-Right, but they're new, in the last 10 years. MR. SHEA-That's part of my point, that we should discuss, at some point in the future, and that is that there .£!!!. be a sign that, basically, confonns, with regards to dimension, and it could be very dilapidated and about to fall down and all one need do is go and do some minor repair and it can still be out of square and it can be leaning down, but so long as they put enough into it, to repair it, so that it stands, barely, then they're in confonnance. Yet, when you try to put up a new, modern, safe sign, and in order to do that, generally, you have to knock down the old one, then questions as to whether it can actually be there or not come into play, and I see some inconsistencies, there. MR. TURNER-Pat, did you say that a change of copy didn't require a pennit? MRS. COLLARD-Not on billboards. You know all the change of copy they do on billboards down by the river? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. COLLARD-They don't, I will put it this way. MR. TURNER-It says right in here, a change of copy requires a pennit, under Pennits, Section 8.100. MRS. COllARD-I realize that's what it says, but any town that I've ever been associated with, when they change their billboard, they never get a pennit for that. I don't know if billboards are excluded. MR. TURNER-They're not excluded. MRS. COLLARD-That's something I think we need to discuss. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. SHEA-Well, the one's down by the river not only change copy, but they change the advertisement of a whole different business. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. COLLARD-Well, that's what I'm saying. They don't come in and get pennits for those. MR. TURNER-Okay, lets move on the request. How does the Board feel, relative to the appeal? 36 - MR. KELLEY-My feeling is, if I read 17, that it says, Advertising Panels shall meet the following requirements, and then there's A, B, and a C that talks about Advertising Panels and Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels and all of those, to me, fall under Advertising Panels. Otherwise, why would it be under Advertising Panel. So, you can read what the definition says, or whatever, but it's all listed under Advertising Panel. MRS. GOETZ-Especially 17B, that says, all Advertising Panels, shall be Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels. MR. KELLEY-Right. I think the definition is there. MRS. GOETZ-So, doesn't that take into consideration both of those definitions, that exist in the Definitions portion? MR. TURNER-Yes, it does. MR. KELLEY-That's what I'm saying. MR. TURNER-It alludes to both of them, Advertising Panels and Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels. MR. KELLEY-Right, you're talking about both. MR. TURNER-It talks about both of them. MR. KELLEY-So, if they're calling all of those things Advertising Panels, and then you go back to A and it says, no new Advertising Panels shall be constructed, I think it's self explanatory. MR. TURNER-That's right. I agree. MR. CORTESE-If they're talking only about Advertising Panels, then why would there be two definitions? MR. TURNER-They're talking about Advertising Panels and Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels, under 17. MR. CORTESE-That's correct, and, under 17, where it says, no new Advertising Panels, where it, specifically, says, no new Advertising Panels, it's, in my opinion, in a fair reading of the Ordinance, referring back to Definition Number 1, not Definition Number 23. There are two separate definitions for the signs, here, and you can't lump them together. If they were to be lumped together, then one of those definitions must go out of the first section because you're only going to be confusing people like Adicommco, and, actually, yourselves. There are two separate definitions. Two separate things are contemplated by this Sign Ordinance. So, simply to say that it's an Advertising Panel, whether it's 10 feet, or 25 feet, or 2 feet, it does not read the Sign Ordinance, as a whole, which refers to Regulation and refers to Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels, and the people who are going to be putting up Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels cannot be charged with the ability to read the mind of the Zoning Board of Appeals, with regard to what may have been intended, but never found it's way into a Sign Ordinance and I really ask you to read the Sign Ordinance, defective as it may be, read it fairly and justly for my client. Don't read it the way you'd like to see it read, in a new draft, by the Town Council because that would not be fair to my client. It would be an arbitrary abuse of power, which I please ask that you don't do. MR. TURNER-We're not reading it like that. You just disagree with what's here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are we all in agreement that it's a Standard Outdoor Advertising Panel? MR. SHEA-That it is. MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, Number C says, Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels may be continued and maintained. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-It does not say they may be rebuilt. So, I think, under that light, that first part about no new Advertising Panels shall be constructed applies to the whole Number 17, as a whole. MRS. GOETZ-Especially what it's saying, all Advertising Panels shall be Standardized Advertising Panels. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. SHEA-The preexisting sign, on the Seeley property, had the right to be there. 37 - MRS. GOETZ-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SHEA-All that they needed to do was, every few years, go and put another nail in the thing and it would have gotten more wobbly. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHEA-But it would have had the right to stay there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, that's what I feel. MR. SHEA-The regulation suggests that they be maintained, I'm sure for aesthetic reasons and for safety reasons. It doesn't say that they need to be eliminated and I view this as construction of, rather, replacement, not construction of a new, certainly not repair of an old, but replacement of an existing Standard Advertising Panel that confonns to the regulations, with regards to size and safety features. That's my opinion, but I would like to say for the record, I am a bit miffed and really don't understand Adi, commco who this is their specialty business. I mean, they construct signs for advertising purposes. I'm sure that this is a hotly debated issue, in every municipality across New York State, with regards to outdoor advertising. So, I am a little bit in wonderment why this was not looked into, beforehand, rather than getting half of a $10,000 investment up, and then having this before us. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. KELLEY-I agree. That's your business, you sure ought to know what you're doing, right? MR. TURNER-That was my point. MR. KELLEY-That's the same as the builders that come in and they build too close to the property line. Well, maybe you've got to move it, you know. MR. CORTESE-I appreciate Mr. Shea's argument and the Sign Ordinance contemplates that situation, exactly, and provides for a penalty. We sent the appropriate amount, including the penalty, to the Zoning Administrator, along with our Sign Application. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets rule on it. We can talk about it all night. MRS. GOETZ-There's another letter. MR. TURNER-Is there? Correspondence. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Helmond's Marine, 19 Boulevard: "Dear Board members, I'm writing this letter because I'm in opposition to the billboard being constructed on the corner of Quaker Road and the Boulevard. I have presented my feelings to other retailers on the Boulevard, and their signatures below represent their support of my grievance. The proposed billboard is extremely larger and higher than the existing billboard. As a result, it obstructs the view of our store fronts from Quaker Road. This exposure from the well traveled Quaker Road is very critical to us." This may apply to the Sign Variance request. Are we supposed to say whether the Zoning Administrator made the proper decisions and then go on to the Sign Variance, is that it? MR. TURNER-There's no Sign Variance. It's an appeal of her decision. MR. GORALSKI-It's just the appeal. MR. TURNER-It's just an appeal. MRS. GOETZ-So, it was okay to read that letter? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, who else signed the letter. MRS. GOETZ-Adirondack Pools, Mark Scorentio, Rand M Supplies, Corlew's Appliance, and Queensbury Video. MR. TURNER-See what that says. MR. SHEA-This one, here? MR. TURNER-Yes. Read, down at the bottom, the bottom sentence, see where it says, commonly called a bi 11 board? 38 '- - MR. SHEA-Yes. MR. TURNER-Advertising Panels, commonly called a billboard. MR. SHEA-Well, I think the way that I would read this is, that is common tenninology for it. I think they're referring back to what most people would refer to it as. I mean, right now, there are three, some that would call it an Advertising Panel, some that would call it a rotary board, some people call it billboards. Billboard is probably the most common tenninology and I think that their definition, here, of Advertising Panel, they're trying to refer back to some common phraseology. I think that's all that that means. MR. TURNER-Okay, lets move it. How does the Board feel? Are you in agreement with the Zoning Administrator or aren't you? MR. KELLEY-I am. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was wondering about Mike's comment about, are you suggesting that rebuilding, really, is a fonn of maintenance, when it becomes so bad that you can't keep it, is that what your feelings are? MR. SHEA-Yes. MR. TURNER-It says they can rebuild them, maintain them, maintain them. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, that's what I was trying to get a clarification from him, though, if rebuilding is the same thing as maintaining, when it gets so bad that you can't maintain it anymore, like it's full of ants and rotting away. MR. KELLEY-I still think she's right. MOTION ON NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-90 PHILIP V. CORTESE, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by That the Zoning Administrator's decision on the denial for Sign Pennit for Adicommco, was an incorrect decision. Clarification would be that it's my belief that the right of the sign that preexisted on the Seeley property was a continuing right on the Seeley property and that the construction of the Standard Advertising Panel was, in effect, maintenance and replacement of that existing sign and right and not to be viewed as a new Outdoor Advertising Panels, which are not allowed in the Sign Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Do we have a second? MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chainnan, if I might ask if the Board would clarify their rationale behind that and refer to the Sections of the Sign Ordinance in their resolution. MR. TURNER-Is that your motion, Mike? MR. SHEA-That's it. MR. CORTESE-May I just suggest one thing, that, as a part of that motion, that Zoning Administrator be directed to issue the Sign Pennit? MR. SHEA-No. MR. TURNER-Do we have a second to the motion? No second, motion dies, another motion. MOTION ON NOTICE OF APPEAL NO.2-go AnoINEY PHILIP V. CORTESE THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WAS PROPER IN DENYING THE SIGN PERMIT TO ADICOKO, INC. AND THE BASIS FOR THAT BEING THAT, IN THE PRESENT SIGN ORDINANCE, UNDER ARTICLE 5, GENERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 5.100, ..IllER 17, THERE IS A ..IllER 17 THAT REFERS TO ADVERTISING PANELS, AND, FOLLOWING THAT, THERE IS AN A, B, AND C SECTION AND THE A SECTION TALKS AOOUT ADVERTISING PAltELS, AltO THE B SECTION TALKS ABOUT ADVERTISING PAltELS, AND THAT THEY SlØJLD BE STAllDARD OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PANELS AltO SECTION C TALKS ABOUT STANDARD OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PANELS, AltO THE finE IS THAT ALL OF THESE SUBDESCRIPTIONS ARE UNDER THE HEADING OF ADVERTISING PAltELS AltO, AS SUCH, THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT NO NEIl ADVERTISING PANELS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED. THEREFORE, I FEEL THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR lIAS CORRECT IN HER DECISION, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Shea ABSENT: Mr. Carr 39 - USE VARIANCE fIJ. 84-1990 TYPE II lIR-lA RICHARD DIEHL OIINER: SAtE AS ABOVE CHESlTIIT LVlD, ASSEMBLY POINT FOR AN EXPANSION OF lHE REAR BEDROOM TO MAKE IT A LARGER BEDROOM. STRUCTURE WIll HAVE A 10 FT. SETBACK, 20 FT. IS RECJ,IIRED. (WARREN coum PLANNING) TAX MAP fII. 8-8-2 lOT SIZE: 7,500 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 RICHARD DIEHL, APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MRS. GOETZ-I have one question, at site inspection, the deck on the left hand side of the house, that comes out and practical meets the garage, was that there, we've had a previous variance on the property, right? MR. DIEHL-That's correct, last summer. MRS. GOETZ-Did we talk about it, then? I thought you had to have so many feet between? MR. TURNER-Yes, we did. MRS. GOETZ-And what did we say? Was that part of that other variance? MR. TURNER-I think it was. MR. DIEHL-Yes, it was. MR. TURNER-They had the variance for the garage. MRS. GOETZ-All right. MR. KELLEY-I guess, to get into why you need to expand the house. Could you tell me about your family and how many bedrooms this building has and why you need what you're asking for and that sort of thing. MR. DIEHL-Well, it's a two bedroom house, with the one wing that's marked eight feet, right by the deck, which kind of serves as a third bedroom. It doesn't have any closets or anything and the children, now, are teenagers and the house is getting small. They're bringing in company. We have relatives that come. The back bedroom that I'd like to expand is only about eight and a half feet wide, so putting a full sized bed in there, you kind of bump into the walls, when you get up. So, I just want to push that wall out and I would like to put it at 12 feet, to make the addition worthwhile, and bring it in line with the other addition, which is 12 feet out. MR. KELLEY-Okay, so you said you have a two bedroom house, but, by this deck, there's a small room. MR. DIEHL-It's a porch. MR. KELLEY-All right, so, actually, somebody may sleep there, incidentally, but this new edition will be for, basically, a third bedroom? MR. DIEHL-No, it would just be an expansion of an existing bedroom. MR. KELLEY-An expansion of an existing bedroom. MR. DIEHL-Ri ght. MR. TURNER-Is that what it's going to look like (referring to plan)? This is your bedroom like this, proposed, and this is your other bedroom, over here? MR. DIEHL-That's right. It will make that back one into a larger more usable room. MR. TURNER-A larger room, yes. Your kitchen is, where, right here? MR. DIEHL-Right. The other addition, on the back. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it's not to make more bedrooms. It's just to increase the size of one bedroom? MR. DIEHL-That's correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. KELLEY-Do you know the approximate square footage of your living area, right now? 40 -. MR. DIEHL-It's 750, 800 feet, in that range. I'd be adding 144 feet to it. MR. KELLEY-Because I'm just kind of looking at numbers and I would have ballparked it, might have been around 880 square feet or something in that neighborhood. So, I mean, it's not a monstrous house. MR. TURNER-No. He's just a few feet oversized, according to the Ordinance. MR. KELLEY-Well, we have a minimum house size, right? MR. TURNER-Yes, 800 square feet. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-The lot's pretty well filled out, though, at this point, already. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's filled out, but it's a substandard lot in the sense of the Zoning Ordinance, today, but, obviously, he can't purchase any property. It's small and narrow. MR. KELLEY-How many people did you say? Is it you and your wife? MR. DIEHL-Yes. My wife and two children. MR. KELLEY-Okay, so you've got four people trying to be in an 800 square foot building. It seems to be reasonable. MR. TURNER-Alright. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CO_NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Donald Bodenhorn and Elvina Boden horn , and also, Anna Murray. They're all neighbors and they have no objections. MR. TURNER-Is that it? Okay, motion's in order. tOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1990 RICHARD DIEHL, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The practical difficulty being this is an undersized preexisting lot and to deny the variance would deprive the applicant of the additional living space that he feels is necessary for four people. This variance would grant him 10 foot relief on the westerly side of the property. The variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance or the adjacent properties. This is minimal relief, requested by the applicant, and there is no neighborhood opposition. Public services and facilities woulQ not be effected. Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1990 TYPE II WR-IA STANLEY J. WAlßŒJICD OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L, EAST SHORE, LAKE GEORGE, APPROX. 200 YARDS ON LEFT PAST IIJfIIAJI'S BAY BOAT CO. REJl)VING 65 YEAR OLD GARAGE AND REPLACING IT WITH NEIl GARAGE THAT DOES NOT MEETING SIDE YARD SETBACK RE~IREMEIIT. THE OLD STRUCTURE IS LEANING AND IS IN DANGER OF COLLAPSING. (WARREN coum PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 4-1-22 LOT SIZE: 60.80 FT. BY 197.49 FT. SECTION 4.020-D JOE RUSSO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF NOTES Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. SICARD-What is the size of the old garage? 41 MR. RUSSO-Roughly 10 by 12. MR. SICARD-So, this one's going to be a little bigger. MR. RUSSO-Right. MR. TURNER-Just identify yourself, for the record. MR. RUSSO-My name is Joe Russo. MR. KELLEY-Mr. Russo, what, roughly, is the size of the existing garage? It's a one car garage, I believe, right? MR. RUSSO-Well, actually, it's a lot smaller than a one car garage. If you can get a Volkswagon Beetle in there, you're doing well. It's, roughly, 10 by 12. MR. KELLEY-Okay, and they want to build a 16 by 24, right? MR. RUSSO-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So, that's going to be, basically, a one car with some storage, or whatever. MR. RUSSO-Right. MR. KELLEY-Is this a, pretty much a summer use? They aren't there year round. MR. RUSSO-No, I don't believe so. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Are you the builder? MR. RUSSO-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And, I guess, it looks like they're just trying to center it, as best they can, come as close to whatever the Ordinance is. It says you've got a total sum of 50 foot for side setbacks. So, you'd have to have a 20 and a 30, because the minimum is a 20. MR. RUSSO-Right. MR. KELLEy-it looks like you've got it about as close to center as possible. It looks like they're going to have to take down a tree, maybe? MR. RUSSO-Or maybe two. MR. KELLEY-Yes, okay, and it looks like this is going to be set back further from the road than that existing building, right? MR. RUSSO-Right. MR. KELLEY-What was the setback? MR. TURNER-Fifty feet. MR. KELLEY-Fifty? MR. TURNER-Thirty, I'm sorry. MR. KELLEY-Thirty, alright, and they've got a thirty, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-How far is it from the Lake? MR. TURNER-Is that from the road or the property line? MR. KELLEY-Yes, right. MR. RUSSO-From the property line, from the edge of the road. MR. TURNER-It's got to be from the property line, otherwise you're going to end up with another variance for the front setback. 