1992-08-19
~
-)
QUEENSBURY Z(JUNG BMRD OF APPEALS
FIRsr REGULAR tEETING
AUGUST 19TH. 1992
INDEX
No ti ce of Appea ~ No. 2-92
lake George Association, Inc.
1.
Notice of Appea~ No. 3-92
James Meha~ick Victor Thomas
1.
Area Variance No. 103-1989
Susan Cecchini
Previous Record: Sanderspree, Prisci~~a
9.
Area Variance No. 84-1992
G.F. Area Habitat For Humanity, Inc.
9.
Area Variance No. 85-1992
Dona~d Rozen, Jr.
10.
Area Variance No. 75-1992
Thomas and Barbara longe
16.
Sign Variance No. 86-1992
David J. Sherrick, D.D.S., P.C.
16.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAllY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BGI'RD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WIll
APPEAR ON THE FOllOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WIll STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF Sl\ID MINUTES.
(JIEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR. tEETING
AUGUST 19lH, 1992
7:30 P.M.
tEllERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY
CHARLES SICARD
FRED CARVIN
MARIE PALING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-ROBERT PARISI
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-92 lAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATION, INC. APPEAL BY lHE lAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATION FROM
A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR (DAVE HATIN) DATED FEBRUARY 20, 1992 IN THE MATTER OF THE FRANK
J. PARILLO APPLICATION. lAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATION RECEIVED NOTICE OF DECISION ON APRIL 2, 1992 STATING
tHAT THE BOAT LAUNCH MAY CONTIfIJE AS A PREEXISTING NONCONFORJUNG USE AS THERE HAS BEEN 110 CESSATION
OF USE. SECTION 179-80 DISCONTINUANCE STATES: -IF A NONCONFORMING USE IS DISCONTI"ED FOR A PERIOD
OF EIGHTEEN (IS) COfISECUTIVE ØTHS, AJRTHER USE OF THE PROPEm SHALL CONFORM TO lHIS CHAPTER OR BE
SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. - PROPERTY lOCATION: CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND ROUTE
9L TAX MAP NO. 23-1-19
MR. TURNER-So, if anyone is here in the matter of Notice of Appeal No. 2-92, we have a request from
our Counsel to table the matter and it was agreed upon by the other attorneys to so table, so the Counsel
has the chance to review the comments made by the parties involved.
MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-92 lAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATION, INC., Introduced by Theodore Turner
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
At the request of our Counsel, untH such tine his review of the matter is taken care of. A meeting
win be scheduled at another tine.
Duly adopted this 19th clay of August, 1992, by the fonowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-92 JAJES tEHALICK VICTOR lHOMt\S APPEAL CONCERNS THE PROPERTY OWNED BY:
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING, CORP. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE lOCATION: NORlH SIDE OF ROUND POND ROAD
ON ROOTE 9 SECTION(S} OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION: SECTION
179-7(B} -ACCESSORY USE-, SECTION 179-21(D} -PERMITTED USES IN A RC ZONE-, SECTION 179-21; AND SECTION
179-67(B}. WHETIŒR PROPOSED CHILDREN'S -WET AREA- CONSISTING OF FOOR (4) POURED CONCRETE SIHJIIING/llADING
POOLS, WATERSLIDE PlATFORM, THREE (3) WATERSLlDES (INCWDING -PRo-SLIIE-) AND BOAT/PlATFORM IS AN
-ACCESSORY USE- WHICH MAY BE CONSTRUCTED AS OF RIGHT BY PROPERTY OWNER.
JOHN HAKO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TURNER-As I indicated before, I have a conflict with the appIication. Mrs. Eggleston win Chair
th is appIicat ion.
MRS. EGGLESTON-At our last neeting, we were presented with documents to study, and we tabIed our decision
for 30 days. We left the pubIic hearing. So, I think first, tonight, we'H open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HAKO-ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, my name is John Hako to represent Mr. Jim MehaHck, and
Mr. Victor Thomas who is here tonight. Mr. MehaHck is not ava Hable to be here this evening because
he ha.s an Hlness in the famHy. We basicany stand on our memorandum, which, although I may have
not made dear last month, we asked to be made part of the record. Obviously, I know it is not necessary
to be read into the record, as it it certainly quite voluminous, and it would take a considerable amount
of tine to read. We Wt)uld Iike to add, at the outset, the clay fonowing our presentation before this
Board, which was July 15th, 1992, buHding permits had been issued that clay, and certificates of
occupancy were issued the clay after, July 16th, 1992, for both the Noah's Spreyground attraction, and
for the Johnny Appleseed buHding. We win give you, for the record, and ask you to be made part of
the record, copies of the buHding permit, which was given for the interior aIterations to the Johnny
Appleseed
1
Restaurant.
day later.
haste.
Attached to the second page is the certificate of occupancy, which w~ note was just one
Obviously, I think the concerns we raised at the meeting were certainly responded to post
MR. PARISI-Excuse me. Do you have a copy I could have?
MR. HAKO-Sure. Again, as with that permit, here is the building permit, and the certificate of occupancy
for the pool, which was also issued the day after we raised the issue at last roonth's meeting, whether
a CO had been issued. It was not clear at that time, and it appears that it hadn't been, and certainly
we are concerned that the attraction was open, I think, since the first week of June up until that
point, without a valid CO in place. I'd just like to take the opportunity to encapsulate our
presentation of last roo nth. We, essentially, began our presentation by noting that the Building
Administrator/Zoning Administrator at that time is an administarial position, has the ability to enforce
and administer the Zoning Ordinance, but there is no specific power or authority vestJ:!d in that
individual to interpret the Zoning Ordinance, especially in instances where several issues of fact
are in existence, especially as to what a swimming pool as, as to what an accessory use is, and as
to what the use permitted in the RC zone is. Our sscond point, and I think the most important point
in the manner in which we bring the appeal, has to do with whether this is properly determined to be
an accessory use. Our argument is basically a very simple one. In a Residential Commercial zone,
there are permitted uses and there are uses permittJ:!d by site plan review. Under permitted uses, it's
listed single family residences, and accessory use is listed under those permitted uses as of right,
do include swimming pools, but as that is specifically mentionJ:!d, as that it specifically included,
and uses permitted as of right, it is specifically not included in uses permitted under site plan review,
or accessory uses permitted under this specific Type I and Type II uses permitted, and after the Planning
Board has had the opportunity to review and make it's comments, rscommendations, and ultimate approval.
An accessory use is a use as defined in the Zoning Ordinance that is customarily incidental and
subordinate to the primary permitted use, or the character of the primary permitted use. Our argument
here is that there is no way that a five unit pool, which has been separately advertised as such, and
again, we state as we stated last roonth, that it has been advertised at some length. There are
billboards scattered throughout thJ:! Capital District. Certainly, newspaper, television, radio
advertising for this particular attraction, in and of itself, has been rampant since thJ:! opening of
the attraction. Again, we ask you to make part of the rscord a Great Escape Theme Park brochure that
came out within the last month, which has a three page spread focusing on the Noah's Sprayground and
its many attractions, and we ask that this bJ:! made part of the rscord.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you.
MR. HAKO-Our argument is that there's not any customarily incidental or subordinate to the many park,
when this is, in and of itself, a separate attraction. People are required to wear different clothing.
