Loading...
1994-04-27 o F:~ G , N A L QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27TH, 1994 INDEX Area Variance No. 18-1994 David Kenny 1. Use Variance No. 106-1993 John C. & Christine Bergeron 5 . Use Variance No. 23-1994 Charles E. & Barbara D. Seeley 6. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRI L 27TH, 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN LINDA HAUSER, SECRETARY FRED CARVIN DAVID MENTER ANTHONY MARESCO MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT KARPELES CHRIS THOMAS PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1994 TYPE I I HC-IA DAVID KENNY OWNER: KENNY PROPERTIES, LTD. ROUTE 9, DAYS INN MOTEL & REST. PREVIOUS: MARKET GRILL REST. APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO CONSTRUCT A HANDICAPPED ACCESS RAMP, COMBINED WITH A PLANTER, FOR A PRE-EXISTING, NONCONFORMING RESTAURANT. SECTION 179-28 REQUIRES A SETBACK OF SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR DESIGNATED ROADS, APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SETBACK OF FIFTY (50) FEET, SO IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) 4/11/94 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 4/13/94 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-31 LOT SIZE: 3.39 ACRES SECTION 179-28 DAVID KENNY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-1994, David Kenny, Meeting Date: April 27, 1994 "APPLICANT: David Kenny PROJECT LOCATION: Route 9, Days Inn Motel and Restaurant PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant is seeking to construct a handicapped access ramp, combined with a planter, for a pre-existing, nonconforming restaurant. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-28 requires a setback of seventy-five (75) feet from the edge of the road right-of-way for designated roads. Applicant is proposing a setback of fifty (50) feet, so is seeking relief of twenty-five (25) feet. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant needs to comply with Federal American Disabilities Act which requires access to the main entrance of the building. Applicant also wishes to retain the plantings which were part of his original approval, but reposition the planter in between the two ramps. This would allow for more significant plantings, being further from the building. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There do not appear to be feasible alternatives, considering that the ramp should access the main entry. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL?: It is the minimum relief needed to accompl ish the pro j ect. EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY: I t does not appear that there would be any adverse impacts on the community. There may be a problem with parking and access, as described below. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: In 1987, when the building was originally constructed, the setback was fifty (50) feet. The applicant set the building back approximately sixty-five (65) feet at that time, to allow for the eventual construction of the ramp. The setback subsequently changed to seventy-five (75) feet. Based on this, the difficulty is not self- created, but a result of Zoning Ordinance changes. PARCEL HISTORY: The restaurant was constructed in 1987, under Site Plan No. 31-87. There have been no other variances. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The installation of this ramp wi 11 affect parking lot - 1 - configuration, and possibly the number of spaces available. The distance between the ramp and the parking lot curb is thirty (30) feet at the closest point. There is supposed to be a twenty (20) foot long parking space, plus a twenty (20) foot wide access aisle. The applicant could either modify the ramp, if possible within the ADA criteria, or revise the parking plan to provide the parking elsewhere. This only affects one or two spaces, but the twenty (20) foot aisle is needed for traffic movement." MISS HAUSER-On the 13th of April, 1994, this application for the Area Variance to renovate the existing building, the Warren County Planning Board recorrmended, "No County Impact". The Beautification Corrmittee recommended approval of the variance, and that was April 11th, 1994. MR. TURNER-All right. David. MR. KENNY-Good evening. David Kenny, resident of the Town of Queensbury. I'm the owner of the Days Inn and the Market Grill Restaurant. MR. TURNER-Okay. Were you able to modify your plan so to accommodate the parking and the aisle? MR. KENNY-Well, I have a full site plan here, and we've never had a problem parking on the property. The thing we had proposed to do was, directly opposite the handicapped ramp, where parking is now, there's only, the three spaces, handicapped spaces, there will be no parking by the road at all, other than handicapped, and then it wouldn't interfere with, you'd have the 20 feet between the parking. There's five spots there. So I'd be eliminating two, but on the site, there's 151 parking spaces. I can add, they're all 10 feet wide. I don't have a problem with parking. If I do, I can just make them nine feet wide and add another fifteen spaces. When this site plan was approved for this site, at that time, we could have 10 foot wide parking places. The criteria is now nine feet. So I could go over to one side and narrow them down to nine and pick up four spaces on the one side. MR. TURNER-So you don't have a problem? MR. KENNY-I don't have a problem with the parking. I'd like to keep my ten feet, because I think it's easier for people to go out of a ten foot spot, than to shrink it down to nine. MR. TURNER-It is. MR. KENNY-We do have a 151 spaces. I have the full site plan here, which I didn't, if you want to see it, can show it to you, if you're interested in the? MR. CARVIN-Yes, I'd like to take a look at it, if I could, Dave. MR. KENNY-Sure. This is the area that I'm talking about, right here, and the parking would only be here, eliminate the parking on the side, these two spaces. The sign is actually located right in here. We need the sign to give us a full 20 foot width off of here. These spaces, there's parking here along the front here, which (lost word) site plan. So if you actually look at the site, this was designed for, originally, there was going to be parking there. I leased the building out in 1988. Since then, the tenants are gone. They did not construct this, and they used this front for extra parking. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm just wondering, the door, the main entrance, is on the front side there, right? MR. KENNY-The door, I'll show you. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's right here. - 2 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. Has there been any problem? Because I know the handicapped parking. MR. KENNY-The new building, this is what it will look like, and the door's going in here, the entrance way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Where's the doors now? MR. KENNY-The door is right in the corner. MR . CAR V I N - Yes . All rig h t . 1st her e ado 0 r b a c k by w her e the handicapped parking is right now? MR. KENNY-There's a door back in here. MR. CARVIN-There ~ a door? MR. KENNY-There's aside door, which is, what happened is, when I redesigned the restaurant just now, I brought the plans down to an engineer in New York City, a person who owns restaurants, and he brought up that the building is totally out of compliance with the ADA because you cannot have a new restaurant, and the access has got to be in the main entrance. MR. TURNER-The main entrance. MR. KENNY-I mean, people get away with it because, with the new building, the Town is taking a chance in letting people do it. MR. CARVIN-Well, the only reason I'm questioning is I didn't know if we could move those handicapped parking to the front, because it seems like it's, and around. MR. KENNY-The handicapped I would have right here. MR. CARVIN-You would have it there. Yes. MR. KENNY-That's all I'm talking about. Only handicapped here, because one of the other things I would like to do is eliminate parking by the road totally, just about. Handicapped doesn't get used that much, so the site line of cars coming in out of the parking lot will improve, because there generally won't be cars there. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. these this one. The only the spaces there was a problem were MR. KENNY-Were these two, right, because these three in here, what I'll do is make them handicaps, and so separate the handicapped from the rest of the parking, and they'll be right where the ramp is, and at the same time, (lost word), which will, again, let cars pull in and out without cars along the roadside. MR. MARESCO-So those two handicapped that are on the side there won't be there then, right? MR. KENNY-These two. MR. MARESCO-Right behind the building? MR. KENNY-Over here? No. These would be gone, moved up here. Actually, there are two up here now. MR. MENTER-Aren't the handicaps, now, on the south side of the building, with the strip south of the, down there? MR. KENNY-There's some parking, handicapped. Okay. There's eight handicapped parking spots on the site, because don't forget, this parking lot is, so, there's handicapped parking places here in front of the office, so the handicapped can come in and walk into - 3 - the office, handicapped parking places here. There's a couple of handicapped parking places in the back. By most of the main entrances of the hotel, we try to have at least one handicapped parking space. The requirement is eight. Five to the motel, and three for the restaurant, back when the site plan was approved in 1987. So there will be (lost word) the three in front. Like I say, the site calls for 111 units. There's only 108. So there's 115 more parking spaces, and generally the people in the motel are the ones that use the restaurant. So you don't need another room. So parking has never been a problem. MR. CARVIN-Essentially, using two parking spots shouldn't have a major effect. MR. KENNY-No, like I say, but I could add four more along here, by making these nine foot wide, or any of these I could add. I mean, so you could essentially wind up with, for every ten parking spaces, one more. I could go up to 165 parking spaces, which is just overkill. So, to show you, this is basically what the building will look like when it's finished. The main entrance will be here. There will be a stairway coming up here, and this is that ramp we're talking about. It goes through, and then it comes up, and in the middle of it is a planter, dividing in half, and this here will be a bell tower, in the center of the restaurant. There will be stairs going up to the second floor, but this is the section in contention with the setback. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? MR. KENNY-I also have, if you care to see it, a certified survey of the existing site, just to show you that I'm not just, the site plan that was approved. MR. TURNER-Don't need it. It's not necessary. You came prepared. Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-One of the reasons that I even brought this up, it's normally a site plan review issue for the Planning Board, but this doesn't require site plan review. MR. TURNER-No. MS. CIPPERLY-So it would be a good time to take care of the parking. MR. TURNER-Yes. The ramp s the minimum width, too. That's the minimum width you can have between the handrails, three feet. MR. KENNY-Is it three feet? MR. TURNER-Three feet is the minimum you can have it, between the handrails. MR. KENNY-Between the handrails, three feet. Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. Then you've got to have a five foot turning radius on the platform at the top. MR. KENNY-Right, and on the side. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KENNY-Because the other thing is most of the ramps, this is a big ramp. It makes the pitch, correct, rather than some of the ramps you see. MR. TURNER-It has to be one on twelve. MR. KENNY-One on twelve, right, and this meets all those Codes. We designed this to try to meet the Code, and also make it - 4 - aesthetically pleasing, the handicapped. restaurants where the handicapped is building, but it really should be. You don't see too many right in front of the MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KENNY-The other thing is, if you go by there now, are the planters right against the building, and the trees. We have big trees that have a hard time growing. Now, the shrubs will be four feet off the building. So there will be a ramp on one side, a ramp on the other side, and it will be in the middle, and they'll spread out. It'll be a lot nicer, the shrubs. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1994 DAVID KENNY, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Linda Hauser: The relief sought is from Section 179-28, which requires a 75 foot front setback from a designated highway. The applicant is proposing a 50 foot setback. He's seeking relief of 25 feet. The crux of the matter is that the applicant needs to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires access to the main entrance of the building. He has to build a conforming ramp, under the ADA Act, which is a two tier ramp. The difficulty is not self- created, because in 1987, when the building was constructed, the setback was 50 feet. Zoning in 1988 changed that to 75 feet. The applicant has adequately addressed the issue of the parking, which he has explained to the Board, and can provide the adequate parking that's necessary. There's no effect on the neighborhood or the community, and this is the minimum relief needed to accomplish his proposed project. Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Menter ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas OLD BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 106-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A JOHN C. & CHR I ST I NE BERGERON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NACY ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REACTIVATE A PRE-EXISTING 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) 4/11/94 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/8/93 TAX MAP NO. 44-1-12 / 44-1-5.1 LOT SIZE: 200 FT. X 85 FT. SECTION 179-16D MR. TURNER-The next item on the agenda has asked to be tabled by the applicant, and we'll read the letter that affects that application. Okay. We have a letter requesting a tabling of the Bergeron application, and we'll read it into the record. MISS HAUSER-Okay. This is directed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, - 5 - Attention: Jim Martin and Sue Cipperly, "Dear Jim and Sue: Due to circumstances beyond the control of this office, the applicant will not be in a position to go forward this evening. We do apologize for the short notice but understand that your Agenda does contain new business for determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals. We respectfully request that the Application be put over to a May, 1994 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. At that time, we expect to be in a position to produce the Purchaser who will participate in the Hearing for the Use Variance. We are unable to produce the Pur chas er th i s eveni ng thus neces s i ta t i ng the r eques t for th is further Adjournment. Thank you for your consideration in this regard. Very truly yours, KENNEALLY &. TARANTINO Dennis J. Tarantino" 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: Tabled at the request of the Attorney, and it will be heard in May. Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Menter, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 23-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-IA CHARLES E. &. BARBARA D. SEELEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 49 GLENWOOD AVENUE THE APPLICANT OPERATES A PRE-EXISTING, NONCONFORMING MACHINE SHOP AND A NONCONFORMING WELDING SHOP ON A PARCEL DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL UNDER CURRENT ZONING. APPLICANT I S SEEKING A USE VARIANCE TO CONTINUE OPERATING THE WELDING SHOP IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) 4/11/94 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 2/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-37 LOT SIZE: 0.65 ACRES SECTION 179- 79D ELAN CHERNEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Mr. Cherney, does this Use intention to proceed with the expansion a Iso, 0 f the ex i s tin g ma chi n e s hop 0 n property? Variance, is it your under the Use Variance the other side of the MR. CHERNEY-No. MR. TURNER-No. right? Just that one building that's behind the house, MR. CHERNEY-That's right. We just want to come into compliance. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 23-1994, Charles E. &. Barbara D. Seeley, Meeting Date: April 27, 1994 "APPLICANT: Charles E. and Barbara D. Seeley PROJECT LOCATION: 49 Glenwood Avenue SUMMARY OF PROJECT: The applicants operate a pre-existing, nonconforming machine shop and are seeking approval for a welding shop on the same parcel designated residential under current zoning. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Welding shop is not an allowed use under Section 179-20, Single Family Residential. Applicant is seeking to expand the existing, nonconforming use to include the welding shop in an existing, adjacent building. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? The applicant does - 6 - not believe so. The welding shop is a necessary part of the machine shop business. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHooD?~ This parcel has a unique history, in that it was a split zoned parcel for a period of time, then became totally residential, leaving the machine shop portion as a nonconforming use. I t is not the only parcel on Glenwood Avenue with a use other than Residential, since there is a residence next door with an appraisal office in it, a bus garage further down, and an art studio. The area which is now Hovey Pond Park has been the site of industrial uses throughout its history, a brickyard, sawmill, and ice company, among them. This parcel does have the distinction of being on the edge of the Highway Commercial and Plaza Commercial zones that front on Quaker Road. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? There are varying levels of neighborhood concern, par t1 y due tot h e fee I i n g t hat his ma y bet h e fir s t s t e pin changing the nature of the neighborhood by expanding the commercial or light industrial uses further down the street over time. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? This appear to be the only way to address the problem of the need for both buildings in order to conduct the business. PARCEL HISTORY: Additional note regarding Seeley Use Variance: February 15, 1994. At a meeting with Paul Dusek, Jim Martin, Sue Cipperly, and Leon Steves, on this date, official zoning maps and supporting material were reviewed regarding the See I ey pr oper ty on GI enwood Avenue. I twas ascer tai ned tha t a triangular portion on the northeast corner of the Seeley property, where a machine shop is currently located, was zoned M-2 by resolution of the Town Board, July 11, 1968. The remainder of the parcel was zoned residential. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The applicants have stated that prior to purchasing the property they were informed by the Town that there was a greater portion of it in the Light Industrial zone, so proceeded with their plans. This would be a factor in whether this hardship was self-created. This Use Variance application is a separate issue from the previous application, Variance No. 2-1994, which sought to expand the building housing the machine shop." MISS HAUSER-On April 13th, 1994, the Warren County Planning Board recormnended to approve" t he Use Var iance to con t i nue opera t i ng their welding/machine shop business in the existing building." On April 11th, 1994, the Beautification Committee also approved this variance. They "suggested that for screening purposes, the applicant plant a hedge, perhaps a row of barberry shrubs along the property line that is adjacent to the former Northern Homes property. Mrs. Seeley stated that there used to be a hedge but the Northern Homes property owners removed it. The Commi ttee then suggested that the Seeley's work with the new property owners (of the former Sawhorse property) to see if an arrangement could be made." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Cherney. MR. CHERNEY-We're back here again, this time just merely to try and make legal what has been existing for a good number of years, and which we've found, by sitting down with Mr. Martin, and Ms. Cipperly, and Leon Steves, that the line, in fact, that was shown to my clients, at the time they purchased the property, by Mr. Liapes, is not, in fact, what appears to be the correct zoning line. So that the one of the two buildings which the building has been operated all these years is, in fact, on the other side of the line. So, it is in fact in what appears to be a residential area. We've previously been here, several months ago, seeking to expand. That application has been withdrawn, and we're just trying to, as stated, bring the other part of the business, that is the business that's right behind the building, into compliance, I'm sorry, right behind the house, into compliance. - 7 - MR. TURNER-A question. When this building that was attached to the hous e, wh i ch Mr. See I ey s ta t ed was attached to the hous e, and removed, and moved it back, is that correct? MR. CHERNEY-Before they purchased it. MR. TURNER-Okay, but you kind of indicated that YOU did it, the last time you were here, in January. CHARLES SEELEY MR. SEELEY-No. said that building was attached to the house. MR. TURNER-Yes, know you said that. MR. CHERNEY-They didn't own the building. It had been part of the house, prior to them purchasing it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Then my other question is, if you're doing so well the r e , are you go i n g to s till ma i n t a i nth r e e s h i f t s, two shifts, or maybe three, because that was a question that was asked the last time, and Mr. Seeley said, there's two shifts there now, and there could be three. MR. CHERNEY-There's been two shifts, and I think a third shift was anticipated. MR. TURNER-So the second shift works from when to when? MR. SEELEY-It depends if there's 10 or 12 hour shifts. MR. TURNER-Okay. So when do you terminate, at night? MR. SEELEY-Three o'clock in the morning. MR. TURNER-Three o'clock in the morning, and what work does that encompass? MR. SEELEY-Machines, strictly machine work. MR. TURNER-In the other building, in the barn? MR. SEELEY-Right. MR. TURNER-Because when you came here in 1987, over the same piece of property, you indicated to the Board that time that what you started there was kind of like a hobby, fixing cars. Then you went from that on. MR. SEELEY-I did most everything. I fixed cars, too. my own cars. I still fix MR. TURNER-No, no. like body work. I don't mean that respect. I mean, kind 0 f MR. SEELEY-I did body work, too. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. SEELEY-Primarily welding. I do a little bit of everything. I've welded all my life. MR. CARVIN-Do you anticipate coming back for the expansion later on? MR. CHERNEY-Not at this time. We're just trying to make this come into compliance. I discussed that with them, and they said their feelings now were that they just want to comply with the application. MR. CARVIN-For the expansion. - 8 - MR. CHERNEY-For the expansion, right. operating the building that exists. (Lost word) employees now, MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me ask you another ques t ion, then. I f you bought the property, and it was a split zone, all right, you bought the house as residential first. Is that correct? MR. SEELEY-We were under the understanding that the split zone went through the middle of our livingroom. MR. CHERNEY-The way I under stood it, the line would have gone through part of the house, but. MR. TURNER-But there's no maps to indicate that. a map to indicate that. Do you have one? I've never seen MS. CIPPERLY-I don't have that map with me. We did scale it off one day. It did go through, like, the back corner of the house. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but I want to know where the line is. MR. CHERNEY-Right. Well, Sue's seen it, and Jim Martin. I thought we had it here once, didn't we? The last time I made one out. MR. TURNER-I think the only map that ~ seen is the line that was in contention in the back, that goes through this corner of the building like this. That's the M-2 which you were talking about, when the Town rezoned that for CR Bard. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you have your information here from the last time they were before the Board? Because the maps are in there. MR. TURNER-But the bone of contention, the last time, was where the line went, in the back here, and it showed it going through that corner. MS. CIPPERLY-This is the machine shop. This is the welding shop, and the line, Leon said the way it was shown on that map, it was incorrect. It went right through here somewhere. So, that's Leon's rendition of the incorrect line. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but I've got, lets see. MR. CHERNEY-Does he have that map, the one that Liapes? MS. CIPPERLY-Leon sketched it in on top of the '67 zoning map. MR. TURNER-That's the one I've got, right there. Does that show it going through? MR. CARVIN-No. It doesn't show, because, I think you have to blow it up, and what they did is, if memory serves correct, they took into consideration, see, I think it was the railroad bed, and somebody had just drawn a line here. In other words, this was the railroad, and it had to run parallel. MR. TURNER-This is the one he's talking about, right here. MS. CARVIN-This line here was a handwritten line, if memory serves correct, on the original map. MS. CIPPERLY-That copy is taken from the 1967 zoning maps. I have the original of that right here, and that's exactly as it is on the zoning map. What happened with the, Liapes, at the time, took a tax map and he plotted this line onto a tax map incorrectly, and this map here is Leon Steves', showing approximately where Liapes incorrectly put that line. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and then it was determined that the railroad bed was here, and it was 500 feet, right off the center line. - 9 - MS. CIPPERLY-But it wasn't a line parallel to the. MR. CARVIN-No, this wasn't. Th i s is. This isn't the parallel line here. MISS HAUSER-What's this line supposed to be right here? you just pointed to that line, and this arrow says. Because MR. TURNER-That's the line that she's talking about, that George Liapes put on the map. MISS HAUSER-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-What happened on this, in fact, I blew these up today. I was hoping this issue wouldn't come up, because your Zoning Administrator made a determination that they had one nonconforming use. MR. CARVIN-I'm not even positive why we are bringing it up, because I think it does come back to the crux of, there is one building that is definitely beyond any shadow of a doubt in a residential area. MS. CIPPERLY-The point you re discussing right now is whether they were incorrectly informed. MR. MENTER -Ri gh t, if ther e 's any ev i dence to that, wh i ch was the question. MS. CIPPERLY-This is where Leon drew that line, as far as that incorrect map. That's approximately where he put it, but you can see that the intent here on the '67 zoning map was to bring this over and meet the zoning line at the time that went around Hovey Pond, and when Leon blew that up to the same scale as the tax map, i t ma t c h e d the t a x ma p , and eve r y 0 the r z 0 new her e the r e 's a definite measurement from, that are parallel, there's an indication of a distance. So, we spent most of an afternoon on this, going through all the original maps in the archives, and the description in the 1967 Zoning Ordinance just refers to the map. MR . CAR V I N - It' s pre t t Y s P e c i f i c , I tho ugh t, at lea s ton the way this line is, in that it has to run 500 feet off the railroad tracks. MS. CIPPERLY-There wasn't any 500 feet in there. That's just, people have asked Leon to scale that off on this one to two thousand scale map, and he's told them it looks like about 500 feet from the railroad track, but that doesn't mean that it, he said they don't ask me where the zoning line is. They ask me where it is in relation to the railroad track. MR. CHERNEY-I think it's the language you were talking about in here, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Right, it's the language. MR . CH E RN E Y - F i v e h u n d red fee tis not