42 -.../ MR. RUSSO-Right. MR. KELLEY-Well, did you say road or property line? MR. RUSSO-It's going to conform with the, where is it starting, from the line? MR. TURNER-The property line. It shows it here. Here's the road. MR. KELLEy-it looks like, here, it's 30 feet from the road, to the building, and it should be 30 feet from the property line to the building. This is the property line and this looks like the road, see, and they're showing the... MRS. EGGLESTON-Is he saying from this point? MR. KELLEY-Mr. Russo pointed to the plot plan and said that they would make the new garage 30 feet from the property line. MR. TURNER-Well then, when he goes for his permit, if it's not there, he'll have to go for another variance, unless he wants to move it back. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. TURNER-So, Pat will take care of that. MR. KELLEY-Because the plot plan shows that it looks like it's 30 feet from the road, not the property line, but he has stated that they want it to be 30 feet from the property line. MR. TURNER-They'll pick it up when he comes in with the plan. Any further questions? None? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NDCOÞlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letters from Dr. and Mrs. Shermette and a Rubin Merchant that are both approving this proposal. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1990 STANLEY J. WAWREJKO, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: This would grant a variance from Section 4.020 D of the Zoning Ordinance, and this would mean that the applicant could be 24 feet from the side line on the south side and 20 feet on the north side line, and the special conditions would be that this is an existing undersized garage that was built in 1920. They just needed a more modern garage and the size requested is reasonable and would be the minimum necessary for a modern garage. The lot width restricts the owner from locating the garage with the proper setbacks and this is the specified practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr MR. GORALSKI-Are you going to do the other thing? MR. TURNER-Was that noticed? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-The appeal. MR. GORALSKI-Was it advertised? MRS. GOETZ-It isn't advertised. MR. GORALSKI-I have no idea. 43 MRS. GOETZ-Will it be on next week? MR. GORALSKI-I believe the Hogan thing is on next week's Planning Board? Do you have the agenda's Pat? MRS. COLLARD-I've got them. MR. SICARD-Is this for that place down on... MRS. GOETZ-Glen Lake. Hogan. MR. TURNER-They're going to increase the size of the lot. They're going to buy a piece of property off of Seeley and they've got to come back to us for a variance. MR. GORALSKI-It's not on this month. The Hogan thing is not on this month. MRS. GOETZ-Because we got it. It said would you please bring it to the first ZBA meeting in November. MR. GORALSKI-Right. I mean, it's up to you. MRS. GOETZ-I think it's too late, myself. What do you think? MS. CORPUS-I would recoßll1end the Board look into whether it was advertised and properly noticed, or the Board may end up hearing it, again. MRS. GOETZ-And that would be useless. MR. TURNER-And the other one, in reference to the appeal by Mrs. Woodin and Salvador, and the lot, that was not advertised, either. Do you want to rehear it? MRS. GOETZ-Which one is that, the Dunham's Bay Boat Company? MR. TURNER-Dunham's Bay. MRS. EGGLESTON-That wasn't advertised? MR. TURNER-It wasn't advertised. Do you want to rehear it? Do you feel comfortable with the determination that was made, about the appeal? MS. CORPUS-Right. The appeal, at that time, after that meeting, reviewing the minutes and everything, I discovered that it hadn't been advertised or noticed and I didn't catch it, either, at the meeting. The only legal question that remains, is that it's like the Parillo deal where a meeting not properly noticed and a public not held would be null and void. There is no problem if it's not ever brought up again, on any Article 78. The thing is that the 30 day statute of limitations would not apply, in this case. In other words, anyone who felt aggrieved could, possibly, bring an action, declaring this a nullity, past that 30 day limit. So, there's some risk that's outstanding. The Board would have to weigh that risk against the probability that the decision would ever be disturbed by any of the neighbors or people at Dunham's Bay. MR. TURNER-They are applying for a change of use, up there, now. MR. GORALSKI-Site Plan Review. MR. TURNER-Site Plan Review. Do you want to have it advertised and rehear it. or do you feel comfortable with the way it is? MR. SICARD-Did they forget that, to advertise? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHEA-For Dunham's Bay? You better advertise it. You're going to have a lot of people here. MR. KELLEY-I don't know. I guess. there were three or four parties who were questioning the thing, right? MR. TURNER-Five. There were five of them. MS. CORPUS-Right. and they did not come to that meeting. I believe. MR. TURNER-They didn't even come. 44 -' MS. CORPUS-They were not there and neither was... MR. TURNER-The letter was written by Mrs. Woodin. MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. TURNER-And their names were attached to the bottom. MS. CORPUS-Right. They were not there at that meeting and the attorney for Dunham's Bay Boat Company was not there, either. MR. KELLEY-Do you think it was because they didn't get notified? MS. CORPUS-I wouldn't make that determination. That's one way it could be interpreted, by a court. MR. KELLEY-Well, only knowing some of them, it's hard to believe that they really weren't here, to tell you the truth. MR. TURNER-We 11, I thi n k, in thi s pa rti cul a r case, we ought to rehea r it, just because it's up for Site Plan Review. Just because this doesn't come back to haunt us, because there is some questions as to, is it boat storage, quick launch. MR. KELLEY-All right, so lets say, if we didn't do it, okay, and now it goes to Site Plan Review and they do whatever they're going to do. MS. CORPUS-It remains undisturbed, until someone who feels they are an aggrieved party, under the law, decides to bring an action before this Board. The problem is, normally, there's a 30 day statute of limitations. MR. KELLEY-Right. MS. CORPUS-In the case of decisions which are declared null and void, that is not the case. MR. KELLEY-Right. MS. CORPUS-And a court might interpret this to be a nullity. It's similar to what happened in the Pari 110 matter. MR. KELLEY-Right. So, lets say if somebody did say they had a problem with it, after the Planning Board has done their thing? MS. CORPUS-That's a possibility, yes. MR. KELLEY-Then, it's got to come back here and probably got to go back to them, again, depending on what the outcome is, right? MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. KELLEY-So, we could be wasting two groups of people's time, should some problem come up. MR. TURNER-Maybe the Site Plan would stand, because that's a different issue. MS. CORPUS-Right. It may not effect the Site Plan. It's hard to say, at this point. I wouldn't know, and, in fact, no one may challenge this Board's decision. MRS. GOETZ-Did we make a decision on that? MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I remember talking about it. MS. CORPUS-It was a controversial decision, with this Board. I forgot what the vote was. MR. TURNER-It was a question of whether a boat storage facility was allowed in a Land Conservation 42 Acre and the other question was, was a quick launch allowed in a Land Conservation 42 Acre. MR. GORALSKI-Right, and then the question of whether... MS. CORPUS-Sales were occurring. 45 '~ - MR. GORALSKI-And you said sales was not allowed in the Land Conservation. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. GORALSKI-You did not determine whether or not sales was taking place on that lot. MR. TURNER-No, we didn't have sufficient information. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, there was part of it we didn't do. MR. GORALSKI-But you did determine that sales was not allowed to take place. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-Right. Sales were determined to take place in the office. MR. GORALSKI-You never determined that. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, we left that, remember? We got too many different versions, here. MS. CORPUS-Right, and so, in effect, Dave Hatin's determination did stand. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-Yes, the quick launch, we said we had no proof. MR. TURNER-What we could do is we could notice it, and if it doesn't come notice, we'll just rollover the resolution, then. MS. CORPUS-That's a possibility, too. The Board could just reintroduce the same motion. MR. TURNER-Just reintroduce the same resolution. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I'll tell you, if you send out 500 foot notices, there's going to be people here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, if that's true, then they should have had that opportunity, John. MR. TURNER-That's what I'm saying. I don't feel comfortable letting it go by. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, then you really feel that they should have had that opportunity. MS. CORPUS-Yes, that it my legal concern, is the fact that, in reading over the minutes, they did not attend, and it could be interpreted, by a court, as the primary reason being that they did not get those notices. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. ÞOTION TO RÐlEAR THE APPEAL BY MRS. IIXJDIN, AND OTHERS, REGARDING DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT COMPANY, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NO£S: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr MR. TURNER-How are we getting befuddled by these things not getting advertised? MR. GORALSKI-Because it was my understanding that they did not have to be advertised, and then... MR. TURNER-No, but we got this one, now we've got that one. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-It was our understanding that the appeals did not have to have a public hearing. The Attorney's Office, since then, has told us that, in fact, the appeals do have to have public hearings and that's why we're at this point, now. MS. CORPUS-Yes. We made that determination the second meeting, last month, when we caught the two that are on for this month. 46 -- -../ MRS. EGGLESTON-What about our December meeting? MR. GORALSKI-The December meeting, how about the Thursday before that? MRS. EGGLESTON-Instead of the day after Christmas. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-It's better after. It doesn't have to be on a Wednesday, does it? MS. CORPUS-No, it doesn't. MRS. COLLARD-Thursday December 14th. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I'm just trying to get you and the Planning Board scheduled. MRS. GOETZ-So, we would go the second and the third week? MR. GORALSKI-It would be the second Thursday. It would be the day after Warren County Planning Board's. It would be, like, the 14th of December. Okay, Thursday the 13th. MRS. GOETZ-I'd rather do it the 13th and 19th. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, so, the 13th and the 19th. MRS. GOETZ-I would prefer to do it, than the week after. MR. TURNER-Okay. ÞlJTION 10 HOLD FIRST lBA MEETING IN DECEMBER ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13TH, AND HOLD THE SECOND lBA MEETING IN DECEMBER ON WEDNESDAY, DECEJIIER 19TH, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 47 . '. - r~ $ f',~ p:. "I " ".~' ,.. '....... W ""'- \~ SAHPb:. RBSOWTION TO BE USED WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION ---' RESOLUTION NO.: , 1989 INTRODUCED BY: WHO l·!OVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY:' RESOLVED, tha t the action proposed herein, .~ ['¡'-jÆ(ß;{(.')ì tl 4)¿U}ì(&.)6U,¿i/ Z:::CIU I~_ Board ,'(iller considering the reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, \..--:7 RESOLVED, that the -r/r'J UJì(j Board hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in palf II of the said Environmental Assessment Form are satisfactory and approved, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, () hau lìì(r 11- authorized that the is hereb y and directed to complete and execute Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVE:p, thatf.h; annexed Negative Declaration ,is hereby a~proved and the fit/nIL! fY) D( e -f-(~) is hereby authonzed and d~rected to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. ._-----~- ~ % "::';4, . . . Duly adopted this vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT : - --' ~. day-./ð"f --" , by the following ~ ~ - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY plSIInni"8 Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J OM S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 13, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Ana VariaDce --X Use Variance - Sign Variance == IDterpretatioa Other: Subdi"rillioa: Sketch, Pre1im. _ _ DIarJ, Site PlaD ReYiew == Petitioa for a CbaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Applicatiaa Number: Use Variance No. 83-1990 Applicant's Name: Marcel Demers d/b/a Queensbury Automotive MeetiDg Date: November 14, 1990 ............................................................................................ The application requires a Use Variance for expansion of a nonconforming use. This business began as a conforming use and has always been well maintained. This use is not detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, it is an asset to the neighborhood. The use also has no detrimental affect on the purpose of the Plaza Commercial zone. The applicant has stated that no increase· in business is anticipated~ He requires the addition to maintain the ClUTent level of service. This is certainly a property right that should be preserved. JSG/sed - . - --" "- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI.nning Department F J l 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 SubdiYÍllÏon: Sketch, Prelimin..- - - -I' _ Site Plan Reriew _ Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wet:1aDda Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Area Variance No. 80-1990 Applicant'. Name: Harce1 Dero:ers nlbl8. Queensbury Autoi!".ot hre Center MeetiDg Date: October 2L.., 19~() ............................................................................................ The applicant proposes to construct a 588 square foot addition to the Queensbury Automotive Center. This property is unique in that it is trian~ul~r in shape and fronts on t\...o streets. There is a srr:all area behind tbe bui lòin!,: \'lhich cou1c'. accoM!"lodate the ,roposed square foota~e and r'.eet the setbp..ck rec'ltireI'ten.ts. To build in this area the 1000 gallon septic tank would have to be relocated. 