They're required to change in a separatJ:! building, which as we've noted, the JOhnny Appleseed building
required a building permit in order to make the changes to the facility, in order to have the ability
to change the clothes for customers who use the park, and most importantly, the park that has been
improved, the tennis courts and the Johnny Appleseed building, were part of the formerly owned and
formerly taxed lot, completely separatJ:! and apart from the Attractions land, Inc. parcel known as the
Great Escape Fun Park. This was part of the campground parcel, separately approved by the Planning
Board in 1982, as SPR# 8-82, and that, in fact, the pool itself was part of this general site plan
review, and that was just one pool. Now it's five pools anywhere in depth from 18 inches to six feet,
and as we have mentioned, it approaches 20,000 square feet in size, when the actual permit given for
the pool is 4200 square feet. Our concern is that there is, the most important thing to recall is
that we believe everyboqy should be treated equal. If an individual comes in who has an existing motel,
or has a waterslide park, or fun park, or some kind of amusement attraction, and asks that something
else be added on to that, 20 rooms to a 100 unit motel, a waterslide to an existing amusement facility,
as happened at Skateland in 1987. that they have been required to and have appeared before the Planning
Board for site plan review and approval. Now, the site plan review that we asked that it be referred
to the Planning Board for may simply be a review of the plans that have alreaqy bJ:!en submitted, and
may be an approval based upon what has alreaqy been done without any further review, but we believe
that the proper plan, and the very clearly specified plan set forth in the Zoning Ordinance adopted
only four years ago is to have the public input whenever there is a matter of public concern, and
certainly a matter of public concern exists when you have the Glen lake Fen, and when you have a number
of homes in the area, and you have a part of the park that used to be a much less intensely used
campground, and essentially we believe that fair treatment means, as the Mohican Motel in 1988 happened,
as the Skate land happened in 1987 or 1988, that an improvement, an expansion, an alteration, a new
attraction that is essentially a park within a park, with an entirely different facilities for the
use of this attraction, cannot be considered an accessory use. If it is an entirely new use, it is
an expansion not only of the concept of the park, but of the actual physical outlay of the park, as
they have expanded beyond their original boundaries, into a recently combined and merged parcel. In
fact, it was taxed separately until 10 days after the application for the building permit for the pool
was made. So, without any further ado, and certainly we would be happy to answer questions from the
Board relating to our memorandum of last month, and if Mr. Mancini wants to make any comments, I'd
leave the mic open to him.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you.
2
CAl POWERS
MR. POWERS-My name is Cal Powers, a resident of Glen lake, and I'm not sure who the gentlemen are,
but this fe110w represented himse1f very wen, and I guess mY question to you, that I don't rea11y
need an answer, is that, if I were zoned in RC-15, would you a110w me to buHd anything except a one
famHy home? Would you a110w me to buHd a swimming pool that would be considered commercia 1 , other
than privately owned? If the answer is yes, go ahead and give this approval. Thank you.
LINDA WHITTY
MRS. WHITTY-My name is Linda Whitty, and I own property on Burch Road, Glen lake, and I would 1ike
it to go on record that I never received any notice, in June, that this was going to be presented to
the Board, and I would have Iiked to have known.
MRS. EGGLESTON-You're not within 500 feet of the project, and they only notify within 500 feet. However,
it was pub1icized in the newspaper.
MRS. WHITTY-It was?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
DONALD MILNE
MRS. MILNE-I'm Donald MHne. I have a house at 31 Fitzgerald Road on Glen lake. I was not able to
attend previous meetings, so I don't know if I'm speaking out of turn. I'm opposed to this particular
application on the basis of the fact it brings the noise closer to Glen lake. As some of you are aware,
on certain days, you can hear the noise from StoryTown. It's not excessive, and it's not Ioud. So,
we've been used to it. However, with this waters1ide, you're coming c10ser to the Iake with a11 that
attendant noise, and if you have a radio, you can turn it on or you can turn it off if you don't want
it. We had a situation several years ago where Mr. Wood threw a party for some of his friends and
he had fireworks. The fireworks were wonderfuL and we can enjoy them, but nonetheless, we had infants
sleeping at the house that time, and not knowing what was coming, it disturbed them. So, these kinds
of things near a residential area can be bothersome, and noise po11ution is a serious consideration.
Therefore, I'm opposed to it on that basis. I can't speak to it from po11ution or any other basis,
in terms of water po11ution, but I hope somebody has addressed that, and I'm sure everybody's Iooked
at the environmental concerns. Thank you.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you.
VINCE PRENDERVIllE
MR. PRENDERVIllE-I'm Vince PrenderviHe. I have property on Glen lake. I hope 1'm not out of turn
either, because I received no notice, and apparently was not due to get one. I'm just curious. An
I hear is rumors about what's going to happen and so forth. It's a 1ittle disturbing when it seems
as though things keep happening, and we don't seem to know anything about it, because we are very
concerned about our Iake, and I just want to go on record as hoping that you are as concerned about
our Iake as we are, because I wonder where a11 this additional water is coming from, and where it's
going to end up being emptied, and so forth, because unless those things are being addressed properly,
the Iake is in jeopardy, and since many of us Iive there permanently, many of us pIan on Iiving there
as retirement homes and so forth, and permanent residents of the area, we'd 1ike to see Jake remain
pristine Adirondack Iake, and not a polluted Iake, just because it's making money for somebody. Thank
you.
MRS. EGGLESTON-You're welcome.
WAYNE JUDGE
MR. JUDGE-Good evening. My name is Wayne Judge, and I'm the attorney for the Great Escape, for purposes
of this hearing. It's hard to find any humor in the business that I'm in, but I did find a 1ittle
humor in this application tonight, because somebody sent out a notification to every member or property
in Glen lake, urging them to be here tonight because it said that a Iot of things were taking place
in secret, and the pub1ic didn't know about it, and they should turn out tonight for this meeting,
and ironica11y, the notice was unsigned. I thought that was funny. Actua11y, the fact is that the
Great Escape, which is now under different management, and the PJanning Department, which is totany
differently staffed than it ever was, entertained this app1ication in the same manner as they would
have entertained any other app1ication, except for one thing, they knew that regardless of whatever
the Great Escape did, it was going to be under public scrutiny. So, before they issued anything, they
got an opinion from the Town Attorney. So, not only was it subject to the same amount of scrutiny
as anyone e1se, inc1uding mYse1f, in answer to your appHcation, but it was subject to a Httle bit
more scrutiny, because everyone in this community knows that whenever the Great Escape tries to do
anything, that the pub1ic turns out and is interested, as they should be. I'd Hke to just spend a
minute of time responding, and I'll give mY adversary a copy of my reply brief, which as you can see,
3
c_
is about one eighth of the size of the memorandum which was handed in. That memorandum basically relied
on two cases. One case was supposed to stand for the proposition that a Zoning Administrator cannot
interpret a zoning statute, but if you actuaHy read the case, and that's the Grady case, the case
said that as between the ViHage Board of Trustees and the Zoning Board of AppeaIs, when a question
of interpretation is at stake, th e Zoning Board of AppeaIs is th e only body that can decide that
question. As between th e ViHage Board and th e Zoning Board of AppeaIs, when a question of
interpretation is at issue, the Zoning Board of Appeals is the only body that can interpret that
question. The case does not stand for th e proposition that nobody eIse can interpret th e zoning statute.
The case does not stand for the proposition that the Zoning Administrator, in the course of his normal
duties, can't make any decision unti1 he checks with the Board, and that's the only case cited on that
proposition. The second case that we reIied on in this lengthy memorandum is the MaHoy case, and
the MaHoy case answers sane of the objections that sane of these people raised here tonight, because
in the MaHoy case, a person was operating a rock quarry, and the Town decided that they dich't want
to have rock quarries in that particular zone anymore, so they changed the zone, and the rock quarries
were no 10nger a permitted use in that zone, but since this was a preexisting, nonconforming use, th e
rock quarry could continue to operate. A couple of years later, th ey added a mechanical rock crusher
to the rock quarry. Strike that. The Town passed an Ordinance that banned mechanical rock crushers
for use in quarries. Subsequent to that ban, th e owner of th e rock quarry bought a rock crush er, and
put it in his quarry. The issue in the case was, was this an accessory use to the quarry, or was it
an expansion of the quarry, sanething different, and the court said, the quarry, even though it wasn't
a permitted use in the zone, could add the crusher, because everybody knows that a rock crusher goes
along with a rock quarry. Now, what's different than the issue here? We have an amusement park with
a one price admission. Now, for the first time tonight we've heard, weH, it's a different kind of
a park. You've got to change into your bathing suit. We dich't hear that ever before. I was here
at the Iast meeting. That dich't come up. One price admission. You go into this park for recreation
and that's what you get, aH enc10sed by a fence, always been one park. For financing purposes, a
parcel was carved out, but it's always been the Great Escape Park. This is no different than the rock
quarry situation. The issue h ere tonight before you is, di d your Zoning Admin istrator make a mistake
when they issued a buHding permit. Did she make a mistake, or was it common sense that this additional
type of ride is an accessory use to the preexisting nonconforming use that's there now, and I was glad
to here that sane of the neighbors said they dich't even know it was there. It's there, and it's
operating, and it doesn't bother anybody, and it's perfectly legal, and what your Zoning Administrator
di d was perfectly proper in this case, and I'd be wiHing to anSwer any questions you might have.
