Loading...
1993-12-22 '- ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22. 1993 INDEX Area Variance No. 98-1993 Thomas R. Bolen 1. Area Variance No. 109-1993 Glenn F. Batease 16. Area Variance No. 101-1993 Rita & Robert Whiteman 19. Use Variance No. 106-1993 John C. & Christine Bergeron 24. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED l1INUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '-- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22ND, 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN LINDA HAUSER CHRIS THOMAS DAVID MENTER ROBERT KARPELES FRED CARVIN MEMBERS ABSENT JOYCE EGGLESTON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 98-1993 TYPE I LC-42A CEA THOMAS R. BOLEN OWNER: ROBERT J. BOLEN ROUTE 9L, RIDGE ROAD, 4.5 MILES NORTH OF ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD A SECOND PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON A PREEXISTING, NONCONFORMING NINE AND EIGHTY-NINE HUNDREDTHS (9.89) ACRE LOT, UTILIZING THE FOOTPRINT OF AN EXISTING BARN WHICH IS FIFTY-NINE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY BOUNDARY. THE EXISTING BARN WILL BE REMOVED. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND THE EXISTING TWENTY BY FORTY ( 20 X 40) FOOT BARN FOOTPRINT TO THE REAR BY SEVENTEEN (17) FEET. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 10/13/93 TAX MAP NO. 20-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 9.89 ACRES SECTION 179-13A SEQRA TO PLANNING BOARD - DECEMBER 21, 1993 THOMAS BOLEN, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any questions, as of this moment, in respect to this application? MR. CARVIN-Which Mr. Bolen is this? MR. BOLEN-I'm Tom Bolen. MR. CARVIN-Tom Bolen. Okay. You're the applicant. MR. BOLEN-I'm everything. He straightened this out. time, I wasn't allowed to talk. The first MR. CARVIN-Right, because I was going to say. because the agent was Robert. That's why I wanted to make sure who the players were this time. Okay. The house that is there, the house that is on the lot, that's not occupied. Is that correct? MR. BOLEN-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and you want to tear down the barn and keep the the house? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Why not tear down the other house? MR. TURNER-His father is going to live in that house, if I remember right. MR. BOLEN-Right. My folks have been wanting to renovate that for - 1 - some time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Who's going to live in this house? I thought the folks were going to live in that? MR. BOLEN-My wife and I. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-There's two principal dwellings on that lot. It's in a Land Conservation 42 Acre zone. So the lot is preexisting nonconforming. but the addition of the second principal building. along with the setbacks. MISS HAUSER-Can we see the revised map? MR. TURNER-Sure. We don't have any more questions right now. so I'm going to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-All right. Go ahead. MR. BOLEN-My wife and I are proposing a second dwelling on the lot, but in putting this proposal together. we sought the advice of the Planning Staff. and needless to say. they were very courteous and helpful. Our proposal was pretty much parallel to suggestions that they gave us. and in that light. we believe that we're offering a proposal tonight that certainly is considerate of the Town's objectives and any issues of negative impact on the environment as well. In that regard, we meet all the setback requirements. There's enough property to address septic requirements, and there's no need for additional variances at any time. There's very little disturbance of land. The proposal calls for a 40 by 37. which is an addition of 17 feet. That's the maximum. It would be less than that. We can't afford a house with that much square footage. but that was the most we could go for, keeping the setbacks. So we're using, in addition, we're using the existing footprint of the building that's there. and there wouldn't be any additional disturbance of parking. We'd be using the existing parking that's there. The whole property will remain intact. within the property. No subdivision is required or requested on our part. and I guess that's the reason that we didn't go through the Planning Board, we came straight to you folks. the Zoning Board of Appeals. So this proposal wasn't rejected before. It's not in on appeal. technically. You folks are the first one's hearing this. In addition. the proposal will upgrade the property, certainly, resulting in no negative impact on the neighborhood. the environment and Town services as well. In fact. to the contrary, we're of the opinion that being in a position to upgrade the farm will in fact be a benefit. not only to us, but also to the neighborhood and the Town. MR. TURNER-I guess my position on the application is this, and I'll tell you why. You have one principal dwelling. You've got an existing garage that will be part of the old house. Is that correct? That'll be utilized by the people, your father and mother live in the old house? MR. BOLEN-Right. MR. TURNER-And then there's a small barn, 14 by 19. and then we have the big barn, 40 by 36, and this is a preexisting nonconforming lot in the zone. and the Board shouldn't be in a position to make this more nonconforming. It's a 42 acre zone. We're going to make it nonconforming by allowing a second principal - 2 - dwelling on 9.89 acres. MR. BOLEN-I guess the issue here it's not. I mean. it passed the Planning Board for SEQRA review. MR. TURNER-Yes. the SEQRA review. MR. BOLEN-So there's no impact. in terms of environment. MR. TURNER-No. I'm not concerned about the environment. MR. BOLEN-And in addition. there's no impact in terms of increased density. Besides the fact that this is where we wanted to put our house. maintaining the original integrity of the farm. but there would be. in addition. there would be no additional density impact on the surrounding properties. which are. the ones closest to us are. I think. a third to half acre lots. They're small. I guess if I could narrow. the issue is. pretty much. whether or not the Zoning Board is going to hold us to the letter of the law on LC-42. MR. TURNER-Tell me your practical difficulty. MR. CARVIN-Can I ask a couple of questions here? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-The house that's currently there is not occupied. That is correct? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that being used for anything. storage? MR. BOLEN-Minimum storage. MR. CARVIN-Has there ever been a business on this property. or is it ever used as a business? MR. BOLEN-I think. years ago. the former owners. My father bought hay from them 30 years. great grandparents. MR. CARVIN-Is there any antiques or antique business? I know that. occasionally. there's sales out there. or is that just yard sales? MR. BOLEN-That's just yard sales. store across the street. Ron Williamson has a country MR. CARVIN-Okay. What are the uses of the other facilities? Are they pretty much? MR. BOLEN-The barns? We. for the past twelve years. since my folks purchased the property. we haven't used the property, per se. I've maintained it and in fact made it look as close as possible to being occupied. So it doesn't really look like it's (lost word) but we haven't been using the barns and the house for any particular use. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How close to renovation would you feel that your parents are for the existing house? See. I guess my problem with this application is that there is a house on there. that more than likely. and again. I'm not a contractor. so I'm saying. more than likely. could be renovated. and you wouldn't even need a variance. MR. BOLEN-Well. guess. in your dwelling. I can understand that. but so the question. I mind is. why do we need another house. another MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean. in other words. you haven't been real specific. I mean. your parents might some day. possibly. want to move in there. and I didn't know if there was a time table that you - 3 - could present us that would give us an idea whether that situation was going to be a real situation next year, or if it's something that is just ten years or fifteen years down the line. MR. BOLEN-No, no. My folks are in their late sixties, and that's one of the reasons that it .made sense to us to pursue this proposal. It would be, the benefit, obviously a benefit to us, because we're not in a posi tion to, vIe can't afford to build, unless we're able to do this. From a personal standpoint, we don't have the funds to put dO\vn, but in answer to your question, my folks, it would be a benefit to us for them to, you folks allowing us to proceed in this matter, but also a benefit to us in that, I've always taken care of the farm. They're getting on, but they wanted to renovate the farmhouse. They haven't been able to because of certain business reasons, and I don't want to get into particulars, but my father and I have been in business together for six years, and in a nutshell, we're involved in a patent suit with another company, which decided to take our patent, and for that reason, I've been behind the eight ball for quite some time, and so have my parents, and this is one way where we felt we could come together and proceed, if I could be able to position myself to put a roof over my wife and myself's head, and if a personal situation, business, takes care of itself, we'd be in a position to help my parents quite a bit. So, in specific answer to your question, it could happen any time. Hopefully, the sooner the better. MR. CARVIN-I'm not discrediting your efforts to make the place look presentable out there, but I think it still has a long way to go. A lot of those structures out there, I think, are pretty dangerous, or at least could be dangerous. MR. BOLEN-Right. Well, the big barn in particular, what we have in mind for that is downsizing it to, either taking it down completely, or downsizing it to a half or two thirds the size it is. MR. KARPELES-You're talking about the northern most building? MR. BOLEN-Yes, the one with the dip in the middle. MR. CARVIN-Now the existing, is that also part of the barn, is it? What was the existing building? Because we've got the barn here which is pretty much. HR. TURNER-Yes. This is the existing building. MR. BOLEN-The existing building is smaller. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but what was that used for? MR. BOLEN-It was a workshop. MR. CARVIN-So is that one structurally more sound than the barn, for example? MR. BOLEN-No. The one that we'd be taking down. MR. CARVIN-Yes. In other words, whatever you're looking at is going to have to be removed? HR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. TURNER-There's no foundation under it. stone. It's just laid up MR. KARPELES-Can we have a summary of just exactly what you're intending to do again? The house, your parents intend to renovate that. Is that right? MR. BOLEN-Yes. - 4 - MR. KARPELES-And the existing building that you're going to live in, you're going to rip that down completely? HR. BOLEN-Yes. HR. KARPELES-And just use the foundation and extend that a little bit? MR. BOLEN-Right. HR. KARPELES-And then you're going to build a two story structure, a one story structure? MR. BOLEN-It will be, the front section, I know the Planning Board, I intended for you folks to get, did you get copies of this? HR. KARPELES-No. HR. BOLEN-I guess the Planning Board didn't pass it on. That's a picture of a house down the road that the Baird's just sold, and we don't, we want to keep the structure the same size as what's there, keep it small. in fact. the (lost word) of section would be pretty much open, with just a loft. It would be a loft and one bedroom. one bath. MR. CARVIN-In other words. this is the type of house they're looking to build? MR. BOLEN-Yes. So. I thought that might be helpful. intention to build something that imposing by any addition, in the future. it might at some point, come folks and my wife and I might just switch houses. We have no means. In to where my HR. CARVIN-Would it make sense for you to renovate the house at this point, and then when your parents are in the position, then to build? MR. BOLEN-Well, I guess we'd have to, to be honest with you, that's been broached within the family, and I would rather not do that. The farmhouse is my parents, that's their dream. and at this point. I'd rather not be intruding on that, and in addition, I guess we still have to go through the same process. as to whether or not you could build where that small barn is. When we got to the point where. HR. CARVIN-No, but I think your argument for, I'd use the term hardship, I think would be, or practical difficulty, would be more provable at that point than it is now. In other words, if you're in the house, you renovate the house, and at some point your parents say, fine, now we want to do this, and then you can come in and say. well, look. they're going to be moving in next month. So my practical difficulty is that I need the other place. At this point, and I'm going to probably ask the question Ted asked ten minutes ago, what's the practical difficulty here? MR. BOLEN-Another objective of mine is that if I'm there, and we're allowed to do this, I'd be in a position to begin working on the farmhouse myse 1 f, be ing the re all the time. My brothe r' s a builder. MR. TURNER-Suppose it comes down to the point that maybe your parents don't do anything with the house. and then they say, okay, Tom, you renovate it. you can live in it. Now we've got. MR. BOLEN-Well, I don't see that happening. That's a logical scenario. It's something that we're not pursuing. We wouldn't want to do that at this point. Hy focus on this, being a novice at this whole thing, is that it's really a matter of whether or not we would be held to the letter of the law in LC-42. My personal feeling is that we're meeting the spirit of the objectives. I - 5 - don't know if you folks would be able to tell me. I mean. what is the, I mean. the perfectly obvious purpose is for LC-42. which is to preserve the environment. protect open spaces, and the proposal as it is meets that. MR. TURNER-You have some slope in the back. You've got some physical limitations on your property. correct? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's why it's zoned Land Conservation 42 Acre. MR. BOLEN-I don't know if the other side of the road is zoned LC- 42. I was looking at a map when I was in the Planning Office, and you couldn't really tell whether or not the LC-42 extended to the other side of the road or not. MR. TURNER-The road would be the border, so that if the zone was changed. it would be the other side of the road. You might very well be. like you say, you're Land Conservation on that side. but the other side might be something different. Williamson's store is Neighborhood Commercial. and that's the only piece of property that's Neighborhood Commercial because it was a preexisting nonconforming use. and there was a general concern to keep that use there and that establishment there because of the services that it provides the neighborhood. and that's the only piece that's zoned in that fashion. MISS HAUSER-I have a question. You live in 15 Holden Avenue? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MISS HAUSER-And do you own that home? MR. BOLEN-No. I don't. We pay rent. I tried to keep it as simple as possible. and that's why I mentioned that. from my perspective. we do meet the spirit and the intentions of the zoning. with the small exception that we're going to be going back. increasing the footprint of the existing building. There's no other variance required. My feeling was that. at least in certain circumstances like thi s. thi s is whe re the purpose of the Planning Board and Zoning Board are able to. I guess. level the playing field for people in different situations like ours, where we meet all the requirements and the objectives of zoning, but because you're in an area that's zoned like ours LC-42. you're unable to do something if you're held to the letter of the law. MR. TURNER-Well. again, it's my position that this is a personal decision on your part. You want to do it. and I can appreciate what you're saying. but again. it's not the Board's position to make this more nonconforming than it already is. That's against the la\v. MR. CARVIN-I guess my position on this is that one of the functions of the Board is to grant minimum relief. MR. TURNER-Minimum relief. MR. CARVIN-And we have a set of criteria. and I don't. at least not in mY way of thinking. it's not the 42 acre issue. It's basically minimum relief. and to alleviate a self-created situation. in other words. because there is the house there. that that could be renovated. and I understand where you're coming from as far as your parents, but I think we open up a bigger can of worms if we grant a maximum relief in this particular case. by allowing the tvlO principal buildings on this particular site. MR. BOLEN-Well. that's the only relief possible. I mean. at this point. it's not my property. It's my folks. and the only objective we had was to renovate one of the barns. I guess in answer to your - 6 - question. the house isn't renovated now. but as soon as. I'm right there. I would start immediately. MR. TURNER-But the house is taxed as a residential home. right? MR. BOLEN-Yes. We've no intentions for any businesses or. MR. TURNER-No. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that we have to protect the spirit of the Ordinance. and the spirit of the Ordinance is not to make it more nonconforming than it already is. That's where I'm coming from. That is the law. MR. BOLEN-The spirit of the Ordinance is to? MR. TURNER-It's zoned Land Conservation 42 acre. principal house on the piece of property already. 9.89 acres. You've got a You only have MR. BOLEN-Right. MR. TURNER-Now you want to put another house where an old barn was, all right. MR. BOLEN-But in looking at the area. all the surrounding properties are a third of an acre. MR. TURNER-That's fine. but that's the way they were bought at the time. MR. BOLEN-I understand. MR. TURNER-And you bought Mr. Ward's farm. 9.89 acres. so that made it nonconforming when you bought it. It was already nonconforming. MR. BOLEN-I realize that. Another thing that comes to my mind. there was an application for a variance across the street, on a lot that was 50 by 150. and it was granted, and I realize that that's not. apparently. it's not zoned LC-42, but the folks could barely, we didn't object to it at all. The folks could barely fit their house on the lot. Now. in addition. there's a seasonal stream that runs right near the property. So. in terms of impact, in terms of practical difficulty on our part, you see instances whether variance or grandfathered surrounding our property, where the property owners neighbors mayor may not meet the spirit or the technical requirements of the zoning, and vie' re in a situation where we do. but we're not allowed to do anything. MR. TURNER-No, you don't. You're a preexisting nonconforming lot. You don't meet the density requirement. That's why it's nonconforming. If that was conforming. you'd have to put that back 100 feet all the way around. If there was nothing on the property. and that was a 42 acre lot, you would be required to put that house 100 feet from the road. from the side, from the rear. MR. BOLEN-Right. Besides the fact that we wanted to, as I mentioned before, keep the integrity of the farm. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BOLEN-That is one of the objectives in speaking with the Planning Staff. that we use the existing footing of the structure that's there. It's not. in that respect, it's not to increase the density. in terms of building. If the density. in terms of building. is a problem. as I mentioned. we're considering, anyway, taking down part of that big barn. The other one's a separate garage. They're not used for anything except for storage. If that was a he Ip. we'd take some of those down. I guess what I have a problem with is. I realize what you're saying in terms of the spirit of LC-42 being not to increase nonconforming lots. but, I mean. isn't the essence of. the reason that people got together and - 7 - put LC-42 on paper is because it's to protect open spaces and the environment and the wetlands? And in that regard, we're not, there's no negative impact at all. MR. TURNER-But again, you have a preexisting nonconforming lot. You don't have 42 acre lot, all right. Now you're saying to us, I want to put a second principal dwelling on the lot that's 9.89 acres. That's substantial relief. We're going to make it more nonconforming if we allow you to go there when there's already a principal residence on the land. MR. BOLEN-I understand. The second principal dwelling, I mean, if the barn, well, the barn's there, and the only difference between the barn being a house is a septic system. MR. TURNER-No, and a foundation. MR. BOLEN-And a foundation. If there's no impact, as the Planning Board determined with their SEQRA review, then, I don't understand the problem. MR. TURNER-You're still nonconforming. nonconforming. So what I'm saying to you okay, we'll grant you the variance, we're more nonconforming because we're going dwellings on a lot that already has nonconforming. Your lot size, it's is, if the Board says, going to make this lot to put two principal one, that's already MR. BOLEN-Mr. Turner, I can understand that. MR. TURNER-What do we tell the next guy down the road that comes wi th t\.¡o acres? MR. CARVIN-I was just going to say, suppose one of these little lots here, the 100 by the, the one right next door here, this 100 by 80, I don't know if there's a house on it, but lets say that there is, and the guy wants to build another house for a son that's moving up from New Jersey. What do we tell him, because you're right next door. MR. BOLEN-I can understand that, but in that respect, it would be different if we were asking to build closer to the inlet and closer to the street, or if we needed other variances, or even if we were requesting a variance to be within 100 feet or have a septic system within 100 feet of the street, or something like that. MR. TURNER-Yes, but again, I've got to go right back to the same thing I said before. You're requesting us to give you a second residence on an already nonconforming lot, and make it more nonconforming because of the two residences on one lot, in that zone. Forget the 42 acres. It's still going to be more nonconforming if we give you a variance for the second house on the lot. It's already nonconforming. MR. BOLEN-Isn't that the purpose for seeking a variance? MR. TURNER-Where's your practical difficulty? You already have a house on the lot. That's my question to you. Where is your practical difficulty? You already have a principal residence on the lot. MR. MENTER-See, the sticking point is, in order for the Board to do that, really, there has to be a practical difficulty that is inherent in the situation. MR. TURNER-Right. This is a self-created hardship. MR. CARVIN-See, we have to prove it to somebody else. Lets say the guy next door comes in and says, I mean, and we could say, well, the reason that we allowed this variance is because you had a - 8 - practical difficulty that there was no other solution. That's why the applicant has to establish a practical difficulty, and what I'm saying. and it's our job to grant minimum relief to that practical difficulty, and those are the two criteria that are very difficulty for, at least me, sitting here, to overcome, because you're asking for a maximum relief, which I think Mr. Turner is alluding to the fact that we're having, we're making a bad situation worse because of the nonconformance, and that there is an alternative. MR. BOLEN-Okay. Well, technically, I guess, there's an alternative, because we're all in one family, but there really isn't an alternative, for us. I mean, if it's not approved, then I don't have an option. MR. TURNER-I know, and I don't want to be hard-nosed about it, but that's a personal decision of your family to do what you want to do, and that's not the criteria for a variance. MR. BOLEN-Okay. So, I guess then maybe we approached this whole process in the wrong manner. Maybe we should have requested a subdivision. Would that have made a difference? MR. TURNER-Well, let me just explain to you. We just had one, from a gentleman on Fuller Road that wanted to do almost the same thing that you want to do. He had a preexisting house. He had 30 some acres of land, Land Conservation 10 acres. He wanted to carve out 1.65 acres of that 30 some odd acres, take 400 feet of the road frontage, because he couldn't get money from the bank to buy the land. This Board approved it. It went to the APA, and it got turned down. There was no facts. It \vas a personal decision on his part to try to fund the purchase of that property in that manner, and that's not the criteria for a variance. MR. BOLEN-I don't understand what we could have done differently to have, I'm getting the impression that this isn't going to happen, and I don't understand what we could have done differently to make it happen. MISS HAUSER-I think if that house was occupied, then he would have more of a difficulty there. MR. CARVIN-More of a practical difficulty. There's no doubt about that. Would this go to the APA? MR. TURNER-It'll go to them, and if they choose to review it. they'll review it, and if they don't, they won't address it, but they did address that one I just mentioned to you. MR. MARTIN-I would imagine they'll address this. MR. TURNER-Yes, they will. MR. BOLEN-Yes. I've spoken to several people at the APA. Mr. Quist, Greg Hill who's the site inspector, and just to explain the facts to Mr. Hill. I told him about the setbacks, and naturally, he didn't have the criteria in front of him, but he didn't put a negative light on it at all. MR. TURNER-Yes, but he might not be the one that addresses it at, when it gets up there. It might be somebody else totally different. MR. BOLEN-So I guess what our problem here is that the farmhouse is not, my problem on this issue is that the farmhouse isn't occupied, and you can't get beyond that. MR. TURNER-I think your problem is that you're saying to us that your father and mother are going to live in the farmhouse. You're going to renovate the farmhouse, and they're going to live there. Now you want to, it might not be right away, but now you want to - 9 - put the second principal dwelling on that same piece of property. That's the problem. We're going to make it more nonconforming if we grant you the variance, and that's not our job. That's totally against the law. MR. BOLEN-Would it have made a difference, I know I asked before, but would it have made a difference if we had approached this in a manner where we were seeking a subdivision? MR. TURNER-Jim, would you care to answer his question? He wants to know if he subdivided it, would it make any difference? MR. MARTIN-No. You'd still have to come before this Board for creation of a nonconforming lot. MR. BOLEN-So I guess what I'm hearing is that people with nine acres and up, well. I guess you could go in this manner. you need 84 acres in order to subdivide. within the APA. and within this zoning requirement. So I guess what I'm hearing is that nobody, unless they have 84 acres, and they meet other basic requirements, is going to get. MR. TURNER-You need 42 in that zone. MR. BOLEN-For one principal dwelling. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BOLEN-So in order to accomplish what we wanted to accomplish, we'd need 84 acres. and without having 84 acres, there's no room, and there never has been room. I asked about looking into this, trying to find some precedents on it. and I was convinced, I was told that there likely was precedents on it, but the Board look at each individual si tuation wi thin its own merits, and it's own criteria, so it might help, but it might not help you, but I guess my understanding of this situation is that unless you have 84 acres, when you're zoned LC-42. and you're in the APA, and within Queensbury. you don't get any relief, in terms of what vle're seeking. MR. TURNER-All right. Under the new, the Town just passed a new piece of legislation which says, now, that all lots in a Critical Environmental Area, and the APA will be grandfathered, so that means that lot is now grandfathered, the size of that lot. You already have one house on it. That's all you're allowed. You don't have any practical difficulty. Tell me what it is. You can't, because then we're going to end up making it more nonconforming. MR. CARVIN-What do we tell the guy that comes in with 100 by 1Ø0 lot that we granted the variance here. and he says, well, why did you do that because you had nine acres. and then he's going to say, in other words, the criteria for me to get a variance is that I have nine acres. You see, where do we draw the line on that? MR. BOLEN-I understand. MR. CARVIN-And as I said. I think your case would be stronger, I mean. in the granting of a variance, if the house was occupied, but it's not a mandate that the house be occupied. MR. BOLEN-Mr. Carvin, I understand that, and that's why I mentioned the fact that the individual across the street got a variance for a house 50 by 150. MR. TURNER-He probably got a, Mr. Bolen, he probably got a variance on a setbacks, because he had a preexisting nonconforming lot, and he couldn't buy anything else around him, so he had to get relief from the setbacks. - 10 - MR. CARVIN-If you give us the name, I'm sure we can dig out the case and we can give you the minutes, and we can tell you what the practical difficulty in that case was, or what the reasoning was for the granting of that variance. MR. TURNER-What's the name? Do you know the name of the people? MR. BOLEN-Fraiser. MR. TURNER-Was that the one with the porch, the deck in front? MR. BOLEN-No. There's no room. He has a Cape there. MR. TURNER-I know. It's that big white house. Is it in that big white house that sits right there? It's a Cape? MR. BOLEN-It's a Cape, and it's directly across the street from the farmhouse. MR. TURNER-That's probably what it was, he couldn't meet the setbacks, and he couldn't buy any land in addition to increase the size of his lot. So that was his practical difficulty, but you've got. MR. CARVIN-I would suspect that if he was trying to put up a second residence on the place, then he'd probably have a lot more difficulty. MR. BOLEN-Well, I guess we're stuck on a, to me it seems like a technicality, because there's, I appreciate what's the purpose of all this zoning, and I'm all for it, but the problem I have is that we're not having, in what we're proposing, we're not having any impact on any of it, except for the fact that what we're proposing is technically increasing the nonconformance of the lot, but it doesn't have any impacts. That's why I got to the purpose, what's the purpose of having LC-42? It's not to just limit. MR. CARVIN-I understand what you're saying is that you have no environmental impact, but let me ask you this, how many houses could you put there before you would have an environmental, I mean, I don't know, ten, fifteen, and again, I'm not being a wise acre here. I'm just saying you could, conceivably, probably put eight or nine houses out there and not have any impact environmentally. MR. BOLEN-Right. and in that regard, that's (lost word) before he comes in, and they look at the aspects. the overall aspects of the particular situation, and they say, hey. that's where you do draw the line. We're not looking to put a compound in here. We're not looking to put condos or anything like that. We want to approach this in a manner that was as nondisturbing to the environment, to the existing buildings. MR. TURNER-In all fairness to your argument, I agree with you, but again, I have to go right back to my same old argument, \V'e' re making that more nonconforming. MR. CARVIN-That's one of the environmental impact, but we impacts. criteria we al so have use. We look at the to look at the other MR. MARTIN-I think you have to take into account, in this particular situation, the thinking and the rationale that goes into the concept behind the Adirondack Park. and the agency that oversees it. They're dealing with an overall park wide land use plan that encompasses thousands of square miles. and what they're saying is. a certain density in this environmentally sensitive area is permitted, and if we start allowing density beyond that. then we're going to impact the environment in many ways, increased traffic. increased septic systems, increased population in general, and the cumulative effect of the overall park, in this thousands of - 11 - ~ square miles of area. they're coming to the conclusion that this is the acceptable density that will lessen the impact or keep it at an acceptable level. and if we go beyond that, then the cumulative effect of that is going to have an impact on the environment. So that's why it's so restrictive, one house for every 42 acres, and if you start giving a little bit here and there. all through the Park. In your microcosm there, yes, two houses on that nine acres, you really can't say it's going to be a problem, but if you had two houses for every nine acres throughout the park. then it would exceed those levels that they've set with all their zoning regulations. and you have to understand, ours is not a Town. the Town just doesn't have a say in this. This Zoning Ordinance, the section that's in the APA, had to be approved by the APA, and if it's not, then this law can't go into effect. So it's dictated by them. MR. BOLEN-I appreciate that, and I came across something that I thought, John Collins. the APA Chair. where he says that the APA's mission is to regulate rather than prevent development on private land in the six million acre Park. So I think, my opinion, this is a perfect opportunity to, where there's no impact on the environment, there's no negative impact on the surrounding properties, in fact, we'll upgrade the farm. MR. MARTIN-They're response to that would be, we're not preventing deve lopmen t. We're allowing the one house on 42 ac re s . We're regulating it in that manner. I know how you feel, but that would be the i r re sponse . I'm not saying I di sagree totally with your logic, but. MR. BOLEN-Well, I if I had known that there are no exceptions, under these circumstances. then why would I have bothered to go through this? Does anybody, that's why I can't, it's very difficult for me to ask you such a wide range of questions. MR. TURNER-We don't review your application. MR. BOLEN-So, in other words. there's no exceptions in the Town of Queensbury, in LC-42, or I guess we can even get broader on it. in the Park. Unless people have 84 acres, they can't do anything with their property. Now, I find that hard to believe. MR. TURNER-Well, I just stated a case where that guy had over 30 some acres. all right. MR. CARVIN-There is a mechanism, and this is what we've been trying to say. In other words, we have a criteria, and the criteria is minimum relief. In other words. we can grant minimum relief where there is a practical difficul ty. and you have to show us. The practical difficulty is that the regulations say that one residence. At this point, you're proposing to have two residences, okay, one of them is unoccupied. all right. So your alternative, basically, is you could refurbish the existing residence that's there, or tear it down. Now you're asking maximum relief because now you're asking for two residences because maybe the view is better. We've had people up on the lake who wanted to put a house in a certain spot because the view was better. Well that's not a criteria, for us to allow side yard setbacks and things, and I know I can speak for m~ I mean. we've sat through some pretty long sessions on some of these things, and again. I'm only one vote. and I'm just saying that based upon our criteria to grant a variance, which this Board does have the power, I would have a very difficult time putting two residences on this one particular lot. whether it was 42 acres. or 41.9 acres. MR. BOLEN-So I guess. I mean, if we were to go ahead and add on to the farmhouse that 1100 square feet that we, in fact, would build, what would the difference be then? MR. TURNER-One principal dwelling on the lot. That's the - 12 - difference. MR. BOLEN-So this is really being shot down because of the technicality. MR. TURNER-No. This is a self-imposed hardship by yourself. You have an alternative. You can alleviate it another way. You have a house right there that you can renovate. MR. CARVIN-You see. the problem. you could say the house is a barn, or make it a storage area, that it's not a principal residence. and build your thing. but then when your father comes in and wants to renovate the thing, he's going to have the same difficulty that you're having. because now you're going to be asking. again. for two residences. and I don't think that that one will fly any further than what this one is. MR. BOLEN-Well. that's one of the reasons we decided to approach it this way now. rather than. I didn't want to get into that house and then find out that I couldn't build somewhere else, and my parents wouldn't have a place to go. or I wouldn't have a place to go. See, now the practical difficulty would be on a personal level. I don't know. I guess, I don't know if it matters or not, is that we can't afford to do it any other way. MR. TURNER-I understand that, and I appreciate your remarks. but we have a set of criteria we have to go by at that's it. Personal. those personal things don't enter into the criteria of a variance, only the fact that it's a self-imposed hardship. It goes right back to. what do we tell the next guy? MR. BOLEN-Well. in that respect. you address each situation on its own merits. and if their situation is like ours. where they're in an existing. where they're in the same game. I would think that our situation is clearly unusual. MR. TURNER-We haven't set a precedent by doing anything like this. if that's what you're looking for. not that 1 can remember. MR. BOLEN-I can't imagine that throughout the Park and throughout the Town that there's going to be a heck of a lot of people in si tuations like ours. where it's wi thin the family. vIe' re not looking to subdivide the property and then sell it later, in which you would be creating a problem. MR. CARVIN-I can think of probably a dozen situations in the last two years. of a very similar nature. There was one out on West Mountain Road. and that was right up in the APA. and Carte. yes. Kelly Carte. There's a number of similar situations. MR. BOLEN-Okay. Well. I guess my impression of the whole thing is that what it boils down to, if you're in this zone, you're going to be held to 84 acres. if you want to do something else with your property. In other words. if you want two principal dwellings. you have to have 84 acres, and there's no exceptions to that, within the Town and within the APA. MR. TURNER-Yes. that's what it says. MR. BOLEN-That's what I'm being told. That's pretty hard. I can't imagine the APA being that strict. MR. TURNER-They are. I just quoted you a case. They are. MR. CARVIN-Within the last month. MR. TURNER-Within the last month. right on Fuller Road. and that was only ~ acres. MR. BOLEN-Especially when there's no impact. I mean. there's no - 13 - negative impact on the. MR. TURNER-The impact is a long term impact. The impact would be a long term impact. to other properties within the Town. MR. MARTIN-See. and their viewing it from the cumulative impact on the Park. HR. BOLEN-I fully appreciate that. but you're not going to have thousands of people in the Park building mul tiple d\.