i nth ere. Its a y s a li n e parallel with the railroad tracks, in the resolution. BOB STEWART MR. STEWART-Mr. Chairman, I wonder, as these various maps and documents are being referred to, and the plot plan, copies could be put up on the board for the rest of us to share. MR. TURNER-Yes, could you? Mr. Cherney, do you have any maps or information you could put up there on the board? MR. CHERNEY-No. I think it's just the maps you have there. The only thing I brought up here was the resolution, and Mr. Carvin has - 10 - asked about the 500 feet. it up there. I think Sue has the copies. I can put MR. CARVIN-I've got a copy, here, of the original motion. MS. CIPPERLY-In fact, before I knew about this conflict, I used that incorrect map. I drew a line, really, diagonally, right through the Seeley property, from corner to corner, based on that map. That's the first one I found. MR. MENTER-Now, the original 1967 map that Mr. Seeley looked at, Sue, you're saying is the one that was modified with the second line? MS. CIPPERLY-What happened was the Zoning Administrator, or Building Inspector at the time, did what he thought was putting that zoning line onto the Tax Map, and he did it incorrectly. So, when he was asked, I guess, he gave them different information than he should have. MR. STEWART-Could we have a basis for that. The man's dead, and that concerns me that he's being quoted here tonight. Is there anything to substantiate (lost word)? MR. SEELEY-He had the map on his wall. MR. CARV IN-You can't go eas t on Bay Road and wes t on Gl enwood. They're diametrically opposed. How do they do that? MIS S HAU S ER - The rei s ale t t e r i nth e f i 1 e , a s w 0 r n a f f i d a v it, stating that George Liapes advise them that it lies within a residential zone, and this is from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, Rhodes, Attorneys at Law. MR. STEWART-Doesn't that affidavit say he advised the former owner the lot was entirely residential? MISS HAUSER-That's what it says. As to the zoning of my property, he advised me that it lay within the residential zone. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MENTER-When was that dated? MISS HAUSER-This letter? MR. TURNER-The affidavit? MR. MENTER-The affidavit. MISS HAUSER-February 11th, 1994. MS. CIPPERLY-The correct line should have been up here. MR. TURNER-Yes. It catches the corner of the machine shop, and the barn. MR. CARVIN-Where did this line come from, Sue? Is this the line? MS. CIPPERLY-That's the line drawn by Liapes, who was the Building Inspector at the time, to figure out where that zone was, and he just did it wrong. It doesn't make sense either going. MR. CARVIN-When was this one? MS. CIPPERLY-This was done in 1968, after the resolution, apparently, that's speculating. It's got the date of the resolution up here, with the boundaries of the M-2 zones. What this line really does is come parallel to the railroad tracks, and somewhere in here take a turn. It doesn't go straight up, - 11 - diagonally. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions, at this point? Do you have anything further to add, Mr. Cherney? MR. CHERNEY-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing, and then we'll go from there. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB STEWART MR. STEWART-I wonder if there is a site plan of the proposed development that I might get on the board and look at. Do you have that? MS. CIPPERLY-Of the expansion? MR. STEWART-Of whatever it is they plan on doing. MR. CARVIN-They're not planning on doing anything. MR. MENTER-They dropped that. compliance. Now they just want to come into MR. MARESCO-With whatever they have. MR. STEWART-Okay. Under the law, they have to produce a site plan showing every bui Iding, where it's located, setbacks, parking, whatever they want in connection with their application for a Use Variance. MR. CARVIN-This is this does show the wanting to bring building, with all probably as close as we're going to get, because existing building here, which is what they're into compliance. This was their proposed the setbacks. MR. STEWART-Let me use this. As you know, I believe you know, under the Town Law, as has been reenacted by the State Legislature about a year and a half ago, the grounds for Use Variances and Area Variances have been specifically delineated, and Use Variances are almost impossible to get. Well, meaning verbatim, in essence, you've got to show that the piece of property, if used legally could not produce any reasonable return on this. There is absolutely no grounds submitted in this application before this Board to indicate there is any such justification to justify a Use Variance in this site, but the next question is this. If by implication the argument is, what I seem to be hearing is this machine shop here is legal. That's a legal, existing building and can continue as a commercial operation because of some mythical line that we've had a hard time pinning down. I've heard the arguments about where that line is. It's my contention the line is completely north of this property and at no time was this property ever in any industrial or manufacturing zone, but I'm not going to debate that tonight, because it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument tonight, that that line went, as is being suggested, in an angle somewhere across the property, something like that, and that the building you see there now was north of the line, in what, at one time, was a manufacturing zone, and these buildings here were south of the line, in what was a residential zone. The resolution of the Town Board, in 1968, established that the property north of that line was M-l and M-2, manufacturing. That zoning continued on until 1982. In 1982, the Town of Queensbury completely redid its Zoning Ordinance from scratch, and at that point, and there's no dispute over this, at that point, every inch of the Seeley property was zoned Single Pamily Residential. Never mind what might have been before 1982, back in '68 or '74, '79. In 1982, this entire - 12 - property, 250 feet back from Quaker Road, everything south of that was zoned Single Family Residential. This building was never built until 1985, three years after that zoning. MR. SEELEY-1978. MR. STEWART-Well, it wasn't. They went in there in 1985, and they got a permit to put up this building. They never applied for any variance whatsoever. As I understand it, the suggestion was that they were going to use it to restore antique automobiles, which was a hobby of Mr. Seeley's, or whatever, which would have been a perfectly legitimate point, but this building was not built until 1985. By 1986, they began to use it, absolutely illegally, as a machine shop of some sort. By 1986 or 1987, they were getting letters from the enforcement officer of the Town of Queensbury saying stop it. This is illegal. This is all in your record. I submitted this two months ago. Stop doing what you're doing, and they have continued to this day. They have ignored those notices. They have ignored those warnings, and they keep on going. Whatever the zoning might have been before 1982, this was the new building. This building down here, that goes back to the 70's, but I think we all now can see that any of the property southerly of that line was always residential, whether it was in the 60's, the 70's, or the 80's. So this building has been illegal from the day it was put up in 1985, because by that time that portion of property was strictly Sin g 1 e F am i 1 y Res ide n t i aI, w hat eve r i t m i g h t h a v e bee n be for e . This building down here, which was built some time in the 70's as I understand it, or maybe even before that, but began to be used as an industrial purpose in the 70's or 80's, is clearly illegal because at all times the southern portion of the lot was Single Family Residential. So you don't have a situation where they can come in and say, well, gee, we're legal here, but we're not legal here, and we're half fish, we're half fowl, give us a break and make us legal. They are illegal from beginning to end. That is the first point I would make. The second point I would make is that their measurements are all wrong. Now, for example, they show this building at the northeast corner as being 10 feet back from Mr. Beaty's property on the east, on one corner, and 12 feet from the other 10 to 12 feet. Now this is a hand drawn sketch, no surveyor, no certification. You're just being asked to believe it. However, I have, and I show you, and I believe I submitted at the last meeting, a formal survey map done by Mr. Leon Steves, who's lines we're accepting here tonight, which shows that building is actually over on Mr. Beaty's property by two and a half feet. It certainly is not 16 feet off the line. MR. CARVIN-We have a copy of that I believe, don't we? Yes. This is the copy here. MR. STEWART-Do you see the point I'm making there? MR. CARVIN-Is this, lets see, Mary Beeman to Harwood and Nancy Beaty in 1988? MR. STEWART-That's right. Mr. Beaty bought that strip in behind to the east of the property we're talking about in, I think, 1988. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. STEWART-He also owns, and his home is, immediately south of it, which is here, but he also owns this piece of property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Were the Seeley's notified in 1988 that their building was on the Beaty property? MR. STEWART-Yes, they were. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and was any compensation, or any arrangements made in the resolution? - 13 - MR. STEWART-Nothing has ever been done with the situation. Now, my concern is, if that measurement is off 16 or 18 feet, then, of course, it gives me pause as to all of these other measurements, and how accurate they are, because they're all hand done, and without the benefit of the surveyor. The Ordinance in Queensbury, and actually the forms that you hand out, and I have one here, it says the applicant is supposed to put all sorts of information on this map, when he makes his application, showing precisely what he's up to, and one is, for example, there's supposed to be a parking layout drawn to scale. We see nothing here on parking. Where are these trucks going to go? Where are the vehicles of the employees going to go? Where are the vehicles of customers going to go? Where are the vehicles of the Seeley family going to go? Does it meet any ratios, any standards that you have, and, of course, your Ordinance has parking ratio. No indication whether there's any compl iance whatsoever wi th that. The next question that occurs to me is there's no statement as to how this property is going to be used other than, obviously it's going to be used as some sort of a commercial welding shop. Now, you're all familiar with the phrase in your Zoning Ordinance, "expansion of preexisting nonconforming uses". First of all, I think we're all in agreement here tonight, this is not a preexisting, nonconforming easement. It never was legal, not back in Day One. This has been i 11 e gal from the fir s t day i t was eve r us ed, but it' s be i n g expanded, not necessarily in size, although no dimensions are shown on any of these buildings, which is another violation of your (lost word), but as far as I know, the building is not being expanded in size, but how about the intensity of use? We were told at the last meeting involving this, that I was present, that they intended to run this 24 hours a day. They've never run this 24 hours a day before. That's an expansion of use. Expansion of use just isn't physical size. It's intensity, increase in sound level, increase in traffic. These are all expansions of the existing use. Nothing in the application even discusses that. These also relate to SEQRA, and I don't believe that there is any kind of a SEQRA form that's been filled out to go through that workshop and checklist as to traffic and parking and noise and air pollution and all of the things that we all know we have to prove something dramatic as a Use Variance, putting a heavy 24 hour a day industrial use right next to residences, and right across from the newest park the Town of Queensbury has just created. The economics of it. Under the Town Law, which your Ordinance refers to as being the test of grounds that must be proven to get either an Area or a Use Variance, the applicant is obligated to show, and not just say here in the meeting, it's got to be right in his form, so that the neighbors can scrutinize it, or I can scrutinize it, or you can scrutinize it, or whatever, exactly what is this financial staggering loss that he faces, so that if he does not have this Use Variance, this piece of property that he owns has relatively no val ue whatsoever if us ed as a lot. Ther e is, and I as s ume you probably have been by, a beautiful large substantial home on that property. It's a lovely, lovely house, on a nice street, adjacent to a park. MR. SEELEY-Yes, I'd like to say something. Who made that home that way? MR. STEWART-I assume you did. It's a good house in a residential zone. It has significant value I would think. There are buildings here. If someone wanted to buy that who was a young contractor starting out, and he wanted to park his trucks in out of sight, or keep some building materials in out of sight, and so on, I would think this would be a superb piece of property for some guy like that. He's not going to run a business and have warehouses outside, but he can certainly park his vehicles, store some of his equipment, machinery, and take care of it inside. This is an extremely, I would think, valuable piece of property. Where are the appraisers here tonight to say that this piece of property cannot be sold for top dollar? Where is any proof of any economic loss whatsoever, other than the suggestion, and I'm sure it's true, - 14 - that if he can continue to run an illegal commercial operation in a residential zone, he can make money on it. I'm sure he can, but that's not the test, or that's not the grounds for granting a Use Variance. It's very extreme grounds. He has to come forward, or they have to come forward, and show that this piece of property is incapable of producing any reasonable return if utilized on any of the us es that ar e allowed now under the Ord i nance. That's the rule, and I didn't make it up and you didn't make it up. The State of New York made it up. We're all bound by it. Absolutely no proof, no suggestion whatsoever that there are any grounds that exist on those points. So I guess, and I don't want to beat this to death. Number One, we're starting with a false premise that this piece up here is legal, and we're trying to make this piece legal to match it. This piece up here has been illegal from Day One. As I understand it, and we can get the building permits out. I'm sure this is all a matter of public record, no building permit was applied for nor was this building built until 1985, three years after the '82 change in the Zoning Ordinance, three years after this entire lot was zoned Residential, and, again, at that time, no application was made for any kind of a variance to have an industrial use there. It was simply to be a garage in connection with a private residence. Next thing, they are here tonight, again, to ask you for a Use Variance on the building to the south, the one that's labeled existing machine welding shop. They came before you in July 1988 and asked for exactly that relief. This Board turned them down unanimously, and they have continued to run it every day. They have not batted an eyelash. They just keep going and going and going, and they have no intention of stopping. Now, in the meantime, Mr. and Mrs. Beaty, and at the other meeting some of the neighbors have been here, are here with a beautiful home. On a warm summer night like tonight, with the windows open, or having some people in and a barbecue on the patio, and you've got a welding shop where, admittedly, in the summer time, they go outside and weld, because it's cooler, and they run now two shifts, 16 hours a day, and now they want to run 24 hours a day. How would anybody like to live next to that in a beautiful residential zone? And what does that do if you did a SEQRA Review, which the law says you have to do? Is that pollution, sound pollution, air pollution, noise pollution? I would think so, if I lived next to it. I would be very, very unhappy, and I just think there is not one single legal grounds that could conceivably allow this Board to grant a variance of this magnitude. I don't think it would be fair to the neighbors. I think essentially what you're doing is you're taking money right out of the pocket of Mr. and Mrs. Beaty, and you're putting it in the hands of Mr. Seeley, and I don't think that's fair. I think they should live by the rules, and we're not talking about a variance for a few feet, or some modest adjustment. We're talking about a major dramatic injury on that neighborhood that the neighbors have been protesting for years, that the enforcement officer of this Board has, in writing, ordered them to cease and desist, time after time. They have just ignored it. They went to court. The court ruled they were wrong. They have ignored the Supreme Court ruling. All of this is in the letter that I wrote this Board the last time. They just ignore everybody and they just keep right on going, and they're here tonight one more time, and on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Beaty, we object to it and respectfully request that you deny this Use Variance application. MR. TURNER-Do you have any corrunents, Mr. Cherney, as to Mr. Stewart's comments? MR. CHERNEY-Several. First of all, I find it fascinating as Mr. Beaty's complaining about this because he's been operating his real estate business out of his home, using other family members who don't reside there, in direct violation of the Ordinance. MR. STEWART-May I interrupt? If there is a violation by Mr. Beaty, we'll be glad to come here every night and tell you exactly what the background is, and justify it. That's not the issue here tonight. - 15 - MR. CHERNEY-No, it isn't, but he's the one that's complaining. He's running a nonconforming operation there, but the point here is that we're talking about a building that Mr. Beaty's attorney claims was built in 1985. That's not the case at all. If that were the case, we would certainly be presenting an application to have both buildings come into compliance. In fact, the machine shop was built in 1979. That's come out at every possible time, every hearing, every appearance. MR. TURNER-Which one? Which one are you calling the machine shop, the one on the northeast corner? MR. CHERNEY-The building that conforms in the, that's right. The one in the corner was built in '79, not '85. This is the first I've heard an all egation that the bui lding was bui 1 t in 1985. There is some reference to a, I guess, a piece that goes over Mr. Beaty's property on that particular building. I believe it's a roof overhang that mayor may not be over the line. I don't see what that has to do with anything to do with their application. If, in fact, the building that Mr. Stewart spoke about is in compliance, and perhaps a piece of it mayor may not