MR. MANCINI
MR. MANCINI-I'm Mr. Mancini. I'm a partner in the firm that Mr. Hako is employed by. I'm famiIiar
with th e MaHoy case. I was th e Zoning Board attorney town when th e MaHoy case, when th e decision
was made. I sat there the night the MaHoy case was decided. I'm sanewhat famiIiar with it. The
case was appeded, and the reference that was made is interesting, and I reaHy think that Mr. Judge
brought out the significance, and that's why the MaHoy case is in our papers. The rock quarry had
equipnent in it necessary to quarry the rock, and the crusher was another piece of equipnent that the
rock quarry operator said was necessary for them to do the work that they were doing, to sort, and
crush, and break down the aggregate into various parts, and the Zoning Board had trouble with the fact
that they brought in a new machine, and the distinction in that case was that that machine was c1earIy
incidental, and was c1earIy accessory to the main operation, the main operation being the mining, and
sorting of aggregate, and what this did is it broke the aggregate of the rock up into several other
grades, which apparently was necessary for them to meet sane sort of a state contract, and that's what's
so pivotal here, accessory use and primary use, and your Ordinance is very dear on what an accessory
use is. In fact, there's a definition, a use customarf1y incidental and subordinate, interesting it
uses simiIar language for the cases, to the character of the permitted and principal use or principal
buiIding. Mr. Hako, lIlY associate, used a couple of examp1es. I beIieve there was a motel operation
that came before the Town a few years ago that wanted to add 20 rooms. Is adding 20 rooms di fferent
than adding a new complete attraction, which is advertised on three pages of the brochure? Is that
accessory, or is that an expansion, and that's the distinction, and the distinction is very dear,
and I think very simple, and I think the problem with this matter is that the Zoning Administrator,
whether th e Zoning Administrator got an oral or written interpretation, I don't reaHy know, because
there's no written interpretation that we can find in the records. A Zoning Administrator has a
responsibiIity to perform administarial acts, and to issue permits. It can only issue those permits
and perform those administarial acts if what is asked is c1ear. If what is asked is not c1ear, even
a legal opinion from counsel doesn't resolve the problem. It is fuHy within the authority of the
Zoning Board to interpret th e zoning Jaw. It's specificaHy noted in most zoning laws, or many zoning
laws, and the case law is very dear and the reason the case that we quoted in our papers indicates
a distinction between the ViHage Board and the Zoning Board was, once a Zoning Board is set up by
the legislative act, under the State EnabIing Statutes, by the ViHage Board, that Zoning Board has
that power. Even the Vil1age Board, which many think would be a higher authority, doesn't have that
power, and th e Zoning Board, not being a legislative body, can't give that power to a Zoning
Administrator. It's got the power, and it has to act. That's why we're here tonight. Is a brand
new 20 unit addition to the motel accessory to the mote1? I think that's an expansion of the moteL
There are examples in the Ordinance of what accessory uses are. Those examples are wonderful1y
Hlustrative of the problem. In the Recreation Commercial zone, after a single famiIy home, you can
have a swimming pooL You can have an outdoor athletic faci1ity. You can have a private garage, and
you can have a storage, and you can have anything e1se that's customari1y incidental to that single
famiIy home, or a home occupation. It's very interesting,
4
in that zone, that all the accessory uses relate to single family homes. It specifically relates and
details those items which are Type II projects, an amusement center. It doesn't say wheth er th e
amusement center has got 20 rides in it or 40 rides. It this center has six features or sixteen
features, when you add another feature to it, that's expanding the use. That is not incidental. This
is not a shed behind a garage. This is not a garage behind a house. This is an expansion. This Board
has ruled on that on at least two occasions in the past, and expansion is not an accessory use. That
determination has to be made by this Board. If you make the determination that the expansion is not
an accessory use, because by definition in your Ordinance, it can't be, then you have to go back throogh
the Section of your Ordinance, which I'm sure you deal with quite often, and it's called Article IV,
197-12, and it says, except as herein after provided, no building or structure, or land shall hereafter
be used or occupied, and no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, IOOved, or altered,
unless in conformity with the regulations for the specific districts, and in this specific district,
it requires site plan review, site plan approval, which is even heavier than site plan review. If
this Board determines that the Zoning Administrator, through inadvertence or any other reason,
interpreted this incorrectly, then the Board's decision would be, this is not an accessory use. This
could be an expansion. It could be a minor expansion, a major expansion, but what it does is it comes
in under the Section of the Ordinance, which is one of the reasons why this Ordinance most likely was
passed four years ago, that projects that were in the Town, that expanded, should get site plan approval
for those expansions, and this is a major expansion. There are obvious discrepancies in the building
permit application, as has been pointed out by my associate, Mr. Hako. There were sane inadvertencies
in the Department in administering it, and initially accepting a building permit and issuing of the
CO's. Those have all been corrected. The point is, none of those things are significant to what we're
presenting to you tonight. Whit's significant tonight is, is this sanething that is incidental and
seconœry, or is this primary? If it's primary, and if it's an expansion, then your Ordinance cans
for a reference to the Planning Board. When it gets to the Planning Board, all your decision is, I
believe, is to send this to the Planning Board. If you send it to the Planning Board, and the Planning
Board determines, as Mr. Hako suggested, that we've looked at it, it's fine, that's the end of it,
but it will do that at a public forum, and it will do that to allow the people to come in here and
speak and indicate what their concerns are. The reason no one could do that originally was because
it was handled by an administrator, detail person in the town hall. If they find that they need a
traffic study or if they need sane environmental work, if they're concerned, as this gentleman was,
about the aquifer that could effect Glen Fen and Glen lake, then they might require sanething additional.
The point is, this Board, by sending it to the Planning Board, does nothing but allow public disclosure
and public input and has, in no way this has either stopped the project or stopped the growth of any
project at the Great Escape. It just means that the Great Escape, just like that motel, and just like
the guy who wanted to put the waterslide in, would have to follow the same procedure as anyone else.
The size is irrelevant here. The key is, are you expanding and changing your project, or are you adding
a shed behind your house. This is not a shed behind a house. This is a major expansion of the park.
We've got a billboard down in Albany on the arterial that shows this water park. I saw another one
up here, and I found this brochure that also indicated that this is a major, rœjor addition to this
park. let the Planning Board review it. let them do their job. If you do your job, then the Planning
Board can do their job. Thank you very much for you attention.
MRS. EGGLESTON-You're welcome.
MR. JUDGE-I'd just like to point out one thing. Under Accessory Uses in the Statute, it's just been
characterized as a very excellent definition, Number H, Non Enclosed decked used for a restaurant,
club, tavern, or bar purposes. Now, di d anyone ever see a single family residence with a restaurant,
club, tavern, or bar connected to it? Subdivision 2E, Any other accessory or use customarily or
incidental to a permitted use. Just like in the rock crusher case where the quarry was not a permitted
use in the zone, accessory uses to the rock quarry were permitted. The reason why the expansion of
the hotel was site plan review, I suspect, is because in everyone of these zones, th ere are thresholds,
and if you expand beyond a certain threshold, you need site plan review. There's no evidence in this
record that the park expanded beyond any of the thresholds in the Recreational Commercial zone, and
incidentally, it's not a Residential Commercial zone, it's a Recreational Commercial zone, the purpose
of which is to encourage the expansion of recreational uses.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you.
TOM WAGES
MR. WAGES-I'll just take just a moment. My name is Tom Wages. I'm the Manager and President of the
Great Escape, and I must admit, I don't really understand all of the legal issues. I'm not an attorney.
I've operated amusement parks and theme parks for the last, and been involved in the last 12 to 15
years, and before that I was in the resort business. So, I understand a little bit about tourism,
and I understand a little bit about the park business. When I see the term "accessory use", I think
of scrnething that would be customarily put into a park. What we built at the Great Escape is sanething
that would be customarily put into a park, and I think that's probably what the Zoning Administrator
saw when she looked at our application and gave us the permission to build this. It's not a major
expansion. It's a very minor expansion, frankly. However, it is the first thing we have been allowed
to put in to the Great Escape in four or five years, and I don't have to go through sane of the history.
I wasn't here to enjoy it, but I understand that there was sane significant history about what we were
5
not anowed to put into the park, but that's the past. What is important in the park business is that
you must, if you're going to survive, you must add something new every year, two years, so forth.
