Loading...
1992-07-15 ~.- " r (JIEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGUlAR tEETING JULY 15lH, 1992 INDEX Area Variance No. 63-1992 Har01d T. Raven 1. Area Variance No. 66-1992 Gregory T. Fi sh 3. Sign Variance No. 67-1992 D'e11a Pontiac-Buick-Isuzu 5. Use Variance No. 62-1992 Har01d WeBer II. Area Variance No. 71-1992 Marc D. Garvey 16. Notice of Appea1 No. 3-92 James Meha1ick Victor Thomas 18. 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. (JIEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGUlAR MEETING JULY 15TH, 1992 7:36 P.M. tEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY MARIE PALING BRUCE CARR CHARLES SICARD tEÞlŒRS ABSENT "\ FRED CARVIN SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS; AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA HAROLD T. RAVEN OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE flJUNTAIN VIEW WE FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION, EACH LOT LESS lHAN 1 ACRE, AND LESS lHAN DOUBLE LOT IIIDlH LOCATED BElIIEEN flJUNTAIN VIEW LANE AND CROWNIIOOD WE. TAX MAP NO. 82-2-14 LOT SIZE: 1.62 ACRES SECTION 179-70, 179-20 lEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:36 p.m.) MR. TURNER-We asked Mr. Steves to get us some information pertaining to some conditions that existed there before. MR. STEVES-For the record, mY name is leon Steves, from the firm of VanDusen and Steves, representing Harold Raven, the applicant. One of the requests that had been made is any restrictions in the deed from Finch Pruyn, and in the deed there are, the deed to Harold Raven of that parcel is restricted to, no dwening shall be permitted on any portion of the premises herein conveyed for which the floor of the main structure, exclusive of porches and garages, shall be less than 1600 square feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Could you say that again, leon? MR. STEVES-The house plan should be, the floor should be no less than 1600 square feet, exclusive of porches and garages. Now, what they had tried to do is make a declaration, here, in their covenants, changing the declaration they had made back when the Crownwood Hills subdivision had been made, and at that time the restriction was 900 square feet. So they brought it up to 1600 square feet. We went over to the Assessor's Office and checked her records on sales that, as far back as they have it, and the parcel just to the south of the Raven parcel there, owned by Mr. lloyd, this parcel on the map, is the raised ranch, 1764 square foot in size. Right across the street from this parcel, Mr. Reid is the owner, and he has a one story ranch, with a 1232 square foot size. So, that the 1600 is right there in the middle. Mr. Raven, in talking with him, says that he prefers building a Colonial two story. He hasn't got any plans for it at an, because it's going to be a spec home, or sale home. They win build it accordingly, but he has no problems at an with the width of the lot. I talked to him about that 20 and 20 on either side. He has no problems at an, which of course, which would force him to an 1800 or 2,000 square foot. MR. TURNER-Would you explain your position on the strip that was left there, so that everybody understands that, that strip that was left by Finch Pruyn? MR. STEVES-Okay. My understanding of it is that when Finch Pruyn owned the land in the back, they tried to go to the neighbors and buy more land, and they couldn't do it, for whatever reasons, the neighbors wouldn't sen it. Finch Pruyn made their best plan and made their lots 100 feet by 150 feet deep, and the road feel at 32 feet in the back. So, that strip was left open. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Steves? I left the public hearing open. Mr. Murphy, do you want to make any further comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JACK MURPHY MR. MURPHY-I think the only statement that I can make is a reiteration of what we presented when this piece was originany considered, and that is that we are concerned that the variance will lead to construction 1 of a home, which will not increase or enhance the value of the neighbors. Just as an addendum to Mr. Steves description of the neighborhood, Mr. Stewart spoke before you last week. Mr. Stewart is directly across from the parcel. Mr. Stewart is here this evening also. This home is approximately 2100 square feet. My home is contiguous to the undeveloped property and approximates 1900 $quare feet. So, 1600 square feet does not add to the value of the neighborhood, as far as the Stewarts are concerned, or as far as the Murphys are concerned, and anything that is done in the form of a variance to permit the construction of a home that win economica11y adversely effect the neighborhood, we object to. That was our position last time, and I'd like to just reemphasize it again tonight. MR. CARR-You do feel that a 16 to 1700 square foot home, exclusive of porches and garages, would be detrimental, adversely effect your economic benefit? MR. MURPHY-Yes, we do. MR. TURNER-How do you defend your position as to Mr. Reid having 1232 square feet, and the other gentleman 1764 square feet? MR. MURPHY-I guess what we're talking about is perspective development. We're not talking about something that's there. Something that's there is in the current economic's neighborhood. We can't do anything about that. The only thing we can do is attempt to protect that value right now, so that it's not further diminished. MR. TURNER-A11 right. Isn't it fair to say that, then, this house would be kind of in between those two, as far as square footage goes. So, they're no detriment to your position right now, are they? MR. MURPHY-We11, we're giving you four examples. He quoted two. I quoted two, and I think that the average is going to come up a little bit higher than 1600 square feet. In fact, I suspect that Mr. Steves selected the smallest floor plan that he could. MR. STEVES-I take objection to that. I told you in the very beginning of the meeting, I went to the Assessor's Office and checked the Assessor's records of sales. You can do the same thing. Please don't accuse me of doing something slanted. I haven't done that. If you want to talk about slanting, you're slanting the issue. You say Stewarts live directly across. They do not. Reids live just as much across the street as the Stewarts do. I'm trying to be impartial and stay impartial. lets remain that way, please. MR. MURPHY-If I stand corrected, the Stewarts only represent 50 percent of the property. point is that we can't do anything about 1200 square foot house. That is there right now. is that we don't wish to see any diminution of the value that we currently have, and we a smaller house, such as 1600 square feet, is going to result in that. Anyway, the Our protest believe that MR. TURNER-What's the value of your house? MR. MURPHY-I don't have a current price. Well, I don't see how that contributes, because I'm a layman, and I could misrepresent the true value of the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does your 1900 square feet include porches? MR. MURPHY-No. It does not, nor does the 2100 square feet of the Stewarts represent a porch or an attachment. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Are you the people that are on this petition, William A. Thomas, is it, Bonnie W. Thomas? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. TURNER-Okay, Barbara Stevenson? Schumacher? LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-We're the ones that received the letter on June 24th and the meeting was ca11ed on June 24th, and none of us could attend. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. MURPHY-Those signatures represent the land owners that surround the compass points of the property in question. MR. CARR-I'm just looking at it, and what we're faced with is basically three lots. MR. TURNER-Three lots, yes. 2 MR. CARR-We've got Mr. Raven's extremely long lot, and you've got the NiMo lot and you've got Mr. Pelak's 10t, and what you're going to end up with is three lots. The density of the bui1dings wi1l not be increased, because on three 10ts you can have three houses. The lot that he's presenting is no less in area than every other lot in the neighborhood, or I shou1dn't say every other lot, because I can't be that precise, but than the vast majority of the lots in the neighborhood. I guess I don't see this as being a detriment to the neighborhood, as long as he builds a house of at least 1600 square feet. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. EGGlESTON-I think, too, the fact that he's wi11ing to keep the same side 1ine setbacks as the other houses in the neighborhood show an indication that they're wi1ling to keep the neighborhood the way it is, and I don't know how you can deprive someone of using their land. I mean, we'd a11 love woods across from us an the time, but sometimes that can't happen. You have a right to use your property. MR. TURNER-Mr. Steves, do you know if Mr. Pelak has contracted to buy that center lot? MR. STEVES-No, I do not. I do have it marked on the lot that it is not a bui1ding lot. That's only to enlarge the proposed. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. TURNER-Any comment? Okay. Motion's in order. flJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1992 HAROLD 1. RAVEN, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marie Paling: And grant the app1icant relief from the minimum lot size requirement of the Ordinance, and a110w him to divide the property under our consideration in the same fashion as has been presented on his application survey. The variance wi1l a110w the creation of a 100 by 150 foot lot on Crownwood lane. The creation of approximately 26,000 plus square foot lot directly behind the Crownwood lane lot which 10t has been represented to us win be conveyed to Mr. Pe1ak and wi1l not be a bui1ding lot, and that these two lots would then leave approximately 30,000 square foot lot with an existing house on Mountain View lane. The applicant has no adjoining property from which he could make a lot of the minimum width of 150 feet. The plan proposed appears to be the most reasonable use of the property. The variance will not be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance as this variance will not increase the density in the area, and it's the minimal relief necessary to e1iminate the problem proposed. The Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin (7:58 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1992 TYPE II LI-lA GREGORY F. FISH OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE 7 HOfER AVEflJE FOR A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING RESIDENCE LESS THAN 50 n. FROM FRONT PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN COUNTY PlANNING) TAX MAP NO. 107-1-33 LOT SIZE: 100 n. BY 143 FT. SECTION 179-26C GREGORY FISH, PRESENT (7:58 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 66-1992, Gregory Fish, July 14, 1992, Meeting Date: Ju1y 15, 1992 liThe applicant requests to add a 24 x 24 foot addition to the east side of their existing residence in a LI-1A zone. The proposed addition does not meet the front yard setback requirement of 50 feet and seeks re1ief of 28 feet. The proposed addition would be two feet further from Homer Avenue than the existing residence. The staff wishes to commend the applicant on the accuracy of the plan submitted. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance: I. Describe the practical difficulty which does not a110w placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The app1icant has an existing structure which does not meet the setbacks. It appears that the addition would not be a significant encroachment. The Board should discuss why an addition to the rear is not feasible. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficu1ty or is there any other option avai1able which wou1d require no variance? The Board has to discuss if there are any other feasible options. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conf1ict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? No.4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? 3 None. The Board has reviewed a number of variance requests in this neighborhood in the 1ast few years. This cou1d indicate that the zoning in this area needs to be reviewed. The surrounding zones are lI-1A from Bay Road and HC-1A from Quaker Road. There is a Niagara Mohawk power 1ine which cou1d be used as the demarcation 1ine. Since the neighborhood is changing the Board may want to recommend that the P1anning Office and the Town Board consider a change on Homer Avenue and Everts Avenue to Residentia1-Commercia1. This zoning was utnized on Corinth Road to a110w for residentia1 use which a1so a110ws for a transition to commercia1 use." MR. TURNER-Mr. Fish, you did a good job with your drawing there, they said. I checked it over and it adds up pretty good. The addition on the side there is going to tie into the 1iving room side of the house? MR. FISH-Yes, it is. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-Cou1d you answer Mrs. York's question, when she said, why not the rear? MR. FISH-We11, I had some estimates done on that. It wou1d cost me more than I can afford to put it there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why wou1d it cost more to put it off the back than off the side? MR. FISH-Because I'd have to move my kitchen and my bathroom. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's on the inside. Yes. Okay. MR. TURNER-That was, basica11y, my question that I was 1eading up to was the fact that probab1y the position of the addition has to encompass what you a1ready have there, rather than destroying the interior of the existing house. MR. CARR-It's going to be two foot back from the existing house? MR. FISH-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's rea11y a zone that everybody thought was going to go light Industria1, and maybe some of the peop1e wish it had and they cou1d have maybe s01d their house and bui1t a nicer house some p1ace e1se, but it hasn't. It hasn't transgressed that way. So, I think it's going to stay pretty much residentia1. MR. FISH-I be1ieve, sir, that every house on the street except for mine is bigger in square footage. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. You've got a sma11 house. I agree. Any further questions of the app1icant? Okay. I'll now open the pub1ic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COJIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the app1icant? Any further discussion? MR. CARR-It's pretty straightforward. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, it's pretty straightforward. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's straightforward. Okay. Motion's in order. flJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1992 GREGORY F. FISH, Introduced by Char1es Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The app1icant requests a 24 ft. by 24 ft. addition on the east side of their existing residence in the LI-1A zone. The app1icant needs at 1east that re1ief for 28 feet from the front. The variance wou1d not be detrimenta1 to any other properties in the district, particu1ar1y in that neighborhood, or conf1ict with the objectives of any p1an or p01icy of the Town, and there hasn't been any objections to this request. The Board has reviewed a number of variance requests in this neighborhood in the 1ast few years. This cou1d indicate that the zoning in this area needs to be reviewed. The surrounding zones are LI-1A from Bay Road and HC-1A from Quaker Road. There is a Niagara Mohawk power 1ine which cou1d be used as the demarcation 1ine. Since the neighborhood is changing the Board may want to recommend that the P1anning Office and the Town Board consider a change on Homer Avenue and Everts Avenue to Residentia1-Coßll1ercia1. This zoning was utnized on Corinth Road to a110w for residentia1 use which a1so a110ws for a transition to commercia1 use. 4 Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin (8:08 p.m.) SIGN VARIANCE NO. 67-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA D'ELIA PONTIAC-BUICK-ISUZlJ (lUŒR: MICHAEL DELlA BELlA 88 ~AIŒR ROAD TO ERECT A NONCONFORMING JØlJtENT SIGN IN EXCESS OF 50 SIJIARE FEET LOCATED IN coum RIGHT OF WAY. (WARREN coom PlANNING) TAX MAP NO. 59-1-11 SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 140 MICHAEL DELLA BELLA, PRESENT (8:08 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Sign Variance No. 67-1992, Della Pontiac- Buick- Isuzu, July 14, 1992, Meeting Date: July 15, 1992 "The applicant desires to erect a monument sign over 50 sq. ft. along Quaker Road. The Warren County DPW has submitted a letter stating they have no concerns. The Board will have to review the significance of the nonconformity and then the significance of the location. Quaker Road is a designated arterial and the Board may be setting a precedent by allowing signage of this magnitude in the right of way." MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board, "No action taken. A majority vote could not be achieved." And a letter from Roger Gebo, Deputy Superintendent, Warren County Department of Public Works, "Dear Mike: The Warren County Department of Public Works has no objection for placing a sign upon the bounds of CR70-Quaker Road. We will need a plan view showing the location of the sign in relation to our rights of way and a copy of the sign permit from the Town of Queensbury before we issue you a County Permit. The only stipulation we have is that if for any reason we need to occupy the area where the sign is located we will require you to remove it within 30 days of notification. If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to call at your convenience." MR. CARR-lee, what would you say the size of this is, I mean, in excess of 50, the size of the sign square footage? Do you have any idea? MRS. YORK-I don't happen to have the application with me. It's in the file. MR. DELLA BElLA-I originally measured it to have it, if you take the section where the letters are, the Della letters are, that puts it over the size. If you just measure the size of the letter, the new form will show you it's now 45 square foot. It's just a matter of interpretation on how you'd like to measure the sign. MR. TURNER-The whole structure is the sign. MR. CARR-So, it's 54 square feet or. MR. TURNER-The whole structure is the sign. MR. CARR-All this too? MR. TURNER-Everything. Yes. That's the way it's always been interpreted. MR. CARR-So you count the post on signs? MR. TURNER-That's a monument. That's not a post. It's a big square block. MR. DELLA BElLA-The design of the sign is, it's placed in stow panel. It's like the front of the building, if you see the new front of the building, it's that structurized stow. That's what the sign would be in, and in asking for the permission to put the sign where it is, what I wanted to do was make it look like the rest of the dealer-ship. Instead of having a tall sign, like I had before in the County right-of-way, I wanted to put a lower sign similar to the Cool Insuring sign. That would give us the exposure that we need, saying what line of cars we sell, but it'll also give the people trying to pull into the driveway a marker to use instead of being at the dealer-ship or past the dealer-ship before they see it. If there's any way to cut down all the bushes that used to be around the dealer-ship on both sides, to try and make the dealer-ship more visible when you're coming from Bay Road, or naturally when you're coming from the other side. If I try to comply with what the zoning states I have to do, if I understand it correctly. I've been working on it for several years now, if the sign has to be at about the part of the dealer-ship, the front of the dealer-ship where the glass is. That's what the setback requirements are. So, the sign would have to be put there, and it doesn't do any good because you can't see it from the road. In redesigning the dealer-ship, we took that large sign that 5 was about 70 foot by 2 foot off the building. We removed the freestanding sign as requested when the County widened the road, and we took down the sign that had the used cars. So, now I don't have any identification of the deaìer-ship, of what we seìì or where we are until we're right on top of it. So, I was trying to make this sign be an attractive one, to ìook ìike the deaìer-ship facia and aìso be a ìow sign so I don't have, they're not ugìy or anything, but I'd rather do it ìower than have it high up in the air at the front of the deaìer-ship. The other probìem with trying to put the sign where it's requested by zoning, current zoning, is that Niagara Mohawk owns the second right-of-way on the property. So, I'm approximateìy 125 feet from the center of the road to where the sign can go, and whatever the sign requirements are, it's not onìy going to suit the purpose of identification, but it wouìd be too far back for most peopìe to see, unìess they know the deaìer-ship. If they don't know the deaìer-ship, it's another thing. Unfortunateìy, not everybody wiìì know where it is. Other items of concern of mine, in asking for permission to put this sign there, is, as I stated in my notes, there's been severaì different occasions that the peopìe drive right by. There's been quite a number of skid marks in front of the deaìer-ship, as they do pass the entrance-way. There's onìy one entrance in, now, not coming from Bay Road. When they pass that, they're puììing in to the right turn ìane, or the ìeft turn ìane of oncoming traffic, because they missed the first driveway. So, a safety issue is reaììy coming up here, as far as I'm concerned and the architect's concerned, when they did the pìot pìan of the deaìer-ship, and Generaì Motor's is concerned of how the entrance and exit of the deaìer-ship wouìd be for safety reasons. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. CARR-Weìì, if I understand this right, the sign, it's on a right-of-way, or that's not even your property? MR. TURNER-No, that's not his property. MR. DELLA BELLA-That's not my property. MR. CARR-Okay. So, it's on the County property. The County is giving him permission to do it on their property. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-So, we reaììy aren't concerned with that, then. MR. TURNER-Not as ìong as he has the permission to put it there, but ìet me just say this. When he came for the other sign, which we aììowed him to keep there. We toìd him that when they widened the road he had to remove the sign, and it's been the practice of this Board that the signs did not go back into the right-of-way. We had one case, his neighbor right next to him, the car deaìer-ship right next to him, Ford, had a freestanding sign in the right of way, and that came down. That had to come down. The one across the street, that was in the right-of-way. MR. CARR-Yes, but that's not the issue before us, because if he has it under 50 square foot. MR. TURNER-Yes, but he's not on his own property, for starters. MR. CARR-Right, but if he's under 50 square foot, if the the issue whether or not we can take away that permission. said it's their ìand. I mean, the County's a ìand owner a sign on their property. County's glvlng him permission to do it, is I don't see that as our right, if the County in this Town. So, they're entitìed to have MR. TURNER-Weìì, I guess it wouìd be tough for us to defend the position we've taken aìì aìong by aììowing this one to go in the right-of-way. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it's a nonconforming sign. MR. CARR-Right, but I'm saying if he had a conforming sign, he couìd put it on the County right-of-way with their permission. MR. SICARD-Is there something that we taìked about before, when Quaker put their sign up, on account of the curve of the road, did that put their sign a ìittìe cìoser to the road, taking into consideration NiMo's ìand. MR. TURNER-Quaker? MR. SICARD-Quaker Ford. MR. TURNER-No. MR. SICARD-Are they behind, they're behind. 6 MR. TURNER-They're behind Niagara Mohawk. They're sign is right up against their bui1ding. MR. SICARD-How far wou1d you say that's from the right-of-way, the road, the Quaker sign? MR. TURNER-They're 150 feet. MR. SICARD-It is 150 feet? MR. TURNER-Yes. They're farther back than his. MR. SICARD-I thought that because there was a curve in the road, that it did put it a Htt1e c10ser? I thought that was discussed. MR. TURNER-No. MR. DELLA BELLA-That's one of the reasons they cou1d see that one. You can see that sign. I think it's oversized anyway. I think you can see that, as you're coming up Quaker Road, towards Quaker Road, you can't see .!!!l. dea1er-ship unti1 you come up to the dea1er-ship. You can see the Quaker Ford sign because it's in the bend and it's so high. Even if my sign was high, we used to have a high sign, 1ike a used car sign you cou1dn't see unti1 you started to make the turn where the road starts to, about at Everts, right where that next door piece of property used to be. That's when you were ab1e to see the front of the dea1er-ship, and my used cars was 1ike 20 feet in front of that. MR. TURNER-Yes, but what hindered the view on a 10t of your property was aH those hedges and stuff that stuck up in front. It just ob1iterated the front of it. MR. DELLA BElLA-I took it out, just to try, I'm trying to do whatever I can just to get the sign up so it wou1dn't be obtrusive or it wou1dn't ask for any permission out of the ordinary from the Town, because I know the Town's concern is that if I put a sign in the right-of-way, what it everybody e1se going to do. MR. TURNER-That's the prob1em. MR. DELLA BELLA-Right. I understand that, and that's the reason for mY suggestion of a 10w sign, a sign that's about 50 square foot, which is about what's a110wed, a 1itt1e bit 1ess, about what's a110wed. If anybody e1se, say the next door property was deve10ped, 1ets just use that as a for instance. Then wou1dn't it be to our advantage, as business owners on the Town, to have a sign simi1ar to, 1ike a Co01 sign. Many of the towns that I've done business in before, that have sign requirements, they don't a110w high signs. They don't a110w certain other different signs, and how they worked it through was putting monument signs down that each one was aHowed a certain space of a monument. It made it 100k very nice. It wasn't obtrusive to the commercia1 deve10pment on the road, and it gave that business owner the identification that he wou1d require to have consumers know where he is, instead of having to be right on it. The four 1ane was a great project, and it's done a 10t for the community, but they're moving by rea1 fast. I'd just 1ike to have the opportunity to s10w them down a 1itt1e bit. MRS. EGGlESTON-I think it's easy to find, myse1f. MR. TURNER-We11, it is. It wou1d be easier for us to find because we're here, but. MRS. EGGlESTON-I was wondering, wou1d it interfere in any way with, as you're puHing out of your premises, to be ab1e to see vehic1es coming in either direction? MR. DELLA BELLA-Good point. It's going to be, not up where mY 01d sign was. It's going to be further back than the p01e sign used to be. The p01e sign was kind of skinny so it wou1dn't obstruct any view. This is going to be six foot, nine feet, then I had to make sure it wasn't out far enough. It's as dose to the power 1ines as I can get it without having Niagara Mohawk disaHow it because of the e1ectricity. They don't want anything underneath there. They're afraid if a power 1ine faHs, it'H fa11 on the sign. They can get sued. MRS. EGGLESTON-So if, conceivab1y, your neighbors come back and they want this type sign, and then say two or three neighbors and they were aH up and down that right-of-way with signs, you're saying that wou1dn't interfere in any way with obstructing vision coming out of your dea1er-ship or the next door dea1er-ship with what's going up and down Quaker Road? MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes, ma'am. It's probab1y at 1east two and a ha1f car 1engths from where the sign wou1d be to where they'd come out to enter traffic. I don't know exact1y, I didn't measure it, but just using that as an examp1e of how far they can pu11 out, so that wou1dn't be in their way, but it's going to be in the vaHey, too, so it's 10wer than the car when it starts. That vaHey in there is water, so I've got to put a cu1vert in. The sign is going to be, it won't be nine feet or e1even feet from the grade 1eve1. It'H be 11 feet from where it is now. So, it won't even be that high. We had to put the measurements of where the sign wou1d be depending on what kind of construction there wou1d be for that cu1vert, to make it 100k nice. 7 MR. SICARD-That road has got a couple of turns in it, and I think that probably justifies thinking that it's not all the same down through there. We went through that before when we talked about Quaker, because of that turn in the road, and coming up on to this sign, there is another turn in the road there. I don't think we could say that every sign is going to be lined up and everything is a little different if you look at it that way. He's back quite a ways. I don't know if that comes under the setting, if we have some of the facilities that are back from the main road would we allow a little more footage or so forth, a little more consideration because he's back that far. MR. TURNER-Ford is back farther than he is, I think. MR. SICARD-Do you think so? MR. TURNER-Yes, I know they are. MR. SICARD-But as I say, if you drive down there, and I did today, that sign, Ford sign appears long before you get to it, but because of the curve in the road, and across the road, that GM sign, that's a high sign, isn't it? MR. TURNER-No. They took all the big ones down. There's just the small one there. MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes. That's a six by six across the street. MR. SICARD-Because I don't think the road will ever widen on that side, because of the power line. That land is owned by NiMo. MR. CARR-I don't think it's a bad sign. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with the sign. I just have a problem with the location. MR. CARR-Well, we can't have a problem with the location. MR. TURNER-Yes, I can. MR. SICARD-Will that be illuminated at 9, Dell? MR. DElLA BElLA-Yes. MR. SICARD-It will? All night? MR. DELLA BELLA-The approved lights, they had to get electrical approval before they could put the sign in. MR. TURNER-I can understand his position, but I still say it should be on the other side of the pole line. You can see that place that's opened right up. It's a lot different than it used to be. I mean, it hits you right in the eye. Of course, I know it's there, and I can appreciate. MRS. EGGlESTON-I think what you've really got to consider here is do you want them all up and down Quaker Road and that area. MR. TURNER-That's what's going to happen. MR. CARR-But to me, that's not the issue. MR. TURNER-Yes, because we took them out of the right-of-way, originally, and made them move them back. We told them when the County widened the road they had to move their signs back. MR. CARR-But the County's saying it's not effecting them. MR. TURNER-They have the permission to put it there as long as they get our permission. MR. CARR-Does the Sign Ordinance say that they have to have our permission? MR. TURNER-I think it does, otherwise he wouldn't be here. MR. CARR-Where does it say that? I don't have mine here. lee, do you have the Sign Ordinance? MRS. YORK-Yes, I do. MR. TURNER-See, before when they put them in the right-of-way, they always had to go get permission from the County, even though they were there. They still had to get permission. They had to get permission from us to leave them there. 8 MR. CARR-Isn't Minogues in the County right-of-way, because I represented him, and the dea1 was, you can keep it there as 10ng as the County says you can, and as soon as they want you to move it, you'11 move it. That was his variance. MR. TURNER-See, what the Ordinance says is he can put a 50 square foot sign 15 foot from his property 1ine. He can put a 64 square foot sign 25 feet from his property 1ine, and if he's over 100 feet from his property 1ine, he can have a wa11 sign up to 100 square feet. MR. CARR-Right, but what does the Ordinance say about putting a sign to your business on somebody e1se's property. MR. TURNER-It doesn't even address it, I don't think. don't think. I'm not sure. MR. CARR-If it doesn't address it, how can we deny it based on something the Sign Ordinance doesn't address? MR. TURNER-We11, I don't think they wou1d even identify it with that, if they say from your property 1ine. Your property 1ine starts behind the p01e 1ine. I think that identifies it right there. It doesn't say anything about in the right-of-way, I don't be1ieve, or anything. It says from your property 1ine. He's putting it off his property. MR. CARR-There you go. MR. TURNER-Did you find it? MR. CARR-It says, the fo11owing signs are permitted without a permit, signs posted by Government agencies. MR. TURNER-He's not a Government agency. MR. CARR-The County said he cou1d do it. He's acting as an agent of the County. I think we've got to be carefu1. here. Wen, I just don't know. I mean, if the sign says you have to have it on your own property, that's one thing, but I don't think it says that. MR. TURNER-The Ordinance says a sign has to be, I just t01d you, 15 foot, 50 square, 64 square foot, 25 feet back, 10cated. MR. CARR-Size wise. I'm not arguing about size. MR. TURNER-look at Section 106 there on the sign, what's it say, p1acement of the sign. MR. CARR-P1acement and Number. MR. TURNER-A11 businesses sha11 be a110wed a freestanding sign and a wa11 sign, right? MR. CARR-It doesn't say anywhere in here that the signs have to be on the property. MRS. EGGLESTON-Have you ever run across that, lee? MRS. YORK-Yes. Off premises signs are usua11y reviewab1e by the P1anning Board. MR. CARR-Right, but those are Off premises directiona1 signs. MRS. YORK-No, even word signs. MR. CARR-Rea11y? MRS. YORK-Yes. We have a coup1e on, the Bungee Boyz, for one, are coming in. I guess they do have a direction, an arrow on them. So, you are correct in that matter. MR. CARR-Was that one reviewed by the P1anning Board. MRS. YORK-It wi11 be. MRS. EGGLESTON-It wi11 be. That was in the newspaper. MR. DELLA BElLA-I wou1d just add that I think I see what you're trying to ask. If the property was across the street or down the road or around the corner, if it wasn't connected to my, cou1d that be the prob1em, because it's connected to mY? MR. TURNER-No. Your property doesn't front Quaker Road per see MR. DELLA BELLA-That's right, but it's in front of it. 9 MR. TURNER-So, your property 1ine starts where it's identified on the map, and what I'm saying is the Ordinance says that you can have a 50 square foot sign at 15 foot from your property 1ine. It a1so says you can have a 64 square foot sign 25 feet from your property 1ine, a freestanding sign. MR. DELLA BElLA-I wou1d just comment on that maybe mY main issue on the sign, if nothing e1se, is you know what a dea1er-ship is, but many peop1e don't, and when they c10sed one of the entrance ways to get in and out of the dea1er-ship by the turning 1ane, it's causing me some major concern, and just based on that, especia11y from other peop1e ta1king about it. It's not just me. MR. CARR-The app1icant is not Mr. De11a Be11a. The app1icant is the County. It's their property. Technica11y, the app1icant is the County because the app1icant has to be the property owner. So, the ru1e is, what's the ru1e for Counties who want to a110w business signs on their property? MR. TURNER-We've a1ways estab1ished the precedent that they'd have to get permission from the County to put the sign in that right-of-way, period. MR. CARR-He's got that. MR. TURNER-He's got it. A11 right. MRS. YORK-The County's 1etter stated that the on1y stipu1ation is that they need to have a copy of the Town of Queensbury permit, first. So, rea11y, the County is throwing it back into your ba11park. MR. TURNER-That's right. MRS. YORK-They said, we don't have any prob1em with your putting the sign there as 10ng as the Town of Queensbury doesn't have any prob1em with you putting it there, basica11y. MR. CARR-Right, but I'm saying that the on1y 1ega1 basis on which we can deny is on this size, make him conform to the 50 foot size, in which case we get into the argument of what are the signs. I don't think we can base a deniaL and I'm not saying that I'm for or against a denia1. I don't think we can base a denia1 that it's in the County right-of-way. MRS. YORK-I think you're probab1y right because the P1anning Board is usua11y the agent that reviews Off premises signs. MR. CARR-That's right. MRS. YORK-So they wou1d have that power. MR. CARR-I think our on1y power is to review the size of the sign, in this case. MR. TURNER-Okay. If you want to go that way, we'11 go that way. Any way you want to do it. MR. CARR-That's just my opinion. I think Char1ie agrees with me. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the pub1ic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COJIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGlESTON-A 1etter from Robert Condit, "I'm the owner of the property current1y being used as Bob Baker Po01s on the corner of Everts and Quaker, a1most direct1y across from your property. I support you and wish you we11 at the pub1ic hearing on the matter on Ju1y 15th, 1992." MR. TURNER-Do you want to discuss it any further? MRS. EGGlESTON-It'11 go for site p1an, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes. It shou1d go to the P1anning Board. What is the size of the sign? Are we counting everything? Are we counting the piece with the 1ettering in it, or? MR. TURNER-No. We're not counting the 1etters, because we a1ways used to inc1ude the structure part of the sign. If that monument is the sign, than you've got to inc1ude a11 of that. 10 MR. CARR-Okay. How do I figure this? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, shouldn't the applicant have done that? MR. TURNER-It's down there on the bottom. The letters in there are 45 square feet. MR. CARR-Right. I can figure that. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that's already identified, and that's nine, but you've got to figure that whole thing, that whole block. It's two foot, it's 18 square feet, that block. MR. CARR-Yes, this is, right here. MR. TURNER-No, no, not that, the one under it, the Della. It's two by nine. MR. CARR-You're counting the whole block? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-And you're counting the whole block up here though, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-So, my question is, we don't know how much this is. MR. DElLA BElLA-The sign is six by six, and if you count the box and the other letters, then it's the first drawing. The first drawing would be. MRS. EGGLESTON-This is the first drawing. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's 18, 18, and that's 45. I think I figured that's 50. MR. DELLA BELLA-You're not going to count the base, are you? MR. TURNER-No. I'm just adding up what you've got here. MR. CARR-Well, no, you're not counting the base. MR. DELLA BELLA-Don't count the base, that's going to be covered. That's the platform. MR. TURNER-You've got to measure it right there, like, you've got 18, and right here. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 67-1992 D'ELIA PONTIAC-BUICK-ISUZIJ, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Which would allow the applicant a sign in excess of the 50 square foot maximum. The exact dimensions will be no more than on the drawing submitted by the applicant, prepared by Signs of Progress. The applicant has a special circumstance in that his property is located off of Quaker Road behind two rights-of-way, one owned by the County, and one owned by Niagara Mohawk. The applicant has requested of Niagara Mohawk permission to place the sign on their property, which they have refused. The applicant has requested the same from the County of Warren which has been granted. The excess signage is minimal in nature, and will be an enhancement to the entire area. They have removed one freestanding sign in the County right-of-way and a wall sign on the building. Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin (8:50 p.m.) USE VARIANCE NO. 62-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA HAROLD WELLER OWNER: HERJM A. NEAL, III VANIllSEN ROAD TO SELL USED AUTOII)BILES. TAX MAP NO. 126-1-68.1 LOT SIZE: 50 FT. BY 200 FT. SECTION 179-26 HERMAN NEAL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:50 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Use Variance No. 69-1992, Harold Weller, July 8, 1992, Meeting Date: July 15, 1992 "The applicant is requesting to sell used automobiles on a 50 by 200 ft. lot 11 on VanDusen Road in an LI-1A zone. For the Board's information there were 3 adjacent lots transferred to Mr. Nealon 8/2/91 (map attached). The application indicates a desire to utilize lot 126-1-68.1 (.23 ac) as a location for auto sales. The property is in close proximity to an existing junk yard. The lot is currently vacant, however, is close to a residential unit on the adjacent lot. The lot is small for its intended use. The plan indicates that 5 cars will be on display and a small office will be located on the site. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for a use variance. 1. Is there a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned. Yes. The zoning in this area was light industrial 1 acre since 1988 under the current ordinance. It was also LI-1A under the ordinance adopted in 1982. The current owner purchased the property in 199I. The lot in question is small for many light industrial uses, however, a review of the list in that zone reveals that there are uses that could be accommodated on that lot. If the owner was willing to utilize all three lots there are a number of LI-1A uses which could fit comfortably on the land. 2. Are the circumstances of the lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? No. The owner himself owns three lots that are similar in size. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? This neighborhood is in transition and there is a concern that has been publicly expressed at various Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals hearings. The Board has to consider that a variance on this lot then sets a precedent for the next two undersized lots owned by the same individual. The cumulative impact could have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. If the applicant is limited to the cars shown on the plan then traffic should not be an issue. The appearance of the lot and use should be a concern. The Board may want details on the long term maximum usage of the site. The Board should also ascertain whether auto repair will occur on the site." MR. SICARD-What's allowed on that lot, Teddy, now, that small lot, as zoned? MR. TURNER-I'm just going to read it to you. MR. SICARD-It's almost got to be automotive. MR. TURNER-Freight Terminal, extraction of sand and gravel, that won't happen, restaurant, building supply lumber yard, and storage yard, any light manufacturing assembly or industrial or research operation, warehousing, laboratory, office building in excess of 10,000 square feet, truck repair facility, heavy machinery repair facility, television radio station, construction company, logging company, heavy equipment storage, heavy equipment sales, agricultural service use, passenger limousine and/or bus storage and terminal facility. MR. SICARD-There's not much difference between truck repairing and automotive repairing, is there? MR. TURNER-The size of the vehicle and the noise. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's per a one acre lot. This is a .23, that's a third of a. MR. SICARD-What you're saying, then, for everyone of those, they'd have to have a variance for it. wouldn't they, to get on that small lot. MR. TURNER-Yes. They'd never make it with that one, but he's got three lots in a row there. MRS. EGGLESTON-He bought them all in 1991, the three lots. MR. SICARD-Thank you. MR. CARR-I mean, if he had a heavy equipment sales, would he need a variance on the lot? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-So, it's not an Area Variance? MR. TURNER-As long it's conforming to the lot size. Yes, he'd need a variance for the area size. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because it says one acre. MR. CARR-Right, but if it's a preexisting lot, how can we? MR. NEAL-It was determined at another meeting that because it was a preexisting lot it does not fall under the one acre. MR. CARR-That's what I was thinking. MRS. YORK-Right. preexisting lot. He purchased the three preexisting lots next to each other in 199I. He wants to sell used cars on the lot. It is a MR. CARR-Right. My question, though, would be, it's zoned for heavy equipment sales. MRS. YORK-Right. 12 MR. CARR-Say he puts a Caterpi1Jar on the Jot and tries to sen it tomorrow, wouJd he have to get a variance? MRS. YORK-No. He wouJd have to have Site PJan review. MR. CARR-Site PJan review. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-But they can't deny him based on the size of his Jot because it's a Jot of record, right? MRS. YORK-WeJJ, in the case of the PJanning Board, they wouJd go through their SEQRA form and determine what environmentaJ impacts it wouJd have, and if it wouJd be in Jine with the neighborhood character. I know the Site PJan review criteria is different than what you normaJJy use. MR. CARR-I just thought I heard he was going to need an Area Variance on it? MRS. YORK-No, not necessariJy. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. YORK-You don't know untiJ we see a pJan. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-No, I meant, if he went with the whoJe thing. If he went with the three Jots, and wanted as change of use, I think then he'd have to, change the use of the whoJe thing. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-You're going to have five cars? What are you going to do about the repairs? MR. NEAL-There wiJJ be no repairs done on the site. MR. TURNER-Not in the back? MR. NEAL-Just cJean up the back of them and wash them and that's it. AbsoJuteJy no automotive repair at an. MR. TURNER-Where are you going to do the automotive repair work, where off site? MR. NEAL-There reaJJy isn't going to be any automotive repair work. MR. SICARD-Very few used cars with repair work that's needed. MR. NEAL-The car saJes are whoJesaJed to a deaJer at an auction. We don't repair them. You're not buying junk cars. You're buying good used cars. MR. TURNER-You mean you don't have to do break jobs on them or anything Jike that? MR. NEAL-If so, you take them to a break shop. There's no repair faciJity pJanned or in the future for that site. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where do you buy these from, deaJers that take it in trade? MR. NEAL-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. What if you have a deaJer, and I beJieve this happens, and he has four vehicJes, and you've aJready got three on your Jot, and he says you have to, you want them, you take alJ four, where are you going to put them? MR. NEAl-I wouldn't take them. If I'm limited to five, I wouJd keep five there. I wouldn't make that deaJ. MRS. EGGLESTON-You'd just find one somewhere, untiJ another one was sold? MR. NEAl-WeJJ, you wouJdn't make the deaJ to buy four if you didn't have room for them. 13 MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Where will customers park, that are viewing these cars and discussing the sales? MR. NEAL-In the driveway. I really don't feel there's going to be any major traffic. MRS. EGGLESTON-In what driveway? The driveway on this lot where the cars are going to be? MR. NEAL-Right. There's a paved area on that lot. MRS. EGGlESTON-A paved driveway or a paved area? MR. NEAl-A paved driveway. MRS. EGGlESTON-A paved driveway, and where will the vehicles sit? MR. NEAL-Parked in the grass area. MRS. EGGLESTON-And is there room enough for? MR. NEAL-There's plenty of room. If you drove by there recently, there's like three vehicles there now, diagonally, the way they would be parked. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? Okay. let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT CLARK MR. CLARK-I'm Robert Clark. I own Clark's Used Auto Parts next door. I'm against it for safety reasons, the traffic in and out of there, and the mess that I really believe that we're going to inherit out of there is not really going to justify ft. Herman himself would be a different situation. I mean, he keeps his place pretty clean, but Weller, on Warren Street in Glens Falls that they kicked out of there, because of the mess he had on Warren Street, I don't think we need that kind of mess on Van Dusen Road, and with 50 foot. I mean, where is he going to put those cars? I just don't see where it would be reasonable for him to put them in there. MORGAN COMBS MR. COMBS-I'm Morgan Combs. I have the land on the other side. He put down here that there's a junk yard on both sides of the property. There isn't. If you people went up there and saw it, you'll see my white house. That's my lawn across it there with my redwood fence. My yard's in the back. I own the land behind that and on the side, but there's no junk yard on that side. I'm against it 100 percent. I don't think the environment up there is practical. I told Herman himself. If he applied for dealer plates and wanted to sell cars, that'd be okay with me, but he's also talking about putting up the cabinet shop for making cabinets in the back. So, that's no problem, but how's he going to have a cabinet shop and have somebody else lease it out for a used car lot, and this, as Bob said, Weller was on Warren Street, he was kicked out on account of the mess. We don't need the environment. I'm against it 100 percent. That's all I've got to say. MR. SICARD-Is one of those lots empty, other than this one that they're planning on using, which would give them two lots? MR. COMBS-Well, the land next to me, my redwood fence, there's a 50 foot land there, and then there's another 50 foot strip where he has his house, and there's a 25 foot vacant lot between him and the Clark's green fence. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, all together, the three are 125 feet, if you put all three together? MR. COMBS-Yes. MRS. YORK-The Board, for your information, I did attach a map. MR. TURNER-Yes. We have the map. MR. SICARD-Mr. Combs, your objection is not to the crowding so much as it's probably making a mess of where they were before? Is that what you're saying? MR. COMBS-The environment. MR. SICARD-Were they to use two or three of those lots for a larger operation, probably be able to put up a garage and enclose some of these cars, would you object to that? 14 MR. COMBS-Where are they going to put them? He's got his house in the center. MR. SICARD-So, it's impossibJe, then. to put two of those Jots together? MR. COMBS-Yes, because his house is on another Jot. He's got a 25 foot one over there, and a 50 foot one next to mine and he wants, his house is in the center Jot. MRS. EGGLESTON-And how cJose is your house to your Jot Jine, to the end of your Jot, that divides your Jot and that 50 foot strip where he wants to put this? MR. COMBS-About 100 feet. MR. SICARD-What they're reaJJy saying is that in order to utiJize those Jots, the three Jots together, they'd probabJy have to tear the house down. MRS. EGGlESTON-WeJJ, the thing of it is, CharJie, the zoning was in effect when they bought the Jots. They knew when they bought it. It's a seJf imposed hardship, reaHy, what they couJd do with them. They've been that way since 1982. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it wasn't something, Jike a change in zone or anything Jike that. When they bought it it was that way. MR. SICARD-I didn't ask whether they were Jeasing, whether they were Jeasing this Jot or not, to determine how Jong their Jength of business wouJd Jast up there. I hate to see something go in Jike that. It's a bad area up there anyway. MR. TURNER-The probJem that I have with it is that there is a zone aJJowed for the saJe of automobiJes, and that's Highway CommerciaJ. It's not that he's prevented from going any pJace eJse. MRS. EGGlESTON-I don't know who wouJd poJice it. You couJd ~ five vehicJes, but it's reaHy a very narrow Jot to Jine cars up and then have peopJe come in off the highway. You've got to have room for aJJ of that and a turn around. MR. SICARD-There is a Jot of repa1rmg done on cars up there. I don't think that wouJd prevent me from putting them in there, because any car you buy used, you're going to have to do something to it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-The oJd parts come off and stay, and the new parts go on, but if it's in that category, I don't see anything you can do about it. ROBERT AI KENS MR. AIKENS-I'm Robert Aikens. I Jive on 30 acres a JittJe more than 500 feet from his property. My Jand is zoned residentiaJ. It's right on the Jine of the light IndustriaJ zone. I do object to it. I think he shouJd take a cJose Jook at where he's been, in the future, past sites, and if there's any way to keep a handJe on it. The area is in a transition period, and I feeJ that it's picking up. There is a coupJe of probJem areas, and I think you're going to get them cJeaned up, and I do object to it. MR. SICARD-I agree with you. MR. TURNER-You've got the new deveJopment just down the road, that's just off of Van Dusen Road, HeraJd Square. MR. SICARD-That whoJe area is improving. MR. TURNER-Yes, and it's starting to change. Anyone eJse wish to be heard in opposition? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? Okay. Motion's in order. II)TION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 69-1992 HAROLD WELLER, Introduced by CharJes Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Most of that area is automotive. I think there's no effects of this variance on any pubJic utiJities or services in that area. I wouJd Jike to put an exception in there, that there'JJ never be any more than five cars on the Jot, and aJso there'H be no repair work to be done, major repair work. It's 15 impossib1e to put those three 10ts together, without possib1y tearing down an existing bui1ding. MR. TURNER-lets see if we have a second. Do we have a second? No? No second? It dies. Okay. Another motion's in order, then. flJTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 69-1992 HAROLD WELLER, Introduced by Joyce Egg1eston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: The appJicant has not demonstrated that a reasonab1e return cannot be generated from the 10t if the parce1 is used as zoned. The current owner purchased the property in 1991, three contiguous 10ts, and the zoning had been light Industry One Acre since 1982. If the three 10ts were used as one, there are light Industry uses that cou1d be accommodated. Even on the one 50 foot 10t in question, when reviewing the 1isted uses under light Industry, there are some uses that cou1d be accommodated on a 10t that size. I do be1ieve it wou1d have an adverse effect on utiJities and faciJities. I think it wou1d impact the traffic f10w in that the 10t wou1d have a 10t of activity on and off Van Dusen Road. Du1y adopted this 15th day of Ju1y, 1992, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1eston, Mrs. Pa1ing, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin (9:17 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1992 TYPE II LC-42A MARC D. GARVEY OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE HUNTER WE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AROUND EXISTING POOL. SIDE YARD SETBACKS CANNOT BE ŒT. TAX IMP NO. 26-2-17.20 LOT SIZE: 238 FT. BY 200 FT. SECTION 179-67 A(2} MARC GARVEY, PRESENT (9:17 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior P1anner, Area Variance No. 71-1992, Mark D. Garvey, Ju1y 15, 1992, Meeting Date: Ju1y 15, 1992 "The appJicant wishes to construct a deck around a poo1. The zoning is lC-42. The deck wi11 not have a significant impact. The app1ication was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance. I. Describe the practica1 difficuHy which does not a110w p1acement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The zoning setbacks do not a110w p1acement of an accessory structure. The po01 is existing. 2. Is this the minimum variancè necessary to a11eviate the specified practica1 difficu1ty or is there any other option avai1ab1e which wou1d require no variance? The po01 is existing so there are few aHernative 10cations. 3. Wou1d this variance be detrimenta1 to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conf1ict with the objectives of any p1an or p01icy of the Town? No.4. What are the effects of the variance on pub1ic faci1ities and services? None. 5. Is this request the minimum reJief necessary to a11eviate the specified practica1 difficuHy? Yes." MR. CARR-Mr. Garvey, you own lots 38 and 36? MR. GARVEY-Yes. I own 36 and 38, and 34 is in my fami1y. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-How 10ng, 1ets see. this on is dated '71, right, this reference map survey. How 10ng have 1Q!! owned it? MR. GARVEY-I've owned this since '86. MR. TURNER- '86. MR. CARR-Was it one deed for this wh01e parce1? MR. GARVEY-Yes. It was one deed for the wh01e parce1. MR. CARR-lee, do we know, is this one Tax Map Number? MRS. YORK-I'm not rea11y sure. MR. GARVEY-I think it's two. MR. CARR-You think it's two. MR. TURNER-There's a division 1ine right there. 16 ~--- MRS. YORK-Yes. I would assume Mr. Garvey is correct. Probably it was given two Tax Map Numbers when the mylar was filed, and the subdivision was made. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. GARVEY-I can explain why it was put there and the reason for it. MR. TURNER-Did you put the pool in, or did somebody else? MR. GARVEY-I had somebody put it in for me, but I did put it in. MR. TURNER-Okay. You put it in. MR. GARVEY-The fence that fence that encompasses the pool, the deck is inside that. It's basically built into that. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GARVEY-Between the deck and the house is needed for drainage, so you can't really put a deck there. MR. TURNER-He needs 18 feet of relief. Is that 82 on the map there. or is that a 42, on the old map? It looks like 82 to me. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. He needs 18 feet. MR. CARR-And 42 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. I've got that over here. MR. CARR-And do we need another side yard setback? MR. TURNER-Yes. He needs 48 on the east side. Any further questions? This is an old subdivision, that everybody that lives down in the back gets in trouble with, with the setbacks. Okay. Any further questions of the applicant? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD SAGE MR. SAGE-My name is Richard Sage, and mY wife and I have the back lot right across the street from Marc on the west side. We have no objections to this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-We have a letter from Dean Howland, "As an immediate neighbor of Mark Garvey on Hunter lane I have no objections at all in his application for a swimming pool deck variance. Their home and property have been built and maintained in a condition that should qualify them for a blue ribbon from the town beautification committee. Ridge Knolls and the Town of Queensbury are greatly benefited from home owners like the Garveys. Sincerely, Dean H. Howland" MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. fI)1ION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1992 MRC D. GARVEY, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: And grant the applicant relief of 18 feet on the east side and a relief of 48 feet on the south side from the 100 foot requirement. Also, relief of 42 feet from the west side. The practical difficulty is the fact that this is a preexisting subdivision, which at the time probably met the setbacks, but now it doesn't due to the change in zoning. Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin (9:28 p.m.) 17 -'- NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-92 JAJES tEHALICK VICTOR lHOMS APPEAL CONCERNS lHE PROPERTY OWIIED BY: INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING, CORP. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE LOCATION: NORlH SIDE OF ROUND POND ROAD ON ROUTE 9 SECTION(S} OF THE ORDINANCE IßIICH APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION: SECTION 179-7(B} -ACCESSORY USE-, SECTION 179-21(D} -PERJUTTED USES IN A RC ZONE-, SECTION 179-21; AND SECTION 179-67 (B). WHETHER PROPOSED CHILDREN'S -WET AREA- CONSISTING OF FOUR (4) POURED CONCRETE SWnllING/llADING POOLS, IlATERSLIDE PlATFORM, THREE (3) WATERSLIDE (INCWDING -PRo-SLIDE-) AND BOAT/PlATFORM IS AN -ACCESSORY USE- WHICH MY BE CONSTRUCTED AS OF RIGHT BY PROPERTY OWNER. JOHN HAKO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:28 p.m.) MR. TURNER-Mr. Carr will Chair this application. I have a conflict with it. MR. HAKO-My name is John Hako from Guilderland, New York, and present with us is Victor Thomas, who is one of the applicants here. Mr. Mehalick could not be available tonight as he is running his restaurant business, and it is a business night for him. I'd just like an opportunity to expand upon what we had in our narrative, and some of the things in there turned out not to be the case, such as the parking for the Bavarian Palace is not used, and there are some other things that I should mention, such as the campground parcel was separately used and separately approved for Site Plan purposes in 1982 and used up until, I think, 1988 or 1987, and basically that use was abandoned after several years, but the Site Plan approval was still in effect, and there are no provisions in the Code that such approval becomes void after a number of years. Essentially, just to recap what happened between Mrs. Crayford and the applicant, she was approached in mid March of '92, issued a letter in late March 1992 stating that such a use, a water area, wet area complex, would be incidental to the permitted use. We have to expand what we have, both in terms of factual issues. Also, I would like to submit to the Board a Memorandum of law which deals with the three separate issues of whether the Zoning Administrator has the authority to interpret the Zoning Ordinance. Second, whether that interpretation, which we believe she did not have the power to make, in any event, was correct, and that is the way this appeal was framed to this Board. Thirdly, the fact that there was an individual Site Plan review and approval of the actual parcel which is now being modified and expanded upon in order to construct, open and use the Noah's Spray Ground activity. So, without any further ado, I will hand the members five copies of a letter and Memorandum of law. I do not ask that it be read into the record. We can waive that. We can certainly make another copy available for the owners also. We realize that there's a 13 page Memorandum and a three page letter all single spaced, and it certainly is more than anybody cares to read tonight or especially listen to tonight, so we would ask that the Board and the Board's attorney who we've provided a separate copy of the materials for, have the opportunity to read it over the next month. We certainly would consent to an adjournment of this hearing to next month. MR. CARR-Well, before we adjourn it, may I ask, lee, is there a Stop Work Order on this? MRS. YORK-I don't know. MR. CARR-Is it completed? Is it being used? Wayne, are you here for the Great Escape? WAYNE JUDGE MR. JUDGE-Yes. MR. CARR-Is it completed and being used, or is it under Stop Work Order? MR. JUDGE-Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. So a tabling of this until next month, so they could. MR. HAKO-We, originally, did ask for a Stop Work Order to be issued, but that was refused. We are still here believing that the original Building Permit was not valid. If I could address a question to Mr. Judge, has the CO been issued, for the use of the project? MR. JUDGE-Yes. MR. HAKO-Okay. It has, because as of Monday we checked, and it had not yet been issued, we couldn't get a copy of it anyway. MR. JUDGE-As far as I know, it has been. MR. HAKO-Okay, because we did have a client's representative call and try to obtain a copy of it and it was unavailable, as of one o'clock Monday afternoon. MR. CARR-lee, has a CO been issued, do you know? MRS. YORK-We are not sure. MR. HAKO-We have not been able to obtain a copy of that. 18 MR. CARR-All right. MR. HAKO-We understand there's several people who are probably likely supportive of the Great Escape that are here this evening. We certainly don't want to frame our appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision as an emotional one. Reaììy, what we are here for this the legal issue, as to whether A, the Town Zoning Administrator had the authority to interpret Zoning Ordinance by saying that this is a swimming pool, a swimming pool permit application was submitted, that such a pool was an accessory use to a use permitted in a Recreation Commercial zone, and thirdly whether this effects the amendment to a previously approved site plan, which by matter of course also requires appearance before the Planning Board in order to have a pool. MR. CARR-Weìì, I think we can answer that. I think it's always been the policy of this Board that the Zoning Administrator does have the right to interpret, but it's your right to appeal her interpretation to this Board, which I think you've done. MR. HAKO-We have found nothing in the Zoning Ordinance which indicates that the Zoning Administrator has the power to interpret. I understand, and certainly reading the newspaper articles from the past several years, there's no way I can say that the Zoning Administrator has not interpreted the Zoning Ordinance in the past. Our contention is that it is not proper for her to do so given that her specific instructions in the Zoning Ordinance are to administer and enforce, and that is, essentiaììy, an administarial position, which involves reading the Zoning Ordinance, making sure that everything complies with the requirements involved with the use. MR. CARR-But doesn't that entail making an interpretation? MR. HAKO-Weìì, an interpretation when there is no question is not reaììy an interpretation. I think it's following what has been set forth in the law. One of the cases we have submitted is a case which holds that the power to interpret a Zoning Ordinance is vested exclusively in the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. CARR-I don't think we're disagreeing as to that. It's just a matter of semantics, as to whether she's interpreting it or making a decision, which is not an interpretation. I don't know, but I think you're here as of right to appeal her decision. MR. HAKO-There is no question, we cannot argue that we have to appeal from her interpretation, because that interpretation led to a granting of the Building Permit. MR. CARR-Right. MR. HAKO-So, we are here to discuss whether she had the authority to so interpret. I'm not going to say that mY boss is authority, but Mr. Mancini who is one of my employers, was a zoning counselor for 13 years in the Town of Guilderland. In no event was the Zoning Administrator or Building Inspector in that Town ever given any authority to interpret the Zoning Ordinance, and whenever there is a question of fact, where you cannot make an easy determination from an Ordinance. MR. CARR-But I think the point is she thought she could make an easy determination. So, she made an interpretation. It's done. lets get on with it. Please. MR. HAKO-I won't belabor this. Okay. To start at the top, the Recreation Commercial zone aììows an amusement center use by Site Plan Review. It is our position that the initial submittal of this application, this proposal should have been to the Planning Board, as it is the Planning Board's authority to review, look at environmental impacts, planning issues, in order to carry out the long term goals of the Zoning Ordinance. Because that was not done, because a determination was made that this was an accessory use, that is one incidental to a permitted use, is not entirely accurate, given that it's a permitted use by Site Plan Review, not permitted use as of right. Swimming pools are listed as accessory uses in an RC zone under Single Family dweììings, which is the only use permitted by a direct automatic application for zoning for a Building Permit to the Zoning Administrator or Director of Building and Codes. There are no separate listed accessory uses under the 17 different Type I and Type II permitted uses by Site Plan Review. Going to the accessory use section of the Code, it discusses what kind of uses are accessory uses and addresses swimming pools, but it addresses swimming pools that are private noncommercial. We also brought up, in our memorandum, the actual use of the term "swimming pool". I don't have it with me right now, but I think it holds more than 100 gaììons of water, and is used for wading or swimming. The finished product up there contains an arch 16 feet high, and I think 20 by 60 feet, 1200 square feet in space, as per the plot plan, and I might as weìì get that out. We have already submitted a reduced version of the plot plan, with our original materials. We do not believe a swimming pool can reasonably consist of a 16 foot high platform that's 60 feet by 20 feet, using a scale provided of one acre of an inch equals one foot. We cannot believe that waterslides here, here, here, here, and here, and I believe that's two, can reaììy be considered a swimming pool. While it's common for a pool to have a slide, they usuaììy don't go 16 feet up in the air. It's not typical for a swimming pool to contain hippopotamuses, kangaroo, and air bubbles, sprays, waterfalls, and what have you. Our determination is that to allow this to be constructed, on the basis of a $35 swimming pool application, far exceeds the authority that the Zoning Administrator has. As to the 19 ~.,- issues of whether the use is accessory, after getting through with our discussion about what powers the Zoning Administrator has, we set forth a ìeading case in New York State on Commerciaì Accessory Uses, whether they exist. We invite you to read our memorandum on that. There are severaì factors which I wiìì not get into detaiì here, because I reaììy think the members of the Board and Mr. Dusek and Mr. Parisi shouìd have the abiìity to ìook over that memorandum. The Great Escape's attorney shouìd aìso have the abiìity to ìook over that and address and rebut any of the things that we've said. I wouìd ìike to, at the very taiì end of my presentation, and aìso show the members of the Board a copy of the originaì Site Pìan which was approved for the campground in 1982. This incìudes the