'I'his is 8.n extremely ,,,ell kePt site. Therp. should be no neg2.tive impe.ct on the neighborhood or on the ordinance. JG 11"" . .--.-..-..--.------- - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ptSlnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: October 23. 1990 Lee A. York Area VariaDce -X- Use Variance - SigD Variance == Interpretation SubdiYiaioa: Sketch, Prelim· _ _ IIIU'J. Site Plan Rmew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater Wetlaøda Permit FiDal Other: Applicatioa 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 150' building. There are current 1y two business' operat ing 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 vatianceare 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 re~oval of the existing structures. The other uses listed under Rural Residential are not addressed. These include: group camp, dog kennel and ridinp, stable, animal husbandry, agricultural use, veterinary use, and commercial greenhouse. There also must be proof presented to the Board substantiating tJ:te applicants inability to realize a reasonable return. This has not been included in the application. -1- . - .........--~---._- 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 the date of the Ordinance. The application indicates that the property is set in a "hollow" and less marketable for residential 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 soBs and marginal access to' p'opulated' areas often characterizes such areas t 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 recently subdivided and sold off several lots on the westerly side of Lockhart Mountain Road direct ly across from this property. It would appear from the application that this residential neighborhood wit' he I ... --- .-----_._~._.._..... ~- -----~- -- 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-resident ial use in a res ident ia1 zone is that a variance runs wi to 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 - ~~, - -- -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlSlnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J obn S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner By: November 13, 1990 Stuart G. Baker Date: --X.. Area V.... U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == mt'la¡4etatiaD SubdmIicJB: Sketch. _ PreJimiDary, Site PlaIa Rmew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetJaDda Permit FiDal Other: AppUcatiaD Number: Area Variance No. 84-1990 AppUcant'. Name: Richard Diehl Meeting Date: November 14, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant wishes to construct an addition on the rear of the existing house. The addition would conform with the existing 10 foot setback, but does not meet the CWTent standard of a 2.0 foot minimum sideyard setback. I have reviewed the application in accordance with the criteria listed in Article 10 of the Ordinance, and I have the following comments: 1. The Shore Colony lots are all undersized for this WR-IA zone. The placement of the applicant's house on the lot is such that any addition would require a variance application. The applicant appears to have reasonable use of the property. 2.. The applicant must show that the inability to expand the house creates a specified practical difficulty. 3. This variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance or the adjacent properties. The Board should determine if the variance requested is the minimal necessary. to relieve the practical difficulty indicated by the applicant. 4. Public services and facilities would not be affected. SGB/sed --- . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pt_nn'¡ng Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 13, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker X Area VllriaDce Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi"ri8ioa: Sketch, Pretim· - mary, Site Plan Re.ïew - - Petition fer a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppücatiOD Number: Area Variance No. 85-1990 Appticant'. Name: Stanley J. Wawrejko Meeting Date: November 14, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing the construction of a new garage to replace the existing garage. Relief from the 50 ft. sum of the side yard setback requirement is needed for this project. I have reviewed the application in accordance with the criteria in Article 10, and I have the following comments: 1. Strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would allow the applicant to rebuild in the existing footprint, but would not allow for the construction of a new garage elsewhere on the property. Z. The Board should determine what, if any, practical difficulty would result from strict application of the Ordinance. 3. The variance requested would not be detrimental to either the purpose of the Ordinance or the other properties in the district. The relief requested is 6 ft. This appears to be the minimal relief necessary. 4. Public services would not be affected. SGB/sed .---------~--