If you don't, you die. That's just, that's simply the nature of the park business. So, in order to
have sanething accessory, you need to be able to put something into the park. If you go by what this
gentleman said, it sounds to me like you cannot even build a shed to put your broOOlS in without going
to site plan review. This project that we built, we di d through every open channel we could. We sat
down with the Supervisor of this Town. We sat down with the Zoning Administrator of this Town. We
sat down with everyone in advance, and asked, what do we need to do in order to build this project,
and they said, submit the plans, and we did. They reviewed the plans, and they provided us with a
building permit, and we've begun to construct the project. It is a minor project. It is a water project
for sure. I can name most of the major parks in this State which have water attractions as part of
their themed or amusement park. Seabreeze Park in Rochester, Fantasy Island in Buffalo, Darrien lake
in Portland, New York, Enchanted Forest in the Adirondacks, an of these parks have added water
facilities as part of their themed amusement facility. It's very much an accessory use. It's very
much a common use for a park. In terms of the environmental issues, an I can Sð,y is that, from my
perspective of the park, I'm as concerned as anyone about the environmental issues of anything that
we build. It must be, it's very important. It's important today, and it's going to be important for
our children. It's going to be important for our neighbors. It's important for us. I think people
come to this area because of the environment, because of what we offer here, and the park is not
knowingly going to do anything that's going to harm the environment. We're sensitive to that, and
frankly, if you find sOOlething individual, without going through this process, I only ask that you
cane to the park, speak to me, and lets review it. We're very concerned about these things. If there's
something that is a problem that we can correct, we will correct it. When we build a project, we build
it with environmental consciousness. This particular project that we built, we're probably one of
the only parks in the Country that holds its backwash for days, to anow any chlorine in it to dissipate
before it's discharged. Does Waterslide World do that? The important question that we ask is, what
can we do. If we're not allowed to build an attraction, if we're not allowed to build a new attraction
in order to stay in business, which is the nature of our business, then let us know. We need to know
that. Our Corporation needs to know that, because if we're going to stð,y in business, we have to
continue to grow. We have to continue to add new attractions. Yes, we're advertising, but we have
to. It's not a major attraction, yet we are advertising it very heavily because it's the only thing
that we've had in four or five years to talk about. Thank you very much.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Wages, could I ask you a question please? I haven't heard any dispute to the
opposition's contention that your application was to build a swimming pool, a 4200 square foot swimming
pool. Is that because that is actuany what your application requested?
MR. WAGES-When we applied, we laid out the plans of what we were going to construct.
Department gave us a swimming pool application and asked us to fill it out, which we did.
facility that we added, in terms of the facility that holds the water, is 4,000 square feet.
The Building
The swimming
MRS. EGGLESTON-But is what you built, is the whole project much larger than that, in that it encompasses
waterslides, waterfalls, a lot more than a swimming pool? Is that true?
MR. WAGES-Mrs. Eggleston, when we presented the project, we showed the Town Planning Department exactly
what we were going to do. It included the arc, off of which some children's slides are erected. It
included the decking around the pools, and that is what we built. However, when they gave us the
swimming pool application, we fi ned it out for the swimming pool, which is 4,000 square feet of pools,
and that's what we've constructed. They are between and foot and 24 inches in depth. They're wading
pools. That's an they are. They're not swimming pools, in any event. They are really just wading
pools. I don't think they had an application for a children's wet area, which is what we were building,
and which is what we described to them when we built it. We gave them a little picture of it, including
an artist's rendering of what it would look like. So, when you're asking whether or not we deceived
anyone. No. I think if you go to the Town Building Department and ask Dave Hatin, or if you ask the
Zoning Administrator who was here at the tine, they will tell you that we gave them an exact picture
of what we were going to do.
MR. PARISI-Excuse me. Can I ask a question? You mentioned that you discussed this with the Planning
Department, and you allude to the Zoning Administrator. I would like you. if you wouldn't mind, to
just enumerate who the Zoning Administrator was and who the members of the Planning Staff were that
you showed these plans to.
MR. WAGES-Okay. We had a single meeting with lee York, with Pat Crð,yford, and with Dave Hatin. They
were all in attendance.
MR. PARISI-Do you know when this meeting was?
MR. WAGES-I don't have the exact date. It was in March or April.
MR. CARVIN-Of this year?
6
...-
MR. WAGES-Of this year, before we began construction of this project, and we laid out the plans that
we had at that time, and went over the plans with them, and maybe a week later is when we received
the letter that indicated that it was a conforming use, an accessory use, and we began to proceed with
the final engineering and construction.
MR. PARISI-You're referring, now, to the 4200 square foot pool, is that correct?
MR. WAGES-I'm referring to the entire project.
MR. PARISI-The entire project. I see there are two separate approvals for, as you can it, the entire
project. One that was signed by Dave Hatin on May 5th, 1992, which says 4200 square foot amusement
pool, as per plot plan specifications and application, and the other dated July 15th, 1992, signed
by Dave Hatin, which says, 794 square foot interior alteration to Johnny Appleseed Restaurant as per
plot plan specifications and application. You're saying that both of these things were brought to
the attention of these people that you mention in March or April, at this meeting, and as far as you
were concerned, it was one project, although the dates on the approvals are about 10 weeks apart?
Is that correct?
MR. WAGES-Mr. Parisi, we did not provide any detail, at the initial meeting, of the changing room.
We only said we were intending to use this building, and we would use a portion of this building for
changing rooms. The drawings for those were submitted later, but in terms of the project itself, they
knew that we were going to use Johnny Appleseed for changing rooms, and they knew exactly what we were
going to construct in terms of the water facility.
MR. PARISI-I'm assuming that this had, I'm only seeing two sheets here with the Building Permit, and
this may be very important to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm assuming there's more in the application.
Are you aware of who signed the application from the Zoning Office for this? Who gave this a zoning
permit?
MR. WAGES-I do not know.
MR. PARISI-You don't know. Okay.
MR. WAGES-You should have a record of that.
MR. PARISI-I should, and by tomorrcw I'm sure I will. I'd like to ask the Zoning Board of Appeals
one question, now, if I may. Is this the same item that came before the Zoning Board of Appeals last
month for a variance?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Not for a variance, for an interpretation.
MR. PARISI-For an interpretation. Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Of Mrs. Crayford's decision.
MR. PARISI-Regarding the use being changed. although it was only an interior alteration?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Of whether it should have gone for site plan review or not.
MR. PARISI-Okay. I don't usually like to do this, but 1 would ask, for my benefit, I would like to
have a week to review this case myself, because I'm seeing some inconsistencies with this that I'd
like to investigate more thoroughly. I would like for you to refrain from making a determination on
this, if you would, for a week, because I'm really not at the point with this case that I'd like to
be.
MRS. EGGLESTON-let me ask the attorneys if they have any objections to that, Mr. Parisi. Mr. Judge,
do you have any objection to that?
MR. JUDGE-No.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Gentlemen?
MR. MANCINI-We want to be very cooperative with the Board, and as attorneys for the applicant and the
appellants, we certainly would love to have the Zoning Administrator, we've been trying to get this
reviewed for several months, and we would love to have a review of it, and I think it's very important
that you have as much input as possible, so that you can make your decision, and it's very important
that when you read that definition section again, that you use the word that was used here by Mr. Wages,
but also, incidental, and that's extremely important. We haven't heard that yet from the opposition.
MRS. EGGLESTON-An right. We have consent from both attorneys. We'll leave the public hearing open,
and, Bob, win there be room on our next weeks agenda?
MR. PARISI-I think so.
7
~
MRS. EGGLESTON-Which will be the 26th.
MR. PARISI-Okay. Was the Pari no case moved to the 26th? If the PariHo case is going to be on the
26th, you're going to have a very fuH evening. If it's not going to be on the 26th, we could do it
on the 26th.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. We can do this one next week.
MR. MANCINI-Can we ask one question? I see five signs there. We're trying to find out wh ether the
Board is constituted of seven members or five members?
MR. TURNER-Seven. We have two vacancies.
MRS. EGGLESTON-We also have two abstaining members on this particular case. So, there are three of
us.
MR. MANCINI-So, there are only three of you that can vote?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, and myself.
