Loading...
1992-04-30 SP -_...". ~""'\ -- ~EEJlS8URY ZONING 8O\RD OF APPEALS SPECIAL ŒETING APRIL 30TH, 1992 INDEX Notice of Appea~ No. 1-92 Appeal by the P~anning Board of the Town of Queensbury (RE: Site Plan Review No. 3-93 Francis and Carolyn Martinda~e) 1. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BMRD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF Sl\1D MINUTES. QUEEltSBURY ZOrtIrtG BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL ŒETING APRIL 30TH, 1992 7:45 P.M. tÐIIERS PREÐT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY MARIE PALING CHARLES SICARD FRED CARVIN BRUCE CARR ÞÐBERS ABSENT MICHAEL SHEA OLD BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-92, APPEAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD Œ THE TOIrII (F QI£EltSBURY FROM A DECISIØt Œ THE ZØtIN& BOARD Œ APPEALS DATED FEBRUo\RY 19, 1992 STATING THAT SECTIØt 179-15, 10, 12, 179-63 FARM aASSlFICATIØt Œ THE ZØtING ORDIJWlCE IN 11£ MmR OF SITE PlM REVIEW NO. 3-92, FRANCIS ArtD CAROL YII MARTINDALE. ON MlKaI 30, 1992 11£ ZØtING BOARD Œ APPEALS MADE A JlQTIØt TO REHEAR JlQTIØt Øt REQIEST FOR THE INTERPRETATIeJI 11It\T II'S MADE eJI FEBRUARY 19, 1992 AS IT APPLIES TO Ql£STIØtS 0fIE ArtD FIlE. THEY ARE AS FC1.LOWS: (1) IS THE SALE FRUITS AND VECElABLES GROIft ŒF SITE A PERMITlED AGRIClLTdfAL USE? (5) IF SAP IS BII)IØIT TO THE SITE FROM ŒF SITE, IS T~T A PERMITTED AGRIClLTdfAL USE, UNDER THE DEFINITIeJI Œ AGRIClLlUtAL USE? ,øERTY IS LOCAlED eJI THE If:ST SIDE Œ RDUIE 149, ACROSS FROM MARTINDALE ¥)AD Øt THE lAX ASSESSMENT MAP AS 30-1-13, 16. CAROL YN MARTINDALE AND FRANCI S MARTINDALE AND ROBERT MARTINDALE, PRESENT (7 :45 p.m.) MRS. MARTINDALE-Carol Martindale. I ~uld like to ask that what Ed Bartholomew has prepared for us be read. He was supposed to be here tonight, but due to the DA caning him on a criminal case, he couldn't make it. He prepared something that he would ask be read at this moment. MRS. EGGLESTON-Dated April 30th, 1992, "As a result of the ongoing meetings, public hearings, and discussions regarding our property, please consider this a statement as a clarification in regards to our requested use of our property. This clarification is needed due to the lateness in the year for which we can undertake our farming and selling farm produce. This is particularly due to the fact that even after this public hearing this evening, this matter again must go back to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. The Martindales have owned the property, which is the site of the proposed operation, since 1986. During the period of time from 1986 and on, the fonowing activities occurred on site: Raised cows, pigs, sheep, chickens and turkeys, Tapped maple trees, Sold black berries, Stored hay and farming equipment, Sold farm produce in 1991. In 1991 and 1992 we sold maple syrup from this site, adding the production in 1992. At the time that the initial application was submitted to the Town of Queensbury, Francis and Carol Martindale were 100% owners of the property. Subsequent to the application, as a result of estate planning by the Martindale's attorney, Bernard McPhillips, the sons Francis Martindale, Jr. and Robert Martindale were named and added to the property. A copy of the deed and authorization by Robert and Francis, Jr., designating Francis and Carol to act as agents in this matter is attached. As indicated above, we are requesting a very straight forward concept and project for this property for this season; namely to erect a portable farm produce stand on a seasonal basis. The produce stand would be approximately 100 sq. ft., (within the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance). We will sell farm products which are grown on properties owned by the Martindales. Produce win not be sold in the barn. The barn win not be open to the public. The location of the 100 sq. ft. portable farm stand is attached hereto. Access to the property is limited to thè entrance and exit as outlined on the annexed map, accompanied by the required NYS DOT permit. Barriers have been erected across other access points onto the property as requested by the Town of Queensbury officials. In summary, the Martindales are seeking permission to seH our own products grown on the properties owned by the Martindales on a seasonal basis from a portable farm produce stand as attached hereto, together with the previously granted permission to produce and sen maple syrup on site. The hours which the portable stand win operate win depend on the availability of the products and weather. This operation which we are proposing is no different than currently several existing and operating farm produce stands within the Town of Queensbury, who for one reason or another have not been the subject of review by the Town of Queensbury Boards. II MRS. MARTINDALE-There were a lot of people that wanted to be here tonight, and one of them was our neighbor, Ernie Brunen, but he's vacationing in Oregon. He did have something he would like to say, but he's not here, but he did sign, along with a majority of neighbors on 149, and several other people, about 200 people within the Town of Queensbury, that would like to do business, and I present a petition with their signatures. As Mr. Bartholomew stated there, when we first applied, an we asked for on our application here was retail sales for agricultural products. The other items we had asked at the 1 -- -- meeting in March that they be taken off the agenda, and we wou1d just, tonight, we wou1d 1ike to c1arify with you, under 179-15 in the Queensbury Ordinance, if you 100k under Item 14, it says, season produce stand, portab1e up to 100 square feet. When we first app1ied, we were going by the guidance of the Zoning Administrator, the Senior P1anner, and Dave Hatin, the Queensbury Code Enforcement Officer. We had no know1edge of what was in the Ordinance. We simp1y app1ied to se11 our produce that we produce, and that is what we are asking for tonight, is this portab1e produce stand. It win be 7 by 14, as indicated on your map that we have presented here, again, tonight. The origina1 map just c1arifies with the barriers and everything and where the produce stand wi11 be, etc., and we wou1d ask that you c1arify that this .i! within the zoning. The seasona1 produce stand, this is simp1y what we're asking for. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I guess my question wou1d be to you, are you sti11 pursuing the avenue that you want to bring the products from off site? MRS. MARTINDALE-That wou1 d a110w us to. If you check under Page 17937, under Produce Stand Portab1e, it reads, a structure designed for seasona1 use and sa1e of farm products such as fruits, vegetab1es and f10wers, produced by the owners of the 10t, and we own the 10t, on which such stand is 10cated, which stand must be removed when not in use, during the off season, and it's very c1ear. We own the 10t. We own the property. We have considerab1e investment in that, a10ng with the other properties that we've purchased, to coordinate this project here on 149. We have a considerab1e vested interest in an three properties, and we're simp1y asking a very reasonab1e use which is within the Zoning Ordinance. MR. TURNER-But the hearing is to rehear the appea1 of February 19th, as to Questions One and Five. That's what the hearing's for. MRS. MARTINDALE-To se11 vegetab1es. MR. TURNER-Grown off site. MRS. MARTINDALE-These are grown on site and off site. MR. TURNER-Okay, but we're sti11 going to hear that part of it, grown off site, that's the question, that's what we're here for. A11 right. I'll open the pub1ic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE RYAN MR. RYAN-Hi. My name's George Ryan and I 1ive right on 149, and I got to meet Francis 1ast Mayor June, he came around se11ing strawberries. I've got a 1itt1e vegetab1e stand down the road from him, and I bought the strawberries from him, and in buying the strawberries from him, he's kind of a nice fe11ow. He picked my brain for about two months. After he did that, he turned me into the Town for my signs. I had a big prob1em with the Town and my signs. I've never had a prob1em. Ten years sel1ing vegetab1es on the side of the road. I fina11y saved enough money to get a piece of 1and, c1ear it. They rea11y came down hard on me. Now, he's been up and down the Town. I started with a sma11 stand, 10 by 10. I went in front of the Town and got a Site P1an Review. I got a big p1ace, wa1k-in cooler permission, 1988 I went for a11 this stuff. He sti11 wasn't p1eased with a11 that, raised hen with me, for months and months. Now, I'm not opposed to what he's doing. It"s his 1and. He's got his vegetab1e stand down there. A11 I'm saying is, I want you peop1e, the Town of Queensbury, I'm a taxpayer, to do your job. Your decision is my decision. That's a11 I want to say. I'm not totally against it, but I'm 1eaving it in your hands. I've been through he11 with this fe11ow. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I'm Michae1 O'Connor from the 1aw firm of Litt1e and O'Connor. I am speaking on beha1f of Irving and Li11ian Martinda1e, who've asked that I speak on their beha1f this evening. I rea11y don't think what's been presented to this point addresses the question that's before the Board or the question for which 1ega1 notice was presented, or the reason for which the meeting was caned. I think you're sti11 back to the question of the two questions that were answered in February and is the Board going to change its position on those two particu1ar questions. Again,' you've been asked to go off into something e1se, as opposed to direct1y referring to those questions. If you 100k at a definition on Page 17911, Agricu1tura1 Use, I think you wi11 see c1ear1y that it does prohibit, in this particu1ar site, the sa1e of produce raised off of the property, and I think it's p1ain and it's c1ear. I don't think there's rea11y a big issue about it. Perhaps the Town Board has to do something, because I understand that there are other peop1e that are in the same circumstance that may want to have some reHef, but I think that's the province of the Town Board and not of this particu1ar Board. As you can on1y interpret, you can't 1egis1ate. I wou1d go one step further, simp1y because the app1icant has, and they now have referred to another Section, but again they have the same issue there, because if you read that wh01e Section that they referred to, the Seasona1 Farm Bui1ding, again, they're ta1king about the produce that's raised on the premises where the stand is 10cated. They seem to want to insert punctuation within the definition, that rea11y is not there, and I think you've got to 100k at it and read it as you wou1d common sense and interpret it as you wou1d common sense. You're ta1king, Produce 2 "- Stand, Portable, if you look in the middle of that sentence, it says, produced by the owner of the lot on which such stand is located. You really haven't changed that issue. You've just gone to another Section, if this Board happens to want to go to that other Section this evening. The exception that was put in for Agricultural Use, there was a l1mited exception for the purpose of a110wing the person who grew some produce or raised animals on a particular property to sti1l be deemed to be agricu1tural if he sold what he raised on that parcel on that property. It was a special exception. It doesn't give what is being asked for a blank check to set up a retail stand, and that's real1y what they're looking for. So, I do think that the Board needs to rule that the Ordinance as written, whether right or wrong, does not permit, in this particular zone, the sale of products grown off of the site at which the sale will take place. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I'm Francis Martindale, and I would like to address this Board with the understanding any complaints that any of my competition has, or my parents or anything else, that it must remember, I'm only asking that everybody has to go by the same rules, and that's al1 I've asked for, and this is the only reason that that some of the competition is unhappy. That's al1 it is. If I can have one sign, nobody else is going to have more than one sign. If I have to have a permit for a sign, everybody else is going to have a permit for a sign. If I can't bring vegetables that I raise to my property and sel1 them, nobody else in this Town is going to have the same privilege. That is discrimination, because 1 raise it. I don't go and buy it and bring it here, and that's what this Board must remember. MR. RYAN-I just want to say one thing. I've been sel1ing vegetables in this Town. for over 10 years. My name's George Ryan. I've been sel1ing out of a truck. When i applied for a vegetable stand, I had to go by the Town Board's rules, or whatever the Town is. I started with a 10 by 10. I got a site plan review and got a bigger building. I couldn't get a barn on the side of the road and open it up for a fruit stand. They would have shut me down, parking and everything, and I truck in vegetables, and I'm going to keep trucking in vegetables because I have a demand and the people want them, and nobody's going to stop me from that, but you know what, I started doing it 10 years ago. He started last year. The Town's got to set it somewhere. MR. CARR-Mr. Ryan, you were given permission in '88 to do that. Do you remember when? MR. RYAN-In 1988, I went and got a site plan review, because I wanted to go larger. I wanted to sel1 flowers and stuff. MR. CARR-And they gave you permission, though, and it wasn't flowers grown on your property and stuff? I'm just trying to clear this up. MR. RYAN-In 1988, no, I was selling vegetables, almost a farm like he wants to do. MR. TURNER-When in '88, George? MR. RYAN-Before they put the Master Plan in. MR. TURNER-The new Zoning Ordinance? MR. RYAN-Before the new Zoning Ordinance came in. I don't know the correct dates. I have no problem with what he wants to. The problem I have with him is what he's trying, this guy's got a problem with his nose. He's worrying about everybody else's business. It's not just this. He comes in the Town and the Town says, you can't do something. I want to state that this fel1ow, instead of doing what he wants to do, and taking care of his own business, and sitting down with you people and making a plan, he's worried about what I'm doing. He should be concentrating on his project, sitting down with you guys saying, what's going to make it work, not worrying about Ryan. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Ryan, in al1 fairness, you're entitled to what you do on your property. I think people in your neighborhood or anywhere else in the Town of Queensbury, if they want to do what you do, they should be able to do it, and they're not being allowed to do it by the Town. MR. RYAN-I agree with you 100 percent there. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's it in a nutshell. There's such a thing as fairness. MR. RYAN-Then why should they go and say, well George has a building. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because you're the only sample they have in that area to go to the Town and say, here's a guy that does it. Why can't I, and it's a fair question, a legitimate question. I might ask you, are you in violation of some of the Town? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Site plan review. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Some of the things that they gave you, where your greenhouses aren't situated, and so on. 3 '--' MR. RYAN-No, because in 1988 I had my greenhouse facing this way, and the Town said to me, George, can you turn it around because your neighbor's complaining a little bit. I turned that one around. I went down and said, two years later for expanding, okay, because the man was there. I said, I want to put a greenhouse up. That's not in front of that lady's window, and I got a permit for it. How can you say it's in violation? I have a permit. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it in violation, Pat? We have the minutes before us of what he was allowed to do. Is it in violation? I mean, I know that has nothing to do with this, but we should try to be fair, here. I don't want to put you on the spot. If you don't want to answer it, don't answer it. MRS. CRAYFORD-I would prefer not to answer it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, that's fine. 1'm just asking you to understand why these people feel that they raised the question to begin with. It's a sense of fairness, and I'm going to tell you, I understand about fairness because I had a cement plant brought in my neighborhood by moonlight. I literally got up in the morning and the smokestack was there. So, I'm a person that's very fair. If you can do it, they can do it. MR. RYAN-I don't have any objection to them doing it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Then don't get excited because they have to show. MR. RYAN-But why use me as a scapegoat? MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't consider it using you as a scapegoat. I don't consider it using you as a scapegoat. What they have to do to prove their point, in all fairness. is find someone in their area doing the same thing and being allowed to do it, and them not being allowed to do it. Lets face it, there aren't many like what you do on 149, or in your area. MR. RYAN-So, that means that anybody that drives by and they see what I'm doing and they get an idea, so they watch me and they do the same thing next to me. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what competition's all about. MR. RYAN-And I agree 100 percent, because what I say is when they get going, my business should double. I'm for them. I just don't like the way they're going about it. Why should I be harassed? MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm trying to explain to you why they're doing that. MR. RYAN-Did m. give them that idea to do it? MRS. EGGLESTON-I certainly did not. They came up with that on their own and I think it's a good idea, because I think it's fair. You have to be fair. If it's fair for you, it's fair for your neighbor. MR. RYAN-How come I have to have a bui 1 ding with a setbacks that are 100 feet off the road? They 're right on the road. How come I have to have a parking lot? How come I have to do all this stuff. I mean, where's the fairness? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, you don't know they're not going to have that. They haven't even got past the front door yet. MR. RYAN-You don't need permits to start filling. MR. TURNER-George, let me just say this. We're here on two issues. The one is agricultural use, can they bring in products grown off site. . That is the one issue. The same with the sap, and that's all we're going to talk about. MR. RYAN-And it should pertain to them. not to Ryan. MR. TURNER-We're not talking about George Ryan. You offered it. We didn't ask you. MR. RYAN-Okay. That's all I have to say. MR. CARR-And also, just to clarify that, we aren't talking about the Martindales, we're talking about the Ordinance, what is the meaning of the Ordinance. MR. TURNER-We're talking about the Ordinance, we're not talking about the Martindales. We're talking about a specific definition in the Ordinance, and that's all we're talking about. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-MY name is Bob Martindale. I'd like to just clarify one thing. We are not against George Ryan. The reason why this sign thin~, just to clarify this, mainly to George and these other fine people here. We put up signs for our produce stand. There is one person that is opposed to us 4 doing anything that we want to do there, and that is Irving C. Martindale. If you ask Mrs. Crayford and Dave Hatin, Irving C. Martindale came to them and said, the Martindales across the road have too many signs, and to my knowledge, what was said, Dave Hatin said, well, Mr. Martindale, Irving C., 1Q.Y. have too many signs, so they made him take them down, but, in all fairness, if we have too many signs, everybody else should have to come underneath that same thing, as far as, if you're allowed this many signs, fine. Everybody in this Town should have to abide by that too. The only reason why we brought up George Ryan is because, like you said, Mrs. Eggleston, he has a similar business. We are not anything against him, as far as what he does. We aren't against George, because you want to do the exact same thing as we want to do. We are not against him a bit, but what we are saying is, if we are only allowed one sign or two signs, then he should have to abide by the same thing, or if he can do it, why can't we do the exact same thing as him. Do you realize how late we stay up at night. When we're going through the site plan review, we stay up until four o'clock in the morning. MAX COFFIN MR. COFFIN-Hi. My name's Max Coffin. I've got a little stand up on Ridge Road, and Frannie's right about one thing. The signs, they came up and bugged me about my signs several years ago. I just made my signs smaller. I don't believe there's any vegetable stand anywhere around that grows all their own produce. You've got to bring in, just because of the nature of farming. If you're going to grow corn, maybe you've got 200 dozen today, and nothing tomorrow. I think that this whole thing is being blown out of proportion, now, and turned into an argument with everybody. I agree with Mrs. Eggleston. Anybody should be able to do what they want to do in the Town of Queensbury, if they're neighbors don't object. FLOYD MARTINDALE MR. FLOYD MARTINDALE-My name is Floyd Martindale. I've been in this business since I was this high. We used to have apple trees, and then we had, in 1931, got killed. You know that as well as I do, and I've had vegetables, and as he just said, once in a while you've got to go somewhere else to get stuff, but you always keep business going, and I'm against nobody, but I think we all ought to be able to be equa1. That's all I've got to say. If we don't, we're going to have a civil war, just like it is in California. That's what we're asking for, if we don't look out for ourselves. Thank you. DICK KI LMARTIN MR. KILMARTIN-I'm Dick Kilmartin. I live on Dream Lake Road. I originally lived on Bay Road, and I'll tell you something right now, I've farmed it for 35 years up there, and you, Teddy Turner, you know this. You've done work for me. Now, when I run out of sweet corn, just like Floyd said, I had to go buy it. Tomatoes were in big demand. When our tomatoes were late, we bought them. I don't know what the big hassle is, here.· Mrs. Eggleston said somebody put a smokestack up overnight. She wasn't aware of what was going on, just like I haven't been aware of many things, because I don't read the newspaper lots of times, or I don't read it thoroughly. She didn't read the newspaper, and somebody put something across her. There's nobody putting anything across on me. I'm not putting anything across on anybody else. I don't try to, and I think what the Martindales are doing is fine, but why are they picking on everybody else, because you have a family feud. I don't think that's fair that the public has got to listen to this BS, and I think, if they're going to raise it, I don't care where they raise them. They can raise them in Fort Ann or Timbuktu. It doesn't make any difference to me. They put a lot of hard work into it, but why are they picking on George Ryan and all the rest of the people in the area. I heard a little rumor here a couple of weeks ago about myself, that included the Martindales. Well, I'll tell you something, they're not going to put Dick Kilmartin out of business, because Dick Kilmartin will give his pumpkins away before somebody will bury it. MRS. MARTINDALE-I would just like to apologize to anyone who's gotten the idea that we're picking on them. We have only tried to defend ourselves showing what is going on in the Town and how other people with farm stands operate, and that's simply fact, and we have not meant to hurt anybody's feelings in any way. I would like to read, here, what Mr. Brandt said, April 20th, 1992 Town Board meeting about, approximately two weeks ago. Supervisor Brandt stated, first of all my husband asked, Mr. Martindale questioned the Town Board if they were aware of the situation of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board regarding the selling of vegetables at this property. Supervisor Brandt stated, this matter came before the Board a few days ago. The Town Board has said, people that are in the business of running farm stores can continue to run farm stores for now while the Board reviews the law, and this is Mr. Brandt's transcript from Mr. Brandt. This how he feels and how he would like this law enforced, until the Town gets a fair chance to review it. MR. TURNER-Mrs. Martindale, they have to change the law. Until they change it, we have to deal with it. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. Further, under constitutional law and zoning, it says, zoning regulations being in derivation of CORlllOn law must be strictly construed against the zoning authority, not the property owner. Any ambiguity in the language used in such a regulation must be resolved in favor of the property owner. As I have said, we have a considerable investment in three agricultural properties. Under zoning 12 New York Juror, it says, under Àgriculture and Horticulture, most zoning ordinances permit 5 1 '- agricultural uses of property or farming in various districts, including residential zones. A zoning regulation permitting farming in a residential district permits a use primarily concerned with the raising of crops and does not include uses which are related to incidental with such use. The raising of livestock for market is a main purpose, or on a large scale, is a cOlllllercial, not an agricultural use. So, when the Town of Queensbury, in their Zoning Ordinance, under Farm Classes 179-63, allow farm animals to be raised on such property, it is a COlllllercial venture. So, they're saying that commercial use is anowable in an RR-3A under zoning, and this is, as I said, in 12 New York Juror. If you go to 179-72 of the Zoning Law, under Buffer Zones, farmers are under exception to do this use, it says for any commercial use, as defined in this Chapter, with the exception of farm operation, abuts any residential zone at the lot line or at a street, said commercial or industrial use shan provide at least 50 feet, or 100 feet for heavy industrial, heavy industry, as a buffer against an adjoining lot of the residential zone or the street or right-of-way. So, here you find, under exceptions, farm operations includes commercial use in a residential zone, and we are a farm operation. We have been since the early 80's, and the Town's definition of agricultural use does not define between horticulture or raising farm animals as being grandfathered in. You are grandfathered in for the commercial use because we did have cows. We raised cows. We sold cows. We had sheep. We sold sheep. We had chickens. We sold eggs. We had an kinds of farm animals on that property and we are grandfathered in through this use, as you see here now, prior to this Zoning Ordinance of 1988. No question. MR. o 'CONNOR-I think, again, we're getting off into right field. I think Mr. Carr was right when he said that, reany, you've got to leave personalities out and you've got to look at the Ordinance as to how it's going to be applied in the Town, or how it should be applied in the Town. Whether you agree with it or not, the Ordinance is what it is. If the Ordinance needs to be changed, it's the Town Board's function to change it. Even comparing what little bit I've heard tonight, the proposed operation, to the operation of Mr. Ryan. If that was in under the Old Ordinance, that's a different ban game. That's not the same Ordinance. It's not the same definitions. So, when you make that type of comparison, you also go away from even interpretation which is what you're doing here tonight. Maybe you're talking about enforcement, and that, again, is not a function of this Board. So, I think this Board reany has to take a look at the Ordinance as it was adopted in 1988 and say, does it anow the sale of produce that's raised off the premises, and it's clear this says it doesn't. MRS. ~RTINDALE-Jt does not, Mr. O'Connor. If you look at your 179-63, Farm Class A, any parcel of land in excess of 10 acres, used for the raising of agricultural products or the keeping of poultry, fowl, livestock, small mammals, or domestic animals for commercial purpose, that's not the one I wanted. I was looking for the definition of Agricultural Use. I've got the wrong one. Pardon me. Agricultural Use, any management of any land for agriculture. The raising of cows, horses, pigs, poultry and/or other livestock, truck gardens, horticulture; or orchards, including the sale of products grown or raised directly on such land and including the construction, alteration or maintenance of fences, agricultural roads, agricultural drainage systems, farm ponds. Do you know this sentence actuany says? Can you tell me what this sentence says? MR. TURNER-Yes. It says you have to grow it on site. MRS. ~RTINDALE-Okay. I have a statement here from Lee Corning. He lives in Glens Fans. He is a secondary teacher in Hudson Falls. He says, in mY professional opinion, the definition of agricultural use, Page 179-7 of the Zoning Law is written to state, literally, that the, second half of the definition, that portion after the words horticulture or, refers only to orchards. So, when you're saying that they can grow produce on the property and sen it, you're not saying that. You're saying that, only orchards, and this is a professional opinion. I have his signature. He dates it. So, if there's any question as to what this is actually saying, it's got to be given, as I said in the zoning, it has got to go to the land owner. Any doubts or any clarity that is not in the Zoning Ordinance itself has got to go the land owner. MR. O'CONNOR-We can go back and forth, I think, 900 times and have three hearings on the same subject, but just so the record is clear, even if what the applicant has just said were correct at an, then that person is saying you could have no sale except for orchards, which I think is ridiculous. That's not what we're saying. We're saying you can sen any produce or any animal that is raised on the premises, you could actually sell if you go through site plan review and obtain approval of the Planning Board. I have tried to fractional that defini tion that's in there, and that is, if I understood what she just said, she's saying that only orchards can have sales. MRS. MARTINDALE-That is what it, literally, says, and Mr. O'Connor just raised a question. How does everybody sen produce in the Town of Queensbury? When was the Town of Queensbury founded, a couple of hundred years ago? How has the Town of Queensbury been sen ing produce? How have they anowed their farmers to sell over 200 years, common law, farm law. Farmers can go out and buy their product, raise their product and sell what they grow on site, when they have them in season, or they can go to another farmer and they work hand in hand together, as we would like to do in this Town of Queensbury right now. It's no different than what the common laws have been practiced for over 200 years. Also, why do we allow transient merchants to come in here, people that don't even produce their produce. They go out and buy it. The reason why they can sen it is because of Article 80 of New York State Law, and it says, discrimination against n~nresidents, Any restriction or regulation illlposed by the governing board or municipal corporation upon the inhabitants of any other municipal corporation within 6 1 , -' '---' this state carrying on or designed to carryon any local business or falling within the limits thereof which shan not be necessary for the proper regulation of such trade, business, and shan not apply to an citizens of an part of the State alike, except ordinances or regulations, and in reference to travel circuses, shows, exhibitions shan be void. So, this is why we have the Queensbury Common Law, regarding discrimination, you can't discriminate against them, so under common law with people growing products, buying products under New York State, Article 80, you can't discriminate against nonresidents. So, this makes the whole Ordinance very clear. It anows people growing within the Town of Queensbury to either sen what they an produce themselves or they can help another farmer out and buy some of his, and then, in turn, when he needs it, they can buy it back, and then you can't discriminate against the nonresidents. It's a State Law, and so we have the whole Ordinance fit in together, and what we have applied for here tonight, for clarification on the produce stand which is necessary, which I believe hardly anybody in the Town has done, up to us, is apply for a produce stand, and this is what we're trying to get clarified here tonight, under this Article. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-We're only here to hear those two questions, as defined in the Ordinance. MR. CARR-Ted, I think the Ordinance does say that you have to grow it on the property to sen it. I think it's a bad law, and it should be changed. I don't think we can do it. MR. TURNER-No, we can't. MR. CARR-And that's the problem. MR. TURNER-I think our position is to rule on what the Ordinance says. That is our position. MR. CARR-I don't know where we can weight into the common law, as Mrs. Martindale said. I mean, everyone does it in Town. MRS. MARTINDALE-It has never been enforced any other way. MR. CARR-Yes, and that's where the problem is. I mean, that's where .Q.!!!:. problem is. We are not an enforcement agency. We're not a legislative body. An we can do is interpret what this says, okay, and I think it's clear what it says. It's never been enforced, okay, but the Planning Board has asked us, what does this say, and in my opinion, that's what it says, is that you have to grow it on the property to sell it. MRS. MARTINDALE-Even under Exceptions, under 179-72? MR. CARR-Yes, I really think so. I don't disagree with your position. I sympathize with your position. I do believe the law should be changed, because it's not what's happening, and I think you probably win have very good success with the Town Board with this, because they're the ones who will change the law. Just in my opinion, though, we can't change the law for you, and we can't change the definition. MR. TURNER-You're not denied the use of tilling the land, producing the crops on the land and selling them off the land. That's a permitted use. So is the portable stand, wit~ the 100 square feet, just for site plan review, but you're asking to bring it off site. The Ordinance says no. You've got to grow it on site, and that's what we've got to rule on. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Everybody has to do that. MR. TURNER-No. You're asking, the question is from the Planning Board, not particularly from you. They're asking for a clarification, and the Zoning Ordinance says that you have to grow the products on-site to sell them. MR. CARR-You can take our interpretation however you want. You can do whatever you want. You know Mr. Brandt's feeling is, don't enforce it. I'm not tening you what to do. I'm not saying anything. I'm just saying Mr. Brandt, according to what you just stated, said to Mrs. Crayford or to whoever was at that meeting yesterday, don't enforce it until we look at it. So, you can decide what you're doing. Our question is, from the Planning Board, not to point to the Planning Board member here, but the Planning Board, what is the interpretation of this, okay, and I think we aren't talking about Mr. Ryan, Mr. Kilmartin, we're not talking about Mr. and Mrs. Martindale. We're not talking about anybody. We're talking about what does this paragraph say to us. MRS. MARTINDALE-Can you just take one paragraph, though, without looking at the whole Ordinance? MR. CARR-Wen, we take into consideration the other provisions of the Ordinance, and what we thought the framers had meant. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion. Fred? MR. CARVIN-No, I think it's pretty clear, Ted. 7 '\ ! MRS. PALING-I think it's c1ear. MR. SICARD-I think it's c1ear. Have we answered your question? You just made the remark, does this go for everybody. Is this is the question you just asked us? MR. FRANCIS M4RTINDALE-I just fee1 that if this is the ru1ing, and I have to 1ive by it, that you, as a Board, are going to have to go to the Town and make sure the Town enforces that 1aw to everybody. You've got to make it fair. So, whatever your decision is, you're ref1ecting everybody in the Town, because it's n1ega1 to do at this time, and because it's i11ega1 to do, there's no precedent set. So, everybody's got to 1ive by the same ru1e, and that's a11 I'm saying. Board, make your decision, but understand, the peop1e you're putting out of business and the peop1e you're hurting. MR. CARR-But we aren't making decisions on any particu1ar case, because there are other ru1es about preexisting this Code. Mr. Knmartin's been in business for 30 years. I mean, he's definite1y got grandfathered before any, you know, there are those issues as to se11ing corn and what he does, okay. We're ta1king about, under this app1ication, which is a 1992 app1ication, and an interpretation of this Ordinance as it app1ies to one piece of parce1 right now, what does the prdinance mean, and in our interpretation, you can ignore it, you can do whatever you want, but our interpretation has to be what, we can't change the 1aw. That is not our function. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Can you interpret, tonight, the seasona1 produce stand, because what's going to happen is, quite honest1y, the P1anning Board, if we go under and say, we were misrepresented. My name is Bob Martinda1e. What we origina11y did, to get rid of an this bickering and fighting. What is going to happen, I want to expedite this thing. I don't want to come before you again, and I fee1 what's going to happen is we're going to be in front of you again, because on our origina1 app1ication for site p1an review, the on1y things it says is sa1e of produce, okay. That's an we want to do is sen produce. The Town P1anner stuck in agricu1tura1 use, okay, but there's another part there. There's seasona1 produce stand, okay, and I want you to interpret seasona1 produce stand, because what's going to happen is we're going to go to the P1anning Board and they're going to kick us back here again and say, we11, we are not sure what seasona1 produce stand means. Wi11 you p1ease interpret that for us. So, we're just going to be back here again arguing, okay. So, if you can do that now, I know it's not what you're supposed to be doing now, but I just want to save you time, us time, Pat Crayford's time, everybody's time. That's what I want to do, and that's what's going to happen. They're not going to know, they won't make a decision because they aren't sure of the interpretation of seasona1 produce stand, because they weren't sure of the interpretation of agricu1tura1 use. So, we're going to come back here again. If you cou1d give us an interpretation of that so maybe we don't have to come back here again. Is that reasonab1e. MR. TURNER-Is right in the definition. MR. ROBERT M4RTINDALE-Wou1d you read it for me? MR. TURNER-Produce Stand Permanent, a structure designed for the sa1e of farm products, such as fruits, vegetab1es and f10wers, produced by the owner of the 10t on which the stand is 10cated. Produce Stand Portab1e, a structure designed for seasona1 use and sa1e of farm products such as fruits, vegetab1es, f10wers produced by the owner of the 10t on which the stand is 10cated, which stand must be removed when not in use during the off season. MR. ROBERT M4RTINDALE-Okay. Now what that says to me, agricu1tura1 use comes right out and says that, I have to agree with you, has to be grown on-site, doesn't it say that? Does that say has to be grown on-site in those words? MR. TURNER-It says on the 10t. MR. ROBERT M4RTINDALE-No. It says, has to be s01d by the owner of the 1and, who owns the 10t. MR. TURNER-Go back to agricu1tura1 use definition. MR. ROBERT M4RTINDALE-We aren't ta1king about agricu1tura1 use, here. We're ta1king about seasona1 produce stand. MR. CARR-We're ta1king about a stand. We aren't ta1king about a sa1e. We're ta1king about the stand itse1f. So, now we're ta1king about a structure. MR. ROBERT M4RTINDALE-Right. MR. CARR-Now, but to ta1k about the sa1e, you've got to go to the agricu1tura1 use. MRS. EGGLESTON-Can we ti1k a minute amongst ourse1ves on this agricu1tura1 use definition, again? MR. TURNER-Yes. 8 J ~ MRS. ~RTINDALE-Could I just interject one final thing. What Bob is saying, you've got several items listed under 179-15. If you want to put in a miniature golf course, you don't have to go through agricultural use. They're two separate entities. So, if you're going under Item 14, you don't have to go under agricultural use to have a definition. This is where the transient merchants fit in. If they, according to the Zoning Law, as Mr. O'Connor has very clearly stated, in order to have, in RR-3A, a produce stand, a transient merchant has to go through site plan review for that produce stand. He can bring in any kind of produce. He doesn't have to produce it. So, this is what we're saying tonight. You don't have to produce it. You don't have to have agricultural use in order to have a produce stand in RR-3A, and we know that. Mr. O'Connor knows that. So, read right down through them and you will see that it doesn't have to be agricultural use, because if you're going to say it has to be agricultural use to have a produce stand, then you're going to have to say it has to be agricultural use to have every other item mentioned in there, whether it's 18 things or whatever. MR. ROBERT ~RTINDALE-If they meant the two to be the same, why didn't they put seasonal produce stand with agricultural use? They're under two different numbers? Why did they do that? GEORGE VALENCE MR. VALENCE-My name is George Valence, and I've been listening to this and