¡ellings on acreage that it's LC-42 all within the same family. I mean. it's not like we're asking to be able subdivide this and then in the future create a problem by being able to sell it off. and then all of a sudden you do have. you've taken 10 acres and created a farm. That's not the situation I'm asking for. HR. TURNER-Mr. Bolen. let me read you. I don't know if you've got a copy of it. but anyway. this is from David Quist. You've talked with him. right? Let me read you one paragraph. "Finally. as I explained to Hr. Bolen when he spoke with me yesterday. I cannot be optimistic as to the Agency's approval of the subdivision application. Given the small amount of acreage involved. As you know. we can only issue a permit if the project will comply with the applicable overall intensity guidelines which in this case is approximately 43 acres per principal dwelling. Unless the Bolens can obtain the necessary building permits. and building right from the adjoining owner. it does not appear the Agency could make the required findings to issue a permit". That would deny it right there. HR. BOLEN-Well. I appreciate my conversation with Hr. Quist and the letter as well. and I. frankly. in my opinion. that's the job of an attorney to address things like that. right off the bat. That's why I've put a li tt1e more weight in the opinion of the Field Inspector. and also the quote from Hr. Co 11 ins. and Mr. Qui st indicated that he wasn't regulating it in the conversation. MR. TURNER-That's his letter. That's all I can tell you. I think he made it pretty explic it. Okay. All right. Lets move the application. Hotion's in order. either to approve or deny. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 98-1993 THOMAS R. BOLEN. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-13A. which allows one principal building for every 42 acres. The applicant is proposing to create a second residence on the property which already is a nonconforming lot. HR. BOLEN-I have a question. Mr. Carvin. you had indicated that you felt that you might have a better shot at this if the farmhouse was occupied. HR. CARVIN-I indicated that it would probably lend support to the practical difficulty. but I didn't say that it would guarantee a passage. MR. BOLEN-I understand that. Well. in light of that. would I be in a better position. and I'm relying on you. I've talked to an attorney. but I'm relying on you. Would I be in a better position to proceed in that manner. and. I don't know. if it's not too late to withdraw the application. before I got denied. and then proceed in a manner where we did renovate the house. and then go through this again. MR. CARVIN-Is that what you're asking. is to withdraw your application? HR. BOLEN-I don't know. I'm asking you whether or not. - 14 - MR. TURNER-I think the APA will say no. that. I think they've indicated MR. BOLEN-I respect your opinion on experience, umpteen more experience at really regret not looking into this. it. and you this, than I have more do, but I MR. TURNER-If you want a true and factual answer. that's what it is. MR. BOLEN-Well. I appreciate that. but I really regret not looking into this and digging out some precedents on this. Because I. personally, find it hard to believe that there isn't some. There's got to be some somewhere. MR. CARVIN-I'll let you withdraw your application. but. otherwise. I'm going to move for a denial, So, it's up to you. MR. BOLEN-I was told that if it got denied, then you can pretty much forget about it. MR. MARTIN-If the application is denied. the Board then can ask. if you re-submit an application, the Board has to decide if it's a substantial change from what they already viewed. If it's not viewed as a substantial change, then the denial will stand. and the application won't be heard. I'd just make you aware of that. and the Board decides whether it's a substantial change or not. Do you want to withdraw it or not? If you don't, we're going to move it. MR. BOLEN-It's not going to matter either way. MR. TURNER-No, because I think the APA's going to turn it down. Even if it went by this Board, they'll turn it down. You don't have any practical difficulty. MR. CARVIN-If you want to withdraw it and seek legal counsel for precedents, and you think you want to go that route, then I would withdraw the application. but based on what Ted is telling you. I think it's going to be a pretty uphill hike. MR. TURNER-So what's your pleasure? MR. BOLEN-Well, I think it would make more sense to void a, I know. I get the impression from you two gentleman. MR. TURNER-Well. if you seek even legal counsel and they come back here with basically the same argument, the APA's going to say no anyway, whether you have legal counselor not, I think. I think they've already said it. MR. BOLEN-We 11. I'm just thinking down the road, because I was reflecting on Mr. Carvin's opinion that it may be if the house was occupied, we might have a better shot at claiming a practical difficulty. MR. TURNER-No. I don't think you will. because it comes right back to the old thing. We're going to make it more nonconforming than it already is. MR. CARVIN-So, I don't want to mislead you that. if the house is occupied, but as it stands right now. I mean, the two principal residences. I don't think that's going to fly. MR. BOLEN-If I can do it, I'd like to withdraw the application. I would have preferred to have done it through the Planning Board first, too. MR. TURNER-The variance first, the Planning Board second. MR. BOLEN-All right. - 15 - MR. TURNER-Do you want to withdraw it? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. The application's withdrawn by the applicant. Is there anyone here on the Folsom application? If there is. that application will not be heard. That's Area Variance No. 100-1993. It was a preexisting lot. They changed it with the resolution that the lot now complies. It's a nonconforming lot. so we don't hear it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 109-1993 TYPE II WR-1A GLENN F. BATEASE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE DREAM LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWENTY-EIGHT (28) BY THIRTY (30) FOOT GARAGE WITHIN SIX (6) FEET OF THE SIDE AND REAR LOT LINES. SECTION 179-16C. REQUIRES SETBACKS OF TWENTY (20) FEET FROM BOTH SIDE AND REAR LOT LINES. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FOURTEEN (14) FEET FOR BOTH SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/8/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 51-3-12 LOT SIZE: 3.700 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-16C GLENN BATEASE. PRESENT HR. TURNER-Glenn. you have a new drawing here. I went up there today and measured your stakes. measured from the front stake on the south corner. MR. BATEASE-I took everything off the back stake. southwest corner. So. the MR. TURNER-I know you did. the southwest corner. the front stake. Now you've got the garage skewed a little bit. If you take and bring that corner forward. you don't even need a variance. I measured from your stake. I moved the tape up so it would line up \Vi th the front stake on the other corner. You've got almost 40 feet to the drive\Vay. and you only have like a two foot elevation drop, if you have that. within the length of that garage. MR. BATEASE-What I'm trying to do. I don't want to block the house out. MR. TURNER-That's not a criteria for a variance. If you have room enough to put it on the lot \Vithout a variance, then you have to do it. You have an al ternati ve. You can move it for\Vard and not violate the Ordinance at all. HR. BATEASE-I'm trying to get it as far back as I can so it's not blocking the house. MR. TURNER-I know. but I mean. I taped it right off. You've got a lot of room. HR. BATEASE-But that's what I'm trying to do now. so I'm not blocking out the whole house. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. BATEASE-There's plenty of room to come down in and back out and turn around. MR. TURNER-But again. that's not the criteria for the variance. That's a personal decision of yours. MR. BATEASE-Well. you gave a neighbor. you let him build closer to the line. than what he \Vas supposed to do, and he could have set the 20 by 20. he could have had his setbacks. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. MR. BATEASE-He could have made that 20 by 20 off the line. too. but you let him go closer. - 16 - MR. TURNER-I think we let him go closer because. look at the shape of his lot versus the shape of your lot. His lot is like a toothpick. He couldn't put his garage down in here. I don't think. MR. BATEASE-He still could have gotten it over further so it would have gotten off the line. 20 by 20. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I think there was some testimony about getting some fire equipment and emergency vehicles down in there. I think there was a concern when. there it is right there. that's how he presented it the first time. Mr. Lockhart. correct? Now he squared it off. We made him even reduce the size of the garage. MR. BATEASE-But he could have even put the 24 by 24 garage right along the driveway and still have the 20 by 20 setback. MR. TURNER-He might have. but I think again. then. there. there was a question of emergency vehicles getting down in there. because of the narrowness of the lot. MR. CARVIN-So what are you saying he should do. Ted? MR. TURNER-Well. what I did. this is the way he proposes on his lot now. I measured. I took this line and brought it out here square. like this. He's got 40 feet from here to the driveway. even if he brings this garage out, so he doesn't need a variance. and he doesn't have to cut the tree down, I don't believe. MR. BATEASE-The tree, right where sits now, the tree won't have to come do\V'n. MR. TURNER-No. All it's going to do is. it's going to turn the garage square this way. and it comes right down and right into the it, just like that, right in square. You turn the garage and move it a\-lay from that side line and it'll, he can get his 20 feet relief, and he doesn't even need a variance. and he's got 40 feet from the front of the garage out to the driveway. He doesn't need a variance. MR. CARVIN-Now. this garage is square. right. to the property line? MR. TURNER-Yes. and we reduced the size of that. I think that's 21 by 22, or something like that, 24. We made is smaller, because he wanted more relief than what we wanted to give him. So we said. how about making the garage smaller. So you did reduce the size of it. That's the comment .I have. I went right the re today and purposely looked at it, and measured it. That is your driveway. right? MR. BATEASE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Anyone else have any questions of Mr. Batease? MR. BATEASE-I've got a concern about coming in and out of there in the winter. If it's swung around the other way. MR. TURNER-Glenn. you're not going to have any problem. It's no different than if you've got it just the way you have it now. You're going to have to change the elevation just a little bit, raise up that other corner towards the house. It's no different than if you squared it up. That's not a steep slope. MR. BATEASE-I've got to stay 20 foot from the line on that. MR. TURNER-It's Waterfront Residential, a minimum of 20. a sum of 50. MR. BATEASE-How far do you have to be back from the lake? MR. TURNER-From the lake? You're far enough back, 75 feet. - 17 - MR. BATEASE-Yes, but if I wanted to put the garage down in front, by the lake. MR. TURNER-Seventy-five feet. MR. BATEASE-I'd have to be seventy-five feet back from that. MR. TURNER-Yes. Even looking at the property there, looking down the hill, looking at the house, on the left, the lawn where you propose to put the garage nO~l is just a gradual slope, then it rolls over like that and goes down a lower elevation. MR. BATEASE-I can put the garage down there, if I wanted to be 75 feet back. I don't want to block out the house. MR. TURNER-I can appreciate that. It would be less obtrusive down by the lake than it would where you're going to put it. That's what you're saying, right? Yes. MR. BATEASE-What I'm saying is I don't want to block out the back of the house from the other driveway. MR. TURNER-Well, that's the purpose of this hearing, is that you provide us with an alternative. If you have one, you don't really need a variance. If you had a small lot, like Lockhart had, and you had the same si tuation, I think you'd have grounds for a variance, but you don't. You might live right next to one another. MR. BATEASE-I mean, on that, a two car garage, he's got a summer camp there, one bedroom, and we give him a two story garage, two car garage, two story. I mean, why? MR. TURNER-He said it was a 10ft. can have a 900 square foot garage. square foot garage. Anybody else? He can have it, just 1 ike you He's got a lot less than a 900 MR. THOMAS-I'm just glad he's got it 35 feet from that property line down, that's the only concern I have from the last time, that it was too close to the property line, too close to the power line. MR. TURNER-So what's your pleasure? Are you going to move it down? Do you want to withdra\v the application, or move the garage? Because I don't see, right now, that it's going to go any place. MR. BATEASE-Yes, I'll withdraw it I guess, if you're going to shoot it down. I won't need a variance anyway. MR. TURNER-No. All you need's a building permit. I'll make a motion that the applicant's withdrawn the application. MR. BATEASE-I've got a question, a garage and a pole barn, you can have a garage and a pole barn on one piece of property? MR. TURNER-Waterfront Residential? MR. BATEASE-On just a regular piece of property. MR. TURNER-You've got to tell me what zone. That's why I asked you, lets say this one, okay, just for conversation. A private garage with storage shed is allowed, an accessory use. MR. MARTIN-I'm going to take a pretty dim view of a pole barn as a pole barn, if you've got garage doors on it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BATEASE-But now, you'd have to keep that 30 by 30, or under? MR. TURNER-Under 100 square feet, a storage shed is allowed under 100 square feet, without a permit. After that, you need a permit. - 18 - HR. HARTIN-You'd need a Building Permit. as long as you're within the setbacks. The size of the structure is not so much a concern as long as it's under 900 square feet, yes, 30 by 30. Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-1993 TYPE I WR-1A CEA RITA & ROBERT WHITEMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BEAN ROAD. KATTSKILL BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 1/2) STORY GUEST COTTAGE THEN UTILIZE AND EXPAND THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT TO BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE WITH A GARAGE AND STORAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND GUEST HOUSE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. SECTION 179-79 STATES THAT NO ENLARGEMENT OR REBUILDING OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL EXCEED AN AGGREGATE OF FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE EXISTING GROSS FLOOR AREA. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO (162) PERCENT INCREASE IN GROSS FLOOR AREA AND IS SEEKING ONE HUNDRED TWELVE (112) PERCENT RELIEF. EXISTING STRUCTURE IS SET BACK TWELVE (12) FEET. SIX (6) INCHES FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE. EXTENSION OF THE FOOTPRINT WILL BRING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE WITHIN (11) FEET OF THE SIDE LOT LINE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN ADDITIONAL ONE (1) FOOT. SIX (6) INCHES RELIEF FROM THE TWENTY (20) FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-16C. SECTION 179-16C REQUIRES SIXTY-FIVE (65) PERCENT PERMEABILITY. EXISTING PERMEABILITY IS FIFTY-NINE (59) PERCENT. EXPANSION OF THE FOOTPRINT WILL CREATE AN ADDITIONAL ONE (1) PERCENT IMPERMEABLE AREA. SO APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE (1) PERCENT. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/8/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 152-1-3 LOT SIZE: .39 SECTION: 179-79. 179-16C SEQRA TO PLANNING BOARD - DECEMBER 21. 1993 RITA WHITEMAN. PRESENT MR. TURNER-What we've got to do is accept the SEQRA review. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SEQRA IN RELATION TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-1993 RITA & ROBERT WHITEMAN. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Du 1 y adopted thi s 22nd day of Decembe r, 1993, by the fo llowing vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston STAFF INPUT Note s from Staf f , Area Variance No. 101-1993, Rita & Robert Whiteman, Meeting Date: December 22, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Bean Road, Pilot Knob PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to remove existing, nonconforming guest house structure, and expand the footprint to accommodate cars' length, then build a two story structure with a garage on the first floor and guest house on the second. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-79 states that no enlargement or rebuilding of a nonconforming structure shall exceed an aggregate of fifty (50) percent of the existing gross floor area. Applicant is proposing a one hundred sixty-two (162) percent expansion and is seeking one hundred twelve (112) percent relief. Existing structure is set back twelve feet. six inches (12 ft. 6 in.) from the side lot line. Expansion of the structure will cause the northeast corner to come within eleven (11) feet of the side lot line, due to the angle of the structure in relation to the lot line. The nonconforming structure has an existing encroachment into the setback of seven and one half (7.5) feet. Applicant is seeking an additional one and one-half (1.5) feet relief from the t,.,enty (20) foot side setback required by - 19 - -- Section 179-16C. Section 179-16C also requires sixty-five (65) percent permeability. The existing structures and driveway create a fifty-nine (59) percent permeability. The proposed expansion will create an additional one (1) percent impermeable surface. Appl ican t is seeking re I ie f for the add it ional one (1) pe rcent. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY: Applicant would like to retain the use of the guest cottage for family use, but would like to have a garage. as well. There is no room on the property to construct a garage that meets the current zoning and avoids the septic system. ALTERNATIVES: There does not seem to be any alternative to the proposed location. This is the minimum variance required to accompl i sh the proposed pro j ect. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. COMMUNITY. OR PUBLIC SERVICES: It does not appear that this structure would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Since the existing structure is 1 1/2 stories. a 2 story structure would not be a significant change visually. There would be no impact on public services. PARCEL INFORMATION: Parcel: Section 152, Block i. Lot 3 is a preexisting nonconforming lot, 17.570 square feet in area. The applicant does not own any adj acent land. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Al though the proposed structure would amount to doubling the existing square footage. the amount of expansion of the footprint and, thus, the impermeable surfaces. does not seem significant. A worksheet is attached for the Board's convenience, but it may be sufficient for the record to summarize the results: % expansion = 62%. permitted expansion = 50% relief sought = 112% Existing permeability = 59%. proposed = 58%. relief 1% (Current zoning requires 65%, but this property preexisted the current zoning. so the existing figure is used.)" MISS HAUSER-Warren County. on the 8th of December. recommended there be "No County Impact" for this Area Variance. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mrs. Whiteman, would you care to make any further comments? MRS. WHITEMAN-None. unless there are any further questions. MR. TURNER-All right. application? Does anybody have a question as to her MR. CARVIN-It's quite a large expansion. MRS. WHITEMAN-Well, we don't want to lose the existing footprint of the cottage. MR. TURNER-You could build on the footprint without even having to come here. MRS. WHITEMAN-But the problem was, unless we squared off the corners of the existing footprint, we wouldn't be able to fit any cars in there, and vIe have no basement, and we only have crawl space. We have no storage. MR. TURNER-You sit there and heard our comments for a couple of applications. minimum relief. Minimum. This is maximum, 112 square feet, 112 percent relief. MRS. WHITEMAN-Well. this was the minimum, on the footprint, for the cars to fit in that particular area. MR. TURNER-How many cars, two? MRS. WHITEMAN-Two. MR. CARVIN-Is there a garage there currently, or no? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-Now. is this utilized as a full time residence right now? - 20 - MRS. WHITEMAN-No. MR. CARVIN-So it's only a seasonal? Is there a septic system in the cottage currently? MRS. WHITEMAN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is there going to be an expansion of that septic? MRS. WHITEMAN-No. HR. CARVIN-In other words. no additional baths or showers or anything? HRS. WHITEHAN-No. MR. TURNER-Any comments? HR. CARVIN-You said this is a seasonal then. right? MRS. WHITEHAN-Right. HR. CARVIN-During the season. is it fully occupied? HRS. WHITEHAN-When our children come to visit us. yes. we have overflow. MR. CARVIN-Okay. ,and how often would that be. would you feel? MRS. WHITEMAN-During the summer usually. obviously it's not used during the winter because it's seasonal. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well. the main house is also seasonal. right? In other words. you don't live at the lake all year? MRS. WHITEMAN-No, no. We live there year round. HR. CARVIN-It is year round? HRS. WHITEMAN-Yes. time residents. We are not seasonal residents. We are full HR. CARVIN-Okay. The cottage is seasonal. the house is? HRS. WHITEMAN-Yes. HR. CARVIN-I thought the property was only occupied seasonally. MRS. WHITEMAN-No, no. MR. CARVIN-So you do live at the lake all year round. HRS. WHITEMAN-Yes. HR. CARVIN-Okay. HR. TURNER-Your proposal is to drive into the garage from the road right here? This side? Not this side. this side. Are you going to have a pair of stairs right here? MRS. WHITEHAN-To go to the upstairs. HR. TURNER-Right, and you're going underneath that. You're going in that way with your cars. or what? MRS. WHITEMAN-In front here. there. I think I've \H i t ten dri ve\,ray on MR. TURNER-Yes. you did, but then you only have a little note here on the side. You don't indicate where the. - 21 - MRS. WHITEMAN-The driveway runs all along the side of that building. MR. TURNER-I know. MRS. WHITEMAN-And then we would pull in from that side. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. MRS. WHITEMAN-You can't pull in any other way because of the septic system. MR. TURNER-You've got the septic right here. Okay. Do you store your cars any place at all? They're both licensed cars? You don't store them any place else? You don't rent any garage or anything? MRS. WHITEMAN-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-The only thing is that they're allowed a 900 square foot garage, and they want to maintain the guest cottage over the top of the top of it. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-How long have you owned the property? MRS. WHITEMAN-Since 1975. MR. TURNER-We granted you a variance one time for, what? We didn't? MRS. WHITEMAN-No, not that I know of. MR. TURNER-Well, then you must have been here for another meeting, then, something else, re la ted to you, a ne ighbor then maybe, perhaps. MR. CARVIN-When was the cottage built? MRS. WHITEMAN-It preexisted when we owned the property. MR. TURNER-That was there and the house wasn't? MRS. WHITEMAN-Both were there. MR. TURNER-Both were there. Any comment now? Okay. The public hearing's closed. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The only thing I can see is they're decreasing the size of the existing cottage from 685 square feet to 211, in essence, by putting that second floor on. So they're actually decreasing the amount of living space. Am I right, or am I reading that chart wrong? MR. TURNER-I read it once, but I haven't read it since. MR. CARVIN-This chart here? Square footage existing is 685. I don't see where they're reducing it. MR. THOMAS-They are increasing it. That's right. I can see where they're increasing it by 211. It's not going to be 211. - 22 - MRS. WHITEMAN-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And I think they're also. they're squaring it off. They're losing the permeability too. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-This would be a two car garage. would it? MRS. WHITEMAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. I don't know if the question was asked. house. is it your guests. or is it rental. or what? Guest MRS. WHITEMAN-No. It's strictly for family use. MR. TURNER-Family use. Does anyone else have an observation. MR. KARPELES-I don't have an objection. I think the people ought to be able to have a garage. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with the garage. MR. MARTIN-Ted. we have a little correction in the numbers here. They've got this worksheet? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-The expansion of the nonconforming structure worksheet. those numbers? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I think you got a little confused here. She has an existing cottage of 685.91 square feet. You see that at the top. right? MR. CARVIN-Right. MR. MARTIN-She's proposing total square footage of 1.108.59 square feet, okay. She would be normally allowed 1.028.86, and that is a total of those first two numbers, the 685 and the 342. Are you following me so far? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. 61.62% increase. allowed. So she's proposing 1108.59. That represents a So it's approximately 12% over what she would be MR. THOMAS-Not 112? MR. TURNER-That changes it dramatically. I don't have any problem with that. Okay. Any further discussion on application? Okay. Motion's in order. real the MOTION TO GRANT AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-1993 RITA & ROBERT WHITEMAN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-79 that states that no enlargement or rebuilding of a nonconforming structure shall exceed an aggregate of 50 percent of the existing gross floor area. That we grant relief of 12 percent relief from this Section. I also would grant relief of 7.5 feet from the 20 foot side setback requirements as outlined in Section 179-16C, and I would also grant relief of one percent permeability as outlined in Section 179-16C which requires 65 percent permeability. The practical difficulty - 23 - -- is that there's no room on this property to construct a garage and cottage combination that meets the current Zoning Ordinance and avo ids the septic system. Thi sHould be the minimum re 1 ie f necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty. and by granting this relief. there would be no detrimental impact to other properties in the district or neighborhood. and there should be no effects on public facilities or services. The inhabitable portion of this cottage should be maintained for family use only. Duly adopted this 22nd day of December. 1993. by the follovving vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-I just have a question of the Board. Should the relief variance on the side setbacks. is not the one and a half feet the existing use. It's actually nine and a half feet. novv you're giving a variance. In five years. somebody goes back and looks at it. the setback, they're going to eleven and something. MR. TURNER-Seven point five, right? MR. CARVIN-It should be seven point five. MR. KENNY-It's an additional one and a half feet. MR. CARVIN-Yes, you're correct. MR. KENNY-Because the variance is a total of nine. MR. TURNER-It's only because the new addition violates the setback. MR. CARVIN-It would be nine feet. According to their chart here, it's 12.6. MR. TURNER-Twelve point five. MR. CARVIN-Twelve point five. MR. TURNER-They encroach on it seven and a half feet now. so it's twelve point five. MR. CARVIN-So, 7.5. Maria, just change that from 1.5 feet to 7.5 feet relief from the side yard setbacks. Thank you. sir. MR. TURNER-Thank you. David. NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 106-1993 TYPE I WR-1A CEA JOHN C. & CHRISTINE BERGERON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NACY ROAD. GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REACTIVATE A PREEXISTING INACTIVE RESTAURANT BUILDING AS A RESTAURANT. PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL. WHERE RESTAURANT IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-16D. USES PERMITTED IN WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONES. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/8/93 TAX MAP NO. 44-1-12 LOT SIZE: 200 FT. BY 85 FT. SECTION 179-16D ROBERT LA PANN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 24 - Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 106-1993, John C. & Christine Bergeron, Meeting Date: December 22, 1993 "APPLICANT: John and Christine Bergeron PROJECT LOCATION: Nacy Road, Glen Lake PROPOSED ACTION: Subject property was the location of a restaurant for approximately fifty (50) years. It has been closed and for sale for more than eighteen (18) months. The owner/applicant wishes to sell the property as a restaurant. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Restaurant is not a permitted use under the current Waterfront Residential zoning, Section 179-16D. A restaurant was not a permitted use under the previous R-4 zoning, but this restaurant pre-dated zoning, having started in 1943. It is the lapse in continuous operation which causes a need for a Use Variance. REASONABLE RETURN: Without the ability to market this existing restaurant facility as a restaurant, it appears the applicant would have great difficulty realizing a reasonable return on the property. UNIQUENESS: This property is unique due to its use prior to the Zoning Code. It is also one of three (3) restaurant properties either in operation or proposing to operate in the predominately residential Glen Lake area. CHARACTER: Without knowledge of the eventual owner, and type of restaurant, effects on the neighborhood character would be difficult to evaluate. Staff revievl of files indicates major concerns with parking associated with the restaurant in the past. ALTERNATIVES: There do not appear to be alternatives, as marketing this property as residential with an existing restaurant facility on it would probably not be feasible. PARCEL INFORMATION AND PREVIOUS VARIANCES: A previous Variance (File Number 429) was granted in February, 1976, for use of part of the parcel (44-1-5.1) across Nacy Road for parking. This variance has also lapsed due to the lack of use for more than eighteen (18) months, so would either need to be resubmitted or included in the action of the Board on the Use Variance being considered. Parcel: Section 44, Block 1, Lot 12 is thirty-nine hundredths (.39) acres in size, the restaurant floor area is 3,218 square feet. Without the additional parcel involved there would not be adequate parking. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Adequate parking is a major issue, since the parcel being addressed is not large enough to accommodate the required number of spaces. The previous variance for parking across the street is unclear as to dimensions or number of spaces the site would provide, though it appears the parcel is large enough to solve the parking problems. Other issues raised by citizens inquiries relate to the noise level associated with live music, parking in neighboring driveways, inebriated patrons wandering about, and operating hours of the establishment. As mentioned above, it would be difficult to address these vlithout either knowing what the restaurant would be like, or limiting the Use Variance to a particular type of restaurant, e.g. no bar, live mus ie, etc. If app roved, it is sugge sted that hi s pro j ect be required to undergo Site Plan Review to address parking and other appropriate issues. The scale of the site map is 1"=30'." MS. CIPPERLY-Excuse me. I'd like to correct, under "Alternatives". I had revised that section, and it didn't get revised. I wanted it to reflect the fact that we had no evidence that this property had, there had been any attempt to market it as residential. So we have no way of knowing whether reasonable return could be realized with a conforming use. MR. TURNER-Okay. Bergeron? Mr. LaPann, are you go ing to repre sent Mr. MR. LA PANN-Yes, I am. MR. TURNER-Did you sign an Agent Authorization form? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. missing originally, It should be in the original file. It was and Mr. LaPann came in and signed one for us. MR. LA PANN-Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, my name is Robert La Pann. I'm the attorney for John and Christine Bergeron. - 25 - They are here as applicants for a Use Variance for the property that they own in the Town of Queensbury here in Glen Lake. It's in a zone called Waterfront Residential. Actually, their property is up, some distance from the lake. The property that Hr. and Hrs. Bergeron own consists of a fully equipped restaurant and a parking area, which is across the road from the restaurant building. Due to some inadvertence, the parking lot was not listed as being part of this application for a use variance. This property was known as the LaCabanna, and I remember, after World War II, when it was a very popular family type restaurant, and that's the way it was run by Jack Bergeron and his wife for about twenty years from the early sixties to the early eighties. This short biographical, historical comment, which I think significant, because of the nature of the problem that we face, the property was sold to another person, who operated a family type restaurant here for the next ten years, and Jack and his wife held their first mortgage on the property, which represen ted to them , really, the i r life savings, based upon the time they had operated it. After ten years, the people had turned their property back to the Bergeron's, because they couldn't make a go of it, and it's at this point, about two years ago, that Jack received the property back. and I think if you examine it. there are only a few al ternati ves and very little time to accompl i sh things. This is a. I'm not sure if you're acquainted with it. seen the property or not. I've brought some photos that you're welcome to pass around. HR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. HR. LA PANN-When the ti tIe to the property came back to the Bergeron's, Jack proceeded to fix the place up. and put it on the market to sell. He's not a real estate person. He's not in the construction field. Any other alternative than to put this property back on the market. for which it had been used for fifty years, I think would have been the same decision we \iould have made. The LaCabana was very Vlell knoVln for Vleddings, parties. dinners. It's a very highly respected place, nice for family get together's, and this is the type of use that Jack feels is suitable for this property. It seems that there's an element of unfairness here. I'd like to look at from Mr. Bergeron's vieVlpoint. There's an element of unfairness Vlhere they have Vlorked, conducted a business that pre-dated the Zoning Ordinance, and then Vlas a conforming use. and all of a sudden. the Zoning Ordinance has changed, to make their property a nonconforming use. There's no other change in the neighborhood. The houses that are there are still in the same place that Vlere there before. and it's not really suitable for anything except that. After the. not only was the zoning changed for the property, but in addition, the Bergeron's Vlere told that they had eighteen months to do something about it, and that the eighteen months had already expired. Here's somebody. a citizen, doing exactly Vlhat he's entitled, until this happened. This was always a restaurant. It's equipped for a restaurant. It doesn't make any adverse effect on the neighborhood. Parking should not be a problem, because of the property. parcel across the road that Vlas referred to before is in addition to it. So we're really here, Jack Bergeron is here for questions you might have. HR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone have any questions? HISS HAUSER-How parking? large 1, c' ~, that parcel that could be used for HR. LA PANN-Do you have the dimensions, Jack? JOHN BERGERON HR. BERGERON-There's two acres across the road from there. but only about half of it is used for parking. HR. TURNER-About an acre you're saying? - 26 - MR. BERGERON-I'd say. not quite an acre. MR. TURNER-Three quarters. maybe. is a fair amount? MR. BERGERON-I'd say so. MR. LA PANN-It's assessed for 2.02 acres. MS. CIPPERLY-The previous variance on that. it does show 2.02 acres. and it shows probably about a third of the lot as parking. presumably for. it says for seventy. MR. TURNER-Well. I think at the time when that was granted. there was a barn in there. and where they've excavated the sand. that went kind of uphill. So they couldn't even utilize it. at the time. for parking. Is that correc:t? MR. LA PANN-There was a mountain. MR. TURNER-Yes. and that's since long gone. MR. LA PANN-Yes, and there's parking adjoining the building on that side of the building. MR. TURNER-Yes. You're also going to be able to park in the front part where they used to park. right. at the entrance? You've got some available parking there. MR. LA PANN-There's about. I'd say, maybe 20 cars. MR. TURNER-All right. You have someone who's interested in renting the restaurant. or buying it? MR. BERGERON-I have two people. prospects. They didn't want to do it until I could ensure the variances. MR. TURNER-I know. but how viable? HR. BERGERON-We 11. one said they had the money. They're just waiting for. to see if the variance is going to be passed. The other one I know had some. she's still in the negotiating stage. HR. BERGERON-They're both a fami 1 y type. both nice restaurants. It's not going to be a joint or anything like that. MR. TURNER-That's going to be a major concern. I'll tell you that right nO~l. HR. BERGERON-I know it. I don't want that. MR. TURNER-You know what was there before. and that wasn't. HR. BERGERON-Right. HR. TURNER-Anyone else have any questions before I open the public hearing? HR. MENTER-When did you take possession of it again? HR. LA PANN-1991. There was ten years with the previous owner. MR. TURNER-Okay. If there's no more questions. I'll open the public hearing, and \ve' re going to hear some comments from the public. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE HANLEY MR. HANLEY-Good evening. My name is Joe Hanley, and I o~m the - 27 - property, on the parking lot side that they're requesting a variance. First of all, I'd like to draw your attention, there's already been a drawing here, is that the, on this application here, the application does not call for a variance on the parking lot side. MR. TURNER-No, not yet. MR. HANLEY-So, will that be at a different meeting, or will that be voted on this evening? MR. TURNER-We're going to have to come up with a figure on how much they need for parking first. I know they're going to need that additional parking. but how much I don't know. at this point. MR. KARPELES-Where is your land, on this map? point it out to us. Haybe you could MR. TURNER-It's right on top of the hill. Bob, where they took the sand out. It's Patty Ballou's old house, right on the corner. It's the first house. MR. KARPELES-Could you point it out on this map? LaCabana, right here. Here's the MR. TURNER-This is Glen Lake Road. He's right up here. He's right here. MR. HANLEY-It doesn't appear on this map here. Yes, it does. too. It's right here. It's this whole land right here. all that land here. and he owns. this is where the LaCabana is. He owns this parking lot here. where the barn was removed. and this strip here. That's his strip there. This is a little log cabin over in here. lot number seven. MR. CARVIN-Then why does this say. lake frontage? HR. TURNER-Because it is, it goe s up the re . I th ink. probably the boundary. That's MR. HANLEY-I didn't hear the question. MR. TURNER-He wanted to know why this was lake frontage. HR, CARVIN-I see. I didn't see the property line. Okay. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Continue. Mr. Hanley. MR. HANLEY-I heard a few things that Hr. LaPann and Hr. Bergeron said. The building being open in 1943. I've been a resident in this area for at least that long. and I can tell you that Mr. Orsini. who operated the property back in the fifties and the forties, ran a fine establishment, he really did. and I can also speak for Hr. Bergeron. When Hr. Bergeron was the owner of the prope rty, he al so ran a fine e stab lishmen t. Ove r the years. though. we have been faced. in that neighborhood, with many changes. as most of you people probably have, because I didn't even know most of you people, except Mr. Turner. several years ago. The one thing I can say is that summer use people are now year round residents in our lake area. I can also tell you that many changes in the neighborhood have developed with the prior people that have purchased the LaCabana from the Bergerons. We've been in a devastating community for the last ten years up there. I. myself. have been faced with facing a man breaking and entering into my home, with a double barreled shot gun. that came from the LaCabana, and I know that there are other people here that'll also speak in reference to this application. I'm also appalled at the Town of Queensbury. In 1976, Mr. Bergeron was granted permission to build his parking lot, which is the one that doesn't appear in this application tonight, and they said they would give certain - 28 - restrictions if he had this variance granted. Those restrictions were that he was to improve the neighborhood by putting a buffer zone up in the Glen Lake Road. with green trees. grading the banks, planting shrubbery between my property and his, and as well as in surrounding area to the west of it. During that time. I also have some pictures that I'd like to show. I have personally witnessed debris and construction materials. being dumped in that area. As a matter of fact. DEC has been notified. and the Town of Queensbury will be notified. on asbestos shingles and roofing being dumped in there that could contaminate the water conditions throughout the neighborhood. HR. TURNER-Is that in the pit where they remove the sand. Hr. Hanley? MR. HANLEY-Yes. that's where it is. HR. TURNER-Okay. MR. HANLEY-I also have some pictures that were taken wi th a telephoto lens. I'd like to ask that these pictures be reviewed by the panel and please be given to the Zoning Administrator so that he can do as need fit. with the Town of Queensbury. This has been my main objective all along. has been that the follow through with the Town has not been followed through. The business, when it was purchased by. Mr. Jones. I believe. during that period of time. we've had drug dealers in the back roads. \^I'e' ve had drunks staggering throughout the neighborhood. We've had four wheelers. as those pictures will show. and it's even done recently. coming up and down. over the bay. knocking down fences. fenced in areas. and going out into the road where the police have been having to be called. Glen Lake Road. right now. has got a washout area that runs from the top down through to the parking area. and many other things like I had mentioned before. break-ins in our community. We do not need that in our ne ighborhood. That wasn't Hhat the LaCabana when the Bergeron's ran it. and when the Orsini's ran it. We all Here summer people up around there. Now there's people that live year round. It's no longer a summer community. I have many concerns over who the new buyers would be. if it's being allowed to be re-zoned to what it was. I had my house on the market. I couldn't sell my house. I couldn't sell it because of the sand pit, or the gravel pit next door. This is totally uncalled for. We've got to follow through on things in this Town. If we grant people permission to do certain things. they have to follow through on it. My home has been taken off the market. because it was not salable with the condition that sits next door to you. and in addition to that. the LaCabana now no longer has the family atmosphere and the family association that it had years ago. It has a devastating effect on our neighborhood. I'd ask all of you people to really consider. you're the first step in the process. to really consider what you're taking forth when you approve or disapprove this application. Thank you. HR. TURNER-Okay. Hanley? I guess decided to move restaurant revert Is that correct? Does anybody have any questions to ask Hr. the only question I would have is. if the Board this favorably. your concern is that that to the manner it was when Mr. Bergeron ran it. MR. HANLEY-Yes. That would be my first concern. MR. TURNER-That's your first concern. MR. HANLEY-The other concern I have is that. Mr. Bergeron has no. I don't believe he's responsible for the materials that are being dumped in that pit area. As a matter of fact. I truly believe that he's not responsible for that. However. the material exists. The material is in the ground. It's been covered up. It has to be taken out. carried away. and transported to a disposal area. Groundwater is not something that just sits underneath this. It's - 29 - like the veins in our body. It runs throughout the area, and you can contaminate your property where your home is built by dump sites like this here. Now these dumpings are recent. This is not something that was done last year or the year before. Those construction debris materials were dumped probably a year and a half to two, three years ago. Les Carpenter was the investigator for the Town of Queensbury at the time. Does he still work for the Town of Queensbury? MR. TURNER-No, he doesn't. MR. HANLEY-I don't know what was followed through on that by the Town, but I do know the DEC intends to do something about this. MR. TURNER-Evidenta11y, nothing. MR. HANLEY-Evidenta11y, nothing. So I have a lot of legitimate concerns, and I do know that I've heard certain rumors throughout the neighborhood that some of the people that are interested, or one perhaps, of the parties that is interested in buying may be an individual that has run Rumors down on Dix Avenue. I certainly don't want an establishment like that in my neighborhood, and I don't think anyone of you people do either. MR. LA PANN-Neither does Mr. Bergeron. that's involved. MR. TURNER-Okay. 1'11 let you respond. That's certainly nobody Anything else? MR. HANLEY-No, that's it. Those are my concerns, and I they're all legitimate concerns. My main concern right getting the 1976 ruling that the Town passed taken care of. my main concern right now. think now is That's MR. MENTER-I think those are all important factors, because I remember your house. I looked at your house, six, seven years ago, vlhen you had it on the market. I understand the factors that you're talking about. So those are all important issues that are tied to it. There's no doubt about it. MR. TURNER-Yes. When was that sand pit, when was that taken out of there? MR. BERGERON-1976. MR. TURNER-That sand pit? MR. BERGERON-Yes. MR. TURNER-That was awhile ago. MR. HANLEY-That was qui te a vlhile ago. As a matter of fact, my problem was, again, my problem doesn't lie with the Bergeron's. My problem lies with what has happened in the last 20 years, and something has to be done. MR. KARPELES-I just want to be clear on your position. You don't have any objection to a restaurant being there, it's just the type of restaurant? You want to make sure that it's a? MR. HANLEY-I would strongly urge the committee, or this panel, to continue with the existing administrator's and administration's policies on the re-zoning. It is not a summer atmosphere up there anymore. It's a year round residential neighborhood, and that's what we're supporting, and that has been closed down for a period of eighteen months or two years. MR. KARPELES-Do you have any alternative use that that property could be put to? MR. HANLEY-I wouldn't want to make those recommendations without - 30 - knoHing the property and going through the property. but it seems to me that there's a nice piece of property overlooking the lake. and I don't know what Mr. Bergeron has that property for sale for. but I certainly would say that if the place was converted into a nice home. a log home. perhaps that might be very advantageous. an advantage to him as well as the other neighbors that are around there. I do know that there's a log waterfront home that's down on the water's edge. as a matter of fact. I sold that parcel of land several years ago. to the gentleman VTho built the log home. and he just sold that for $250.000. So. I don't even know if there's any lake right-of-ways with the LaCabana. I have no idea. I ask that those pictures do get to the Building Department. MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll move them right in that direction. Okay. MR. HANLEY-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Before you go. now you indicated when the restaurant was there. there was a. you had experience of somebody trying to break into your house, and so forth. MR. HANLEY-Absolutely. It's on record with the County Sheriff's Department. They did respond wi thin a period of about five minutes, apprehended the man they Vlere looking for. It vlas a different individual than what a neighbor of mine who is here tonight has experienced. She probably will tell you more about hers. I've witnessed drug dealings on Nacy Road, myself. MR. CARVIN-During the period of time that there was a restaurant there? MR. HANLEY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. HANLEY-I witnessed many things happening, some of them I just don't care to bring up this evening. I'm of a moral character, and I just don't care to elaborate on it. MR. CARVIN-Well. I'm just trying to get a feel for the neighborhood, and again, I live on the other side of Town. as it were, but would you feel that this area is prone to that sort of activity, or just because there's a lot of woods and down by the lake? MR. TURNER-No. restaurant. I think it depends on the operator of the MR. HANLEY-I will agree with that statement. I think that the operator of the restaurant will carry the policy, and if you operated the establishment I would probably say that you would probably run it in a similar manner that I vlou1d, or that Hr. Bergeron would, but today's market. it's very difficult in that industry, or that field. MR. TURNER-Yes. but, again, I've got to go back to what you said. When that was there, and Mr. Bergeron ran it, and Mr. Orsini ran it, it was a nice restaurant, and they kept it nice, and they kept it toned down, and the people that lived there at the time were just summer residents many. NOvl, just like Mr. Hanley says, it's year round occupancy, all along that lake. It's no more summer residences. MR. HANLEY-We're not talking the forties. fifties, and sixties here. and the seventies, that's gone. I mean. when this establishment went down hill is when Mr. Jones took the business over, and it has gone down hill, and it has a very bad reputation throughout the community. I'm not talking about individuals that - 31 - are probably t'tlenty to thirty. that patronized that particular establishment. The place was closed down twice during those ten years for serving minors. MR. TURNER-Minors. right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well. I'm just trying to. because the pictures that you've shown us indicate a lot of trash. I'm assuming of a more recent nature. after the restaurants. MR. HANLEY-Those pictures were taken last week. That. as you see it right now. is there. If we ~iere all to adjourn and go over there tonight. I'd be happy to get my spotlights out so you could see it. MR. CARVIN-Well. my only point being is that that sort of activity sort of crops up in more isolated areas. and I'm just trying to get a feel if that's the case. and was that. did you have that sort of activity. I guess. when the restaurant. ~ihen Mr. Bergeron Has operating it. for example? MR. HANLEY-Well. when Mr. Bergeron operated it. the parking lot re all y Hasn't there when he ope rated it. and Hhen the re Has weddings and parties and so forth. where people used to park up Nacy Road and they parked up in back of my place. and there was no problem. because there were people like us. people that were out for the evening. enjoying a nice dinner. and maybe some entertainment. and they would leave peacefully and go home. That is not what we've experienced in the last decade. It's been tough. tough 1 i ving the re. and I OHn a second home in the Adi rondacks that's right on the water. that is a gorgeous spot. that I spend most of my time at. but the only reason that I have hung on to this property is that it's convenient to the Northway. and my corporate headquarters are in Selkirk. Ne\'l York. So I run up and down the Northway. MR. CARVIN-Again. thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Who Hishes to be heard next? VIRGINIA ETU MRS. ETU-My name is Virginia Etu. and I live on Nacy Road. two houses from the LaCabana. Lot 14. I'm a year round resident. I've lived there for approximately seven years. My only recollection of the previous decades are from my parents who also attended a number of parties there. and spoke very well of the restaurant. However. illY experience. since living on the lake is considerably different. my house also sits up from the lake. It's also my life savings investment. Over the past 18 months. since the bar's closed. I've made a conscious effort to invest in my property. which we did. We put an addition on. and we felt that the quality of our life was f inall y settled. Approximate 1 y 12 months afte r we move d in. in 1986. ~.¡e experienced a break-in in our home. and it ~ias in the middle of the night. it Has about two o'clock in the morning. and I'd fallen asleep on the couch. and I heard a noise on our back porch. and I looked out. and there was somebody on the back porch. I got my husband up. Fortunate 1 y. he was home at the time. he normally works shift work. and he called 911. and actually 911 wasn't in service. but we called the Sheriff's. and they came and they apprehended the person. The reason they did so was because he Has too intoxicated to even stand up. We pressed charges on it. Approximately four months later. we were broken into a second time. and this time it Has someone. again. who admittedly had been at the LaCabana. extremely intoxicated. He broke into the back of our truck that was in the driveway. because it was locked. broke in through the back'window. managed to do about $1200 damage to the interior of the truck. and when he found out he couldn't get it started, he broke into our house to try and get the keys. When we heard him. we again called the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's - 32 - arrived. as did three State Police Officers. The only reason they found him was. again. he was too intoxicated to leave our premises. Our driveway tends to slope up a little bit from Nacy Road. and as they were backing out of the driveway. they saw him lying under the truck. So we had two break-ins in the course of a very short time. a very frightening situation. for us. living up there. having really been newcomers to the neighborhood. As I said. we decided since the 18 months that the bar is closed. with hopes that it remain closed. to make an investment in our property. which we've done. I find that. I have a couple of objections to this variance being granted. This is a large bar. This is a very large facility. over 3.