MR. MANCINI-Wen, may I make a suggestion, then? Do I take it that the two spots are going to be fil1ed?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Someday. Not probably right next week.
MR. TURNER-The best information I have right now, Mr. Mancini, is that they don't have anyboqy yet
that's really interested in being on this Board, as of this point.
MR. MANCINI-Wen, because I think it's important to get this on the record, because I understand the
law. It would be necessary for you to have a vote, if your Board is seven, four votes to be able to
make a determination, and if you only have three people that can vote, then I would ask that you adjourn
this for a month, to get fun information from your administrative staff, who's new, and give us an
opportunity to get, hopefuHy, members who can vote. We have two members that can't vote, and there
are two members here that aren't on the Board, that means that even if we were successful in having
three members vote, it would be denia1. So, I would ask, in fairness, I don't see where the appHcant
is going to be harmed in any way, because this project is going right along, we would ask that this
matter be adjourned, possibly even for two month, to give the opportunity to get people who can vote
on this Board, because I think we have a situation where you do a lot of work, and there aren't enough
people here to vote. I would request a two month adjournment to aHow the Board to be fiIled, if
possible, and to have administrative determinations and recommendations to the Board. Thank you very
much.
MRS. EGGlESTON-Would you both agree for an adjournment untiI, instead of a specific two months, untiI
the Board is brought up to a full Board, whenever that might be.
MR. MANCINI-I would rather have it two months, and then we can come that evening and find out if it's
necessary to adjourn it again, because I think what's going to happen is there win be a technical
denial. and we'11 have no aIternative but to bring an Artic1e 78 proceeding, and to be very frank with
you, that's just a lot of extra cost and time for the Board, and for our cHents, and it would seem
to me that a two month adjournment would be the way to handle it, and that's why I'm making that
suggestion, and since it's my application, I guess I could ask for a two month adjournment.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you have any objection, Mr. Judge?
MR. JUDGE-I don't think that. frankly, it's going to make any difference, because I don't think the
new members can vote on this issue.
MRS. EGGlESTON-I was just asking that same question of our Chairman, if we had new people. Why do
you think that?
MR. JUDGE-Because the new members weren't here for any of thê proceedings, but that's a legal issue,
and we certainly wiIl work with the Board, and if it's more convenient to adjourn it, then certainly
we'11 comply.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. You have no objection, then, to two months?
MR. JUDGE-I have no objections.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay.
MR. MANCINI-If it's for the record, and we could provide, I'm sure your Counsel could provide it to
you. That's what he's paid for. Any member of the Board can vote, whether he attends the meetings
or not. An he has to do is read the record, and that's we11 estabHshed in State law. So, if you
8
can get a constituted Board, a funy constituted Board, which I think the Town Board has an obTigation
to do, then at least we have an opportunity for this Board to refer it to the Planning Board, so that
we can get on with the proper review. We really thank you for your help.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you. I'll leave the public hearing open, and I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-92 JAMES MEHALICK VICTOR THOMAS, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
Tabled for two months until our Board has a quorum.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Paling, Mrs. Eggleston
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Turner
AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1989 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-42A SUSAN CECCHINI PREVIOUS RECORD - SANDERSPREE,
PRISCILLA PRESENT OWNER: SUSAN CECCHINI CORØER OF FOX ROAD AND IIIffTER LANE TO CCllSTRIICT A SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE THAT WOULD NOT MEET THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK RE(JIIREJENTS. RE~ESTED EMNSION
OF TIME FROM THE APPROVAL OF 9/20/89: APPROVED (1 YR.) EXTENSION ON 8/21/91 AND WILL EXPIRE ON 8/21/92.
APPLICANT RE(JIESTING EXTENSION BEYOND THE 8/21/92 EXPIRATION DATE. TAX MP NO. 26-5-29 LOT SIZE:
2/3 ± ACRE SECTION 179-13
MRS. EGGLESTON-And a letter from the applicant. "At this time, I would like to ask that the above
mentioned variance be extended. As was the case last year, the real estate market in our area has
not improved and our plans to relocate to Queensbury have once again been staned. As we fully intend
to fonow through on our relocation plans as soon as possible it is important to us that this variance
remain vaTid. Please keep this in mind as you consider our extension request in your August agenda.
Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. If I can further assist you with any
information, please contact me at (516) 821-0864. Sincerely, Susan Cecchini"
STAFF INPUT
Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 103-1989, Susan Cecchini, August 17, 1992,
Meeting Date: August 19, 1992 "The applicant requested an extension of time on front and side yard
setback variance granted in 1989. The lot is in an lC-42 acre zone. There are no significant issues
at this time. The appTicant received an extension in 1990 and 199I. SEQRA was completed at the time
of the variance review."
MR. TURNER-Okay. I would grant the extension.
MOTION TO EXTENSION OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1989 SUSAN CECCHINI, Introduced by Theodore Turner who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin:
For the period of one year, for the reasons stated in her request.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1992 TYPE II UR-I0 G.F. AREA HABITAT FOR IIlMNITY, INC. (lINER: SAME AS A.BOVE
CORNER OF AVIATION ROAD AND COTTAGE HILL ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING THAT WILL
BE 27.5 FEET FROM TIΠFRONT PROPERTY LINE IN LIEU OF THE RE(JIIRED 30 FT. (2.5 FT. RELIEF REQUESTED).
(WARREN COUNTY PlANNING) TAX MP NO. 97-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 0.62 ACRES SECTION 179-17
lEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 84-1992, G.F. Area Habitat for Humanity,
Inc., August 17, 1992, Meeting Date: August 19, 1992 "The applicant is requesting relief of 2.5 feet
on a front yard setback in a UR-lO zone. The request is made because of a layout error which would
deny the applicant a loan. The staff reviewed the application and found that the tax map number cited
is incorrect. It should be 97-2-2.2. The Board should make reference to this. This is a Type II
action and does not require a SEQRA review. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria
9
for an area variance: I. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a
structure which meets the zoning requirements. The building is under construction. Movement of it
would be a financial hardship. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific
practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? There
are no other options. This is the minimum variance to alleviate the practical difficulty. 3. Would
this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict 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? None. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate
the specified practical difficulty? Yes."
MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact".
MR. TURNER-Mr. Steves, who dug up the stake?
MR. STEVES-For the record, My name is leon Steves. An attempt was made to lay the building out in
the same face as the buildings to the side, and there is, as you know, some hedges in between that
precluded that from taking place. When we located the foundation, we found it in the conditions listed.
We've asked for slightly larger relief because of the fact that we located the foundation on the side
that the fence had been put on, which always takes up a couple of pins. So, that's why we asked for
the additional.
MR. TURNER-Any questions of Mr. Steves in reference to this? None? Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COIIENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Any further discussion on the application? I think it's fairly straightforward. Okay.
Motion's in order.
fI)1ION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 10. 84-1992 G.F. AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC., Introduced by Charles
Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
It appears to be an honest mistake in laying out this piece of property. There appears to be no effects
of the variance of any kind on public utilities or services. No one appeared against this request.
There seems to be no objections, and it's the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified
practical difficulty. They need two and a half feet of relief on the front yard setback.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1992, by the following vote:
MRS. PALING-I'd just like to say that I'm involved with Habitat for Humanity in the Family Selection
Committee, but I did not serve, in any way, on the Building or the Planning of the project. So, I
feel it's fine for me to vote, but I do want you to know that.
AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA DONALD ROZELL, JR. OWNER: HOLLISTER'S PLUMBING
AND HEATING CORP. 4 HIGHlAND AVEllJE TO DIVIDE THE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS. ONE LOT WILL BE 1.66 ACRES
AND ONE LOT WILL BE 0.66 ACRES. {WARREN COUNTY PlANNING} TAX MP NO. 110-7-1 LOT SIZE: 2.03 ACRES
SECTION 179-26
DONALD ROZEll, JR., PRESENT
MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved, with no comments.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 85-1992, Donald Rozell, Jr., August 17, 1992,
Meeting Date: August 19, 1992 "The applicant is requesting an area variance to create a substandard
lot. The lot is 2.3 acres in a LI-1A zone. The property houses a plumbing and heating store. There
was a 1990 site plan approval for a model home on the vacant portion of the site. The applicant has
shown the proposal on the plan to illustrate that development can take place on the proposed .66 acre
lot. The Board should be aware, however, that the site plan approval has lapsed since no building
permit was applied for. This is an unlisted action. The short form SEQRA has been filled out and
attached. The Board should review this prior to a final motion on this project. This application
was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance: I. Describe the practical difficulty
which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The applicant is
requesting a variance from the one acre requirement. The practical difficulty cited is economic injury.