be hanging over the line, that's something for them to take up in Civil Court, and not to bring before this Zoning Board here. As far as an allegation of increased work hours, he's bringing up something that was brought up during the prior application which had to do with expansion. At that time, the question was asked if there would be, as far as hiring other people, if there would be any increased hours. Mr. Steele said, at that time, they propose that they may possibly have a third shift. That's not here. This isn't an application for an expansion of the buildings that are existing on the property, and as Mr. Seeley said, there's no increased hours. All they want to do is keep running the business that's running there. MR. TURNER-Yes, but can I interrupt you, just a minute? The last time when I asked them that question, for the expansion, he said there was, I said, there's one shift now, I said, is there two? He said, there's two. It's right here in the minutes. All right. I said, is there a possibility there's going to be three? There could be, but there's two shifts running there now, with the building that you're asking for a Use Variance on, plus the machine shop. There's two shifts there. Right now. MR. CHERNEY-That's right. BARBARA SEELEY MRS. SEELEY-Just the corner shop. MR. CHERNEY-Right. MR. TURNER-No, no, no. Wait a minute. I've been by that place 199 million times. They're working there at eight, nine, ten o'clock at night. MRS. SEELEY-That's Charlie. MR. TURNER-In this shop. MRS. SEELEY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Right here, that you're asking for a Use Variance for, but you're still using it. MRS. SEELEY-Yes. MR. CHERNEY-Right, but there's a third shift that he employs. MR. TURNER-No, no, no, but there's two shifts. - 16 - MR. CHERNEY-Right, that's what I'm saying. MR. TURNER-All right, but lets get back to reality. The machine shop runs at night, two shifts. He works in here at night to do the work that's associated with the machine shop at night. Is that correct? MRS. SEELEY-Sometimes it's that. Sometimes it's his own stuff. MR. CHERNEY-Right, but what I'm saying is, there's no proposition as was alleged here to go to a third shift. That came up with the previous application which we withdrew, that is that the buildings were expanded. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying there is, but I'm just saying he said. MR. CHERNEY-No. I know you're not, but Mr. Stewart has said that when he was up here, and I don't want the Board to be misled into believing that if this is granted, that there's going to be a third shift. There's not going to be any more work being done then there is presently being done now. MR. TURNER-Yes, but once you get a Use Variance, you can do what you want to do with it. MR. CHERNEY-Well, then, as part of the Use Variance, we have no problem with agreeing to two shifts, but the fact of the matter is that the business would not expand. The business would be as it is, and has been. The case that he's plugged, there was a case that was brought up in Justice Court which was ultimately dismissed in the Queensbury Town Court regarding a violation. That also, that's not the point here either. The fact is the one building was built in '79, not '85, and I think that, obviously, makes a tremendous difference. If both buildings are nonconforming, then we obviously have a problem because these people would then be asking the Board to have a Use Variance on both these buildings. MR. TURNER-I know time flies, but it seems to me that I looked at that permit, and. MR. MENTER-I'll tell you, the permit's in front of me, and it looks like a '79 application, and an '82 permit. MR. TURNER-And it didn't get done until 1982. That's when the fee was paid. It wasn't built in 1979, because it wasn't there. I know that for a fact. The application was filled out in '79, but he never went forward with the permit until. MR. CARVIN-Do you know when the zoning was changed in '82? MR. TURNER-No, I don't, not off the top of my head. MR. CARVIN-Because this is dated, what, April of '82. MR. TURNER-I think it was June. MS. CIPPERLY-It expired, when? MR. TURNER-November of '82, the permit. MR. MENTER-It was issued in April. MR. CARVIN-However, it's for a two car garage. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's for a two car garage, not for a machine shop. That's been the crux of the whole matter, right there. MR. CARVIN-In fact, I think there was a section that was crossed out. - 17 - MR. TURNER-And I'll say to you in all fairness, Mr. Cherney, you've got to show us that you can't realize a reasonable return on the property if it's used as zoned, and that's Single Family Residential. You have no figures, no nothing. I want to see that. You've got to show us all that. We're not going to go any place with this until you show it to us. MR. MENTER-Our problem is that once we're bound to decide on a Use Variance, then that's the Number One criteria. If the evidence is shown for undue financial hardship, then we go through the other questions. MR. TURNER-In all fairness to everybody, this thing probably could be resolved if the business did go out of there and it reverted back to Single Family Residential, but, you're saying you can't find property. There's property out there. Other people have to go buy it. MR. CHERNEY-Not for what they want to do. They tried. They thought they had something in Queensbury, in the Industrial Park. MRS. SEELEY-We've been to various different places. MR. CHERNEY-The other problem is, you ve got a residence. There's two other buildings there, but family residential type. nice family they're not MR. TURNER-Yes, but what came first, the chicken or the egg? Their property, they bought it Single Family Residential. They bought a home there. Then they started a business. You can't do that. MR. CHERNEY-At the time they bought it, it's my understanding that, they bought it based on the line that showed that they could run a business there. MR. TURNER-I know, but if I was going to buy a piece of property and I knew that maybe I could utilize it for a business, I think I'd go further in-depth than they went to find out where that line was exactly, and find out what we could do with the property. MR. CHERNEY-The Building Inspector showed them the line. didn't, certainly the next time. They MRS. SEELEY-Everything we've done has been at the suggesting, or whatever, of Queensbury officials, or some attorney telling us to do this, or this, or this. MR. CHERNEY-Certainly, the next time they'll do more than just see a line drawn by the Building Inspector. MRS. SEELEY-That's why now I ask for everything in writing. MR. CHERNEY-Well, in any event, we would ask, under the circumstances, that we be allowed to have time to produce evidence of the inability to realize a reasonable return. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you this. sell it residential? Mrs. Seeley, have you tried to MRS. SEELEY-Yes. MR. TURNER-You have to try to sell it for the permitted use in the zone. MRS. SEELEY-And when we had an appraiser come in and look at it, and he pointed to next door and said, there's why you won't get your money out of it. MR. TURNER-Well, let me ask you. How much are you asking for it? - 18 - MRS. SEELEY-I'm not asking anything for it right now. It's not up for sale. MR. TURNER-All right, but how much were you asking for it? MRS. SEELEY-At one time, we asked $100,000 for it. for it has nothing to do with it. Look at the thousands of dollars we that we put into it. What we paid thousand and MR. CHERNEY-Perhaps it would be best if we request that this be tabled so we can supply more in-depth information in that regard. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that if it's going to be tabled that we're going to have to get a clarification, because I think, is it Mr. Stewart, is it, yes. I think he's brought up a couple of valid points. I mean, if they're both in violation, then I think we ought to find out. MRS. SEELEY-Shall I submit a formal letter to the Town, if he's in violation? Is that what we need to do? MR. CARVIN-No, I'm talking about the two buildings. MR. TURNER-The two buildings he's talking about. MR. CARVIN-What you do with your neighbors is your business. MR. STEWART-One concern that l have is this is at least the third night I have appeared here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs Beaty. Of course, this is very, very expense for them. I don't want to be unreasonable. I want this Board to have all the information in front of it it needs, but we just keep coming, and it changes, and it's put on the table, and it's taken off the table, and each time they come, and each time Mr. and Mrs. Beaty pay an awful lot of money, and I don't think that's entirely fair. I'm not going to be in this area in May. So the hearing's next month I know I'm not going to be available to represent Mr. and Mrs. Beaty on it. Somebody from my office could be, but then they've got to relearn the en t ire file bee a use the y , r e not f am i 1 i a r wit hit, and t hat's many hundreds of dollars more for them to educate themselves. I would either request that it be denied, because in my opinion there's just no evidence to substantiate it, or, it be withdrawn in its entirety, and, when they've got their act together, and when and if they've got all the information and they want to make an application, I leave that to your judgement. It's just sort of hanging over our head, and it's expensive, and I'm not sure that's the appropriate way to approach it. MR. CHERNEY-I've spoken with my client. We have no problems withdrawing. Tabling it, withdrawing it, it has basically the same e f fee t. We'll get a 11 the i n for ma t i on tog e the r . When they' r e prepared to proceed, they'll come in here. MR. TURNER-Lets see what the Board wants to do, first. MS. CIPPERLY-There is another option, too, of tabling it past May. You can also give them 60 days tabling, rather than coming back in May. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think my feeling is, I'd like to, there's some real clarifications. I mean, I'm not even sure we're looking at a good variance here, because, I mean, we first started out with a new building. Well, that's now out the window. Now we want to get the old building. Now we've got a third situation coming up. I think a lot of this should be done before it's even presented, and I think the applicant should have their ducks in a row. Whether they want to talk with the Planning Office and get this matter resolved, before making application, I don't know. MR. STEWART-And another concern have, if I'm correct in my - 19 - position on this thing, this is a totally illegal operation. It goes on month after month. Here we're coming into the peak of the summer. Are we going to have to live with this all summer? MR. CHERNEY-There's no noise from this operation. That's preposterous. I've been there. Mr. Martin's been there. He's stood there 10 feet from the building. He saw there was no noise. I don't know what you're talking about. MR. STEWART-I'm talking about noise, sparks. MR. CHERNEY-There's no noise. noise. Have you been there? There's no MRS. SEELEY-Where can you see them from Mr. Beaty's property. MR. CHERNEY-Ms. Cipperly was there. She was standing there 10 feet away from the building. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but that's not the criteria for a variance. MR. CHERNEY-I know that, but they're bringing up all this extraneous things like noise and site and all of this. MR. TURNER-If it alters the character of the neighborhood, then. It has to meet all the points of the criteria for the Use Variance, and if it doesn't meet everyone of them, it loses it. MR. CHERNEY-I'm not arguing that. I'm saying we're prepared to go forward and present what the Board needs, but I mean, he's standing here arguing about all the times I've come here and we're coming into summer with all the noise and the site problems. There's nothing there. So, I'm just rebutting what he's said about that. Anybody on this Board can walk within 10 feet of that building, you can't hear anything when it's in full operation. Certainly, if it was a very noisy situation, your point would be well taken. You can't hear anything. MR. STEWART-Well, what is there is an ongoing operation on the building that we're talking about tonight, where the applicant came before this Board in July of 1988, to try to get a Use Variance to try to make it legal then. This Board turned them down unanimously, and he still goes on and on and on. That's there. That's not right. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's your pleasure? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm going to go back to that 1988, I think I brought this up the last time, that this is really a rehearing of a Use Variance that was turned down. MR. TURNER-It's the same thing. MS. CIPPERLY..,.I mentioned that to Paul Dusek, and believe, it ended up in court, with the Town also, and based on those maps, the Town withdrew from it. This is what Paul Dusek said. MR. TURNER-He didn't pursue it any farther after it ended up in Town Court. MR. CARVIN-It was supported in State Court. MR. STEWART-There were two different issues. One was after this Board, in '88, rejected the Use Variance, the applicant appealed that to New York State Supreme Court, under an Article 78, and their appeal was thrown out. So this Board was affirmed. Then later, the enforcement people in Town went to Justice of the Peace Court to get an order to tell them to stop operating illegally, and tha t was when the ques t i on of the I ine came up, and nobody was clear where it was, and that was not pursued. No decision was ever - 20 - made one way or the other on that. MR. CARVIN-I mean, that was mY understanding of this situation. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's it exactly. MR. CARVIN-I mean, I always thought it was an enforcement problem. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I could get a written description from Paul Dusek about what happened wi th that 1988 thing. I can get, research into the building permits. MR. TURNER-I know it came over the question of the line, because Paul told me that himself. It came over the question of the line. That was the whole issue. MR. CARVIN-And an enforcement believe so. decision. I think my question was, if we didn't proceed with action, does that mean we've abandon it? I don't I think we can always come back and enforce a MR. TURNER-Yes. Our decision was affirmed. Where does that go? Does it go in limbo? MR. CARVIN-I mean, that may have been on the second building, where they wanted to expand it. I mean, it might have started out as a garage, which might have been perfectly fine, but they wanted the use. I don't know. It seems to me that we keep hearing this over and over. MR. TURNER-Yes. Let me ask you this. Have you tried to buy any property in the Washington County Industrial Park? MRS. SEELEY-Yes. We looked over in Washington County. We looked in Saratoga County. We looked in Warren County. MR. TURNER-Nothing receptive? Nothing appealed to you? MRS. SEELEY-We're still looking. We haven't finished looking. MR. CARVIN-Are you utilizing a realtor? MRS. SEELEY-We have several. MS. CIPPERLY-The 1988 Variance, the assertion was that parcel was totally residential zoned, which was incorrect. Now where that leaves. MR. CARVIN-That may not have been incorrect. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, they've figured out that that one corner, at least, was, anyway, I'll get a, but that was the assertion in 1988, that that was a residential parcel. MR. TURNER-It had nothing to do with the line, then the line came up after the fact. MR. CARVIN-The line came up, and I think that's why Paul backed away, because there might have been a preexisting condition there, but I'm not positive that that's the case. MR. TURNER-No. The line came up after the denial of the variance. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. TURNER-That surfaced after it went through the Article 78 and everything else. MR. CARVIN-And I think that's why Paul or whoever was handling that case backed away, because they thought that might have a - 21 - preexisting condition there, but I'm not totally convinced that that was the case. MS. CIPPERLY-Because of the building permit. MR. CARVIN-Because of the building permit. MR. TURNER-You've got a half an acre of land, a little over a half an acre of land, and you've got three buildings on it. You've got a residence, a machine shop, and a machine shop/welding shop. That's pretty dense, for Single Pamily. MR. CHERNEY-They tried to get land in the Queensbury Technical Park, a couple of times. MR. TURNER-Yes, but what I'm saying is, if your business is that good, then you ought to be able to look into the future and say, hey, we've got to have a different place to operate out of. MRS. SEELEY-Just because you have a good business doesn't necessarily mean that you've got an overabundance of money to just, you know, if the Town of Queensbury or anybody else will sell us property for the same price that they've been selling some other people some property, we'd have been gone by now. MR. TURNER-Can I ask you a question? When you moved there, and he s uppos ed 1 y star ted the bus i ness wher e the we 1 ding /mach i ne shop went, right, all right. Then your son went to BOCES, and he got out of the machining course. He went into business in the machine shop, in the barn. MRS. SEELEY-He went to work for other people, first. MR. TURNER-Okay, first, but then after he started here, in this building that's now marked machine shop. Is that correct? MRS. SEELEY-In the barn. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. CARVIN-Did you have a welding business prior to moving there? You did, and where was that located, if I may ask? MRS. SEELEY-You mean the one that's in question now? MR. CARVIN-No, no. mean, before you moved onto Glenwood Avenue. MR. TURNER-Did you have a business anyplace else prior to moving there? MRS. SEELEY-Charlie worked off of his truck, basically. MR. TURNER-Yes, but didn't he also work for contractors, Mrs. Seeley? MRS. SEELEY-He worked for contractors, part time. He worked from the truck part time. MR. STEWART-Now, one comment ~ like to make, so the applicant's not misled when we arrive here a month or two months from now. It is my position that they not only need to get a Use Variance, and all of the proof that is required for that, but that is just the beginning of the problems that they have that they have not r eques ted any var iance for. A Use Var i ance on that piece of property, an industrial piece requires a one acre lot. They've only got a half acre. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. STEWART-That piece of property is zoned so that only one - 22 - -" building or one use can be put to it. They're running two or maybe three uses to that building. It requires, if it's going to be an industrial use next to a residential neighborhood, there have to be 50 foot buffer zones on both the east and the south. Nothing in their application even asks for that type of relief. I mean, I made a list, before the last meeting, and I'm not going to bother, but 25 variances they need to be legal, and they're not even asking for them. So I'm just suggesting before they come back they should take a look at that and realize what they've got to do, and if they honestly feel they can meet those requirements, then fine, we'll come back and we'll discuss it at that time. There's a long, long way to go on this thing, and we're just touching the tip of the iceberg, I think. MRS. SEELEY-(Lost words) was before Mr. Beaty bought it, he knew what was there. MR. TURNER-Okay. So your position is, what? Do you want to table it, withdraw it, or what? MR. CHERNEY-Sixty days. MR. TURNER-We can give you sixty days. When will you be able to come back, Mr. Stewart, to represent your client? MR. STEWART-I'll be here in June. MR. TURNER-In June. MS. CIPPERLY-If you withdraw the application, you'd have to refile, and pay another fee. If you table it, you don't. MR. CHERNEY-Why don't we just table it until. MR. TURNER-Why don't you just table it, and then you won't have to pay the other fee. MR. CHERNEY-We'll come back in June, right? MR. TURNER-Yes, but get all your ducks in a row. MR. CHERNEY-Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 23-1994 CHARLES E. & BARBARA D. SEELEY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Maresco: For a period of 60 days. Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 22nd, 1993: Carvin Page 40, sib Mr. Turner, as opposed to Mr. MOTION TO APPROVE DECEMBER 22ND. 1993 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: - 23 - ~, AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Menter, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Maresco ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas January 19th, 1994: Page 4, Mr. Johnson, bottom of page, sentence reads, I thought that was kind of, insert "high"; Page 4, first Mr. Turner, you'll have to go to the Board of Heal th, sib, for the septic system; Page 5, down where it says, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Johnson, and the AP A has air e ad y ma de a de t e r m i n at ion. I n 1 989 , the jurisdictional determination came back to the Town of Queensbury and the Lake George Park Commission is not involved, and there's a Mr. Turner, Mr. Turner again, sib Mr. Johnson continuing; Page 5, Mr. Carvin, second up from bottom, sib "he" still has a couple of hurdles, not "I", and remove "at least" approval, he's got to get approval; Page 6, Mr. Carvin, second one up from the bottom, I think that's what the letter was referring to, that it was a designated stream; Page 7, Mr. Carvin, second one down from top, what do you think, Bob, I say that the Long Form is "not" correct; Page 13, Mr. M. Steves, just before Mr. Schermerhorn, if you cut into the two lots, has the cost of the property to develop and go through the planning process and pay the fees and so on, and so on, and put up a little tiny 25, around 1500 square foot home; Page 23, the three, two, fine, then we'll all starve to death because we can't come to an agreement, eventually somebody will get hungry and say, well, pizza isn't probably too bad; Page 23, because if we can't come to an agreement, then next Mr. Carvin, and as a result, we came up with a new a whole new "motion", not application; Page 25, Mr. Carvin, middle of page, I'm saying that you got what you asked for. You can have a 952 square foot garage; Page 28, last Mr. Carvin, looking at the minutes, I'm not positive that we followed proper procedures; Page 30, Mr. Carvin, second one down from top, well, yes, with the fact that he's going "for a bed and breakfast", I still have some concerns; Page 21, last Mr. Menter, first line, see, the fact is, Bob, that just logically; Page 6, I was wondering, in this letter from one of his neighbors, where they said that in the Full Environmental Assessment Form, where he answered, no, if there is a stream present, if that would affect the negative declaration. Would his answering no to Question Number 15 influence the results of the SEQRA Review?; MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 19TH. 1994. AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Menter, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Maresco ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas January 26th, 1994: Page 4, Mr. Carvin in the center, except that I think that there's a problem with the two parcels there, Paul, because that sign, if these parcels were separated then.. .they would be entitled to two signs; Page 7, Mr. Carvin, down six from the top, well, would this have been a preexisting "use", Mr. Carvin, a preexisting, nonconforming "use"; Page 10, Mr. Leonard, in the center, they're tied in with the "lease"; Page 12, the second Mr. Carvin up from the bottom, my question also, as a follow up to that, is why did you wait until now, take "this" out, if you've lost the three tenants prior to that; Page 13, Ms. Galvin, it's less likely for a developer to volunteer to spend money if he doesn't have to. So if they don't ask for the sign, I'm sure that - 24 - we don't push it; Page 14, Mr. Carvin, but you haven't proved the sign "was the problem", is what I'm saying; Page 16, first Mr. Carvin, they are printed on dark board with white letters, and the letters are very small, take out, "now I mean", I agree with you, those signs are poor, and I agree, you made a mistake back in 1988 or '89; Page 16, at the top, when coming in, in other words, that is a very narrow entrance, Mr. Carvin, towards the middle, that sign we had, sib Wal-Mart, not K-Mart, Mr. Carvin, and as I said, continuing the story, when Wal-Mart came in and wanted to put the sign in there, I think that they" lost what they appl ied for"; Page 21, Mr. Dusek, I think my real point I wanted to make is that even if you did grant another variance, once you change the law, then you're starting, basically, from a clean slate; Page 30, Mr. Ca r v in, i nth e mid dIe, the n fin e , I can't pro j e c t w hat the Ordinance will be, and the very next Mr. Carvin, I mean, they've wiped the slate clean, as far as the Town is concerned, Mr. Dusek, second one up f rom the bot tom, wall sign down on the "( words missing)"; Page 26, bottom of page, unaware of proposed changes in the Sign Ordinance, that sib the proposed sign; Page 28, bottom of page, and would not only preserve and protect the character of neighborhood, sib the neighborhood MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 26TH. 1994 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Menter, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Maresco ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas February 9th, 1994: NONE MOT ION TO APPROVE FEBRUARY 9TH. Theodore Turner who moved for its Hauser: 1994 MINUTES, Introduced by adoption, seconded by Linda Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Maresco ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas February 15th, 1994: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FEBRUARY 15TH. 1994, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas February 16th, 1994: Motion on Queensbury Retail Limited Partnership, sib changed to this is a corporate decision made by "K-Mar t, not Queensbury Reta il Limi t ed Par tne r sh i p; Page 17, I as t Mr. Carvin, I just want to make sure that I understood what the - 25 - direction was, not yes, Mr. Carvin, at the top, well, no, I know the y got the " d i v ide r s", the y run them t hat way; P age 1 8 , w hat you're saying, Tim, is that Wal-Mart will have similar "dividers" , M~. Carvin, okay, but Wal-Mart has no internal "dividers"; Page 21, fIrst Mr. Menter from the top, should agree to do that, Dave, I think you would need to go two to four, sib rows, not roads, and also in the next sentence, sib rows, not roads MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16TH. 1994 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Menter, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Maresco ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas MS. CIPPERLY-I just wanted to tell you, a thing did come in from K- Mart, which will be in in May, requesting you to take another look at what they consider to be a different application. MR. TURNER-What's different about it? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it doesn't even match what they actually submitted in the first place, but I was going to make a chart of what they submitted in the first place, like on this one, they show that, for instance, if their original application included a sign for a Papa Gino's Restaurant, and they're taking that away. So that doesn't compute, because it wasn't there in the first place. MR. TURNER-No. MS. CIPPERLY-So that will be coming up as a determination, whether to rehear it or not. They didn't send anything in about the dividers for the parking lot. MR. TURNER-So they're going to go with them, right? MS. CIPPERLY-And they want to take their billboard sized sign and bring it down to 35 feet, instead of asking for 45 feet, but I looked that up, and it does meet the criteria for a billboard, in size. MR. TURNER-It does? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CIPPERLY-And those are supposed to be no longer. MR. TURNER-No longer permitted. MS. CIPPERLY-Anyway, that's part of what's coming up. I was just looking through the Sign Ordinance one day and I just happened to see those dimensions, and it was almost exactly a billboard. MR. TURNER-Twelve by twenty-five, isn't it, the Sign Ordinance, is a billboard? MS. CIPPERLY-But this was twenty-six by eleven. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, - 26 - Theodore Turner, Chairman