following it for quite.a while and, is there any way, this is not going to get resolved. The only thing this is going to do is take neighbors, destroy each other, friendships that are going to happen, a family's already been destroyed. Is there any way of getting a temporary permit for a season so these poor people can get on and make some money. I mean, you're sitting up here, and everybody else involved in the Town of Queensbury, in the past, have slowed their wheels down, and it's so hard to get a building permit until the administration change, which has changed now and it is a lot easier, since this happened. I mean, lets be flexible. They get out of it, save your face, save everybody else's face, can a temporary permit, for one year, be issued, so these people can go ahead and do it and everybody's pacified, before it gets to the point where they've got to call this side, this side calls this side and this side, and what is the benefit? Nothing. The only thing it's going to lose is the Town of Queensbury, because people are going to get so upset with trying to do business in here, that they're going to go down the road to Fort Ann, or whatever, and it's stupid. This is foolish, over something stupid like selling tomatoes. Who cares whether it's on the site or it isn't. I'm buying it. I don't care where it's sold. It's foolish. We're tying up time and money, and the most important thing that we're doing is we're ruining friendship, and for what? Because I want to sell it here, and you can't grow it there, it's stupid, in my opinion. MR. RYAN-Hi. I'm George Ryan. The way I understood this to say, if 1'm clear to make a correct, is Francis can go home right now and sell his vegetables because Mike Brandt, didn't you guys say Mike Brandt said we're going to put this on the side? So, why can't he just go home and sell his vegetables? I mean, didn't it say that we're going to sell vegetables until we resolve this law? MR. CARR-That's what Mike Brandt supposedly said. MR. RYAN-That's the way I heard them say it. I mean, give them a temporary permit. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but they're asking for a clarification on two issues, and that's what we're here for. MR. RYAN-Yes, I understand that, but I also felt that they felt like they couldn't go sell their vegetables. MR. TURNER-No. They know they can sell them. They want to bring them off site. That's the question. MR. RYAN-They can still bring them off site until Mike Brandt says it. I just read the paper, the way 1 understood it. MR. CARR-Well, if you want a permit, you can call Mr. Brandt. I mean, he's the one who could authorize special permits or whatever. I mean, I can't sign a permit. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm going to give food for thought, here. When you come back to this agricultural use, Page 17911, Agricultural Use, it says any management of any land for agriculture. I mean, take that sentence by itself. Any management of any land for agriculture. Certainly what they want to do could be considered agriculture. In my mind, this paragraph then goes on to give different illustrations of what maybe management can be, but not all encompassing of what management of any land for agriculture could be. I think it's so broad, I don't believe, for a minute, that it means only what's grown on the land. I think if you look at the very first paragraph, any management of any land for agriculture: Then it lists some descriptions of what it feels would fall under that category. It doesn't say, explicitly, that it excludes everything else. MR. CARR-See, I read it this way. I read it that it's any management of any land for agriculture, then it lists five examples, and then it sh~uld say, comma including the sale of products grown directlY on the property, that that phrase connects to the general theme of the whole property, that agricultural use is the management of land, that mean$ actually getting out and using the land somehow, but in this definition, it includes the sale of products grown on the property. 9 -- MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, it includes that, but it doesn't exclude it. It includes it. You're right, but it doesn't exclude products that aren't grown. MR. CARR-But I think the purpose, I think in an agricultural use the thought is not that sales, the thought under this definition would be that the sales would not take place, but they're making the exception to the sale, saying, if it's grown on the property, you can sell it from the property. MRS. EGGLESTON-I look at it in a much broader. Any management of any land. MR. CARVIN-Does the term, any land, preclude land outside of Queensbury, is the question, or does it just refer to, lets say we have a person who has several acres in various spots in the Town of Queensbury. If he grows it in Site A, can he move it to Site B, as long as it's in the Town of Queensbury? MR. TURNER-It doesn't say. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I'm asking. MRS. EGGLESTON-It doesn't say, actually, and I think Paul Dusek's words in here are, this is so broad. To me, for us to try to limit it, for us to try to put restrictions on it, and for us to find a positive answer within it, I don't think it's there. MR. TURNER-No, but I think if you put a stand up, if they grow their stuff on-site, and they're allowed to bring stuff from off site to augment what, we'll go back to the word "augment", what they need to augment, the corn or whatever, whatever the season is, then instead of it becoming, it's a commercial operation. It's a commercial, retail operation, then. That's the difference. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it's still an agricultural use, Ted. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the difference is, it's not unlike a hobby thing to somebody, then it becomes a commercial retail operation. MR. CARVIN-And then, where do we draw the line, fertilizer, figurines? MR. KILMARTIN-We put in 20 acres of pumpkins every year, and don't tell me that's not a commercial operation, because it is, and somebody bringing something in off another lot is still a commercial operation. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's what I said. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you see where I'm coming from, though, at the beginning of the sentence? MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think it's clear cut and dried that they have to be raised directly on the land, because of the first sentence that says, any management of any land for agriculture. Then it lists various things, but by any stretch of the imagination, it certainly doesn't list everything that would be included in it. MR. CARR-No, for managing of land, not of selling from the land, and I think that's where the exception. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Well, really management of the land for agriculture, that would be, if you chose to sell. MR. CARR-Well, you could say Quaker Plaza is a management of land, but you wouldn't say it's an agricultural management. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, but in this particular case, you could say, because it's connected to agriculture. MR. CARR-I don't agree with that. MR. SICARD-What are we trying to save? Are we trying to save the local people money by not having competition from outside fields? What are we trying to achieve by saying they can't bring in? MR. TURNER-The purpose at the time, I think, was to protect the farmers that were in the Town, in a sense, but what I'm saying is. if you start an operation like he wants to start, all right. He wants to bring his produce from Fort Ann, all right. He's going to sell in volume. He's not going to sell it like the guy that's got a little berry patch, raspberry patch. all right. MR. SICARD-So, then what you're saying is, he',s going to effect the competition? MR. TURNER-Then he becomes a commercial operation. 