10
2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to aneviate the specific practicaI difficuIty or is there
any option avaiIab1e which would require no variance? The options are to maintain the Iot as it is
or redesign the traffic fIow to the Ioading dock and grant a setback variance to the existing structure.
The Iot was designed for a principaI use and a minor secondary use, not with subdivision in mind.
3. Would this variance be detrimentaI to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or
confHct with the objectives of any pIan or poHcy of the Town? The Board would be creating a
substandard Iot. The Iot size would not be detrimentaI to the neighborhood. The Board has to decide
if the Iot being created would be usabIe for a number of Iight industriaI uses without further variances.
The site pIan has Iapsed so the consideration has to be the uses allowed by the ordinance. 4. What
are the effects of the variance on pubIic facHities and services? The issues raised at the site pIan
review incIuded drainage and intensity of use of the site. The site is in a water district but on
Iot septic is required. A road cut permit was reviewed at the time of site pIan review and did not
appear to be an issue. 5. Is this request the minimum reHef necessary to aneviate the specified
practicaI difficuIty? The practicaI difficuIty was not created by the ordinance, aIthough financiaI
injury can be a cause for reHef. The Board win have to review the practicaI difficuIty test with
the appHcant in order to decide if a variance is warranted."
MR. ROZEll-I'm Donald Rozen, Jr. You just said it an. I've got a brief note here from mY reaItor
who just dropped it off. It's exactIy what I was going to say, and I'm just going to abbreviate it,
to the fact that she's had Hol1ister's property Hsted for the past eight months. Before that it was
Hsted with another 10caI broker for six months. It has been advertised in both the Times Union and
the Post Star. They've been there for three to four weeks. There are three Iarge signs in separate
Iocations on the property. We've had two open houses with no activity at either. About four months
ago, there was a substantiaI price reduction on the Hsting. It is in my opinion that the property
would be easier to sen if the vacant Iot could be separated from the main property. The buiIding
obviously could be sold at a Iower price ranging in more marketabIe to a smaII or medium size business.
SincereIy, Priscina Sanderspree. Since then, since my Ietter, there has been one more person that's
come to us. So, now we're up to two, and it's been a Iong hauI. No question about it. The rea 1 estate
has been appraised in there, in detaH, wen over a haIf a minion donars, and the price has gone
down to $360. if we could do something here. One of our main concerns with that appIication, and I've
stressed it throughout, is the problem of the loading dock. It has been a problem, and I've done a
littIe homework today, and I hope it's not too tate. I'd like to give you an a copy of this. My
problem is I don't have an acre. There's no way I can make an acre. Geographically, it doesn't work.
I see you an have the drawing right there in front of you, and if you can see the red line that's
dotted down the Ieft hand side, that one particuIar lot was .69 acres, the one that's there, where
you can see 154.74, and 198 feet from top to bottom. I spent a Iot of time out there today, and the
problem with the Ioading dock, in our operation, we needed it the way it is. What we did, and whoever
may utiIize this buiIding, there's an existing, I don't know if you road by there, piped rack expansion
in the front, which if removed, it would make it easier than ever to get to that Ioading dock, and
that would be a very sman chore on anyone's behaIf, and I can't make an acre no matter what I do,
but I can go 173 feet, and I've aIready got 170 written on there, and stiII have an adequate setback
from that Ioading dock, or from that corner of the buiIding. That in itself, if you look right next
to the red Hne, it's 205.09. If I go the 170, or if I could possibly go the 170 or 165 or whatever,
now I've got 200 and roughly six feet back, which makes it weII in excess of three quarters of an acre,
aImost Hke 80 percent of an acre. I wish I had had that before for you for your review. I don't
know if you follow me at all on that.
MR. TURNER-You know, just for the record, I went down there and I talked to Mr. Rozen about this
project, and I exptained to him that our position was to grant minimum reHef, not maximum reHef,
so I suggested to him that he increase the measurement on the front property Hne, and incorporate
it in that and make that 30 foot side setback from the corner of the loading rack out. That would
make that one piece of property comply with the light industrial side yard setback, and it would also
give him pIenty of access to the rear of the building, and to the Ioading dock. So, then that increases
the size of the second lot which he wants to subdivide from the major lot. So, that's where he's coming
up with the three quarters of an acre.
MRS. EGGLESTON-What would the new dimensions be, Ted?
MR. ROZEll-The new dimensions are roughly.
MR. TURNER-Wen, he's 195, if you scale it off this map, I come up with 195 feet. So, if he takes
30 out of that. he comes up with 165 feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I meant, Hke, in the middle of these lots. Now, where he's got his acres marked
plus or minus, what would those new figures be?
MR. ROZEll-From the red Hne that I've got right there, it's .79 acres, that's at 170 feet. There
is 170 feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Where it's now .967 would be?
MR. ROZEll-No.
11
~
MR. TURNER-No. It would be .96 acres.
MR. ROZEll-Right. You'd be adding this, okay, and I've aIways used this 198, but now we've got a detaiI
over here which we're taIking 206, roughly. So, if we take the difference between the average between
that and that, that comes out to about 202.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, this would go to 75, did you say?
MR. ROZEll-It's a IittIe bit more than that. It's to there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay.
MR. ROZEll-The Ioading dock has been the problem since the beginning, but it's resolved much more easiIy
than I had anticipated it would be.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, that's the Ioading dock right there, right?
MR. TURNER-No. It's right up here.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It's right up in front of that.
MR. TURNER-It's right here. The Ioading dock is right here, and there's a pipe rack that comes out
Iike that in front of that.
MR. ROZEll-With that removed, it would be so much easier, and I, in mY own naivete, picked it up myseIf.
If you just take that thing out of there, and it's going to be whoever has access to that much easier
than what I've been using it for, but I'd have aII the space to go around to the back, but it doesn't
need to go around to the back.
MR. SICARD-You're assuming, Don, that somebody's going to buy that that needs a Ioading dock.
MR. ROZEll-Yes, they would.
MR. SICARD-But there's a possibility that somebody wiII buy that and won't need it.
MR. ROZEll-That they wouldn't need it, but they would have easy access to the Ioading dock, even if
it went right to that 30 foot required minimum setback. It's easier than what we've been doing with
it.
MR. TURNER-If you take and divide the front, muItipIy the front by the side, and the front by the other
side over there and divide it by two, I come up with 33,330 square feet that he would have Ieft, if
he divided them, Iike he said, Iike he's taIking about.
MR. ROZEll-My goaI is to not be here and seH it aI1. That's my goa1. Unfortunately, our economY
does not support growth at this point. However, it could at somewhere down the road.
MR. TURNER-Do you understand what he wants to do now, Fred?
MR. CARVIN-Yes. I understand what he wants to do.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you understand the new cut off?
MR. CARVIN-Yes. It's going to be three quarters of an acre.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-Have you got a buyer for the three quarters of an acre, or is this just something?
MR. ROZEll-I've had an offer, that was not a reasonable offer. There has only been two people go through
it. last week I did have an offer, and that offer hinges on being abIe to do something Hke this,
but I can't advertise that as such. Right now I have a parceI of Iand, and this person, I don't know
if they would do anything more with the offer or not. I know they are Iooking for some more upgraded
financing, but whether they can get it or not, I don't know.
MR. TURNER-Just for the record, who owns behind you, Mr. Brown?
MR. ROZEll-Right behind us? I don't think he goes aII the way behind us. I know that, CIaude CharIebois
has recentIy purchased 33 acres or something right down in that neck of the woods. That whole quarter
which used to be the SuIIivan farm, and where he stops and starts, I don't know.
MR. TURNER-Did he buy that, or did he buy the old RiIey pIace?
12
MR. ROZEll-Ted, I don't know.
MR. TURNER-Up on the other corner.
MR. ROZEll-On the other side?
MR. TURNER-Yes, across Quaker Road, that corner lot, does he own that Charlebois?