ØØØ square feet. It's not the type of neighborhood place where someone would go to have dinner. Generally. they want to make it into banquet facilities. that was fine back in the years before ,,,e had that. We now have Hiland Park. the K of C. the Elks Club. We have a number of places in the area in which banquet can be held. Certainly that doesn't pose a hardship to anyone in the Queensbury community trying to locate a place to have a banquet. Second of all. our house is approximately 1.8 miles from the Docksider. which is a very nice bar/restaurant. probably seats an occupancy. I would guess maybe 6Ø people. Down the road we have the Glenmore. which many don't know. but serve an excellent meal. It seats approximately a couple dozen people. There's a new restaurant opening approximately three hundred yards from my house. again. approximately seating a couple dozen people. and now lØØ yards from my house. we're looking to open a place that could seat 14Ø to 15Ø people. I think we've reached the saturation level. on this side of the lake. for the number of places that people need to go and have something to eat. That's four places in less than two miles. The other thing I'd like to add is that I think what happened with the LaCabana. and again. no discredits to Mr. Bergeron or the Orsini's, but in any instance. when someone makes an investment into a business. and it fails to give the pay back that they're looking for. the normal thing is to change the course of action from what you originally intended it to be. Fine. if it's a single family restaurant where you have nice families coming. serve good meals. open four. closed at midnight. No problem. When those sales start going down. we're going to be faced with the same problem that we did with the LaCabana. Mainly. we looked for a variance. or some type of easement to get abandoned there. Now we're talking about loud music Friday and Saturday nights. Now summer comes. We're talking about Thursday. Friday. and Saturday nights. That's Vlhat poses the majority of the problems in our neighborhood. We have a noise problem. I sit up from the lake. as does the LaCabana. If I look out my \V'indow. I can see the LaCabana. Those are our bedroom windows. They face to the east. directly east of the LaCabana. We had people that were pulling into our driveway. and backing up. the light shown into our bedrooms. We had cars parked so that we couldn't enter and exit our driveway. We'd have to go to the bar, try to find the owners of those vehicles. Every Saturday morning. every Sunday morning. Vle'd be out there picking up beer bottles. debris. condoms. papers. all sorts of things. I actually put a garbage can at the end of our driveway at one point. and it got plowed over. It got flattened in about a week. I agree \'lith Hr. Hanley's comments about the deterioration across the road. I have a three year old son. My eyes are on him 23 hours and ten minutes a day. but there's going to be that time. as he gets to be four or five. that he's going to wander over. that sand pit is a dangerous area for anyone. There's an open well over there. There are many things over there that can endanger people in the communi ty. in our communi ty. We now have people. neighbors. \'lho are year round. \-Tho's families come. There are many small children in that neighborhood. many of them. under the age of five. I am strongly opposed to this. I hope that you give it serious consideration. I think that asking for a variance on this. with the prospect of selling it. is like me coming to you and asking you for a variance because I may have more children and I need more bedrooms in my house. It's a suppose. We don't know. We have no guarantees with the neighborhood that things aren't going to revert back to \'lhat - 33 - they were. It was a living hell for the first few years that we lived in our neighborhood. I don't want to have to go through two more burglaries. I don't want to have to be calling the Warren County Sheriff's. I don't want to listen to foul language at one a. m. I don't want to hear a rock band. I don't want to hear altercations in parking lots. I don't want people on my property. down on my docks. I don't vlant the batteries stolen out of my boat. It's not a community that can stand the saturation of an additional bar. I seriously hope that you give that strong consideration. I think there are other possibilities for that area. I agree with Mr. Hanley. A residence would be fine there. I particularly have made an offer to buy part of the land across the road. not to develop. just to have. I was refused that. I think that there are people that would be willing to buy that piece of land, based on being a residential area. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions? Okay. Next? ANNE DOWD MRS. DOWD-My name is Anne Dowd. We live right next to the parking lot and the restaurant, and \ie bought the property when Mr. Bergeron owned it. Right afterwards, it was sold to Mr. Jones, and then all the terror broke loose. I mean, I'd invite any of you to come up and sit in my bathroom at three o'clock in the morning and have the floor shake from the music. They tie the dog out to the lamppost, left him there all night long howling. I would not walk down my driveway for fear of what I would meet. They have blocked our driveway. I personally went over and they said, you knO\'l, you're ignored for quite a while, took over a half hour before they ever got somebody to move the car so that we could get into our house. One Saturday morning we woke up, and we had a car in our driveway. Mrs. Etu helped my husband and I, and we pushed the car across the street to the other parking lot, and left a note that if it was ever left there again, it would be towed away. We've come home a couple of other nights, and we'd have horses tied. We have the lower garage, right next to where their parking area is. Cars always park in there. The noise, and the type of clientele, since Mr. Bergeron sold it really has frightened me. We can't open a window in the summer with the loud music that was there. I mean, their windows are open. There's no air conditioning. So their windows are left open all night, and as Mrs. Etu said, they fight in the parking lot. You hear all sorts of things. I have grandchildren from age two to seventeen, and I'm afraid to have them walk down the driveway when they were there. I mean. I grew up here. I remember going there to a restaurant. It was fine. but when they sold it, it wasn't a family restaurant. by any manner or means, believe me. MR. TURNER-Okay. opposition? Thank you. Who wishes to be heard next, in DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny, resident of the Town of Queensbury. I guess I'm neither for or against the proposal, but I guess I'd like to bring some points up. I guess I don't know if the application is all complete. MR. TURNER-It's not. MR. KENNY-I don't know if a ruling can be done on it tonight, one way or the other. MR. TURNER-No. MR. KENNY-I guess, one thing I'd like to know, if I came in and asked for a variance to put a building up on a residential lot. do I have to meet the Code of that zone? - 34 - "- HR. TURNER-Yes. HR. KENNY-So, therefore, I think there's a lot more variances being asked for tonight than probably are being talked about, setbacks from a commercial into a residential neighborhood. MR. MARTIN-They were preexisting, Dave. MR. TURNER-Preexisting. HR. KENNY-It's not preexisting now. No. It's preexisting, that's over with. MR. TURNER-No, no. MR. HARTIN-It's the structure. You're mixing apples and oranges. The structure has grandfathered rights as a structure, as it sits on the lot, whether it's commercial, residential, or what. MR. KENNY-Right, and once it goes down for a commercial use again, which he doesn't have that right anymore, I don't believe. MR. TURNER-Yes, he does. He has that right. MR. KENNY-He needs a variance, though. MR. TURNER-No. MR. KENNY-Then why is he here? MR. TURNER-Not for setback, just the use change. HR. KENNY-For use. Okay. The other thing being the parking. To me, he was given a variance back in 1976, it was approved Hi th conditions. I don't know if a variance is needed for that today. One, you're talking about a third of an acre lot. I know I would like to see the lot increased to meet the parking. If he owns a lot across the street, I would like to see the lot big enough for that business. HR. TURNER-Adequate enough to encompass the parking. HR. KENNY-Right. I wouldn't want to be giving him another variance, because then that puts the hardship on that lot. HR. TURNER-Yes. HR. KENNY-It's a separate lot. So, I mean, these are things that have to be considered. I think for the public to sit here and think about it without a complete application, and know the total scope of the project, is pretty difficult. I mean, the laHs have changed since the place was built. I mean, is there a bar? How many parking places are required? That's up to the applicant to come in here, before he comes in for the variance, and come in and get that information. I mean, I don't, no one kno\>1s. You're talking about a little more than a third of an acre here, for a 3,ØØØ foot. That's a restaurant, that doesn't go anywhere in this, never mind on commercial property, so to sit here and really discuss this, I think until the Board has a full application, it's an exercise in futility. I would strongly make the recommendation, if it does go through, that the parking, the lot be increased. He owns the land across the street, as a citizen, I would like to see that lot increased to adequately come as close to the zone that you're building this in as possible. You have that right to do that now. The other thing is, I would concur with the last person that spoke. The applicant is somehow saying the best, the restaurant business, and that's why it failed. Is that really the best use for that property? That's a judgement call. It's possible that it failed because there's too many restaurants in the area, and therefore the use has to be more towards the bar, or more - 35 - ----- '--, towards this or more towards that, and not really what we'd like. The trouble is, everything is location, location, location. I wouldn't want to open a restaurant, if I had four restaurants wi thin half a mile. So I think that may not be the best use. especially, if it has to be upgraded, the property, you're not only talking one lot, you're talking two lots. The lot across the street is part of that lot. MR. LA PANN-Do you live in that vicinity? MR. KENNY-I know the vicinity very well. My business is about two miles down the road. I'm not against the application, but I think the Board, now, at this point, at this point, when somebody comes for a variance, give and take, I think minimum relief would improve the situation there. If this business it's going to survive, it's going to need parking for twenty years down the road. I wouldn't want to own a business, with a restaurant on it, unless I owned where the parking lot was. I mean, it makes it more effective for business, and that's one of the things that can possibly make it a better business. if it's possible to do. for the future. You don't want to something that's going to be there for three years and fall again, because of that reason. and if the property has, two acres across the street, where they came in and said. we want to put a house on there. but we've got a problem because there's a parking lot on one section of it. who's going to, there's a hardship. You've created, or the owner's have created a hardship on that lot for the parking. Why not make that parking part of the business lot? That's all, thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition. the first time? Okay, Mr. Hanley. MR. HANLEY-The only last remark I have for the panel is that particul ar parking area i tse If is approximate 1 y two acre s. You probably could park a lot of cars on it, and again, I'd go back to the 1976 panel that we met before, the buffering zones. things like that. Those are very important, if it is changed back, very important, and the last thing I would say is that you are only hearing from a small amount of people that you sent letters to in our immediate community. When this thing goes public. and it will, you're going to get a ton of people here. You're going to get a bigger room. That's all. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MR. LA PANN-I just want to say to the Board, certainly the Jack Bergeron, and the Bergeron's deplore the kind of activity that went on when the Jones' ovmed it. Sometimes you get locked in to something like that, and they have the title. and as long as they keep paying (lost word) it's very hard to do anything. If it's even called to your attention, there's no indication that any of these things were called to the attention of Jack or Christine. Anyway, we deplore that. It's not the kind of thing that Jack has ever had since he's been operating it. With the permission of the Board, Mr. Bergeron would like to speak. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. BERGERON-I was there for 21 years myself, and we never had any trouble from the neighbors or anybody. MR. TURNER-The only trouble you ever had there was parking. When you ran it, the only trouble you had there was parking. MR. BERGERON-Right. That's why I went to the Zoning Board and I told them, people wanted to put a parking lot there, because they were complaining because they were parking in the driveways and roadways. So I said to them, if you want me to have a parking lot, why don't you people buy the land. just what I paid for it, because that's the only thing I can use it for. Plus, also I was robbed - 36 - three time s the years I ran it. I'm certainly sure it Hasn't illY customers that did it. How could they blame everything on the LaCabana restaurant. I mean. I grant you. one or two of them might have come from there. but they can't blame all the trouble on everything. Today there's trouble in every to\m. every place there's trouble with dope and everything. and I can't see why they should. and as far as dumping. the neighbors are dumping in there. I've watched them. and I've told them not to do it. but they still do it. They never had permission to dump there. MR. LA PANN-Was this recently? MR. BERGERON-Well. over the past couple of years or so. and you can see where cars have driven in there and gotten stuck. I've never given anybody permission to do this. MR. TURNER-Fine. but lets go back to Square One. You know right now. 20 years ago or 25. 30 years ago. when you ran'it. it was a different time. It was a different age. It's totally different today. Just like I said before. the people that lived up there. lived up there years ago. were only summer residents. Now they live there full time. Mrs Orsini lived down at the bottom of the hill in that white house there that used to be there. She lived there when they ran the restaurant. or when you took it over. right after. I remember that. all right. but she only moved up there in the winter time. or I mean. in the summer time. but the character of the neighborhood has dramatically changed. You know it and I know it. There's no argument. MR. BERGERON-I can't see where it's changed my restaurant. because that's my living. I worked all my life. MR. TURNER-I know. I know you have. MR. BERGERON-I want another good restaurant to go in there. and I'm going to see that it is a good restaurant that goes in there. I've got some $50.00Ø worth of equipment in that restaurant. if I wanted to sell it. you'd get peanuts for it because it's second hand. and I had a couple of people seeing it that wanted to make it into a home. and they said. you haven't got lake frontage. we don't want it. MR. TURNER-Have you tried to sell it for a home. other than just to one or two? Have you really advertised it as residential? MR. BERGERON-I've advertised it as a restaurant. but I've also talked to people if they might want to put a home. and everybody says the same thing. if it was on the lake. I'd buy it tomorrow. but because you haven't got it on the lake. I don't want it. MR. CARVIN-Is there a right-of-way to the lake? MR. BERGERON-Yes. There is a right-of-way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What would be the occupancy of the restaurant. currently? MR. BERGERON-About 175. MR. CARVIN-That's a max? MR. BERGERON-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-What's in the house adjacent to it. down by the water. dovm the steps? MR. BERGERON-That's. a man from New Jersey bought it from Mrs. Orsini. and he fixed it up. and then he rented it and went back to - 37 - New Jersey. MR. MENTER-So people rent the house and live there? MR. BERGERON-Right. MISS HAUSER-What type of right-of-way do you have? docking facilities, or just for swimming? Do you have MR. BERGERON-I have rights for a dock down there, if I wanted to put one in, but I never put one in, because I figured with the long steps coming up there to the right, it was kind of tiresome. MISS HAUSER-How large is the right-of-way, do you know? MR. BERGERON-Just for a dock, that's all. MR. TURNER-If the gentleman that's talking to you about purchasing the property, what type of a restaurant would you run in there? MR. BERGERON-A nice family restaurant. MR. TURNER-What would be the hours? MR. BERGERON-Well, today there's no late business anymore, unless you're running a pub or a bar or something. I used to open it nights, this fellow that I was talking to about it, he wanted to run it the same way. He didn't want to run it past twelve o'clock, because it isn't Horth it. DWI has killed lake business in restaurants. HR. TURNER-Yes. It's killed the bar business. MR. BERGERON-Right. The only reason I ever put a bar in my restaurant anyway is was as a convenience for people. I sold food and banquets and parties. The bar Has there, and people wanted to drink, it was available for them, but I didn't push it. I sold twice as much food as I did liquor, and that's the kind of a restaurant I want to make sure that people. MR. HARTIN-Has there been any request from the prospective buyers that this include a tavern? Is that an absolutely necessary component of the new establishment, or can it simply be a sit down restaurant with no alcoholic beverages? MR. BERGERON-No. Any restaurant today, unless it's a HcDonalds or a fast-food place, has to have a bar because there are a certain type of people that go out, they want a couple of cocktails before dinner or something like that. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but does there have to be a bar/tavern per se? I mean, can alcohol be served and not necessarily have a bar present? MR. TURNER-Not necessarily have a sit down bar? HR. BERGERON-Well, it probably could, but I don't think it would go, because Hhen you have Heddings and things, you've got to have bar space, for people to come up to the bar and have a drink. MR. MARTIN-Would there be any problem Hith a limitation of no live entertainment? MR. BERGERON-I don't think you could have a Hedding without having a band. HOH can you have a banquet room without having a band? It's just, technically, impossible. MR. TURNER-Anybody else have any questions of Mr. Bergeron? MRS. ETU-Virginia Etu. I have just a couple of quick comments. I understand Mr. Bergeron's predicament Hith the investment in the - 38 - "- restaurant equipment, but I can certainly guarantee you the investment in my home more than exceeds the investment in his restaurant equipment. He also stated that everybody felt that the people come from. in the intoxicated state were from the LaCabana. It is on record that both of the people that broke into my home did come from the LaCabana. I was there one time with my husband, after it first opened. I wanted to see what it \..¡as like. I'd never been there, and we were sitting at the bar. ourselves. having a drink, and a girl came up to the bar and said, hi. how are you doing. and the bartender said. great, I haven't seen you. what's going on? She said. it's my birthday. He said. great. let me buy you a drink. She said. all right. He said. what are you having, and she said. I'll have a shot of Wild Turkey. He says. great, how old are you. and she said. I'm 20, and I looked at my husband, and it went right over everybody's head that was serving alcohol. We've gone. tonight. from a family restaurant, to a banquet hall where we need to have live music, to 175 possible people there, to having to have to have a bar. I mean. we don't have to have it repeat itself. This is what happened 10 years ago. this past decade. Haven't we learned anything from it? I don't want to go through two more break-ins. A family restaurant does not have to have live music. It does not have to have a bar for people to go and sit at. and it doesn't have to seat 175 people. The inside of that place is deplorable. The last time I was in there. 18 months ago, I went home. two doors to go to the bathroom. That needs so much work inside of that place. Again. I ask you, we're not going to try and grant this variance. I hope. on the fact that we have prospecti ve buye rs. We can all sit he re and make our wi sh 1 ist based on what we want our lives to be a year from now. Please. this has gone. just tonight. from a family restaurant back to what it was. I ask you to please listen to the comments. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else. further comment? MR. KENNY-I guess I would like plan on selling both lots with the restaurant, if he sells ownership of the lot across the pieces? to know if Mr. Bergeron. does he the restaurant? If somebody buys the restaurant. will they keep street, or is he going to sell both MR. BERGERON-If the people want all the property, they'll get it. If they want part of it. they can get it, but I promise you, that place has been cleaned up. I went in there with a crew. and they cleaned it all up. and I'm not ashamed of it at all. I'll show it to anybody. MR. KENNY-I guess that really doesn't answer my question. I do believe if the parking lot is part of the business. it should be \ sold with the business. I would not want to see. and I don't think the Tot¡m would want to see, one person o~m the parking lot and another person own the restaurant. If the business is sold. it should be sold with the required parking. MR. TURNER-Right. It's one space for everyone hundred square feet, or four seats, whichever is greater. MR. KENNY-Right. If the Board chooses. that would be illY recommendation. I don't think you can buy a piece of property without a parking lot. and then in five years, I'm going to charge you rent for parking, and have a war between landlords. The parking lot should be part of the business. A person should be required to buy it. I can't sell my business. and say, well, you can buy the building. but I'll keep the parking lot. MR. BERGERON-Well. I think they'd want the parking lot. anybody that bought the Believe me. restaurant, MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard, last time? MRS. DOWD-I just had a couple of questions. There's no guarantee - 39 - that any restaurant would ever close at midnight, is there? And there's no noise ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. So the windows are always opened, and somehow or other, from midnight on, the decibels of the music go up, up, up, up, up. I mean, it can be sold as a restaurant and used as a bar with live music. MR. TURNER-Restaurant use. MRS. DOWD-And what is the legal closing time for a bar, three a.m.? MR. TURNER-Four, I think. MRS. DOWD-Three or four. MR. TURNER-I don't know. I don't patronize them. MRS. DOWD-You don't live near one. MR. TURNER-Anyone else, the last time? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the applicant, in reference to use of the restaurant? MR. CARVIN-Not of the applicant. MR. TURNER-All right. I'd open it up for a Board discussion then. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess my feeling on it is that I don't see how we can control what type of restaurant goes in there, even though Mr. Bergeron would like to see a family type restaurant. I think that the public, and just common sense, would tell you that if a restaurant is not making it that it goes to wilder and \.¡ilder extremes. MR. MARTIN-Well, you can say no tavern. MR. CARVIN-The only way I think we could really stipulate this is if it was on a situation like the Bavarian Palace, where it's only open for banquets or at specific times, and I think that if we did that, that we would limit the market tremendously. MR. MARTIN-I agree with that. You can limit hours of operation. MR. CARVIN-We can limit it, but who's going to police it, is the question? I mean, like this lady indicated, sure we could say that it has to be closed at midnight, but are you going to go out there at one o'clock and tell them to close up is the question. So I think that, short of making it a Bavarian Palace. in other words, where it's only for weddings or banquets or specific functions. and not an ongoing restaurant. I think we'd have a real policing{~ I think that question has to be ans\.¡ered by the gentleman that's going to buy the restaurant. MR. CARVIN-Well. I'd like to see. we've had it in the past where the owners or buyers would come to the Board. MR. TURNER-Yes. I would like to see that. MR. CARVIN-I mean, and that way that gives the public an opportunity to examine the potential buyer. So, I mean, that is one option we could look at. The other thing I'd like him to explore is that, I really don't know if an effort has been made, or at least a strenuous effort has been made. to market that as a residential. You've indicated that you've primarily marketed it as a restaurant. I'm just wondering if you were to market it as a residential. with a right-of-way, and dock space on the lake, I've got to believe that that would have some appeal some place. - 40 - <- -- HR. BERGERON-I'm not a rich man. You could turn it from a restaurant into a camp or something, if you have money, but I don't have money. MR. CARVIN-Well, we've seen some strange folks come through here with their plans, so, I don't know. HR. TURNER-The burden of proof, Jack, is upon you as an applicant, because this is a use variance. You have to prove to the Board that you can't realize a reasonable return on the property as zoned, all right. Now you've got to prove to us that you can't sell it as a residence. You haven't done that. HR. BERGERON-I've tried. I've tried to sell it to anybody who'd buy it. It's not that I don't want to sell it. It's not that I don't want to have a nice restaurant there, because I do, and I just can't see why there should be any, I promised the people that I will definitely screen anybody I sell to. HR. TURNER-Right. You can promi se us to a certain degree, but after that, then it's up to the guy that buys it from you. So I think what the Board is saying, if you have a serious client, let the client come with you to the Board, and lets hear what he's got to say. He's the guy that's going to run it. He's the guy that's going to own it. Lets hear from him. HR. HARTIN-The only thing is, is variances go with the property, not the owner, and that's why I was trying to drive at some physical limitations that can be put on this structure. I mean, if you remove the tavern completely, that's a matter of the building permit, and nobody can just slip a tavern in there overnight. HR. TURNER-No. MR. MARTIN-That's a pretty easy thing to enforce. There's no bar, permanently. I mean, it's a physical change to the structure. MR. TURNER-What's the property on the market for? MR. BERGERON-Two hundred and fifty thousand. equipment, all the equipment. That includes the MR. MARTIN-Is it listed as a restaurant? MR. BERGERON-It's listed as a restaurant. MR. TURNER-So, basically, you've listed it as a restaurant for $250,000 with so much acreage. Is that correct? HR. BERGERON-The whole land, the whole equipment, and I think it's a fair price. MR. TURNER-Yes, all the land. Anyone else? HR. HENTER-I think we should probably look at \V'hat some of the property's physical limitations may be, kick around some of the potentials that there are. I think that Mr. Bergeron does deserve consideration here. I don't think that the, there are major problems with the property as a restaurant. There's no doubt about it. MR. TURNER-I don't think the problems are so much major with the property as they are with the guy that runs it and the clientele that go there. That's the problem with the property. HISS HAUSER-Are there any other physical limitations that you can think of? MR. MARTIN-Well, I have some concerns over the existing conditions there. Certainly the garbage dumping is a problem. My only - 41 - -- question is, I don't know how much standing, anymore, resolution has when these commitments were made to clean up. The variance has lapsed. So I don't know if vie standing on that anymore. that '76 the site have any MR. TURNER-I think that variance lapses with it, that condition lapses \vith it. MR. MARTIN-I'm not sure. I don't know. I'd like to ask Paul about that. I mean, if vie have standing, I'll certainly make every attempt to hold the applicant to what was originally approved, but I don't know that we do have that standing, since it's lapsed. MR. TURNER-I wouldn't think you would. MR. MARTIN-I wouldn't think so either, but I'll look into it. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Certainly the garbage, we can get that removed. I mean, the garbage bags that are there. There's garbage and dumping laws in the Town, but I'd like to see some remediation of the whole site, the sand banks cleaned up, topsoiled and seeded and hayed and erosion control measures put in. From that standpoint this process, especially if you make this approval conditioned on site plan approval, we can get those things built into the site plan, and they could be an improvement, but that's a risk you run. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-What I was trying to drive at, I mean, hours of operation are pretty easy to honor. I mean, they advertise certain hours that they're open. You restrict them to nine or ten o'clock at night, and that's it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Because you've got to remember, this is in the context of a residential neighborhood. MR. KARPELES-But if they can't make it the way it is, they'll never make it without a bar. MISS HAUSER-Most restaurants are emptied out by ten or eleven. MR. CARVIN-Well, it depends on what kind of restaurant, too. MR. MARTIN-I mean, it's a very good comment that this is no longer a part-time or a seasonal residential area. This is full-time residential area now, year round. MR. TURNER-That's the difference. MR. KARPELES-I agree. I think the character of the neighborhood has changed. That's very unfortunate. MR. CARVIN-And I think by allowing, if we re-open this variance, or allow this variance, I think we would change the character of that neighborhood dramatically. MR. TURNER-Absolutely. MR. CARVIN-So I think we've got plenty of public opposition here, just on that issue alone. MR. TURNER-Well, I think, lets address the concerns that we want to hear from, and lets take the application and table it and let them respond to those concerns. MR. HANLEY-Can you table the application as it is, sir? - 42 - MR. TURNER-Yes. sir. MR. HANLEY-Without the other parcel of property on the application? MR. TURNER-Well. what I really want to develop is a concerns that the Board is concerned with and the concerned with, maybe identifying with that lot also. list of public's MR. MARTIN-From a Zoning Administrator's standpoint, they're going to need, if they just use this one lot. they're going to need to seek relief from the parking schedule. too. MR. LA PANN-We don't have any objection to amending this so that the parking lot is included. We have talked about this before. and I thought I mentioned that in my presentation. MR. TURNER-Yes. You probably did. MR. MARTIN-The other thing. I'll be right up front about this. I have some question in my mind as to the wherewithal to bring this whole area, if you were to allow it, and it does go to site plan. there's going to be some expenditures here, to reclaim that sand pi t area, create parking to TOvln standards of today, on- si te drainage, stormwater runoff concerns. There's a lot of money to be spent here. MR. TURNER-You're talking about a lot of money. MR. MARTIN-Drywells, all that, stormwater management plan. MR. HANLEY-Would that have to be put into the minutes that we're talking about right now? MR. MARTIN-Well, it's not a matter of a variance, and that's why I would recommend that site plan review be a matter of a variance, then it is a matter of site plan review, but what I'm saying is, you're talking about something that's a marginal, what appears to be a marginal operation, and there's a lot of expenditures to be made here on site improvements, that I don't know, with a marginal operation, if they can bear that. I'd love to see it, but if it could go all the way through that process, that would be the means by which some conditions could be put on this application, to have the whole area improved, but I don't know that it can support it financially. MR. CARVIN-I still think I'd like to see the proposed buyers, I mean, have them be part of the application. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think, Jack, you indicated to me that you had a proposed buyer, and the purchase hinged on the variance? MR. BERGERON-That's right. MR. TURNER-How about bringing that buyer to the Board, to a Board meeting? MR. BERGERON-If he wants to come, I can't make him come, but if he 'vants to come. MR. TURNER-I think if he wants to buy it, I think he should come. MR. HANLEY-Will not the buyer be responsible for the site? MR. TURNER-Yes, but I think there's some questions that are going to be asked of him, of the concerns that were brought up tonight, and if he's going to buy it, and he's going to operate, and this Board says, yes, we'll give you the use variance for the restaurant, I think we're going to want to know where he's going with it, and so do you, and I think you have a right to know that. - 43 - MR. KENNY-I guess, could Jim give us some of the concerns the Planning Board may have, so we could get an idea of what the course may be, to improve the property? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KENNY-The other thing, I don't know if it's been brought up at all, is the septic systems, meeting current health codes. MR. MARTIN-The septic system, if the system is functioning and not failing, then what's there is fine. MR. BERGERON-It's working great. MR. MARTIN-Yes. As long as that's functioning, then that's not a concern. I have seen times where the Planning Board, or sometimes this Board, will have a dye test done, as insurance. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-But there's a lot of expenditures here, especially now if you bring in the parking lot site, like I say. There's a lot of reclamation that needs to be done there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HANLEY-I can tell you that septic system probably is working real good, because when Mr. Jones had it, you could smell it. MR. BERGERON-It's working good now. MISS HAUSER-Could we ask the Bergerons to market the property as residential, while it's being tabled? MR. TURNER-Yes. came up. Can we residential, and I can't sell it as a I think they've got to. Another question just ask the Bergerons to market the property as think you have to do that, and show us that you residential use, also. MR. BERGERON-Like I said, during the time I was trying to sell it as a restaurant, (lost word) look it over for residential, and they all said the same thing, if it was on the lake, I'd take it tomorrow. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that was to the buyers of the restaurant. That wasn't to the buyers. MR. BERGERON-No, no. wanted it for a camp. himself. That was the buyers for the people that One doctor wanted to turn it into a home for MISS HAUSER-Do you have a realtor's sign on the property? MR. TURNER-It's only listed commercially, isn't it? MR. BERGERON-Right. MR. TURNER-Well, why don't you try advertising it residential. MR. BERGERON-I will. MR. KENNY-If he says the septic system is working and adequate, I think if the Board wanted to put in the variance that the septic system has to meet the current standards of a restaurant that size, they'd have to meet that standard. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. You can make that a condition. - 44 - - MR. MARTIN-Yes, there's grease traps and things like that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets list the concerns that we want. and I think we need a motion to table for further information. MR. CARVIN-Well. obviously. we've got to have proof of advertising as residential. MR. TURNER-All right. what else? Parking. MR. LA PANN-Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy. putting this in writing. I'd be happy to see a draft. to discuss it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-One hundred and seventy-five people. so you~re talking 40, 45 parking spots anyway. MR. TURNER-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-Plus, if there's a bar in there. it's one space per every linear foot of bar, and then there's one space for every two employees. MR. MARTIN-And then the more restrictive of one space for every hundred square feet. or one for every four seats, whatever is the more restrictive of those two. MR. TURNER-Those are the questions the applicant's going to have to take care of. because he's going to have to identify the occupancy of the building. what's in there. MR. MARTIN-I think, Ted. your first point is the one that's first and foremost, the reasonable return as zoned. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That's the first, most difficult hurdle. MR. CARVIN-I think I'd like to have the proposed owner. or the proposed buyer, I should say, make a commitment. if they understand all of this. I guess I'd like a definition of what family restaurant is. MR. MARTIN-Bob. could we have a commitment from Mr. Bergeron, at least tonight. to get those garbage bags removed. if they're on his property? MR. BERGERON-Sure. there. I have nothing to hide. I didn't put them MR. MARTIN-No dumping signs I would suggest might help. MRS. ETU-In the past two weeks, \rlhen I've come home from work, there've been cars with their lights off sitting in the parking lot. By the time I get in my house and get my lights on, they see my lights on and they (lost word). MR. MARTIN-The other thing that you might, I don't know. I can't make it out from the pictures here. Is the nature of that garbage. is it lawn waste. or does it appear to be household waste. or? MRS. ETU-One looks like stairs. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I know. but I see. I mean the bags. because usually what. maybe we can sift through the garbage and get an address or something. MR. HANLEY-I couldn't tell you what they are. - 45 - MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. HANLEY-But I can tell you that the stuff that's underneath that parking lot, (lost word) that stuff there is dumped, is that asbestos roofing and asbestos siding. MR. MARTIN-And you said DEC's been to the site? MR. HANLEY-They've been to the site and referred it back to the Town of Queensbury, Les Carpenter was there. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is that what that one picture is of there, it looks like some sort of cement structure? MR. HANLEY-I don't know what that is. That appears to be an open well that goes down several feet. It has a square opening in it. I certainly would recommend for the safety of the children in the neighborhood, my kids are all grown and gone, but I certainly would recommend anybody that has small children, I would highly recommend that somebody put something over that opening. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. MR. CARVIN-I just don't think there's anything in there, that they can prove to me that this won't cause a detriment to the community. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's certainly going to be a detriment to the neighborhood. There's no doubt about it. MR. CARVIN-I just can't think of anything, short of them making it a Bavarian Palace that is only there open, and I just don't think he's got an owner or buyer that's going to do that. MR. TURNER-No, not with that kind of money. MR. CARVIN-And I think it's an exercise, we're just chasing our tail on this. I mean, that's my feeling. MR. KARPELES-I agree. MR. TURNER-Okay. I think the statement, again, going back to the statement he made, 30, 40 years ago, it was totally different then. The whole thing has changed, completely, and what was there, the last guy that had it spoiled it for everybody. He spoiled it for Jack. He spoiled it for anybody in the future to come along and grab that up. Is this new owner going to want to spend that kind of money to update that property. He's got to spend a lot of money, a lot of money. MR. LA PANN-We'd have to know what would be required. MR. TURNER-Well, You've got about to seed the area That's all going you've got to take care of the parking lot. 45 spots there you're going to need. You've got across the road. You've got to put in drywells. to be mandated by the Planning Board. MR. MENTER-To know that, you need to know what the business is. MR. TURNER-Going to generate, yes. MR. CARVIN-So, I just don't know the value of putting everybody through these loops and hoops. feeling. tabling it and I mean, that's ~ MR. THOMAS-Well, we have to give the applicant all the chances that we can give him to prove his case. MISS HAUSER-I don't think it's our position to say that somebody is not willing to spend money to do that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We can't say that. Maybe they are. - 46 - ~~. '--- MR. CARVIN-But that doesn't preclude them from coming back at a later point with this. too. I mean. we're just looking at this one motion. MR. TURNER-Yes. right. but the other side of the coin. too. is we grant them some time. and he advertises it as residential. it might very well go residential and then he's out of it. and nobody has to worry about a restaurant. MR. MARTIN-Maybe you want to remove your sixty days on this particular application. MR. TURNER-I think we're going to have to, because this isn't going to sell in 60 days. That's the way 1. feel. I think we have to give them a fair chance. MR. CARVIN-I think we can make this as a footnote. but I don't think. in other words. I think the big thing is if it can be moved as a residential. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And if they've got a legitimate buyer. we can tell you what, I mean. you've heard the concerns here. I don't think it has to be part of the motion. MR. TURNER-No. It doesn't have to be part of the motion. You're going to have to go for erosion control measures. You're going to have to have parking for about 45 cars. or more. proposed buyer make a commitment as to style of the restaurant. hours of operation. what days of the week. You're going to have to seed the area across the road for erosion control. whether the owner even wants to spend the money to update the property. The first thing you've got to do is try and sell it residential. It's zoned for residential. You've got to try to sell it residential. You've got to prove to us you can realize a reasonable return as zoned. which is residential. It's tough allover. There's nobody buying anything. Did they plead their taxes. when they just re-assessed. at the Town level? Did you grieve your taxes on the restaurant this last time. this summer? MR. BERGERON-Yes. MR. LA PANN-He objected. but he didn't file a claim in small claims court. MR. TURNER-What do they have it assessed for. do you know? MR. LA PANN-It's almost $200.000. MR. TURNER-They've got it assessed for $200.000. MR. MARTIN-If it appraises it $300 or $400.000; chances are it's not viable as a residence. but if it appraises it $150. $180 or something like that. MR. TURNER-Then it's viable. MR. BERGERON-For years. I've been paying taxes on a restaurant. a commercial business. and I can't explain how they could change it without notifying me. MR. TURNER-The zone change. you mean? MR. BERGERON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Jack. I told you out there in the foyer that in '88 they changed the zoning, and in the paper. first of all. they had neighborhood meetings in the firehouses. Bay Ridge they had one. That's your district. You didn't go? It was in the paper. It was - 47 - on the radio. You said you weren't notified. We had hearings at the Queensbury School, on the change of the Zoning Ordinance in 1988, and the room was full of people. It was advertised in the paper like this. It was on the radio for almost three days, I think. before we even had them. MR. BERGERON-That was when Jones owned it. MR. TURNER-All right. That might have been. but I mean. at that point in time, was he on a downhill slide? MR. BERGERON-He always paid me every month. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? You agree that there's no. you feel that there's no point in chasing the monkey's tail? MR. MENTER-I think we should give them the opportunity to go residential, and see what they can do. MR. TURNER-He's not going to go any place with it if you table the application. and let him bring it back. MR. MARTIN-The only thing I would say. Ted, process you do have a chance, although situation better. is that, slight, through this to make the MR. TURNER-With this particular application? MR. MARTIN-Yes, with this process of going through the variance and the site plan review and all that. you get stormwater done there. You get the area re-planted. MR. TURNER-But the new proposed buyer might not want to buy it for that. MR. MARTIN-I said slight. MR. TURNER-So that puts it back to Square One. So Square One says that you've got to prove to us you can't sell it as residentially zoned. MR. MARTIN-Well. I think you're bound by that. variance criteria. That's your use MR. MENTER-How about, instead of the 60 day, which is the current tabling limitation, what would be the, what would you consider a reasonable amount of time for residential? MISS HAUSER-If somebody's going to want to operate a restaurant, they're going to want to be open by the summer. MR. TURNER-Yes. variance. right? You said this guy wants it if he gets the MRS. BERGERON-Right. MR. TURNER-Fine, you're going to sell it, but there's so many unanswered questions from this guy. that's what bothers me. MR. HANLEY-How can this guy say he's going to buy it if he doesn't even know about the new site development plans that have got to be implemented. MR. TURNER-That's what I'm saying. He might not want to do it. MR. LA PANN-Whatever he said was based on what he knew at the time. MR. TURNER-Okay. but then I think you better approach him and tell him what's going to have to happen if he buys it. - 48 - '- -- MR. BERGERON-I'd certainly have to tell him. I wouldn't sell it to somebody without telling the truth. MR. TURNER-Do you want to withdraw your application? MR. BERGERON-No. I need a variance. MR. TURNER-You're not going to get it tonight. right now. It's not going to fly. We information. I'll tell you that don't have enough MR. MARTIN-Ted, why don't you give him a year tabling. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Table it one year. MR. LA PANN-If it were adjourned for a month. we'd be able to explore some of these things. I can't advise Jack to withdraw the application. MR. TURNER-How about tabling it for one year, and if you have any action on it sooner than that, then come back to us. We'll grant you an extension of one year. table it for one year. If you want to move the property before that. you come back to this Board with a use variance. with that use variance. and with the new owner. MISS HAUSER-And with some of the answers to those questions. MR. TURNER-And the answers. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I would suggest to you. Bob. is I think you have a reasonable case before the Assessor's to say that this is not a restaurant. It's a residential. it's residential zoning. MR. TURNER-You can't grieve it until this next year. MR. BERGERON-It's been a restaurant for fifty years. and now two people can say it's not a restaurant anymore? MR. TURNER-It's not. happened. You lost your rights to it. That's what MR. LA PANN-We would agree to a month. I'd just like to be able to discuss this with Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron. MR. TURNER-We'll give you a year. with us. Whatever you want to do. the better. If you want a month. that's fine A year's the limit. The sooner MR. LA PANN-Could I have a copy of your proposed findings? MR. TURNER-There's not going to be any findings. because we're just going to table it. We're just going to tell you what we want. and that's it. MR. MARTIN-You can have the minutes from this meeting. though. MR. TURNER-We'll have the minutes. You can have the minutes. MR. LA PANN-Sure. MR. KENNY-Will this be re-advertised. if comes back before this Board in a month? MR. TURNER-If he comes back in a month. no. because there's the 60 day. If he changes it. it will have to be re-advertised, yes. If he comes in with the parking. and the whole ball of wax. it'll be a new application. and it will be re-advertised. We have a sixty day tabling resolution. You can have that. - 49 - .. HR. MARTIN-What we've done in the past, when there's a lot of neighborhood interest, is, it works well in the Planning Office, if we can have a principal contact for the neighbors. We'll give you a call when this is going to be on. and if you would be kind enough to spread the word to the other interested people here. It's always worked well in the past, that when the applicant sits down directly and formally with the neighbors and if they want to talk things out. that's up to them. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-It would appear that if you want him to try marketing this as a residential lot. that he have the option of maintaining a division. He doesn't necessarily, might not want to come along and buy. MR. TURNER-Yes. the one across the road. yes. The lots across the road. yes. MR. CARVIN-I'm of the impression that he wants to move on the restaurant. that he's really not interested in doing a residence. So I think. even if this goes down. he can always still market it at a later point as a residence. but I think if he wants to move on this motion, I think we could probably give him sixty days. and we can. I think you've got most of the criteria there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HANLEY-What can the man do in sixty days. try to sell it? MR. CARVIN-Well. I think that. and I may be reading a lot into that, but I think they want to get back to the owners and see if they've got a viable owner. If they know where the ground rules are. MR. TURNER-I think that's their first option. right there. MR. CARVIN-I think it gives them an opportunity to talk to the neighbors. Maybe introduce the potential buyer to the neighbors and have you folks sit down and thrash it out, outside of this arena. MR. HANLEY-Your first option was, or the option of your Zoning Administrator was that you table it for a year. Any time within that year this man can come back to you people. MR. CARVIN-I think that's what we're saying is that it won't be a year. It'll only be 60 days. MR. TURNER-He doesn't want to do it for a year. MR. CARVIN-See. the year was to advertise it as a residential. MR. MARTIN-Well. then, fine. do it for a month or sixty days, and if nothing moves. MR. TURNER-Sixty days is not a true barometer for selling a piece of property as residential. MR. CARVIN-I think what they're saying to us. anyway. is that they don't want to necessari 1 y se 11 it as a re s idential. They have a potential buyer for the restaurant. Well. if the potential buyer for the restaurant wants to move ahead, then fine, you folks can get altogether in the next sixty days. thrash out all the rough spots. and then if it comes back and it still gets turned down. then he still can advertise it as a residential. MR. HANLEY-If it's going to be sold as a restaurant. should not a site plan be done on that property so that we could have some idea of what the cost would be to approve that property? - 50 - ~-"--';:=" ~_.u__,.~ ~. MR. CARVIN-We have some concerns that we want addressed. and these are the concerns. MR. MARTIN-I would strongly recommend that as a condition of the variance. MR. CARVIN-And when we make our motion. that would be part of the motion. In other words. we've got some concerns. and our concerns are pretty much the concerns that you folks are saying. MISS HAUSER-I'd like to see that his property be advertised as residential. starting now. because he might come back in sixty days. and then he may come back the next month. and so on and so forth. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-But I don't think 60 days is really representative of whether he can sell it or not. MISS HAUSER-No. but it should start now. days from now. It shouldn't start 60 MR. CARVIN-I agree. but on the other hand. I think if he wants to move it on the restaurant. then the sixty days is plenty of time. If the restaurant goes down at this time. then he still can always advertise it for a residential. or if he finds another buyer. then he can re-submit another application. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets do it. All right. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 106-1993 JOHN C. & CHRISTINE BERGERON~ Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: For 60 days. and these are the concerns that the Board has with the property. and the concerns that we want the owner and the potential owner. maybe. to address. and they're going to be. the physical considerations of the property. erosion control measures. reasonable return as zoned. advertised and listed as a residential piece of property to be sold along with the commercial. address the parking issues associated with the restaurant. a documented plan of parking for the proposed restaurant. the proposed buyer make a commitment as to the style of the restaurant. hours of operation. and the days of the week. and whether the proposed owner would be willing to spend the money to update the property. That the septic system be addressed. as to what is there at present. whether it can support the proposed restaurant. and also that the new owner address a buffer zone. Duly adopted this 22nd day of December. 1993. by the following vote: MR. TURNER-We'll just indicate to him that he's going to have to addre s s the septic system. and if the septic system fai Is. he's going to have to put in a new one. updated septic. MR. MARTIN-See. I honestly don't know what the Code is as it relates to commercial buildings with public access. That may be part of the Bui lding Code anyhow. I don't know. I'll ask Dave about that. MR. TURNER-It has to meet the Code. but not unless it fails. We can require him to check the system. and if the system is adequate. we can't make him put in a new one. MR. KENNY-You can make him come up to Code. MR. TURNER-If it's adequate and it's already. if it's near Code. we can't make him bring it. put a new one in. no. - 51 - -------- ---- .- - MR. MARTIN-I think you're right, Ted. MR. TURNER-It's not unhealthy until it fails, Dave. MR. KENNY-No one's going to know when it fails, in a year and a hal f. MR. TURNER-If that goes in a year in a half, if that system fails, and that system fails to be adequate for the restaurant as used, then he's got to put in a brand new one. He might very well, as Mr. Hanley says, have to put it across the road, and he's got to know that up front. Anyone else have anything I missed, any other thoughts? MR. MARTIN-I'll check into that old variance, Ted, and see if we have any. MR. CARVIN-As long as the potential owner understands the site plan review, I mean, he's still willing to make the commitment to buy the property, I mean, we've got no problem. You can't list everything under site plan review. MR. TURNER-You can't list everything. MR. MARTIN-I'll also check into the previous variance and see if that has any standing still. I don't think it will, but I'll check anyhow. MR. HANLEY-The current laws in the Town of Queensbury are 150 feet for one septic tank, from the water's edge? MR. TURNER-Two hundred feet. I'm pretty sure. MR. HANLEY-Where that septic tank is located, that's not 200 feet from the water. MR. MARTIN-I think it's 100 feet, it's 200 feet on Lake George. MR. TURNER-It's 200 feet on Lake George, I know that. It might be only 100 feet on Glen Lake. MR. MARTIN-Because that's a special Lake George Park Commission requirement. I'm fairly certain it's 100 feet in every other area except Lake George. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MR. TURNER-Sixty days. you have sixty days. All right. We have one piece of business. We have a request from Ann and Irwin Johnson. on the Hanniford Road property. Area Variance No. 52-1993. They were supposed to be here. and their time limit is up, and they want to move it up to January. I don't have a problem with it. Grant them an extension. MR. CARVIN-This is that thing up in the woods there. right? MR. TURNER-Right. The real little lot. MOTION TO APPROVE EXTEHSION ON AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1993 IRWIN JOHNSON. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: ANN C. & for its Until January. Duly adopted this 22nd day of December. 1993. by the following - 52 - --- vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Menter ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MR. CARVIN-Ted. is Seeley still on the docket? MR. TURNER-No. They haven't brought back any information. Their time is up. They'll have to resubmit a new application. MR. CARVIN-I've got October 21st. but tabled for measurements. So. November. December. I mean, technically they're over the 60 days. but this is that garage up there. storage shed. MR. TURNER-The one that's right up by the road. yes. MISS HAUSER-What was the number on that? MR. CARVIN-I've got 91-1993. I've got Seeley. I've got Kubricky. MR. TURNER-No. He's gone. MR. CARVIN-That one's done? MR. TURNER-That's done. MR. CARVIN-It didn't get past SEQRA? MR. TURNER-No. it hasn't gotten past SEQRA. but now the Town introduced that resolution as to nonconforming lots. so he falls within that. That's gone. We're not going to hear it. MR. CARVIN-Doyle, back in August. MR. TURNER-No. That was a property line adjustment. up on Glen Lake. Jim, question on Doyle's at Glen Lake. Did he ever get back to you on the property line adjustment? MR. CARVIN-Well, there was a lot that wasn't spoke for. MR. TURNER-Three lots there that they wanted to adjust the property lines, remember? MR. MARTIN-They did that as a lot line adjustment. MR. TURNER-Lot line adjustment. Okay. So that's gone. MISS HAUSER-What number is that? MR. CARVIN-That is 75-1993. That is off the docket. 86-1993 is off the docket. Fred Smith. from April? Tabled 60 days. MR. TURNER-That's gone. That's the garage. MR. CARVIN-That's another garage. MR. MARTIN-Yes. that was settled. MR. TURNER-That was settled. So that's off. MR. CARVIN-Okay. so 18-1993 is off the docket. Batters Up sign. freestanding sign. That was tabled June of '93. MR. MARTIN-I think they just accepted the wall sign you gave them. - 53 - ----- ---.;-- "- --,0 That was it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-They have a project sign out there that's got to come down. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So if they put up another sign, it will be in violation, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARVIN-41-1993, Batters Up, that's off the docket. What did we find out about Seeley? MR. TURNER-Seeley's time is up, will be up, or is up. October the 11th. That's MS. CIPPERLY-Seeley had a 90 day tabling. MR. TURNER-He did? MS. CIPPERLY-And I wrote them and said that they either have to get something in by the 29th to be on January, or they'll be considered in violation. They are considering taking their structure down, rather than going through the variance. MR. CARVIN-Seeley is still alive. MR. TURNER-Did anybody bring their November minutes? Do you want to do them and get them done? Nothing else. Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 54 -