10 -' '- MR. SICARD-Look at these people that come in here, right now, from Albany, doing a big contract job. They even bring the dumpsters in from Albany, and they bring all their materials in. They bring the laborers in. They bring the mechanics in. Nothing is bought in Glens Falls. I can tell you where there's a half a dozen of them. What do we do about them, right in Queensbury? We don't do anything about them. MR. TURNER-But we're talking about farming, an agricultural use. MR. SICARD-The garbage collectors, everybody else comes from every other plant in the world, comes right in here and does business, and nobody says a damn thing. A little operation like this, and we spend a million dollars on it. MR. TURNER-Nobody's denying them the use of their land. They can have the use of their land. MR. SICARD-They've been back here half a dozen times, for what? Nobody's hurting Dick. Nobody's hurting Martindale. Nobody, but all these contractors come selling, you just name it, and they're here, whether it's air conditioning or anything else, and these poor contractors suffer, here, Woodbury's, our own people, and we do nothing. That's what I can't understand. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, no matter what we do here tonight, the Martindales can have their, out of fairness. they can have their seasonal stand, if they go for site plan. They can do the same thing all the other transient. seasonal. MR. TURNER-Our only position here tonight is to rule on those two items, agricultural use. MRS. EGGLESTON-I wish that were easy to do, Ted, with this sentence, with this paragraph, and Mr. O'Connor seems to think it's very clear. I can't ~agree that it's very clear. So, what are we at, here? We've been through public hearing, open and closed it. MR. TURNER-We'll make a motion to clarify those two issues. MRS. EGGLESTON-Shall we move on, then. MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll have a motion to clarify the issue of, is the sale of fruits and vegetables grown off site a permitted agriculture use. MQTIOI 01 NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-92 BY THE PLANNING BOMD REGARDING FRAIICIS MD CAROLYN MRTINOIUI, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: That under the current definition contained in our Zoning Ordinance, that the sale of agricultural products must be limited to those grown on the land from which it is sold. Duly adopted this 30th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Paling MR. TURNER-It's denied. A tie vote denies it. Lets take the next one. If sap is brought to the site form off site, is that a permitted agricultural use under the definition of agricultural use? MR. CARR-It's the same thing. MR. TURNER-No, it's about the sap. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-I always thought a tie goes to the applicant. MR. CARR-I thought they had sap on the property? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I thought we gave them permission for that? MR. TURNER-No. Well, we did, but we agreed to rehear the same thing allover again. MR. CARVIN-But the question really becomes, is sap a product, an end product, or is it part of the process. MR. TURNER-We made a ruling that sap was an agricultural product, and the question is, can they bring in sap from off site to increase their production, which they get from site. MR. CARR-As a matter of course. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's the same thing. 11 1 - MR. CARR-It's the same thing. Would they be granted a variance? Quite possibly, but it's the same question, if it's an agricultural product. MR. CARVIN-I guess it depends on how you want to look at sap. Sap is not an end product. You're not selling "sap". MR. TURNER-You bring it in, you're going to process it on the site. MR. CARVIN-Yes. It's like, you can bring fertilizer in to grow corn. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the first thing you've got to say is, we've already said that sap is an agricultural product. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, is fertilizer, to a certain extent. MR. TURNER-Well, not really. MR. CARR-Because then, if you say they can bring in sap, whether they have an ongoing operation or not, say if somebody doesn't have an operation there, then you're saying they can set up an operation, because they would make an agricultural product. MR. CARVIN-On-site. MR. CARR-Yes, and I think that's going to beg in the question. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Does that mean you have to make your seeds to bring your own corn in? That's what you're saying, isn't it? MR. CARVIN-No. I'm saying I think sap is an allowed thing, because I don't think it's the end product. In other words, it's within the guidelines. In other words, the end product is produced on site, so therefore you can sell it. MR. CARR-But that's not an agricultural use, though. Making the syrup is not the agricultural aspect of maple syrup. So, then we're out of agricultural use. Then it's a commercial use, and that's definitely not allowed. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I suppose if we go with the spirit, he can't bring the sap in. MR. CARR-As I understand it, it's been decided, since there's a three to three vote, we have to re-vote on it. There was no decision made, basically. There was not a decision. That's why we took the time to talk among ourselves. So, at this time, I have to reintroduce the motion. MaTIOII 011 IIOTICE OF APPEAL 10. 1-92 BY THE WEENSBURY PLAIIING BOARD REGARDIIIG FRANCIS AND CAROLYN MRTIDLE TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE OF, IS THE SALE OF FRUITS AID VEGETABLES GRCIßI OFF SITE A PERMITTED AGRICULTURAL USE?, AND IF SAP IS BROUGHT TO TIE SITE, FROM OFF SITE, IS THAT A PERMITTED AGRICULTURAL USE, UNDER TIE DEFIIITI(JI OF AGRICULTURAL USE?, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: That under the current definition contained in our Zoning Ordinance, that the sale of agricultural products must be limited to those grown on the land from which it is sold. To answer the second question, regarding can you import sap for a maple syrup producing facility from off the property, the answer would be no. The sap would be considered an agricultural product, and therefore, must be taken from the land directly. That the sale of the maple syrup product would be limited to that syrup from the sap taken from the property. Duly adopted this 30th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm going to vote yes, and I'd like to clarify it. Because of the language in the Ordinance, I mean, we could argue forever. We all have different opinions, and we could never come to a whole Board agreement. So, we turn this to the Town to straighten out, and I'm going to vote yes because the applicants will still be able to have their produce stand. I don't feel we're harming them to do this. It just will go on and be straightened out by someone other than this Board, who doesn't have the jurisdiction to do so. So, ~ vote is yes. MRS. PALING-I vote yes for the same reasons that Mrs. Eggleston has stated. AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea 12 -' MR. CARR-Mrs. Martindale, take this to the Town Board. .. MRS. fo\I\RTINDALE-Can I please say something? I really take exception to what has been said tonight, especially from you, Mr. Carr. you're a lawyer. As I read here, Zoning Regulations being a derivation of cOlllllOn law, strictly construed against the zoning authority, not against the property owner. Any ambiguity of the language used in the regulation must be resolved in favor of the property owner. I have cited here that this dangling phrase, here, actually the way it's written, defines orchards. and actually, if you really listen to the whole phrase, on March 30th when I was before you speaking, when I said commercial purposes and commercial use, what's the difference, you specifically said, commercial purpose, you could sell on-site. You could sell off site. It wasn't really explaining itself, and I say this same phrase does this same thing, including the sale of products grown or raised directly on such land. Where are you selling them? It's just a dangling phrase saying, including the sale of products grown or raised on such land. You could sell them on-site. You could sell them off site. You could sell them to some commercial establishment. It's one in the same thing you said to me. Do you understand what I'm saying? It's a dangling phrase. If they were to specify, it would say, including the sale, on-site, of products grown or raised directly on such land. It does not say on-site. It's very ambiguous, and I take exception to the manner in which we have been treated from January 28th to the present. There is an ambiguity in the language, and the property owner, according to the New York State Zoning Law, has, it has to be decided in favor of the property owner. MR. CARR-I don't think there's an ambiguity. That's where the difference is. MRS. fo\I\RTINDALE-It doesn't say on-site. It's a dangling phrase. It says, including the sale of products grown or raised directly on such land. The sale doesn't say from site. If it did say on-site, it would say, including the sale, on-site or from site, of products grown or raised directly on such land. It's a dangling phrase. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've got to approve the minutes. CORRECTIOfI OF MINUTES January 30th, 1992: Page 8, down at the very last paragraph, sib Ernest Alden, not Ray Galding ÞlJTIOfI TO APPROVE JAllUARY 30TH, 1992 MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 30th day of April, '1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Shea February 19th, 1992: NONE MOTIOfI TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19TH, 1992, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 30th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turnér NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carvin ABSENT: Mr. Shea February 26th, 1992: NONE ÞlJTIQI TO APPROVE FEBRUARY 26TH, 1992, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 30th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: 13 1 AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Shea March 18th, 1992: Cover page sib March 18th, not February 18th; Page 7, on the Harrisena Community Church. introduced by Charles Sicard, amount of relief, 21 foot relief, on north boundary sib there; Page 21, Mr. Biledoux is spelled wrong MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 18TH, 1992 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 30th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Carr, Mr. Carvin. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea March 30th, 1992: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MRCH 30TH, 1992, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 30th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Shea MRS. EGGLESTON-Should we discuss this letter of Pat's? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've got a letter from Pat Crayford. She'd like to discuss the following items after completion of last week's agenda, but we didn't do it. It was so long, it was late when we got out. The first item is, attached is a copy of the motion denying Area Variance No. 88-1991, Arthur Till. This is the deck that is already constructed, located on Hanniford Road. The gentleman who did the construction, Mr. Murphy, is returning to request a variance for a smaller deck, and will be presenting a revised site plan. My question to the Board is, would you consider rescinding the motion to deny, and instead table this motion so Mr. Murphy can returned revised plan without going through the new application process, and mY question, as I read that was. why should we do that? MRS. CRAYFORD-~ feeling was, it should have been tabled to allow him to come back with something else. MR. CARR-We'd probably want it re-noticed anyway, right? MRS. CRAYFORD-Just asking. MR. TURNER-No, but going back to what you just said. I think, we talked about that when he was here. that we would re-notice everybody so that they would be sure and be here, and I think that's why we did it that way. MRS. EGGLESTON-This is the one he built before even, it was already there. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's on the property line. MRS. EGGLESTON-So. for mY two cents, he takes what he gets and likes it. MRS. PALING-And it's already built, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. He's building on somebody else's property. Okay. What else have we got? 14 -- '--' MRS. EGGLESTON-The second item is, attached is a copy of Area Variance Ken Passente to construct a residence on Brayton Road in Cleverdale. I have also attached the site plan presented, and Mr. Passente contacted me last week stating he has constructed the residence 13 feet 4 inches from the south lot line, instead of the 15 foot that was granted. Mr. Passente has requested to be allowed to amend his existing Area Variance application asking for the 13 feet 4 inch setback, instead of the 15 feet granted on September 26th, 1990. MR. TURNER-That's the gentleman that had the deck that was right next to the camp on Brayton Road? MRS. CRAYFORD-Right next to Lake George Boat Company, yes. MR. CARR-What's he asking for? MRS. EGGLESTON-We gave him a, the Board gave him a setback relief of 15 foot, and he built it 13 feet 4 inches from the line, the building. MR. TURNER-So, he's two foot eight inches over. MR. CARR-It's a builder mistake? MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Passente himself did it. MRS. CRAYFORD-He did it himself. MRS. EGGLESTON-Have you been out to look at it? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Could I ask you, does it infringe on anybody's, because we didn't go look at it again, Pat. Is it a big deal? MRS. CRAYFORD-It's not a big deal, but if he went to sell the property, and the bank phoned and said, is this property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did we have neighborhood opposition that night? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-We didn't have any neighborhood opposition? MRS. CRAYFORD-No, and it may have been because I think he obtained, I was going to say, he may have obtained the variance when everyone was gone. MR. TURNER-September the 26th, 1990. MRS. CRAYFORD-I think everyone had left their camps for the season. So, that's why there wasn't any opposition. MRS. EGGLESTON-Who are some of his neighbors? Do you know? MR. CARR-Why did he do it? I mean, was it a mistake, or do you get the feeling he did it on purpose? MRS. CRAYFORD-No, it was a mistake. MR. CARR-He took that extra foot and a half? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. He's trying to do everything himself to save money, and he really needs to come into compliance, at some point in time. MR. CARR-Why don't you just have him re-apply for, because I mean for builder's errors, you can get new variances. MR. TURNER-He's the one that had that little A-Frame camp, is that right? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-And he had a cellar underneath where he kept the snow machine, if I remember right. MRS. CRAYFORD-It could be. I think I was out of town for that one. MR. TURNER-Yes, I remember it now. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's in front of another residence. 15 -- ~ MR. TURNER-Right, and it's a pretty small lot, as I remember. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. It's a very small lot. MR. TURNER-Very small. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's lake front, and then behind him is a house at the road. MR. TURNER-I guess I'd like to know how come he made a mathematical error of two feet four inches? MRS. CRAYFORD-My question was, could he amend this or fill out a whole new application and go through the process again? It'll have to be noticed. MR. CARR-I think he should just amend his application. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it a whole residence? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's not a deck. So, there's no moving it. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. MR. SICARD-Can he reduce it there, size wise? MR. TURNER-He could tear it down.' MR. SICARD-We're talking about a foot and a half. MRS. CRAYFORD-He's framed, sided. He's about ready for a CO. MR. CARR-I woul~ say, just have him come back in, and if he wants, as an amendment to his application, or, just get him back in and let us take a look at it. MRS. CRAYFORD-All right. I'll advertise it as an amendment to an original application. MR. CARR-I would think that's the most practical. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's the practical way to do it. MR. CARVIN-Maybe some of the neighbors will show up. MR. TURNER-Have we got anything else? MRS. EGGLESTON-No, that's it. MR. TURNER-An right. I just want to ten you something. I got a letter from the APA on the Dave Kenny Variance. Remember I told you, practical difficulty, no demonstration of practical difficulty. They didn't reverse it. They said, come July 1992, you better heed the words and establish practical difficulty, because he could have built a smaller house. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, that's true, he could have. MR. TURNER-I was in such a hurry tonight that I didn't dig it out, but I'll dig it out, and I'll bring it in. Anything else? Ready to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 16