MR. ROZEll-Not that I know of. Right on thè corner of Dix and Quaker, it's right down behind where
A & A Electric, and he owns down behind that, but does it go all the way to us, I don't know. don't
think Jerry Brown goes all the way to us.
MR. SICARD-How long have you been there in the plumbing business?
MR. ROZEll-Over 60 years. July 2, 1992, HoIlister Plumbing and Heating terminated their operation.
MR. SICARD-Because of the economic conditions and so forth?
MR. ROZEll-Because of the economics.
MR. SICARD-You're closed right now?
MR. ROZEll-We are closed. We've sold all the vehicles. We've done better than I ever would have
believed, as far as material and inventory. We've done very well in that department. It's been around
60 years. I'm the one that puIled the plug. We're not in trouble. We're not bankrupt. None of the
above, but the economy is getting worse, and I don't want to end up like a lot of my peers, and enjoy
what we have. I just want to get out and stop. Unfortunately, I've still got a mortgage to pay until
I sell the place, and when you stop doing business, therè's not a whole lot of people sending you checks.
So, what we've tried to do is save as much as we can from the sale of all the things, we've continued
to pay the mortgage, until hopefuIIy somewhere along the Ifne we can seIl this real estate, but as
of July 2nd, Hollister's is closed.
MR. SICARD-How long was the property for sale?
MR. ROZEll-The property was for sale, levack Burke started June 27th, 199I. It's been 14 months and
there's been two people walk through the door. As a matter of act, only one of the persons came through
the door with a realtor. One person came through with a realtor, and there was another person that
expressed an interest at the time, but it seems to have faIlen by the waysidè. So, that's the reason
I am requesting this. I wish we could sit on it forever, until things could get better, but there
again, somewhere along the road, a piece of land could enhance a new business, maybe more jobs for
somebody. That area does seem to become more popular. There's a lot of things that are potentiaIIy
happening in that neck of the woods, and it could be a nice piece of land for somebody some day.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Could we have a copy of that letter from your realtor for this file, please. Thank
you.
MR. CARVIN-In other words, what you're saying is, the warehouse, there's no activity on the property
was so ever, at this point?
MR. ROZEll-We're closed. Hollister's is all done. We're there each day, the two of us, selling what
we have left.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, if somebody came in and bought the property, they may not even need the loading
dock, or they may rearrange the whole thing?
MR. ROZEll-That's right.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. ROZEll-But the loading dock is not going to be a problem if they take that pipe rack out, and I
can't conceive anybody, at this point, in the piping business, buying that place and leaving that there.
MR. TURNER-There's a lot of things that could go there in a Ifght industrial there, that probably
wouldn't violate many of the setbacks.
MR. ROZEll-I think with this larger lot, it would make that, obviously, much more attractive to someone
as well.
MR. TURNER-The front setback is 50 feet and the sides are 30 and the rear is 30.
MR. SICARD-Have you approached the business that's probably to the east of it?
13
ì,,::?
;it . ~~"i¢'
MR. ROZEll-The people east of us? That's A & A Electric.
MR. SICARD-Do they know the lot's available?
MR. ROZEll-Do they? Well, at this point, they're not available.
MR. TURNER-He has to get approval to subdivide this piece of property to make that one lot available.
MR. ROZEll-He'd have to get a subdivision?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. PARISI-Can I clarify that? Keep in mind that only subdivisions which are residential can go through
a two lot subdivision. So, this would still have to go to the Planning Board.
MR. ROZEll-Whatever I have to do, I will do.
MR. TURNER-Any further questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COIIENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Do you want to discuss it?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Fred was looking for the practical difficulty.
MR. TURNER-I think the practical difficulty is best explained by the fact that the warehouse that is
there now he can do nothing with. It's already there. So that takes up one portion of the parcel.
To divide the rest of it off, he can't come up with enough acres to make it one acre. There's no way.
He can't buy the land to the east. I don't think he can buy the land to the west. So, he's stuck
with an undersized parcel, no matter how he subdivides it, and mY suggestion to him was to leave the
30 foot right-of-way there, so it doesn't violate that side yard setback on that one parcel, and it
would give him access to the structure that's already there, to the back, and to the side, and incraase
the size of the lot which is to the east, instead of making is smaller, as he requested.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But is that considered a practical difficulty?
MR. TURNER-I think it is. This pretty well explains it right here.
MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what I thought.
MR. SICARD-How far are you back from the street line, do you know?
MR. ROZEll-Back from the street line, our existing building?
MR. SICARD-Yes, the office building.
MR. ROZEll-That's there now?
MR. SICARD-Yes.
MR. ROZEll-There's a couple of different spots, Charlie.
MR. SICARD-It would be in the front.
MR. ROZEll-Do you have one of these?
MR. SICARD-Yes, I have that, but it doesn't show it on this map.
MR. ROZEll-By being at the angle it is, it's different here. Here it's 52 feet from the edge of the
road, this corner here, and as we go farther this way, it gets farther back.
MR. SICARD-The reason I asked was because I was a little concerned about adequate parking without using
the property.
MR. ROZEll-Without using it?
MR. SICARD-Yes.
14
r-
MR. ROZEll-For the existing structure?
MR. SICARD-Where you're parking now.
MR. ROZEll-Behind the office buitding, I reassure you, you can probab1y park 80 cars, easiJy park 80
to 100 cars behind.
MR. SICARD-It wou1d be in front of the office.
MR. ROZEll-No, behind the office. When we were at fuH force, that's where everyboqy used to park,
and you can easity park 80 cars. I don't know if this is out of order, but I 'H ask the question,
because I don't know the answer. What we're asking here is an option. I hope I never even have to
do this. I don't know. If I have the option, then you can ta1k to your customer or potentia1 customer
a different way. I don't know what happens after the Zoning Board of Appea1s process. I know it has
to go to subdivis ion, to the p1anning and that, but maybe this wou1d never happen, what I'm standing
here for, who knows. Maybe someboqy wou1d surprise me and waH in from the street, and I'd say thank
you very much, and just se11 the whole thing, and we wou1dn't be ta1king about this right now.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, but if it's subdivided and you sen the wh01e thing, I mean, then we've created a
section. Can we qua1ify that, Ted?
MR. TURNER-We11, if he se11s the wh01e thing as one deeded parce1, then, it's not subdivided.
MR. CARVIN-Yes, but what I'm saying is, okay, now he seHs the wh01e thing. and now the other person
has got, it's in there that he wants to sen them something e1se, can we specify that if he sens the
wh01e thing, that this particu1ar aspect dies with that sa1e?
MR. TURNER-If he se11s the wh01e piece as one unit, then you can condition it that, if it goes as one
unit, then the variance is nu11 and void.
MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm not opposed to giving him options.
MR. TURNER-What did you come up with for square footage on the 10t you want to subdivide?
MR. ROZEll-What we're taHing about, it would end up being 34,340, that's using the average between
the 205 and the 198, but when you get out to where the red Hne is, every other dimension that I've
used in app1ying for this variance was the 198, but now, once you get out past that 154 mark and you
get out into the red part, now you're up to 206 feet back. The average of those is 202 times 107 is
.79 acres, and there again, after a survey, it's going away from you. So there cou1d be a Htt1e bit
more there.
MR. TURNER-It's pretty c10se to what he's got on the other 10t. He's got a1most an acre on the other
lot, and he's 20 points away from the other.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. So, what did you say, 79?
MR. TURNER-Yes, .79. Okay. What's the Board's p1easure?
MR. CARVIN-Again, I don't have a real prob1em, Ted, as long as we put something in there. It's got
to go to site plan review anyway.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-I guess, what happens if you can't sell either one of them, worse case scenario?
MR. ROZEll-Well, somewhere along the line, I'm going to have to. Hopefully, whatever this thing we're
having is wi1l go away one of these days. We continue pay, or we stop continuing to pay, and the bank
forec1oses on your mortgage. So that's the worse scenario. That's what happens if we don't seH it,
but we have been able to, by se1ling these things. try to put enough away to continue to pay the mortgage
and necessary expenses until the real estate is sold.
MR. CARVIN-Obviously, I guess you'd a1ter the price on both sections, right? In other words, if somebody
came in and just said, weH, I on1y want the building portion, you'd keep the other three quarters?