campground parceì which was approved in 1982 as Site Pìan Review No. 8-82. Cìearìy, over here on the northeasterìy edge of the property is shown the tennis courts over which the pooìs are now constructed. My understanding is that the entire compìex, incìuding the existing campground pooì has been fenced in on the Round Pond Road side, and has basicaììy been combined with the pooì that has repìaced the tennis courts. So, the Noah's Sprayground has repìaced the tennis courts. That pooì is approximateìy, using another map which we gave you which was not to scaìe, but it was one inch to every 50 feet, which was part of the originaì pìans, which are part of the Buiìding Department fiìe, shows that that pooì, the buiìding pìans on fiìe for the pooì, for the Noah's Sprayground, show the pooì on a one to fifty scaìe, and from that we couìd determine that the pooì is approximateìy 6500 to 7000 square feet. So, we've aìso got a probìem with what was permitted as opposed to what has actuaììy been constructed, given that the permit, a matter of record, was a 4200 square foot amusement pooì permit, and now the entire compìex consists of approximateìy 12,000 square foot Sprayground and the existing 7,000 square foot pooL The Post Star articìe of Juìy 3rd indicates that the compìex consists of five pooìs, rather than the four that were part of the Sprayground which you have the reduced versions of, and aìso has a depth of up to six feet. Weìì, the originaì pìans, even in the Buiìding Permit appìications, swimming pooì permit appìications, show that the maximum proposed depth was two feet. So, we assumed that this new pooì must be part, or the oìd pooì must be part of the new pooì compìex, and that indeed is the case, as they are aìì combined, and there's approximateìy 20,000 square feet there, which is more than, aìmost five times as much as the actuaì approved amount. Our further understanding, and I did this with a phone caìì to the Great Escape a coupìe of days ago, to find out where peopìe changed into swim wear as the advertisements have said that swim wear is required, that the newspaper articìe in the Post Star, which we have incìuded with our materiaìs, that swim wear is required. We found out that former generaì store buiìding, aìso caììed the Johnny Appìeseed Restaurant, is now being used as a changing roomlìocker room area. So, essentiaììy, this whoìe area is being used in conjunction with the Sprayground. There's been a change of use of this buiìding, and despite, in addition to aìì that, there are three uses taking pìace on a parceì which is not part of the originaì Fun Park parceL It is part of the campground parceì, which was purchased separateìy, by Attractions, I don't even think it was Attractions land when this was approved, this was the Great Escape Camping Resort, Inc., as opposed to Attractions land, Inc., d/b/a The Great Escape, in 1982. So, we have separate ownership untiì May 15th of this year. They were separateìy taxed. This is not a part of the originaì parceL It is an expansion of the originaì parceì into new ìand, and by definition, by what Mr. Hatin has said in the past, requires Site Pìan Review, and I wiìì probabìy stop there, or if you have any questions, I'd be gìad to answer them. MR. CARR-No questions? I'ìì open the pubìic hearing at this point. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE STARK MR. STARK-My name is George Stark, and aìong with my wife, I own the Mohican Moteì on the lake George Road. It seems ìike every time Charìie or Tom wants to do something at the Great Escape, they have a tremendous amount of opposition, and then everybody from the business community comes up in favor or Charìie, or Tom, whatever the case is. In this case here, the main opposition is coming from, not from within the Town, from Mr. Thomas or Mr. Mehaìick, but from the owners of Watersìide Worìd in lake George. This attorney here represents Gary Hausky from Watersìide Worìd. His wife is here tonight. It seems ìike, I can't beìieve Mr. Mehaìick or Mr. Thomas, who've never appeared at a meeting before, in support or opposition of any thing to the Great Escape, I don't know why they, aìì of a sudden, bring this appeaì of Pat Crayford's ruìing. MR. CARR-Weìì, I think the point, though, Mr. Stark, is that, regardìess of motivation or who brought it, I mean, we can't kick it out for improper motivation. It was brought by residents of the Town of Queensbury who have a right to do that. So, I think we have to, now, interpret what is before us, regardìess of the motivation. MR. STARK-I know that. I'm just wondering, too, who is paying the attorney to come up here. I'm sure Mr. Mehaìick or Mr. Thomas is not doing that aìso. You understand my point, that someone from out of town is trying to stick their nose into what's happening in this Town, against Mr. Wages, and Mr. Woods is putting in a coupìe of sìides and some water fountains and so on. Aìì he's trying to do is improve his property. He got this ruìing from Mrs. Crayford. It seems ìike he got a ruìing, okay, to move the Bavarian Paìace before, and then some peopìe decided to say, weìì, he needs a Site Pìan Review. Now, we put this in, and now somebody eìse is saying, weìì, it's not aììowed now. We want to get a Stop Work Order on it. That's aìì I have to say. 20 DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-I'm David Kenny. I'm with Days Inn in the Adirondack Man. I've had a 10t of appHcations in this Town. I'm famHiar with BuHding and Codes. The intent of the 1aw has a1ways been, I think, for the Zoning Administrator to decide whether or not it shou1d go for Site P1an Review, or before the Zoning Board of Appea1s. That is the way it has been done. I don't think anything's changed in this app1ication. Maybe it hasn't been spened out comp1ete1y what he or she can do, but that's the way it's a1ways been done, and I think that's the intent of the 1aw. I think that's what happened here, and whether her decision is right or wrong, the pub1ic has the right to appea1 that, but as far as questioning her integrity or anybody e1se's integrity of the Town, I think that is wrong. I did be1ieve what she did was 1ega1, and we as a Town, who has approved that, and that's been going on for a 10ng time. I'd just Hke to state, it's your decision now as to whether what she did was correct. To me it seems there is an accessory use there. I think you're nitpicking whether it's an expansion of the Park. It's an RC-15 now. It is zoned for what is there. If I own a piece of property and buy the 10t next door, I'm anowed to expand on an existing commercia1 use. It's questionab1e whether a site p1an, you know, what is considered a, and I think possib1y you have to 100k at the zoning regu1ations for darity, but at this point I happen to think the Zoning Administrator made the right decision, and I don't consider it a major attraction. He's not creating a new Park. I mean, a 10t of things can be read into it. It can be read into, possib1y, what his intentions are in the future, but what is there tOday and what is there now is what is there today and what was approved. We're not ta1king about whether he's going to expand to the other po01s. That possib1y does exist, natura11y, but what he app1ied for, I be1ieve, is not what they're trying to make be1ieve he is now app1ying for, and at this point in time I think she did make the correct decision, and I support her and the Town. Thank you. ED MOORE MR. MOORE-My name is Ed Moore. I'm the owner of the French Commons Out1et Center. I think it's an existing use type thing. I think as 10ng as the Great Escape is a Fun Park, I think it has to keep turning over new types of rides and entertainment to keep peop1e coming to this area. We're a tourist area. We thrive on that. So many of us make our 1iving from that, our neighbors, our famiHes, and as 10ng as this, if the Great Escape is not anowed to continue to do those types of things, bring in new rides and update itse1f, it's going to become dysfunctiona1, and when that p1ace becomes dysfunctiona1. I think there's a 10t of peop1e that are financiany going to be hurt in this area. So, I think the P1anning Board and the Zoning Board has to 100k with very broad eyes in that respect, and I think there was a proper decision made, and I back the decision. MR. CARR-Mr. Moore, I wou1d just 1ike to say, I agree with the importance of the Great Escape in this area, but I think we've got to 100k with our eyes open as to app1ying the Ordinance, whatever the interpretation of the Board is, fair1y to everybody. I mean, I don't think we can dose our eyes to the Great Escape and 1et them do whatever they want. I mean, we do have restrictions, site p1an requirements, and I think that's to benefit everybody, inc1uding the appHcants, and I'm not saying that everything shou1d be denied. I'm just saying, things shou1d be 100ked at, if that's what's ca11ed for under site p1an, and I think it shou1d apply to everybody. MR. MOORE-I agree with you. As Iong as things are done structurally, site pIan review shou1d go through structure. If Zoning gives the Ordinance that, okay, this is okay, and Zoning Ordinance approves that this can be done here, then it should go for structural overview, and that's it. I don't think it should be a, anything should be able to be brought up any time after something is done, it's approved by the Town and brought up again. MR. CARR-Wen, there are time Hmits, and the problem is it was approved by one person in the Town, and that's what the whole appea1 process is all about is if you thought that one person made a mistake. There's usually a higher authority to go to, to clarify it. MR. MOORE-That's my understanding, and I think that when this higher authority makes it, it shou1d consider that. The representative of the Town did make that decision, and what effect does this, if you were to think that it wasn't approved properly, what effect does it have to the area. That's a very important part of the decision. I think if it's structurally built proper1y, it should be allowed to be done. WAYNE JUDGE MR. JUDGE-Good evening. My name is Wayne Judge. I represent the Great Escape. I'd Hke to welcome Mrs. Konicowski down from lake George, and I don't object to lake George businesses coming down and seeing how democracy works here in the Town of Queensbury, and I'd Hke to welcome CouncH from GuHderland to the area, even though he does represent WatersHde World. He has every right to speak here. It doesn't mean he can't speak just because he represents the competitors. However, in order to do .!!!l. job, I have to point out the di fferent smoke screens that you've been subjected to toni ght, as an advocate for the Great Escape, and that's .!!!l. fair side of the fight. First of all, if a brand new amusement park was going to move into a Recreational Commercia1 zone in the Town of Queensbury, your statute would require site pIan review, but the Great Escape preexisted the statute. The Great Escape was 21 here before there was any zoning in the Town of Queensbury. So, it didn't require site plan review, and the uses that are accessory to the Great Escape are permitted uses and do not require site plan review. Therefore, if another ride goes into the Great Escape, it does not require site plan review. It's a use accessory to an existing permitted use, an amusement park. The Great Escape never did have site plan review because it preexisted the statute, but there's nothing illegal about the Great Escape, and there's nothing illegal about the Great Escape changing or adding accessory uses because it's legal, and if you look at the preamble to your Recreational Commercial zone, you'll see that the purpose of the zone is to encourage and expand commercial recreational uses within the zone, to encourage it, and this is what's happening here. The idea of saying, for example, and