MR. ROZEll-That's what the purpose is, and I'H teH you numbers right now. Just the offices and the
warehouse and the buildings, to the red line that we're ta1king about right now, the price is $280,000,
and as far as the rest of the lot, whatever we could get, whatever the market bears. I can't seH
that other lot, because the bank has the whole thing now. We've got to seH the real estate, so that
that's the worst scenario.
MR. SICARD-Mr. Chairman, what's permitted there?
15
MR. TURNER-light industry, warehousing, Iight manufacturing, a freight terminaL a lumber yard, a
lavatory, a truck repair faciIity, a heavy machinery repair faciIity, construction company, which he
has now, a 10gging company, not very practical there, heavy equipment storage, heavy equipment sales,
and he could have a passenger Iimousine bus service, and many of those uses that are on there could
fit on that undersized lot.
MR. TURNER-Does anybody have any other concerns about the size of the property? He's upgraded the
size of the property from what he requested originally. AII right. I'll make a motion to approve.
flJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1992 DONALD ROZELL, JR., Introduced by Theodore Turner who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
Subdivision of this one piece of property into two, which would consist of one 10t, housing a warehouse
and offices, acreage I.07. The second 10t, vacant 10t, acreage .79 acres. Yes, we win be creating
a substandard 10t, but the 10t will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The vacant 10t would house
many of the light Industrial uses without further variances. The practical difficuIty was not created
by the Ordinance, but a financial injury can be a cause for reIief. There are no effects on public
faciIities and services. This is the minimum reIief to aneviate the specified practical difficulty.
let the record show that the appIicant has submitted a revised map indicating the outIines of the
property as proposed. If this parcel is sold as one piece, then the variance is nun and void. There
win be no further subdivision of the property if it is sold as one piece. The Short EAF shows no
negative impact.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1992, by the fo110wing vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED IIR-lA lHOMS AND BARBARA LONGE OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE
CORNER OF MSON AND CLEVERDALE ROAD RECJ,IESTING AREA VARIANCE FOR EXISTING FENCE 6 FT. HIGH lOCATED
IN SIDE YARD AND IN EXCESS OF 100 SQ. FT. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY (WARREN COUNTY PlANNING) TAX MAP
NO. 12-1-1 LOT SIZE: 71 FT. BY 205 FT. SECTION 179-74(B}(2}, 179-6O(5}
MR. TURNER-We have a note, Bob, here, in reference to longe, a letter, asking it to be tabled. Is
that letter in our file?
MR. PARISI-It should be.
MRS. EGGlESTON-I don't see one in here, Ted.
MR. TURNER-The next order of business, Area Variance No. 75-1992 Thomas and Barbara longe has been
requested by the applicant to be tabled until September. I would so move.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1992 lHOMS AND BARBARA LONGE, Introduced by Theodore Turner
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
Tabled at the request of the applicant until September.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1992, by the fo110wing vote:
AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
MR. TURNER-Do you know the history of this, Bob, why it's been tabled?
MR. PARISI-I think it's right in the planning notes. As to why it's being tabled, I have no idea.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 86-1992 TYPE II 111-5 MVID J. SHERRICK, D.D.S., P.C. OWNER: MVID J. I LINM
z. SHERRICK 21 BAYIIOOD DRIVE TO PlACE A SIGN LESS lHAN 15 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. (WARREN coum
PlANNING) TAX MAP NO. 60-7-11.1 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE
DAVID SHERRICK, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Sign Variance No. 86-1992, David J. Sherrick, August 17, 1992,
Meeting Date: August 19, 1992 "The appIicant appears to be asking for 12 feet of reIief from the
requirement of the sign ordinance for placement of signs 15 feet from the Right of Way. The applicant
is 10cated in a professional office area and the signage is for an office. This is a Type II action
16
and requires no SEQRA review. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for a sign
variance: I. Are there special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or signs which do
not apply generally to the neighborhood? The applicant has stated that meeting the code would place
the sign in the parking lot. The layout and design has been completed with landscaping and parking
areas. 2. Is reasonable use of the land or sign possible if the Ordinance is complied with? The
property is a professional office and signage is necessary for identification. 3. Is there an adverse
effect on the neighborhood character or public facilities? No, this is a professional office district.
Other signage in the area appears to be located closer to the right of way than allowed by code. This
area of the ordinance may need clarification if there are a number of errors. 4. Are there any feasible
alternatives? The alternatives are to meet the code or to place the sign on the other side of the
driveway. The applicant states that patients overshoot the driveway and create an unsafe situation
if the sign is on the far side. 5. Is the degree of change substantial relative to the Ordinance?
The standard is 15 feet and the applicant is requesting 12 feet of relief, it would appear."
MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact".
MR. TURNER-Is this going to be the same type of sign as the rest of them that are in there, routed
out letters, Adirondack?
DR. SHERRICK-The sign is going to match the exterior of the building. I think there is a picture of
the sign here.
MR. TURNER-The ones we've got, I think, only have the poles on them. That's on the building though.
DR. SHERRICK-No. That's the sign.
MR. SICARD-That is?
DR. SHERRICK-Yes.
MRS. EGGlESTON-I must say, your place looked beautiful.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. PALING-It's lovely in there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Great job.
MR. TURNER-Your property line runs, is that it there, where you've got it located?
DR. SHERRICK-Yes. There's an easement where I wanted to place the sign, a drainage easement, so I
wouldn't want to place it in that area.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Yes. I don't have a problem with where it is. I guess I might offer to the Zoning
Administrator, there's a couple of signs in there that I don't know as they have permits for.
MR. PARISI-I don't know either. I'll look into it.
MR. TURNER-Dr. Reisman's the new sign, the one on the lawn. That's a new sign, isn't it? I mean,
that's been in there since you were there, hasn't it?
DR. SHERRICK-Yes.
MR. TURNER-I don't recall seeing it there before. It's awfully close to the road.
DR. SHERRICK-I mYself have become aware of the measurement from the road. Everything was in place
when we went to get the sign permit.
MR. TURNER-The property line is where, in reference to these pictures on the right-of-way, the front
property line? The second picture on the top, I think, probably shows it better. Do you see where
the grass meets the road? How close are you there to your property line with those sign poles? You're
saying you only need three feet?
DR. SHERRICK-No. The sign would need to be back where the car is.
MR. TURNER-I know that, but I'm saying, how far is it from there to your property line here?
DR. SHERRICK-Thirteen feet.
MR. TURNER-From where the sign poles are?
DR. SHERRICK-Right.
17
C\
)
MR. TURNER-Where di d they come up with 12 feet of relief?
MRS. EGGlESTON-I don't know. I was wondering that myself.
MR. CARVIN-It 100ks like only about three feet of relief.
MR. TURNER-Three feet, not twelve feet. He's saying from the poles to his property line is 13 feet.
DR. SHERRICK-Wen, the way it was exp1ained to me was that I had to go 10 feet from the edge of the
road, and then 15 feet before I could place the sign. So, whether it ended up being in this 10cation,
or in this 10cation, now we're in the trees and retaining walls and everything. It wasn't really going
to work in either 10cation.
MR. TURNER-Wen, if that is your property line, which is 13 feet from there to here, then you're only
asking for two feet of relief, not 12 feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-No, Ted, because he's saying, after you go back the 10 feet from the right-of-way.
MR. TURNER-No. That's wrong. Fifteen feet from your property line.
MRS. EGGLESTON-See, because they told him he had to go back 10 feet. then his sign has to be back 15
feet. So, that's where the 12 foot.
MR. TURNER-No. Fifteen feet from his front property line is where the sign has got to go. He can
have a 50 square foot sign at 15 foot, and a 64 square foot sign at 25 feet. So, you're tening us
that you're 13 feet from your front property line to the sign?
DR. SHERRICK-Yes.
MR. TURNER-So, you only need two feet of relief. You're going to put a less than 50 square foot sign
up?
DR. SHERRICK-Twenty nine square feet.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, they're wrong in their figures here.
MR. TURNER-They're wrong in their figures. Yes. That didn't sound right. Okay. Are there any further
questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COJIENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 86-1992 IMVID J. SlERRICK, D.D.S., P .C., Introduced by Theodore
Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marie Paling:
For the sign to be 10cated 13 feet from the front property lfne. Granting relfef of two feet from
the required 15 foot setback. The size of the sign, as indicated by the doctor, is around 29 square
feet.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFUllY SUBMITTED,
Theodore Turner, Chairman
18