when I say smoke screen, I mean that in an emotional way almost, because I think Council knows better. First of all, the property was in two different titles. It was in the title of the Great Escape and also the IDA, but I think most people who read the papers know that the reason why the title was in another person is for financing purposes. At the time, the only way the IDA would finance property would be if they got title. That would get it off the tax rolls. They'd get a sale and lease back, and that's why the property was put in a separate title, but what was going on on the property was part of the Great Escape, and although Mr. Hako wasn't here at the time when we were arguing for permission to put in these various aspects and things that did require site plan review, he was probably arguing the same kind of thing for Waterslide World up in lake George, but the issues were totally separate and distinct. The reason why site plan review was necessary for the camping village is because it impinged on a wetland area. It was a major project and it impinged on a wetland area and it required some sort of environmental review. It had nothing to do with whether or not the park was expanding or not expanding, because as a matter of fact, the argument that was made that night was that if Disney World increases their length of stay by having a trailer park down in Orlando, and everyone who's been to Disney World knows that that's an integral part of Disney World, and the purpose of it is to increase the length of stay so people will stay over for a few extra days, then our little Disney World up here, our Great Escape should have a trailer park, and it's an integral part of the park. That was the argument that we made the night of that site plan review. It was never intended to be separate, and the IDA, when it was doing its financing, didn't consider it as a separate entity. It was never operated as a separate entity. It was always in the title of the Great Escape. It was always within the same umbrella of the Great Escape. It was part of the Park. It didn't work for a whole variety of reasons, but everyone who lives here and everyone who is present during this permit process knew that it was part of the Park, and the Great Escape owned that piece of property long before they conveyed it to the IDA, and when the loan was paid off and the IDA was required by the documents to re-convey the property to the Great Escape. So, So, it's one piece of property. It's not two pieces of property, and to say it was separately taxed or separately taxed on the tax roll. that's a lot of bunk, and Council knows better than that. The reason why it was separately taxed was because it was tax exempt. The IDA is a government entity. So, it doesn't have to pay real estate taxes. You still have to make payments to the Town and the School District in lieu of taxes, they're called pilot payments, payments in lieu of taxes, but technically the property has to go off the tax rolls, and it has to be a separate parcel on the Tax Map. That doesn't mean it's separate. This was a method of financing this particular part of the Great Escape Park. So that whole business of having a separate parcel or two different pieces of property or outside the Park, is bunk, it's a smoke screen. It doesn't mean anything, and furthermore, Council knows that it's bunk, and Waterslide World knows that it's bunk. The second issue about whether or not the Zoning Administrator has the right to interpret the Statute. The Zoning Administrator interprets the Statute every day of the week. If I go in there for a building permit for a house in a residential zone, pages might be flipped and fingers might go up and down the page. That's interpreting the Statute. They're applying the Statute. It happens every day. Now, when a controversial Section of the Statute comes up, they're not allowed to do that. Baloney. They do it all the time. This is controversial because Waterslide World doesn't want to see competition in the area. That's the only reason it's controversial, because if there was any other reason that this interpretation was controversial, you know who would be here tonight? Mike O'Connor representing the Glen lake Association and half the Association would be sitting out here, if this was really a controversial interpretation of the Statute. You would see lawyers here representing property owners, not lawyers here representing competitors from lake George. So, there was not a controversial interpretation in the Statute. This was a clear accessory use to an amusement park. Common sense, it doesn't require a lawyer to see that a kiddy land area is accessory to an amusement park, and the Zoning Administrator is perfectly capable of doing that, even though, as you can see from the application, attached to the application, that the Town Attorney was copied in on all of this correspondence before any building permit was issued. Copies went to Paul Dusek this was not done in a sneaky way. The 44th smoke screen that was raised, that somehow what was built doesn't comply with what was applied for. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about tonight. l! what was built doesn't comply with what was applied for. that's an enforcement issue, that we don't get to use it, but it has nothing to do with what we're doing here. First of all, there was no proof that what was built didn't comply with what was applied for, but even if it didn't, it has nothing to do with it. It's a smoke screen, and it's an unfair smoke screen besides. Another smoke screen, the idea of pointing out that this was an application for a swimming pool. The permit that was granted says, a 42 square foot amusement pool, as per plot plan and specifications in application. It was very clear what the building permit was issued for, and it wasn't for a swimming pool accessory to a house. That's another smoke screen, and the idea of saying that the Town didn't understand, that there was something more than a swimming pool that was going to be built here. There's a copy of a letter in here from the Great Escape, explaining that not only the pool area, but the tennis court and the play ground area around the pool area would all be devoted to this project. So, there was no sneaking going on before this application for a building permit was made, but that would have been 22 " irrelevant anyway. The issue is not whether or not the Town was tricked into issuing this building permit, but the aììegation is implied, that somehow something was put over on the Town. Nothing was put over on the Town. A long process took place. The Building Administrator went up and reviewed the plans, reviewed the project and so did the Town Attorney. There would be absolutely no interest, what you're being asked to do tonight is take sides in a battle between two competitors, essentiaììy, not to interpret the Zoning Statutes. MR. CARR-No, we aren't. Wayne, I don't want to hear about Watersìide World. I don't care who's the applicant. MR. JUDGE-I know. but what I'm saying is the application here is for an interpretation of the Statute. Is an interpretation necessary at this point? Is there anything ambiguous about the Statute? Is there something that any member of this Board, or any member of your Planning Department, when they read that Statute, doesn't understand? If there's an ambiguity in there, I don't see what it is, and I think this Board should take the position that no interpretation is necessary. The Statute is clear, and it was correctly applied in this case. MR. CARR-Mr. Hako, would you like to say something? MR. HAKO-We are not saying that the Great Escape tried to puìì the wool over anybody's eyes. I think it was very clear, that the Great Escape was up front with the Zoning Administrator, with the Town Officials. There are records in the file, I'd say on March 16th, 1992 we met. March 26th, based upon our conversations, this is what I think Mr. Wages. There is no question that they were up front with the Town. There's no question that the Town Attorney, who we have spoken with on this project, has known about the project. We are not saying that there was any subterfuge involved by the applicant. Our question is, was the zoning law correctly applied, and we are saying that it is very very unclear whether an accessory use can really be a determination made by the Zoning Administrator when it's clear in an RC zone that it is a Site Plan Review use. You don't just say a whole new amusement park is going to be the only thing that's necessary to come before the Planning Board for, and in 1987, this is in our memorandum, Skateland came before the Planning Board for a waterslide and a go cart track in addition to its existing amusement facility, which included a skating rink. They had to go to Site Plan Review to have that new attraction added on to their park, or to their amusement center. We can't say. there's no fine line or no right waivering, or right fixed line that says when a park becomes so big, suddenly everything becomes accessory. The Planning Board has the power to determine that a site plan is necessary. and that certain limitations, certain concerns, have to be addressed in order to aììow a use to be built, a use to be used. There can't be a point where something becomes so that it becomes an automatic right to improve and increase without the Town, without the citizens having some ability to look over that. That's all we're asking for here, is for the Town and the Town Planning Board and the citizens at a hearing, at a Site Plan Review, to come out and say what their concerns are. Mr. Whalen and his wife who are next door neighbors, who were here when we discussed this matter, with the Town Supervisor and the Town Board back in June, we have every intention of having members of the public present, if the need is determined to be there, and we did not have that tonight because we are here making a legal argument based upon what we believe is a legal interpretation that was done wrong. Our beef is not with the Great Escape, even though, in the long run it is. Our beef is with the determination made by the Town Zoning Administrator, and that's what we are taking issue with tonight. Thank you. MR. CARR-We have a lot of material, here. We've been presented with a memorandum of law. I'm sure you'ìì supply Mr. Judge with a copy of that for his review. Unless anyone's got a strong feeling, I would think that the rational thing to do at this point would be table it, look over the material. Talk to Paul Dusek, keep the public hearing open. The Great Escape is getting the benefit of their construction. So, I don't believe this will harm them, and we aren't going to shut down the business or anything. What does the rest of the Board feel? MRS. EGGlESTON-I agree. MR. SICARD-You're right. MRS. PALING-Yes. There's so much information. MR. HAKO-We would ask, though, that no use be permitted on the site if the CO hasn't been issued for it. MR. CARR-I believe that would be an enforcement issue. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, not our area. MR. CARR-Okay. Well, with the applicant's permission, we'd make a motion to table. IIIITION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-92 JAJES tEHALICK VICTOR lHOMS, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Tabled with the applicant's permission, for one month. 23 '- _. Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner (10:30 p.m.) CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 3rd, 1992: NONE fI)1ION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 3RD, 1992, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr ABSENT: Mr. Carvin June 17th, 1992: NONE fI)1ION TO APPROVE THE MIfllTES OF JUNE 17lH, 1992, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFUllY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 24