The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-03-21 SP ~) OR' G J("\J.\ r '-., QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 21, 1996 INDEX APPEALS Use Var i ance No. 10-1996 Tax Map No. 54-5-11.2 Robert & Carolyn Rudolph Sanfords Ridge Bed & Breakfast 1. Area Variance No. 7-1996 Tax Map r'Jo. 113-1-6 John McCall Tire &: Brake Dist., [nc. 5. Area Variance No. 70-1994 DI SCUSS ION !TEM Joseph Rodriguez Tax Map No. 92-2-2.58 8. Notice of Appeal No. 1--96 Tax Map No. 26-2-10.5, 12 Tax Map No. 27-1-5 Dorothy Burnham Paul & Debbie Davidson 12. 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 ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 21, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD BONNIE LAPHAM WILLIAM GREEN MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX AND PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI USE VARIANCE NO. 10-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA ROBERT &. CAROLYN RUDOLPH SANFORDS RIDGE BED &. BREAKFAST OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 749 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS PERMANENT STATUS AS A BED AND BREAKFAST. THIS NON-CONFORMING USE HAS BEEN APPROVED ON A TRIAL BASIS TWO SEPARATE TIMES IN THE PAST. THE FIRST TIME WAS FOR ONE YEAR, THE SECOND TIME FOR THREE YEARS. THIS USE REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-19D. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 54-5-11.2 LOT SIZE: 1.72 ACRES SECTION 179-19D MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 10-1996, Robert & Carolyn Rudolph Sanfords Ridge Bed & Breakfast, Meeting Date: March 21, 1996 "PROJECT LOCATION: 749 Ridge Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant is seeking to continue using their property as a bed & breakfast. This nonconforming use has been approved on a trial basis on two separate occasions. The first approval was for one year, the second approval was for three years. The applicant is seeking permanent approval of this use. USE VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 167-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? A reasonable return of the land is possible as zoned. The property is currently being used as a residence in addition to a bed & breakfast. The applicant feels that because the property is located so close to Ridge Road, it would be hard to sell as a single family home. The applicant also states that this home has sold below market value in the past. 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 home is located on a busy road, Route 9L, and does not have primary access on a local street like most single family homes in the area. 3. I S THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENT IAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? The appl icant states that the character of the neighborhood is mixed uses including another bed & breakfast, retail store and a lawn & garden store. 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? It appears to be. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: This use has been - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) approved on a trial basis for this property twice. Most recently, it was approved for a period of three years. After speaking with the Code Compliance Officer, there have been no concerns brought to staff's attention over the last three years. Staff foresees no problems associated with this request, and would recommend approval of this use variance on a permanent basis. Staff would offer a stipulation that the pool which is used by guests be closed by 10 p.m. based on past concerns from area residents. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF review needed." MR. THOMAS--"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on Hie 13th day of March 1996, the above application for a Use Variance for permanent status as a Bed and Breakfast. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? Are there any questions of the applicant? MR. FORD-I have a question on Page One. MR. MULLER-For the record, I'm Michael Muller for the appl icant. Mr. Ford, what's the question? MR. FORD-What is the retail store that is referred to? I know the other bed and breakfast, and I know Smith Equipment, but what is the retail store? MR. MULLER-There's something on the east side of Ridge Road there, from time to time. One of the applications that came here, it was a glass store. Another time, the guy seemed to be selling, I don't know what he was selling, but he was always out in the driveway. It's not a house that's even acting as a store. It's a glass store. I've used it. Bougllt a window there, he replaced it. I don't know the name of the store though. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? open up the public hearing. AU right. I'd like to PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROGER RUEL MR. RUEL-My name is Roger Ruel. I represent my wife and myself. We are neighbors directly across the street from the Rudolphs. We have no objection whatsoever. There's nothing to indicate that that is anything but a private home, as far as we're concerned. So we have absolutely no objections. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to be heard in favor? Al OUDEKERK MR. OUDEKERK-My name is Al Oudekerk. I own the Berry Farm Bed and Breakfast on Bay Road, and we've been working with them on this for a long time, and we see no reason why it shouldn't be approved. I mean, you know, there's no reason why a bed and breakfast in any location should be any problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. support? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard In CAROLYN RUDOLPH MRS. RUDOLPH-I guess I don't know what to say. Certainly I hope that you approve it so we don't have to go through this again, because it is just emotionally draining to have to go through these - 2 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) zoning. MR. CARVIN-Okay. correspondence? Anyone wishing to be heard in opposition? Any MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have two let ter s. A let ter dated 3/8/96, regarding Use Variance No. 10-1996, Robert O. & Carolyn Rudolph 749 Ridge Road "Please read into the minutes of your meeting that I am in favor of making permanent this Use Variance. This home is one 0 f the 0 Ide s tin Que ens bur y , and i tis 0 n e 0 f the mo s t beautiful in the Town. It has been well maintained through the years, and especially, since the Rudolphs have owned it. I have been in the home on several occasions, so have first hand knowledge of its condition. As former Chairman of the Queensbury Committee for Conm1unity Beautification and as a history buff, I am favor of this Use Variance. As a Bed & Breakfast, there is an incentive to make it attractive and income to maintain it in top condition. We should do everything possible to keep historic and picturesque buildings from being lost to posterity. They are a part of our 'Quality of Life'. Respectfully submitted, Robert L. Eddy" A letter dated March 8, 1996, addressed to James Martin, Executive Director "Dear Mr. Martin: It is my understanding that Mr. & Mrs. Rudolph, owners, operators and occupants of a beautiful, well-kept, unobtrusive and historical home have applied for a permanent variance in order to continue living their dream. I am delighted to speak on their behalf and urge you to grant their request with gratitude and dispatch. The positive attributes this B&B brings to its location are numerous and no negatives exist of which I am aware. Please give the Rudolphs the opportunity to continue their contribution to our community without hinderance and in the knowledge that their labors are secure. Sincerely, James A. Berg" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Are there any questions of the applicant? All right. Any ques t ions 0 r any corrunen ts, Bonn i e? What do you th ink? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, the only comment I would make is it's an excellent idea, and we should approve it and make it permanent. The Rudolphs, several years ago when I was Chairman of the Symphony House Tour Committee, graciously opened their home to the entire community to benefit the Symphony. So it's not only a very well kept, historical residence that we should encourage, I think, the keeping in this manner, which might not occur if it weren't a bed and b rea k f as t, 0 r m i g h tan y way, but the y , r e jus t g r a c i 0 u s c onm1U nit y minded citizens, interested in running a very nice operation, and I live on Ridge Road, and have no objection. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Bi 11 ? MR. GREEN-No. know if anyone poo I . I don't have any real would I ike to address concern. Staff's just wanted to concern about the MR. MULLER-It wasn't an actual incident at all. It was an earlier Board, and perhaps Fred remembers it, that it was just some concern that, in the event those who lived in Butternut Hill would be annoyed by the fact that there were people in the pool. Then we had agreed that people who were at the bed and breakfast would not be using the pool after 10 p.m. Though I commented afterward, said something about, we'll have to issue special color swim trunks so that we know who's staying and who really lives there. It's not a problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom? -- 3 - -~-_.._"--"---_._-----_.,--_..._- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. FORD-I support the application. I think that the two previous opportunities have proven what they set out to prove, that it is positive in our community, a positive influence. I think we should grant this variance. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Chris? MR. THOMAS--I concur with the other Board members. I think this is a variance that needs to be closed out, and it's not fair to the Rudolphs to keep having them come back everyone, two, three, four however many years. They've run a very fine business. I've never heard any complaints from the Town. All I've heard is good about it. So I'm in favor of the granting of permanent status to them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Staff, there's been no complaints as far as you know, at any point over the last three years? / MR. GORALSKI-Nothing at all. MR. CARVIN-Okay. application. So No, I h a v e a b sol ute I y no pro b I em wit h t his would ask for a motion please. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 10-1996 ROBERT & CAROLYN RUDOLPH SANFORDS RIDGE BED & BREAKFAST, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Applicant is seeking to continue using the property as a bed and br eak fas t . Th is nonconformi ng us e has been approved on a t I' i a I basis, on two separate'occasions. The first approval was for one year. The second was for three years. The appl icant is now seeki ng a variance for a permanent approval. It's been stated that, because of the house being so close to Ridge Road, it probably would not be able to show a reasonable return if sold as a single family home. It does seem to be a unique situation because of the location of the home on such a busy highway with other retail and other bed and breakfasts in the area. Over the last three years, there's been no public comment against the bed and breakfast. In fact, there's a number of supporting CODID1ents to the variance. It does seem to be the minimum necessary to correct the situation. Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles MR. CARVIN-It's granted on a permanent basis, and don't worry about the 10 o'clock. MR. MARTIN-Fred, do you want to just do the EAF? MR. CARVIN-Yes. We've got to do the EAF. MOTION WITH REGARD TO USE VARIANCE NO. 10--1996 ROBERT & CAROLYN RUDOLPH SANFORDS RIDGE BED & BREAKFAST A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM INDICATES A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE - 4- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles MR. CARVIN-I'm changing the agenda a little bit. doing Area Variance No. 7-1996 John McCall, Distributors. We're going to be Tire and Brake AREA VARIANCE NO. 7- 1996 TYPE I I HC-IA JOHN MCCALL TIRE & BRAKE DIST., INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE QUAKER ROAD, EAST TO BOULEVARD, RIGHT ON BOULEVARD, SECOND LOT ON LEFT HAND S IDE OF BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 2,800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXI STING BUILDING FOR OFFICE SPACE AND ADDITIONAL WORK BAYS. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-23C. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 113-1-6 LOT SIZE: 0.77 ACRES SECTION 179-23C JOHN MCCALL,....PRESENT; ALBERT S. MUGRACE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-1996, John McCall Tire & Brake, Meeting Date: March 21, 1996 "PROJECT LOCATION: Quaker Rd. to Boulevard, second lot on left PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: This site contains two existing buildings. The applicant is proposing to remove one building and add on to the building that will remain on the lot. The proposed action will require relief from the front setbacks listed in Section 179-23C. The applicant is seeking a front setback of 30 feet instead of the required 50 feet. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: The applicant states that new additions will help him remodel his business in order to stay competitive. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: With the proposed additions, there does not seem to be any lesser amount of relief that could be provided. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: The front setback for the HC-IA district is 50 feet, the applicant is seeking a setback of 30 feet. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY?: It appears that the proposed additions would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF- CREATED?: No. The proposed site plan shows a drive to be located behind the addition on the front of the property. In order to have an adequate separation distance from the drive to the building, relief is needed from the front setbacks. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: This request will result in a density that falls within the requirements of the HC-IA district. The relief is needed in order to provide for vehicular circulation on the property that conforms to the Zoning Ordi nance. SEQR: Type I I, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of March 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 2800 sq. ft. addition to existing building for office space and additional work bays. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand what the applicant is requesting? Are there any questions of the applicant? MR. FORD-Not at this point. MR. THOMAS-No, I'm set for right now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just have one of Staff. I'm confused, I think, by your Staff comment, that falls within the requirements, is that a positive or a negative? MR. GORALSKI-Falls within the density requirements, which means it - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) would be appropriate for the zone. The variance lS variance. I guess, in other words, the building is not for the site, basically. a setback too large MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then the relief is needed just for the vehicle circulation then, is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-That's right. MR. CARVIN-All right. Now I'm assuming there's no permeability problem, because it looks like they're going from? MR. GORALSKI-They have not decreased the permeability. I don't believe they have the 30%, but they have not decreased the permeability on the site. MR. MCCALL-In fact, we might have even added to it. MR. GORALSKI-They might have actually increased it. MR. MCCALL-Yes. MR. GREEN-As far as I can tell, you actually lost 200 square feet of building and paved area. MR. MCCALL-Right. MR. CARVIN-That's what I was looking at. tearing down a bigger building. It looks like you're MR. MCCALL-Right. The present building's about 3500 square feet, and wit h the add i t ion it' I I be a p pro x i ma tel y 2800 s qua ref e e t . It'll be 700 square feet smaller than it is presently. MR. CARVIN-Okay. gentlemen? Could you identi.fy your:.;elves for the record, MR. MCCALL-I'm sorry. My name's John McCall. This is Al Mugrace, my architect. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. the applicant at this point? All right. Any other questions of MR. FORD-I just want that permeability addressed. clear statement on that? Are we increasing or maintaining? Do we have a decreasing or MR. GORALSKI-They're actually increasing the permeable area. The permeable area on the site, as it exists, does not meet the requirement of the Ordinance. However, they are actually increasing and bringing it closer to conforming. So since they're not decreasing it, they don't need a variance for that. MR . MARTI N - The y h a v e a pre - ex i s tin g s tat us, to a non con for m i n g amount of permeable area, but they are improving that somewhat. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm assuming, then, you're going from a gravel area to blacktop or hardsurface parking? MR. MCCALL-Yes, in the back. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I'm assuming this would go to site plan, would it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes, okay. Has anybody got any questions? If not, I'll open up the public hearing. - 6 -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Chris, I'm going to start wi th you. comments on this? Any thoughts or MR. THOMAS--We11, I think this is a great idea to demolish one building and add on to another, so there's only one building on the property instead of two. It looks like there'll be some plantings put on the property, all the way around, and I think it'll improve the look of the lot and of the business. I would be in favor of it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom? MR. FORD-It, obviously, improves the appearance and gives a greater potential for the business. I like the idea that, as is attested to by Staff, that there's an actual increase in permeable area. I'm in favor. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bi 11 ? MR. GREEN-I couldn't have said it better. MRS. LAPHAM-And I agree. MR. CARVIN-Okay. There's not going to be any major change in the type of business, or the storage of oils or chemicals or anything like that? MR. MCCALL-The same exact service that's been there for 11 years. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I really don't have a problem with this. I think this looks like a much better plan than what you've currently got. All right. I'd ask for a motion. MR. FORD-I just have one other question. You're going to bring your wheel alignment business into that portion that is listed as existing? MR. MCCALL-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1996 JOHN MCCALL BRAKE DIST.. INC., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: TIRE &- for its The applicant is proposing to remove one building and add on to the building that will remain on the lot. This proposed action requires relief from the front setbacks listed in Section 179-23C. The appLicant is seeking a front setback of 30 feet instead of the required 50 feet. So I would, therefore, grant relief of 20 feet. The benefit to the applicant, by granting of this variance, would be to allow him to create a more desirable traffic flow. Obviously, the remodeling would be a benefit to his business and allow him to stay competitive. There does not seem to be any other feasible alternatives in which some sort of lesser amount of relief would be required. There does not appear to be any affect on the neighborhood or the community by the granting of this variance. There has been no public comment or opposi tion to the plan. This does not appear to be a self-created difficulty because of the relief of the front yard setbacks, because of the unusual shape of the lot. The proposed addition still will fall within the density requirements of the HC-IA district. Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1996, by the following vote: -- 7- ,f'~1 ~. "-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles DISCUSSION ITEM: At the December 14, 1994 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting an Area Variance (File Number 70-1994), requested by Joseph Rodriguez, 40 Zenas Drive, off Dixon Road was denied. The applicant proposed to subdivide a 0.67 acre parcel in an Urban Residential-IO Acre zone, creating a 20,645 sq. ft. lot with an existing duplex, and an 8,391 sq. ft. sin g 1 e f am i I y b u i t din g lot. S e c t ion 1 7 9 - 1 7 r e qui I' e s I 0 , 00 0 sq. ft. for a single family lot, and 20,000 for a duplex, so relief is sought from this section. Tax Map No. 92-2-2.58. An Area Variance application was received by the Zoning Office from Joseph Rodriguez for review at the March 1996 ZBA meeting concerning the same property as above. The ZBA needs to vote on whether or not to rehear an application for a two lot subdivision, similar to what was requested on December 14, 1994. MR. CARVIN-The next i tern of business is a discussion item for Joseph Rodriguez, relating to an Area Variance File No. 70-1994, which was denied in December of 1994. Do you have anything to read . ? In. MR. THOMAS-I have an application 15-1996, for a Use Variance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to read the motion that was made in 1994. At that point, the applicant was proposing, I think, a subdivision. The applicant proposes to subdivide a .67 acre parcel in an Urban Residential 10 Acre zone, creating a 20,645 square foot lot with an existing duplex, and an 8391 square foot single family building lot. At that point, Section 179-17 required 10,000 square feet for a single family lot, and 20,000 for a duplex. So relief was being sought from that Section. The motion was made to deny that request, and I think you may have a copy of it, but the motion was made: "Motion to DENY Area Variance No. 70-1994, Joseph Rodriguez, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 0.67 acre parcel creating two lots approximately 20,645 square feet and 8,391 square feet. I think by the granting of the variance that an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood and would be a detriment to nearby properties. Also, by granting of the proposed variance, it would have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and that the alleged difficulty is self created. There has been a number of neighborhood comments regarding the safety and heal th issues related to the unique siting of this property and lack of snow removal due to the fact that the road T's in the subdivision. Dul y adopted this 14th day of December, 1994, by the fo t lowi ng vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Menter" Now, having looked at this particular application, I see nothing substantial, other than they've just flipped the numbers around. In other words, we are still looking at a subdivision, and we still are confronted with the same situations that I think would occur. So I would ask the applicant how this application or this proposed application is different than - 8-- - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) the application that was denied. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Okay. May I give you some of these things? MR. CARVIN-Absolutely. Thank you. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-My name is Juanita Rodriguez. My husband Joseph Rodriguez could not be here. The difference, you asked me what is the difference between our first proposal and our second proposal. The difference is we created a lot, a 10,000 square foot lot at this time, making the duplex, instead of 20,645.22 square feet, ma kin g i s 1 9 , 0 3 6 . 8 6 s qua ref e e t. I tis the d iff ere nee, now, instead of having the 20,000 square feet for the duplex, we have 19,036.86 square feet. The difference is 963.14 that we're short for the 20,000. What we're asking is if we would be allowed to have, the lot that has been created for the 10,000 square feet, and what we're asking if we would be approved, the duplex of 19,036.86 square feet. Now as you see in the deed that I gave you, if you take a look at the deed, it says that we do have two separate lots in there. There is not one. There are two different lots. I don't know if you remember what I said in regards to the discrepancy of this property when we bought it. When we bought the property, it was supposed to be .97. You have the tax bill there that shows that it was supposed to be .97 acres. That is 42,253 square feet. That is the reason why we made the decision to buy this duplex, just because we were going to have the lot to sell for our son's education. Then later on, just eight days before, that was February the 17th, the closing, eight days prior to the closing, our lawyer, Mr. Paul Pontiff, called my husband and told Joe that he found out that the Town of Queensbury made a mistake in the acreage in the lot, and it was only .67 instead of .97. At that point, Paul asked my husband if he wanted to go ahead and buy the property. We had already made a corrunitment to our friends that were moving to Virginia to buy this property, was just eight days, and we decided we'd just go ahead and buy the property. Then later on, in October, we received a letter from the Town of Queensbury telling us also that it was only .67. Therefore, it is a big difference. It's a discrepancy of 13,175 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I know that this was brought up during the other. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I've got to be honest with you. I read all of these numbers, but I don't know if I am competent enough, does anybody understand what she's saying, as far as two lots off this deed? MR. FORD-That's what I'm looking for. Could you draw attention, please, to where it stipulates two lots? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-The first page, sir. MR. FORD-The first page. Which paragraph, please? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Almost the last, the last two paragraphs describe the second. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Staff, can you look at this and tell me if we've got one lot or two lots here? MR. FORD-You've got the westerly portion of Lot 36, and the easterly portion of Lot 36? MR. GORALSKI-Do you have a better copy of this map? MR. CARVIN-I've got this. - 9 - ) ¡/"......"'" ( (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MRS. RODRIGUEZ-I have the original. MR. FORD-Aren't we talking about the easterly and westerly portion of the same lot? MR. SCHACHNER-That's what it sounds like, in the deed. It sounds like the deed is referring to one lot, Lot 36, and proposing to transfer both the westerly portion of it and the easterly portion of it, but without going back, we don't real lY know what Lot 36, or at least 1 don't know, unless you know more than I know about this, what Lot 36 we're talking about. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think, 1'm going with this, where the numeral 36 corresponds with the approximate shape of her lot. I have this lot here. This is Lot 36, and that these are the dimensions of that lot. MR. SCHACHNER-And that certainly seems to match up nicely. MR. CARVIN-And it seems to match up very nicely with this, as a single lot, and it does not appear that there was a line through here. In other words, this was the purchase of a single lot, and not a double lot. The only thing that I need, I mean, this is, I assume, a legitimate line, here, or would this, no, that's Lot 25. MR. SCHACHNER-That's a separate lot. MR. CARVIN-That's a separate lot. MR. MARTIN-Why is it describing this line, though? this line here, 17 degrees, 33 minutes. It describes MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. With what we have on the table, I don't think we can answer that. I mean, that's the point is why would it not just grant the lot, and describe its perimeter? Why would it say to grant you the left side, described as such, and then the right side, described as such? MR. MARTIN-Well, the other thing that's puzzling is, you have a subdivision date here of 1978, and thi~,; deed carries a date of 1986 on it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. There's more to this than meets the eye. Actually, the deed looks like 1988. MR. MARTIN-I have a sneaking suspicion here that there was just a deed written for a. MR. SCHACHNER-Somebody tried to do a subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Because if you read this it says, on the subdivision map of John B. VanDusen in 1978, you know, I think there's more information that's needed here, but it appears that the description here is of a deed being filed that creates a line which bisects Lot 36, and this wa:-,; done, apparently, in June of '88, but the subdivision was created in August of '78. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think because this is the discussion item, [ think I'd like to refer Mrs. Rodriguez, because what I'm hearing is that there is a potential here that there is a two lot situation here, but you would like to research this, or there's more research that need be done? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Because if we do, indeed, have a two lot, not have an argument here, but if it's a single lot, back to Square One. Is that a correct? then we may then we're - 10 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. MARTIN-Yes. here. We need some time to do a little more checking MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I think I'd like to refer this, or defer this conversation until we've had an opporturtity, I think, Mrs. Rodriguez, that you may want to consult with Staff to get these lot lines really established. MR. MARTIN-And the dates of when all this occurred. MR. CARVIN-Right, because if there are two lots there, then you don't have a problem, but if it does and is determined that you have one lot there, then I think we can entertain, you know, your discussion. Okay, do you follow what I'm saying? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Yes. I'm following. me that, yes, I do have two lots. The reason, my lawyer showed MR. CARVIN-Well, think that there is an element of reasonable doubt here, that there may be two lots here, but Staff does not have sufficient information, and obviously it's going to take some time to research this. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARVIN-And instead of us getting bogged down in a conversation which may be completely moot. MR. MARTIN-I don't think we have enough information to get into an educated conversation. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. I mean, if we have two lots here, then, you know, and you own both those lots, well, there you go. On the other hand, if it is one lot, then our original variance, all that has gone before still stands, and my own personal feeling is that I don't see anything, you've just gone from left to right, right to left. I mean, you're still creating a nonconforming lot, whether it's the left lot or the right lot, or the right lot or the left lot. So I don't see any significance. MR. MARTIN-There's really one of three possible scenarios that's what we have to research out. Is there one lot? two lots that were lawfully created, or are there two were unlawfully created, and therefore we would be back again. So, those are one of those three scenarios. here, and Is there lots that to one lot MR. CARVIN-Yes. So I think we need to get that issue resolved before we can move on to the other. So, again, I think I'm going to defer this conversation, so that you have an opportunity, and Staff has an opportunity, to find out exactly what we're looking at here. MR. THOMAS-Jim, somebody like a surveyor or something, could take all these directions and distances and lay them out and see what it comes up. MR. MARTIN-It comes out to this. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I mean, is there a conmlOn line from the east and in the west? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, there is. MR. THOMAS-So there is a conmon line in both. MR. GORALSKI-The question is, when was that line created? MR. MARTIN-And was it done lawfully? -- 1 1 -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. THOMAS---Okay. So, as soon as someone hacks that out, then we can go from here. So there's a possibility that there was or is two legal lots there? MR. MARTIN-There's a possibility. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then until we get that resolved, I think we can't really do anything else. Does everybody understand what is happening here? Okay. In which case, I don't know. Do we table a discussion item? MR. THOMAS-Well, there IS a variance application. MR. CARVIN-Well, no. po in 1. There's no variance application at this MR. MARTIN-Yes. We have some opportunity. We could go over and research this, if you wanted to just postpone it within the context of this meeting. MR. CARVIN-Instead there's no mistakes. of I' unni ng around, why don't we, that That way everybody's got some time. way MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARVIN-If you can give your information to them, the only thing I have is kind of a technical question. Do we table a discussion item? There's no variance here. MR. MARTIN-No, it doesn't have to be. No. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So what we'll do is we'll defer the discussion. Okay, and you folks have been provided with the minutes of that las tone. So if we do move forward, you may want to read the minutes on that other application. Okay. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-96 DOROTHY BURNHAM PAUL & DEBBIE DAVIDSON OWNERS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: KEITH AND PAMELA HARRIS. APPLICANTS ARE APPEALING TWO SECTIONS OF A LETTER FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CONCERNING PROPERTY OWNED BY KEITH AND PAMELA HARRIS. THE APPLICANTS ARE APPEALING DETERMINATIONS CONTAINED IN LETTERS DATED NOVEMBER 14, 1995 AND DECEMBER 8, 1995 WRITTEN BY JAMES MARTIN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING, PRE-EXISTING USE PER SECTION 179-79 AND THE DEFINITIONS OF EXPANSION AND NON-CONFORMING LISTED IN SECTION 179-7 AS THEY APPLY TO THE HARRIS' PROPERTY. LOCATION: PICKLE HILL ROAD, TAX MAP NO. 26-2-10.5, 12, AND TAX MAP NO. 27--1-5 IN A RR-3A ZONE. DEBBIE DAVIDSON, PRESENT; KEITH HARRIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 1-96, Dorothy Burnham Paul &- Debbie Davidson, Meeting Date: March 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Dorothy Burnham. Paul & Debbie Davidson The appl icants are appealing two sections of a letter from the Zoning Administrator concerning property owned by Keith and Pamela Harris. The applicants are appealing determinations contained in letters dated November 14, 1995 and December 8, 1995 wri t ten by James Mar tin, Zoning Administrator, regarding the expansion of a nonconforming, pre-existing use per Section 179-79 and the definitions of expansion and nonconforming use listed in Section 179-7 as they apply to the Harris' property. STAFF HAS THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURAL COMMENTS REGARDING THIS APPEAL: The applicants should clarify their appeal before the Zoning Board. The details of this appeal need to be clearly stated for the public record. Once this is done - 12 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) and all discussions concerning this item are complete, a motion to approve or disapprove the appeal should be made by the Zoning Board. When the Zoning Board reaches a decision, the factors contributing to this decision should be clearly outlined in any motion. The applicants will then be provided with written correspondence confirming what decision was reached regarding their written appeal." MR. CARVIN-Okay, before you start reading, I want to bring to the Board's attention that this is, we are here to weigh the merits of what Jim Martin's determination is in relation to the applicant's request. Okay. So, I think in order to do justice to this, that we need to start back, the first letter that I have from the applicant is dated, looks like November the 3rd, when they first made request of the Zoning Administrator for Interpretation. So I think we'll start with that letter of November the 3rd. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated November 3, 1995, addressed to Jim Martin, Zoning Administrator, regarding Harris Logging "Dear Jim: We are writing in response to the letter sent to Mr. Keith Harris dated October 6, 1995. While we strongly agree that the storing of large quantities of logs on this property is an expansion of the nonconforming use of his property, we feel that the town has failed to address all of the illegal expansions of Mr. Harris' business on the Pickle Hill property. We have requested repeatedly for the town to define the physical boundaries of the property that Mr. Harris has the grandfathered right on which to operate his business. The property to the east of his commercial garage was a cornfield with a driveway at the time of the court ruling. The area is the area which now has large piles of logs and trucks, truck parts, equipment and assorted junk. If the town only works to remove the logs, Mr. Harris will have still expanded his commercial area substantially. We have complained to the Town repeatedly about the fill being brought in behind Mr. Harris' garage. We were told that all residents have the right to fill their property and that Mr. Harris would only be in violation if he used that filled area for his commercial operation. He continues to fill and to use the entire filled area (now several times larger than when the court ruled) for his cOlrunercial operation. Finally, Mr. Hal' I' is has been us i ng the proper ty that he owns across the street from his home as additional parking space for his business. We are frequently aware of his employees and commercial vehicles being parked in the front yard and driveway to this home. The area was not used for con~ercial activities previously and its current use is clearly an expansion of Mr. Harris' business to a new location. In your letter to the Davidsons, dated June 14, 1994 (copy to Mr. Harris) you stated that you felt that the only expansion the town could effectively address was that of physical area. What information are you using to define that area? Mr. Harris submitted maps that we did not agree with during the site plan review hearings (56-91) in which he received permission for a pig farm. This was an obvious attempt by the applicant to increase the conm1ercial area without the proper variance procedure. The area east of the garage was defined by that board as agricultural and further referred to a buffer zone (100 feet deep running along the Pickle Hill Road boundary.) The designation of the area as 'cOlrunercial' was shown to be incorrect in the letter dated 2/7/92 to the Town Attorney from the Davidsons including photos and court documents as proof. In addition, we are enclosing copies of Harris' statements as describing the area as agricultural and the commercial area as less than one acre. Also enclosed is a copy of a quote regarding unlawful expansion from the Town Court's decision dated 2/26/90. We ask the town to consider their unwillingness to pursue the expanded number of vehicles in this particular case. We are frustrated that the town attorney is so cautious about this issue when we know that the town has written proof of a letter to Mr. Harris from Mac Dean allowing only one commercial vehicle on the property. This evidence should be effective in any court in - 1 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) proving that Mr. Harris knew of and accepted limits on the size of his business when he built the garage. All the issues we are complaining about are due to the Town of Queensbury's unwillingness to enforce its own zoning. We understand that Mr. Harris is a difficult person to enforce the zoning on, however, the zoning is the Town's guarantee to prospective residents that the property they are purchasing wi 11 continue to be property that they can reasonably live on in comfort. The town's failure to enforce its zoning and the repeated delays in deternlining the actual physical area involved only continues to make our lives more difficult. Please do not continue to make this difficult situation worse! Therefore, we urge you to take further action to direct the irrunediate removal of all commercial use of the areas in question; on the north side of Pickle Hill Road bounded by the driveway adjacent to the east side of the commercial garage, and on the south side of Pickle Hill Road and that future corrunercial activity be confined to the 'less than an acre' as claimed by Mr. Harris. We will be more than happy to furnish any further proof from our files, or meet with you any time. We request that the town respond in writing by November 15, 1995. Sincerely, Dorothy Burnham Paul Davidson Debbie Davidson" MR. CAR V I N - 0 k a y . Now, the fir s tIe t t e r t hat the a p p 1 i can t has questions as to whether Mr. Martin has made the correct interpretation, and it deals with his response to that letter on November the 14th, which I think we should read into the record now. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated November 14, 1995, to Paul and Debbie Davidson "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Davidson: I am in receipt of your letter dated 11/3/95 concerning potential zoning violations at the Harris property located on the north side of Pickle Hill Road. The letter requests written response to several questions/issues. The questions/issues and associated responses are as follows: 1.) ISSUE: 'the town has failed to address all of the illegal expansions of Mr. Harris' business.' This conmlent is focusing on the placement of logs and equipment on the outer edge of the perimeter driveway. RESPONSE: The Town has issued an order to remedy violation for the storage of logs in the location referenced above as it is my determination as Zoning Administrator that this represents an unlawful expansion of a nonconforming use. During numerous visits to this area of the site the town Code Compliance officer has yet to find any equipment stored in this area. In terms of the storage of junk equipment the Town has recently concluded a court action requiring removal of junk equipment stored on the site. The equipment has been removed. 2.) ISSUE: 'we have complained repeatedly about fill being brought in behind Mr. Harris' garage...He continues to fill and use the entire filled area... for his corrunercial operation.' RESPONSE: The statement is in direct conflict with observations made by the enforcement staff after visits to the site in response to complaints made. There have been no findings to date to support the allegation of corrunercial use of the filled area. 3.) ISSUE: 'We have requested repeatedly for the town to define the physical boundaries of the property' RESPONSE: The Town feels it has an understanding of the physical boundaries and allowed uses for the property. 4.) ISSUE: 'Mr. Harris has been using the property that he owns across the street from his home as additional parking space for his business.' RESPONSE: The Code Compliance Officer is currently addressing this matter with Mr. Harris in response to a previous complaint. 5.) ISSUE: 'We ask the Town to reconsider their unwillingness to pursue the expanded number of vehicles in this particular case. RESPONSE: I have reviewed this issue with the Town Attorney and have taken this complaint under advisement. 6.) ISSUE: 'All the issues we are complaining about are due to the Town of Queensbury's unwillingness to enforce its own zoning.' RESPONSE: This statement is flatly incorrect. Extensive documentation exists that demonstrates a consistent willingness to enforce the zoning code. 1 4- (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) Such documentation encompasses a NYS Supreme Court decision; a Town Justice Court decision resulting in a site plan review approval by the Planning Board; in conjunction with that review an inquiry to the Cornell Cooperative Extension concerning standards for proper pig farming; enforcement actions relating to unlawful storage of junk equipment and parking of employee automobiLes; inquiries to NYS Department of Environmental Conservation concerning the fill dumped at the site; as welt as numerous visits to the site by the Director of Code Enforcement, the Code Compliance Officer, the Executive Director of Community Development, the Zoning Administrator, the Town Attorney, the Senior Planner, the Planning Assistant, Planning Board members, Town Board members and the Supervisor. I hope the above responses address the issues raised. Please feel free to call with any further questions that you may have. Sincerely, James M. Martin, AICP Executive Director & Zoning Administrator" MR. CARV IN-Okay, and then I thi nk that 1 e t tel' 0 f De c em be I' 8 t h . A p p a I' en t 1 y , letter in between there. was fo 11 owed don't know if up with there's a a MR. MARTIN-No, that was a phone conversation. MR. CARVIN-That was a phone conversation. MR. MARTIN-This letter is in response to that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated December 8, 1995, to Debbie Davidson "Dear Debbie: As discussed in our telephone conversation a few weeks ago, I am writing this letter to provide clarification on two remaining zoning issues regarding the Harris property on Pickle Hill Road. In the context of our discussion you requested that I provide a written zoning determination on the following two issues: 1. ISSUE: Conm1ercial Log Processing On The Interior Area of the Loop Road this area is located east of the garage structure, north of Pickle Hi Ll Road and south of the interior loop road access drive. RESPONSE: The supreme court decision of 1/27/89 provides explanation on this issue. On p. 3 item H7 and H9 of the findings of fact state that timber harvesting and wood processing were conducted on the property from the mid 1940's through 1980 and that the timber or construction business has been in continuous operation for the past 45 years. Furthermore, the decision states on p. 4 item U2 of the conclusions of law that the 'said business is not in violation of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinances'. 2. ISSUE: The increased number of vehicles associated with business consti tutes an unlawful expansion of the business. A review of past correspondence to you concerning this issue (my letter to you dated 6/14/94) reveals that a response has already been given. Page two of the above referenced letter states 'increase is or acceleration of business volume alone would not generally make a strong argument in support of an expansion prohibited by the zoning laws'. As zoning administrator, my position remains unchanged. I hope this letter serves to clarify the issues referenced. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 745-4440. Sincerely, James M. Martin, AICP Executive Director Zoning Administrator Conm1unity Development" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Before you go on, I would like to, I think, read into the record, so that we all have an understanding of what that Supreme Court decision on January 27, 1989 that Mr. Martin is referring to. I have a copy here of that decision, and I'm going to ask that, on Page 3, Item 7 and Item 9, be read into the record, and I would also ask that on Page 4, Item Number Two be read into the record, so that we know what Mr. Martin is referring to with regard to the court cases. -- 15 "-.--.-..-. '---._. ~ -., --~ --- (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. THOMAS--This is being read from the County of Warren, State of New York Supreme Court decision made by the Honorable John G. Dyer, Justice of the Supreme Court, and it is dated January 27, 1989, from Page Three, Paragraph Number Seven, "Defendants grandfather and father conducted timber harvesting as well as wood processing on said property from the mid 1940's through 1980." And Number Nine on Page Three, "The property in question has thus been continually used for the storage of heavy equipment used in the t i mb e I' 0 I' con s t I' U c t ion bus i n e s s for a p pro x i ma tel y the pas t 45 years. On Page Four, the first Number Two at the top of the page "The defendant is conducting his own business on the North side of Pickle Hill Road in the Town of Queensbury, but said business in not in violation of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, since it is a pre-existing nonconforming use of said property." MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then we have correspondence from the applicant dated January 8th, I think, again, referencing exceptions to both the letters of November 14th and December the 8th, which I think is the heart of the issue. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated January 8, 1996 "Dear Zoning Board of Appeals Members: We are appealing portions of the two letters reviewed below from the Zoning Administrator. We are enclosing copies of those letters (dated 11/14/95 & 12/8/95 from James Martin) and our letter of 11/3/95 requesting Town action (with it's enclosures supporting our claims), several photographs of the area the Harris logging business has expanded on to after the court decision of January 27, 1989 (which allowed Mr. Harris to operate his business as a pre-existing nonconforming use), and copies of several correspondence supporting our claims of expansion of the Harris Logging business. Due to the extensive documentation we have highlighted the specific portions of each supporting statement. The specific areas of expansion we are addressing are the physical area the business is operating in; north of the corrunercial garage and parking area (referred to as the filled area) the area to the east of the commercial garage and the area across the street to the south of the commercial garage and the Harris home. We have also repeatedly requested the Town of Queensbury add res s the con tin u e din ere a s e i nth e numb e I' 0 f v e hie 1 e s ( bot h corrunercial and those of his employees) on the Harris property and we request that you also address this expansion. We thank you for your time in dealing with this matter. We realize that we have provided you with a great deal of documentation, but we have more supporting evidence if needed and we encourage you to review the vast files the town has on these properties. Please feel free to con tac t us with any ques t ions you may have. Thank you, Pau l & Deborah Davidson RE: letter to Davidsons, dated 11/14/95, from James M. Martin, AICP 1. issue: expansion to outer edges of perimeter driveway No mention of the area bounded by the driveway the area east of the garage, south of the driveway and north of Pickle Hill Road. This area was not commercial at the time of the court decision and represents expansion. We request all logs, cOITUnercial equipment, conunercial vehicles (including those for his employees) and junk be removed from this area as well as from the outer perimeter and that this area not be used for any corrm1ercial activities. 2. issue: filled area behind commercial garage and parking area Present staff may not know dimensions of filled area at time of court decision. It has expanded and entire filled area is used for storage of logs, parking of vehicles and equipment which constitutes expansion. 3. issue: definition of physical boundaries We request in writing what the Town has determined to be the boundaries at time of court decision. 4. issue: use of property across the street Thank you for your responding promptly, however expanded us e con t i nues . 5. is s ue : expanded number 0 f corrunercial vehicles 'under advisement'? 6. issue: unwillingness to enforce: The present administration is doing more, however violations continue to existing and expansions continue. Many remarks in this paragraph are related to other problems on this - 16 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) property which are unrelated to the expansion of the non-conforming commercial use. Re: letter to Davidsons, dated 12/8/95, from James M. Martin, AICP 1. issue: commercial log processing on the interior area of driveway If storage of logs outside of the driveway represents expansion as determined by Mr. Martin, then storage inside the driveway also represents expansion. See photos taken in 1987 through 1992, dur ing and after the court case allowing Mr. Harris to operate as a non-conforming, pre-existing business which is not allowed to expand. 2. issue: increased number of commercial vehicles The increase in the number of vehicles has created the need for expansion of parking facilities both of which are prohibited in present zoning laws. Parking of employees' vehicles at the Harris rental property on the south side of Pickle Hill Road represents expansion." MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then think as a final letter, I have a letter dated March 19, 1996, and I think this may be something that kind of clarifies, hopefully, what the applicant is looking for clarification on. Do you have that letter? Are you familiar with the letter of the 19th? MR. MARTIN-I don't think Mark or I have seen it. Davidson? It's from Paul MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, why don't we read it into the record. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated March 19, 1996 "Dear Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals: Due to an unavoidable business obligation, I anl unable to attend the hearing on our appeal on the 21st. My wife, Debbie will be there to answer any questions and to speak for me during the meeting. I am requesting that you read this letter into the record. Information already provided to the board with our appeal is intended to back up our following statements. * In testimony to the Planning Board, Harris states 'I use less than one acre for the garage and the rest is agriculture.' He has obviously expanded beyond the 'less than one acre,' without even including the area opposite our home. · In testimony to NYS Supreme Court Harris indicates that he does not use the property to store or process wood other than that for his own use. The Supreme Court determination in the case states, "Defendant (Harris) denies cutting or storing any lumber on his property except for his own use.' Currently logs are not only removed by Harris, but also by customers. It would be impossible for Harris to use the amounts of wood that have been moved onto and back off the property in recent months. * In testimony to the NYS Supreme Court, Harris admitted being aware that zoning laws did not allow expansion of a non- conforming use. In testimony to the NYS Supreme Court Harris indicated that he has two employees come to the site on the average day. Currently at least ten employees come to the site on an average day. A 500% expansion. * Our photos are evidence that the area now used commercially was not used in this manner in the past. Our evidence (much of it generated by Harris) indicates that the activities (commercial loading/processing of wood), area of commercial (formerly cornfield/hayfield then pigs opposite our property), number of employees (thus more vehicles and equipment) have absolutely expanded. Please also consider these items. * Our sketch used in appeal of an illegally used barn permit shows thet area now used as connnercial for the barn. The sketch was based on the permit issued by Mac Dean. Our appeal was upheld and the permit rescinded pending site plan review. During the site plan review, Harris presented the sketch showing the same area as agriculture. The Planning Board stipulated that area between the barn and the road be a buffer and that none of the area, including the barn (even stipulating maximum door sizes), be used for the commercial activities. * It should be noted that the activities (loading/unloading of logs and equipment occurs at all hours of the day and night, seven days a week including holidays. The results are: excessive noise and dust, ugly view, excessive exhaust fumes, - 17 - ( ¡ '-J \ '-- (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) collapsing of our drainage ditch by Harris trucks driving way onto the shoulder, depositing of mud in front of our driveway and mai I box, gar bag e thrown and blown on to our yard and cons tan t traffic hazards. Additionally, Harris trucks have knocked down our ma i 1 box t w ice , bur n t the power pol e and cab 1 e TV w ire 0 nee and knocked down the power pole once. Allowing expans ion obviously adversely effects our quality of life and property value, but also invalidate:; the taws of the Town. Please note that petitions s i g n e d by ma n y Que ens bur y I' e sid e n t s ask i n g for act ion 0 nth i s matter have been presented to the Town Board and they are here for your review. * The property the commercial garage is on, 26-21- 0.5 is assessed as vacant with improvements; 200' x 200' prime, 500' x 200' undeveloped and 17.68 acres residual. It is not assessed as commercial. I request th is Board to determine that the Harris commercial business not be allowed further than 20' east of the garage and be limited to one acre in total including the garage. This is a larger area than Mr. Harris stated he was using in previous testimony. I also request that you determine that commercial storage and/or processing of logs be prohibited. Sincerely, PauL J. Davidson" And attached is copies of the petition sent to the Town Board. MR. CARVIN-Okay. 1992. would like to note that the date on that is MR. THOMAS-The date on these petitions is July 30, 1992, and there are three pages of petition signers. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there you go. All right. We have, obviously, a number of issues. I guess, Jim, do you want to make a cOlnment as to what your decisions are or where some of these issues might lie? MR. MARTIN-I think we're in agreement, we might as well start with those, because those would be the easiest, on a couple of issues, and that would be, the storage of logs, and I'll refer to it as the interior, private Loop drive or road, to the east of the garage, the storage of logs outside of that road. Mr. Harris has been cited for a violation of that, in the October 6th letter, and that's pending legal action. The other thing that we're in agreement on is the storage of comnercial vehicles on the south side of Pickle Hill Road, on the property that is owned by Mr. Harris. I believe it's a rental property, a home is on that property. Storage of commercial vehicles on that site is a violation. John has been out several times on that. MR. CARVIN·-Okay. Can I stop you there, then. All right. So we have two interpretations of violation. So, am I to interpret that you have, in your letter you do refer to, I think it's the letter dated, okay, the letter dated November the 14th, and I think your response is that the Town feels that it has an understanding of the physical boundaries and allowed uses for the property. Prom that, am I to interpret that you have or could dimension, in other words, where the line is, where he crosses? In other words, has that been established? MR. MARTIN-The best guide we have for that, in my estimation, is the site plan map that was supplied with the site plan for the pig farming. That was supplied by the applicant then, that was Mr. Harris, and it did make reference to buiLdings in certain locations on the lot and it did outline a con~ercial boundary, so to speak, on that map, and that's what I have been using. MR. CARVIN-.Okay. Is the pig farming still in operation? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARVIN-And has it been discontinued for a period of time? - 18 - " -- -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Over 18 months? MR. GORALSKI-I'm not sure, but that conforming use under site plan review, apply. was and determined to be a the 18 months doesn't MR. MARTIN-Site Plan Review and approval was obtained for the pig farming. Although not all eLements of the site plan were installed, but that's pretty much a moot point now that the pigs are gone. MR. CARVIN-Right, but you're sti 11 uSIng the si te plan from that application. MR. MARTIN-All I'm saying IS that is a written document that exists in the f i 1 e that does i nd i ca te, you know, some bounds on the property, in terms of a cormnercial use. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, my question is, can those bounds be physically put on a map? In other words, if we had a lot of Mr. Harris' property, could you, based upon that information from site plan, say that this is the area that is conforming to the nonconforming use, and that anything beyond that. MR. MARTIN-Right. That is shown on that map. use of property, or limit of cormnercial use, It says conmercial 'n1 working frOll1. MR. CARVIN--Okay, and do we have a copy of that map? Because think this is, and I may be wrong, but I think this is one of the requests that the applicant has asked for. All right. Can everybody see this? All right. It appears that this is the road? MR. MARTIN-Yes. There's that, referred to There's the existing cormnercial structure, h 0 u.s e , Pic k I e Hill R 0 ad. The I' e d Ii n e cOITUnercial use. as the existing drive. 40 by 60, the Harris indicates limit of MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And that is not something, that was written on there by the applicallt at the tim{~. So, that's what we've beerl using. There is dimensions given here, 100 foot back from the rear wall of the structure. Then we were trying to establish, at the time, a setback for what was to be a pig pen and barn, 163 feet. That was never installed, and so this does supply some dimension as to commercial use. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is the applicant aware of this? MRS. DAVIDSON-We are aware of that. My name's Debbie Davidson. MR. CARVIN--Okay. MRS. DAVIDSON-We're very aware of that map. When it was presented to the Zoning Board at the time, we raised a great deal of discussion, because we disagreed with it so strongly. The Town's attorney then said that he did not feel comfortable il1 that Board determining where the conlluercial activity was. So they could not use that to determine what conmercial activity they had. They were told to ignore the boundaries of the conlluercial activity when they made their determination to allow the pig farm. Mr. Harris did h a v e ape r m i t for b u 11 din g 0 f use d ma tel' i a 1. He had ape r m i t issued to him prior to this map. During the lawsuit in which he wanted to put in a large barn, that map, my husband drew at the time, because we did not feel that Mr. Harris should receive a permit for a barn of that size on that property without going - 19 - o , (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) through site plan review. MR. CARVIN-Okay. don't want to get Well, I'm going to limit it to just into any side venues at this point. this. MR. MARTIN-I think the thing that has to be kept in mind while you look at that map is those, you know, findings of the court case from '89. It was a finding of the judge at the time that wood processing was occurring on that site, and I think that, in combination with that map, does establish the fact that it was occurring and the area that it was occurring in. MR. CARVIN-All right. AliI want to determine is whether your determination was correct and the procedure that you used to determine that, and the applicant has requested a boundary demarcation here, and all right, Mr. Martin is telling us that this is what he determined to be the area that would be in compliance for the logging operation, and that any activity relating to the logging outsicle of that would not be in compliance, and if my understanding is correct, that the Town has taken action against Mr. Harris for activity that it's deemed outside of this approved area? MR. MARTIN-Correct. MR. CARVIN-All right. So it's our Board's determination, is Mr. Martin correct in his interpretation, and Ls his determination correct based upon this information. MR. MARTIN-I think that's one issue. MR. CARVIN-That's one issue. Well, I'm going to take them one at a time, 1 hope. MRS. DAVIDSON-Am I allowed to speak to this map? I mean, what I'm trying to tell you is that he had a permit issued for a barn in that triangular section, during the lawsuit. He referred to it at that time as agricultural. If he had a permit for that area, for a barn, it's an agricultural use that he was trying to prove. He got the permit. We did appeal it, but he had a permit to put a barn for agricultural activity in that triangular section. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Wel l, I'm referring to what your argument against Mr. Martin is on your letter dated March the 13th. In other words, I'm trying to focus in on exactly what you are asking this Board to interpret, and I quote here that, "I request that this Board determLne that the Harris commercial business is not to be allowed further than 20 feet east of the garage, and be limited to one acre in total, including their garage." Now I don't know what the dimensions are, and I don't know if any of these figures comply with that, but I think that this is what Mr. Martin is using, and you're asking a certain set of criteria here. Is that correct? I mean, what are you asking us to interpret here? MRS. DAVIDSON-I'm asking you to interpret the physical boundaries of Mr. Harris' business. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, my understanding is that you're asking Mr. Martin to determine, and this is what he's saying that he's using to determine the boundaries of that commercial activity. MRS. DAVIDSON-I disagree with those boundaries, and repeatedly, loudly. have MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what I'm saying is that, apparently there is a, I can't tell you whether these are right or wrong. I can tell you that, apparently, there was a system here, and if this is what I'm being told is the correct system, and this has been agreed - 20 - ---,--_.__._._._._._-~.,----~--- (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) upon, then I think that Mr. Martin is correct in his determination that any activity outside of there is probably in violation, and in my eyes it appear s that they ar e tak i ng ac t ion wher e deemed necessary. MRS. DAVIDSON-Are we able to discuss the physical boundaries that are on that map? I mean, I've argued it since that map was first generated, and I continue to. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, I don't know what point the argument is going to accomplish, because we didn't determine this. I mean, this is, and it's not our position at this point to determine whether this is right or wrong, but this appears to be a logic set of facts that Mr. Martin used in determining his actions, and I can't fault Mr. Martin, at this point, that he was wrong in doing, in his procedure. MRS. DAVIDSON-I can. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, that's why you're here, and this is illY interpretation, and, you know, we can only address what you're saying he's wrong, and we have to find out what procedure he used to make his determination, and then whether his determination was correct based upon his method. Now if his method was flawed, then this Board can override that. However, if there is no flaw to his method, then we cannot override that. Does that make sense? MRS. DAVIDSON-Can I argue as to whether or not? MR. CARVIN-You can argue all the way to the Supren1e Court, but at this level, all we're looking at is, was Mr. Martin right or wrong in his determination, and based upon this lot line, I mean, he's shown us, and apparently can substantiate, that there was a defined line where this activity is allowed, and that anything beyond that line, now, I'm not even going to address the greater issue whether this is right or wrong, because I have some pretty strong opinions both ways on that, but what I'm saying is that, Mr. Martin has come to a determination, and it appears that his position is supportable in regard to the lot 1 ine, and your request that you wanted definitive boundary lines, and I think that if this is what, I mean, I think that his response is somewhat lacks, when he says that, the Town feels that it has an understanding of the physical boundaries. Now he may be criticized that he didn't give you all the specifics, but I think that there's probably pretty good reason to believe that that could be provided. MRS. DAVIDSON-Does that mean I would have to do another appeal? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. That you'll have to take up with your lawyer, but I'm just saying that you're arguing his determination. Your issue, we have requested repeatedly for the Town to define the physical boundaries of the property, and I would have to agree with you that he understands, but what we've asked him is that, he has given us the documentation to support that, and there does appear to be, I suspect substantial measurements that he could provide this, and apparently you are aware of this. So I think that this is what he's using. So now we've established a ground rule, that this is, apparently, what Mr. Martin is using, and whether that's right or wrong, that we'll have to determine later, I guess. Okay. Now, the south side. All right. I guess that has to deal with the parking. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-On the south side of Pickle Hill Road? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I think we're in agreement on that, in terms of myself and the Davidsons, that that has not been commercial.ly used in the - 21 -- (Que0nsbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) past, and any sort of use of that area for the business would require a Use Variance. There has been complaints received that there has been commercial vehicles parked in that area. When we've received them, we've responded. I think the last one was about a week ago. John and I both went out, I think wi thin a few minutes after we got the call. We went by and we did not see a con~ercial vehicle there. I understand that it is a rental property. I further understand, and I could be corrected tonight, but I think that it is being rented by an employee of Harris Logging, and I think we have seen on occasion there, I think, pick up trucks with Harris Logging on the side, but the pick up truck with Harris Logging on the side, if it is an employee living there, and they drove their car home from work so to speak, or their truck, I don't know whether I'd classify a pick up truck as a commercial vehicle, but if there's skidders there, or something like that, bulldozers or a large tandem truck, then we would pursue removal of that as a conul1ercial parking in a residential area. MR. FORD-Jim, to clarify whether or not that's vehicle, would the type of licensing have a bearing a conunercial on that? MR. MARTIN-I don't know. Typically, even anyone's pick up truck carries a conm1ercial license plate. I guess from my standpoint, I don't consider the parking of a pick up truck related to the business there. If it is the individual living there, I wouldn't consider that a con~ercial parking. If it's a pick up truck just from the business, parked over there, that would be commercial parking. We never ran the plates or anything like that. MR. GORALSKI-In general, around the Town, there are many people who work for contractors who drive pick up trucks or a van, panel type vans, home f rom work, and we don't enforce that as us i ng a residence for a cOlmnercial use, and when I've gone up to Pickle Hill Road to this particular site, one time there was a log trailer there. We asked it to be removed, and it was removed. Any other time I've been up there, the only vehicles that have said Harris Logging on them were pick up type vehicles that could be used by a resident as part of his compensation for working for the company. MR. CARVIN-Okay. that? Now, is there an action going on with regard to MR. GORALSKI-With regard to that? have determined to be a cOlmnercial we've asked it to be removed. No, because anything that we vehicle has been moved when MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now you've been concentrating on Mr. Harris' trucks. How about other trucks? Are you saying that Mr. Harris, if he had five trucks, and that was his property, he would not be able to park his trucks on his property? MR. GORALSKI-No cOIlli11ercial vehicles can be parked on that property. MR. GREEN-But you're not considering five pick up trucks? MR. GORALSKI-Well, the five pick up trucks were parked there, and as Jim said, the assumption would be that there aren't five people living there. We'd have to investigate that. If there were five people living there, and they all happened to have trucks as part of their compensation for working for Harris Logging and they were simply using them as transportation, I think we'd have to look into that, but that's never been the case. Every time I've been there, there's been one or two pick up trucks there, I think two at the most. As I said, the one time that I did see a trailer there, I asked it to be moved, and it was moved. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess still am unclear, because I think what -- 22 -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) the applicant is saying is that this is a sign of expansion. MRS. DAVIDSON-He's expanded to use, his employees use the front of that lot as a parking lot for their vehicles when they come to work. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I guess my question is, are these trucks still related to the use that's occurring, legally, on that property, or is this becoming a commercial parking lot? MR. MARTIN-If it's becoming a commercial violation of being an unlawful expansion. parking I agree. lot, it's in MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I guess I'm, and this is from my own edification, but if I had, do we have ordinances that prevent multiple automobiles parking on a lot, and if so, what's the time frame? If I have 12 people come in from out of town who want to park their cars on my property while they're going to Montreal on the train, am I in violation of a Town ordinance? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, what difference does it make if they have Harris Logging on the side of their car parked on my property? MR . MARTI N -- It' s a use i s sue. 1ft h e per son par kin g t hat car i s there on the basis of a commercially related use, or a use related to the commercial business. MR. CARVIN-No. If I walk across the street to where it's commercial, and as long as I'm not doing my business where the automobile is, I don't see where we can mandate the parking, because the activity is occurring across the street. MR. MARTIN-It becomes a utility of the land issue. The utility of the land is limited by the Zoning Code to residentially related uses. Parking of commercial vehicles associated with that commercial business is a part of that commercial use, <:md therefore that's an expansion into that area, commercial parking. MR. GREEN-But, I don't know, maybe I'm being the Devil's advocate, here, but who's to say they aren't just, for a lack of a better term, a car pool situation. They all meet at one place and then go to work. Now granted, work is across the street, but is there a problem with five or six people meeting at one place, five or six different vehicles, however n1any, and then continuing on to work, and in this case, work is across the street? MR. MARTIN-If that were the case, I would say not. MR. GREEN-Exactly. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess, tell me where the difference IS, is what I'm having a difficulty. MR. GORALSKI-If you were establishing a parking lot that you are utilizing as a facility related to your cormnercial use, whether it's on that lot or another lot, then you're using that for commercial purposes. MR. CARVIN-Well, am I charging for this parking? MR. GORALSKI-No, but it's just like having a parking lot for a store. You're utilizing that area. MR. MARTIN-If it were not for the presence of that corrunercial use, those cars would not be there. - 23 - (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. FORD-Prior to this, had the employees vehicles not been parked on the commercial site, and therefore, because they now are being parked across the road, logically, this is an expansion of the corm1ercial use, conm1ercial site. MR. GORALSKI-If that were the case, I would say yes, but once again, I want to go back and state that, when have been there, there have only been one or two pick up trucks parked there. There's never been a case where I've seen five or six cars or pick up trucks parked on that lot. MR. MARTIN-And we have not taken any action in that instance. The only time when we did take action was when there was clearly a vehicle related to the conm1ercial business, meaning equipment trailer. We asked that to be moved, and it was moved, and if there's a skidder there, those types of things are obvious. The thing with the pick up truck becomes complicated, especially by the fact that it's our understanding that an employee of the logging business rents the home. So that makes it even more complicated, but we haven't pursued the pick up trucks. MR. CARVIN--Well, again, I understand if they've got Harris Logging on the side of the truck, okay, then it becomes part of the commercial venture. If there's no sign on the side of the truck, and I've got 10 pick up trucks parked there, I think we're getting into a pretty touchy area. MR. GORALSKI-We've never had that instance. MR. CARVIN-On the other hand, if they are loading logs or doing the corrunerc ial, in other words, if they take logs from across the street and dump it onto one of those trucks, and that truck goes off some place, then I think you've got an expansion, and has that ever been the case where you've seen activity related to the use being conducted on that property? MR. MARTIN--The only time we've seen a, we feel is a commercial activity related to the commercial business is the storage of that equipment trailer that one time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-That's the only time we've taken any action. MR. CARVIN-And when Mr. Harris was asked to remove that, there was no probl em, we didn't have to have an enforcement act ion or anything? MR. MARTIN-Right. It was moved. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-At what point would you consider it to be an expansion? .Iow many pick up trucks would have to be parked there? MR. MART IN- I don't know that I can answer that. MR. GREEN-See, don't think we can regulate who parks In somebody , yard. s MR. CARV IN- I agree. MR. CARVIN-And I don't think a pick up truck constitutes a corrunerc ial use. MRS. DAVIDSON-Our concern is that his employees are using that as a parking lot, and if he expands his parking lot, then he is expanding his business. He is not allowed to expand his business -- 24 - (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) without. MR. GREEN-Is that set aside, though, as employee parking? MRS. DAVIDSON--You can tell the di fference between the employee parking and the people going to visit his home, because the people going to visit him, or the home, pull into the driveway. It's 100 foot setback. They park down by that. The ones going to work pull in the end of the driveway and park on the end of the property, on the road end of the property, not by the home. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I think you're creating quite an enforcement issue. I mean, I think you're getting into a very dangerous area of gov e rnmen t comi ng in and check i ng eve r yone who parks on your property. Now how would.Y..QJJ. like it if every time somebody came to visit your house, we had to find out whether they were there for business or pleasure? MRS. DAVIDSON-If I was running a nonconforming use of a business in my home, then you would have every right. MR. CARVIN-But that's not the case on this property. MR. GREEN-This property's fully in compliance. MRS. DAVIDSON-He still has a nonconforming use. MR. GREEN-Across the street. MR. CARVIN-Across the street. MRS. DAVIDSON-Across the street. MR. HARRIS-I'm the owner of the property, Keith Harris, and my brother-in-law. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me, but for the purposes of your record, don't you want to have any other conm1ents wait until the public hearing, or no? MR. CARVIN-Yes. hearing until we Board. I'd find 1 i k e tor e f r a i n from out what the applicant opening the public is asking of this MR. HARRIS-Well, I was just trying to help you out, because they do park there to go to work. Colin lives there. He works with three of my other guys. They park there and carpool to go to work. I mean, it's not like they're parking there and going over and being a mechanic. I mean, it's just, they go in and have coffee. They get ready. They talk about what they're going to cut, they're going to fix, or what they're going to do, and go to work. I mean, it would be no different if the Board here parked and said, lets ride together in the Caravan. I have a two seated pick up. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I appreciate your conm1ents, but I'm going to leave it on a direct basis, until I open up the hearing. If we do have a question of you, I would ask the Board to direct it to Mr. Harris, and Mr. Harris, answer the specific question. All right. Once we get to the public hearing, then you can make corrunents as to the whole thing, but what I'm trying to do at this point is to go through this fairly systematically, I hope, and find out exactly what the applicant is asking of this Board, and so far I've got a list of things, here, and I think we're trying to go through this list. We've got the, you know, I've got an idea of what the applicant is asking here. I've got an idea of what the applicant is asking as far as the parking. Does anybody else have any questions with relation to that? I think, Mr. Martin, you're determination, if I can find that in there, is that there is no 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) problem with the parking on that south piece of property. MR. MARTIN-The only one time we've found a problem was with the trailer, and it was removed. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but it is your determination that there is no? MR. MARTIN-There is to be no parking related to the business on the south side of the road. That's a residential lot. MR. GREEN-And you've not found that to be the case, other than the one instance? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARVIN-All right. Now the next item. MRS. LAPHAM-It doesn't seem as if we've addressed that. MR. CARVIN-Well, we've brought to the table anyway. 1 don't know .i f we've addressed anything so far. Okay. Now, all right. You bring up the issue of fill, and okay, Jim, all right. We have an issue, I guess, of fi11ed area behind the commercial garage and pa,¡-ki ng area. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN--Okay. Can you maybe expand upon that a little bit? MR. MARTIN-My understanding is that, when the garage was first built, there was a natural slope to the bank there, or a bank that was much further to the south than it is today, and we're talking about the north edge of the garage, if you can refer to the map there again. Over time, Keith has fllled in along that bank, various things, probably even stumps, fill, gravel, whatever, and that flat area has expanded northward. Again, I think there's a certain dimension given there. We've been trying to, any time there's been a complaint about this, go over and make sure that we've been inside of that dimension, again, as indicated on that map. The fill, I think, is substantially farther north from there, now. We've gone there, and I'll let John respond to what he's found there. We have had some junk vehicles or junk equipment there, and the last time we, I think it was late last spring or early summer, we had a court action, 30 day to remedy from the judge, and it was followed through on. I mean, not right away. We had a lot of rain right in that period. As soon as the rain cleared up, the junk was removed, but I'll let John respond to what he's seen out there, because I have not been out, personally, in some time. MR. GORALSKI-I've been out there several times with Dave Hatin. The dimension that's on the map is 100 feet, and the goal has been to maintain storage of the vehicles within 100 feet of the garage, and in general that has been complied with. There are now logs that are stored beyond that, but in general, we've worked to keep the vehicles within 100 feet of that, and as far as I know, the last I went out and measured it, that that was the case. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now you'd mentioned there's logs out there. Are those logs in compliance? MR. GORALSKI-No. Those are the logs that we discussed, that Jim's letter states are not in compliance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that is being addressed? Apparently, there is an activity out there that is not in compliance? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. - 26 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay, and it only has to deal with the logs, and there's been no vehicle? MR. GORALSKI-Since the last time I was out there, yes. I wasn't out there today, so I don't know what the situation is today. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now the applicant has indicated in her letter, or their letter, "we have complained repeatedly about fill being brought in behind Mr. Harris' garage. He continues to fill and use the entire filled area for his conm1ercial operation." Now Mr. Martin's response is, "the statement is in direct conflict with observations made by the enforcement staff after visits to the site in response to the complaint. There have been no findings to date to support the allegation of conm1ercial use in the fi lIed area", but I think this is dated November the 14th. So apparently from November the 14th to the current, tl,ere is now a problem out there? MR. GORALSKI-There are logs that, as I today. The last time I was out there, stored beyond that 100 feet from the considered in violation. said, I wasn't out there there were logs that were garage. Those would be MR. MARTIN-And the log pile that, you know, the nature of it, they do shift around. MR. GORALSKI-Occasionally, depending on what shipments are coming in and going out. So the actual location and size of the log piles changes almost daily. MR. CARVIN-Again, this filled area that the applicant is referring to, is that within the boundaries or out of the boundaries, as far as what you feel is? MR. GORALSKI-There has been fill brought in that is beyond what is shown on this map, the same map you have. What we have attempted to do, and in general have been successful with, is keeping any activity within 100 feet of the back wall of the garage. Last time I was at the site, there were logs that were stored beyond that point. Those logs are part of the subject of Jim Martin's letter stating that there's a violation on the property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You have no problem with the fill, I take it? In other words, the property owner does have the right to fill, and there's no illegal dumping or substances going into the ground, to the best of your knowledge? MR. GORALSKI-To the best of my knowledge. MR. MARTIN-We consulted with DEC, even, about the nature of that fill, and they have found no problem with it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to ask the applicant. Do you have substantiation that, obviously, the staff has indicated that there is a problem out there, and that they are addressing it. Do you have any substantiation that this has been an ongoing thing, or is this the first time? MRS. DAVIDSON-No. This has been an ongoing thing since the court case. There are several letters that I can present copies of them to you if you would like, letters from us to the Town's attorney and to the enforcement officers, stating that the fill has been brought in and that he's expanding his parking area. I can't give you an exact line, as to how much has been expanded since the court case. I can tell you it's been ongoing for the past eight years. It's substantial. I have pictures that could show you a little better where that line is, but they're taken, you know, from me standing. So it's not an aerial picture where you could see a definite line. - 27 - (Queensbury ZSA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess what I'm going to say is, are you, did you hear that the Town is taking an action against that? MRS. DAVIDSON-I hear that the Town is. I, again, disagree with the line that they're accepting from Mr. Harris' picture. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, this is the line, and I'm assuming t hat t his, you are, t hat's the ma p t hat you' r ere fer I' i n g to, so that you are enforcing any illegal activity, if I can use that term, that's outside of that line? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand what the fill is? In other words, we don't have an argument with the fill, but apparently there is and has been activity that has occurred in that area, and it appears that Mr. Martin and Staff are, it's a little bit contradictory, that to date, they couldn't find anything, but apparently from this date, that has changed, and that the actions have been taken. Okay. All right. Other than the placement of the logs, is there any other activity that's occurring on that property that you would consider not to be a change in use? It has to be a change in use. MRS. DAVIDSON-The change in use, the stock piling of logs, is. MR. CARVIN-All right. What I'm saying is, anything happening out here other than the logs? The Town is addressing the logs. MRS. DAVIDSON-Outside of that, no, but the con~ercial activity of stock piling logs is a new addition to his business, and it is an expansion of his business that causes tremendous difficulty for the residents around them. MR. CARVIN-All right. Let me stop you there. Are you saying that he would not be allowed to stock pile logs within this, if you will accept for the moment, this boundary? MRS. DAVIDSON-Absolutely. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So what you're saying is that the stock piling of logs is a use that Mr. Harris is not entitled to? Is that what your interpretation would be? MR. MARTIN-I think now we're getting to the finer point. Again, I cite the court case that said wood processing is allowed on this property. If it was occurring just to the east of the barn, we have not taken any action, meaning just east, if you're in that area, where it says, shed, in that area where the 163 feet: 1S indicated. Anywhere in that area, in that triangle there, we have not taken any action, but if it's been outside of that red line which indicates a limit of conmlercial use, then we have begun to take action. I think that's the crux of the disagreement here is that I think the applicant feels that wood processing within, even the triangle area, is not a permitted use. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, I, and correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading your material here, and I appreciate your saying that the log piling is a use that he is not allowed, are you saying that because it is a larger pile than what he could conceivably use on a personal basis? MRS. DAVIDSON-Yes. He stated in his court testimony that he had no reason to bring logs to his property for the commercial venture. The only logs that came to his property were for his own personaJ and private use. That's a statement in the court testimony. It was upheld in the appeal. They stated in their findings of fact that Mr. Harris does not use, or does not stock pile or process -- 28- ~,. (Queensbury ZßA Meeting 3/21/96) logs on site. doing it later, So if he wasn't doing it then, then he can't because that would be an expansion. be MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I guess, we have to determine, based upon what the court has said, and can you show me where the court has said that he's allowed or not allowed to use lumber other than for his own personal use? Now I'm not talking testimony. I'm talking what the judge's decision was. In other words, the judge's determination, here, was that, and I think Mr. Martin is saying wood processing. MRS. DAVIDSON-I'm looking for the appeal. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've got both determinations here. MRS. DAVIDSON-The judge's findings of fact on the appeal. MR. CARVIN-On which one? The 1990 appeal? MRS. DAVIDSON-Yes, storing any lumber personal use. July 5, 1990. Defendant denies cutting or on his property except that cut for his own MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Martin, are you familiar with this? I see nowhere in here that they affirm or deny that. I see an awful lot on the equipment. Okay. This was their argument that the court was wrong, and I'm looking at, I mean, he upheld. MR. FORD-Might this be a technical question of the difference between lumber and timber? MR. CARVIN-I think it may boil down to how much lumber can he process out there for his own personal use? This is the first part, in other words, "defendant denies cutting or storing lumber on his property except for the cutting for his own personal use." All right. That was their argument back to the court, but I don't see, in other words, going through this, does that negate that argument? MR. SCHACHNER-No. This doesn't do recitation of what's gone on so far. decision. anything. This is just a This is where we start the MR. CARVIN-That's correct, but I see nothing as far as the lumber business is concerned. So I guess my question is, does this affirm or deny his use? MR. SCHACHNER-This affirms Judge Dier's decision. MR. CARVIN-And we have to interpret what lumber processing IS, or wood processing. MR. FORD-I didn't get a copy of all of it. I got Page One. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, I asked for the whole decision. MR. FORD-That kind of helps. MR . CAR V IN - Yes, i t doe s . about the business. see a lot about the garage, nothing MR. SCHACHNER-There's a bit about the business, just this sentence. MR. CARVIN-But that's equipment, nothing about the lumber. MR. SCHACHNER-I agree. I think the Appellate Division decision does not really discuss the nature of the business, if you will, and it does, without qualification or without limitation, it does - 29 - " (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) affirm Judge Dier's decision. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that, we should not take this, because this IS in the preamble. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. This is merely a recitation of what the parties contend, okay, this particular sentence, "defendant denies cutting or storing any lumber on his property except that cut for his own personal use." That's the Appellate Division citing what defendant's contention is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody follow this? Okay. MR. FORD-Then what does it go on to say? MR. CARVIN-Well, it goes on to say, and I think what Mark is saying is that this court upheld what Judge Dier's decision was, in tote? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, in essence, he's saying that what Judge Dier, and correct me if ['m wrong, has determined, is correct. All right. Now he does not specifically mention the lumber business, but Judge Dier does, and Judge Dier, according, and I think this is what Mr. Martin is using his basis, is that Item Number Seven, which says "the defendant's grandfather and father conducted timber harvesting as well as wood processing", and Number Nine, which has always been in the timber and construction business. Now, nowhere in Judge Dier's action do I see that he limits that action to just personal use. MR. MARTIN-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing I want to add is that the Appellate Division decision does also recite the statement that defendant's father and grandfather conducted timber harvesting as well as wood processing on the land from the mid 1940's through around 1980, and that is stated as a determination in the Appellate Division decision, and I think that almost exactly, or exactly, mirrors what was stated in Judge Dier's. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So I guess we have to interpret what wood processing is in relation to log piles. MRS. DAVIDSON-I would like to urge the Board to recognize that in Judge Dier's decision it states that, up until 1980, there was wood processing on the site. It doesn't say that it's a continued use, and Mr. Harris, in his testimony, and in the findings of facts, says he didn't do it. If he didn't do it in 1987, or from 1980 to 1987, he lost the two years. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Item Number Nine, "the property in question has thus been continuously used for the storage of heavy equipment used in the timber and construction business for approximately the past 45 years." MR. SCHACHNER-And in fact you get to 45 years, just arithematic wi s e , you'd h a vet 0 go from a b 0 utI 945, the mid I 940 ' s, to 1 990 . MR. CARVIN-1990. MRS. DAVIDSON-But that's the equipment. processing. Tha t 's not the wood MR. CARVIN-Well, I think the whole thing is, okay, the defendant's grandfather and father, I'm going to read in Section Eight. We keep jumping over Section Eight. "7. The defendant's grandfather and father conducted timber harvesting as well as wood processing - 30 - -~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) on said property from the mid 1940's through 1980. 8. Defendant's residence has been occupied by his family or his ancestors for many years with the exception of a two year period from 1978 to 1979 when the residence was occupied by Ralph Flewelling who stored hea vy equ i pmen t i nc 1 ud i ng bu 11 dozer s, backhoes, and 1 ar get I' ucks used by Mr. Flewelling's employer. 9. The property in question has thus been continuously used for the storage of heavy equipment used in the timber or construction business for approximately the past 45 years." MR. MARTIN-The other thing I'd point out is on Page Four of Judge Dier's decision, Number Two at the top, it says, "The defendant is conducting his own business on the North side of Pickle Hill Road in the Town of Queensbury, but said business is not in violation of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinances, since it is a pre- existing nonconforming use of said property." The business, I think, is defined as construction, timber harvesting. MR. CARVIN-Yes. "The defendant has owned or utU ized said property since 1980 for the storage, maintenance and repair of various types of heavy equipment used by him in connection with his timber harvesting business." MR. GREEN-I want to ask a question. For those two years that Mr. Flewelling occupied the residence, was timber processing also conducted on the area next to the residence? MR. HARRI S- I t was conducted on the east s ide of the property, because he was renting the house. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. HARRIS-See, what Mrs. Davidson, here, is not explaining, okay, this piece of land is the original Harris farm, that's been in the family 200 years. It could go back to almost 2800 acres. There's been four sawmills on the property. We proved it in Supreme Court. That's why I won the commercial decision. Now, granted, when you've got a commercial business, sometimes, you know, you're farming or logging or cutting wood or digging a hole or whatever. MR. GREEN-During those two years that Mr. Flewelling was in the residence? MR. HARRIS-Yes, it was. It was on the east side of the property next to my grandmother's. MR. GREEN-Where the log processing is going on today, there was still log processing during those two years? MR. HARRIS-No. In that time, it was farming. The property's been used for so many conm1ercial ventures, it's, the conm1ercial ventures were going on way before zoning was even enacted in the Town of Queensbury, in 1960, and the Davidson's moved in about 1986, '87, and started causing the Town, here, a lot of grief over it. I spent over $30,000. The Town wasted who knows how much money. Judge Dier made a decision. It wasn't good enough. The Town, or I shouldn't say the Town, the neighbor's appealed it. We took it to Albany. I won the decision again. It's been a 10 year battle, and I would hope that the Town would have enough judgement not to keep wasting taxpayer's money, and not only their own grief in life. I've got 10 years invested. MR. CARVIN-All right. determination is that use? Let me get back to the, all right. the log piles in this area is an So your accepted MR. MARTIN-Within the triangular area, yes, east of the garage, yes, within the line that constitutes the limit of commercial use. - 31 - ,,-...., ( ~ (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. So I think it boils down to us, whether we want, in other words, how we want to define, is that a correct interpretation? All right. So that the issue here, is this a new use? Is this a use that was in existence and discontinued, or is it a use that's always been affiliated or associated with the property? And I think that one of the keys that l don't have an answer is the 18 months. WelL, you have to determine it. MR. HARRIS-If you could give me a second. That piece of site plan review that you have has nothing to do with my business whatsoever. That was for a site plan for farming. I don't know who has brought that here to have ahything to do with my business. All it was was a site plan review for farming. MR. CARVIN-Okay. WeL L, I'm going to, that may be an issue for another day. At this point, all we want to do is address the applicant and what Mr. Martin is saying is that this is the area that we are contending with at this point. So as I said, if you want to address that bigger issue, you can fiLe an application and argue that at another day, but what we want to try to do is keep this focused on this area here, okay. So that's Item Number Four. Okay. Is everybody clear on this? All right. Are there any other illegal expansions, other than the wood piles? MRS. DAVIDSON-The number of vehicles has continued to grow and we've continued to complain. MR. CARVIN-All right. vehicles on the table, We've addressed that. on the south lot. Okay. We've got the MRS. DAVIDSON-No. I'm talking about the number of conmlercial vehicles that Mr. Harris' business involves. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. DAVIDSON-It has expanded dramatically. We have tried every way possible, the Town, originaLly, back at the time of the lawsuit, we understood we lost the lawsuit, and that Mr. Harris was allowed to have his pre-existing, nonconforming use. We were guaranteed by the Town that he was not allowed to expand it. The Town never sat down and tallied up what Mr. Harris' business contained, and that's why we have all these problems now and why we continued to have problems. as Could you be specific, rather you talk about the number of than say ing corrm1ercial MR. FORD-Excuse .. drama tic ally" , vehicles. me. MRS. DAVIDSON-Specifically, in the court testimony, Mr. Harris testified that he had two employees. He now has, I can't tell you how many trucks. I would say easily more than 10. It would be impossible for Mr. Harris and his two employees to operate 10 v e h i c 1 e s . I am say i n g t hat he has drama tic a 11 y i n ere a sed the number of vehicles on the property. MR. FORD-From what to what? MRS. DAVIDSON-From, he was allowed one when his permit was issued for the garage. He has gone f rom one to, I don't know how many. I can't tell you how many vehicles. MR. FORD-Neither do I, that's why I'm asking. MR. GREEN-I've got a question that point, for Jim, I guess, or Staff. business constitute an expansion? addition of a new use? ma y bel 'd 1 i k e t 0 ask a t t his Does an increase in amount of Or is an expansion merely an - 32 -- (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. MARTIN--As I've indicated, verbally, to Mrs. Davidson, and as best as I can articulate in writing, is that, to measure expansion of a nonconforming use in terms of volume is a very difficult thing to do, and I have conferred continually with the Town attorney about this issue, and it is a very, very difficult case to make, that expansion of a nonconforming use can be measured by number of vehicles, and therefore we have not pursued it, especially in the case with the nature of this particular type of business. Mr. Harris could have, right now, a dozen bulldozers and I couldn't tell you, because 11 of them may be scattered allover at sites, and one may be there in the repair shop, and he may have 15 trucks, again, scattered at sites or out on the truck on the road hauling logs, and three in being repaired. Maybe 15 are in being repaired and three are out on the road. Maybe he sells six tomorrow and buys 10 next week, and the nature of his business is he's going to, I would imagine, keep his fleet, according to the demand that he's currently experiencing. MR. GREEN-So increased demand doesn't constitute an expansion? MR. MARTIN-Based on my conversations with the Town attorney, that is not a method of enforcement that we can pursue. You may disagree. MRS. DAVIDSON-In this particular case, there is an unusual situation, in that when Mr. Harris received the building permit for the garage, he also received notice that he was allowed one commercial vehicle. If he chose to have a business with more vehicles than that, he should have chosen another location. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but was that before the court decision or after? MRS. DAVIDSON-That was before the court decision. decision doesn't address expansion. The court's MR. CARVIN-Okay, but it does address use, and I think this is what Mr. Green is referring to, is that he is allowed the use of that property, and that we have a very difficult time, just because he had one vehicle in 1937, does not mean that he can't have 50 vehicles in 1995, as long as the use doesn't change, and there's no expansion beyond the physical boundaries. MR. FORD-And as long as he is only repairing his own vehicles. It makes specific reference to plural. MR. CARVIN-He is allowed the use of that property. The court has said that he is allowed to have his logging business, and I'm using that in the general term, and that does not mean that just because he had three vehicles in 1972, that he's always prevented from having more than three, because the addition of vehicles, as long as the use of those vehicles is the same, we can't enhinder that. Now, if he started a bottling plant there, that's a change of use. So then he'd have a more difficult. MRS. DAVIDSON-He has increased his number of vehicles to such an extent that they no longer fit on the physical property, on a daily basis. He has such an increase in business that the vehicles do not physically fit on the property that he had the rights to use as a cOffin1ercial business, and therefore he's expanded beyond that to allow for employee parking. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I know where you're going with this, and I think we've addressed that. Now we're going to dovetail that to our earlier conversation of, you know, the vehicles sitting across the street, if they apparently have the Harris Logging logo on the car, then we have an enforcement action, but if they don't have that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if there is no identification, then I think we have a very difficult time. - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. MARTIN-Even with the Harris Logging logo on them, if it's a car or a pick up truck, I'm not even sure then that we have a good Leg to stand on, given the fact that that's also Harris property and being rented by an employee of the business. Again, but if there is a large piece of equipment, a skidder or something like that, that is not an over the road vehicle, not something somebody drives for personal use, then. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that that's what I'm hearing, is that you are sensitive to those expansion issues, as far as the vehicles are concerned. MR . MAR TIN - An d con vel'S e 1 y , i f we see, i f J 0 h n we I' e tog 0 the r e tomorrow and see a skidder, 175 feet north of the north wall of the garage, we would ask him to move it. MR. CARVIN-So I think we have to interpret, you know, whether the applicant is correct, is there an expansion there, and Mr. Martin, I'm hearing, is saying that there is no expansion, just due to the fact of numbers of vehicles. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. FORD-I'd like to pursue that just one more step, but I won't do it now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we've address the vehicles, think. We've got that on the table. So we know, now we ve got five items. Okay. Again, I'm going to keep coming back to you. Okay. You've got an issue here that "all the issues that we are complaining about are due to the Town of Queensbury's unwillingness to enforce it's own zoning", and Mr. Martin has indicated that this statement is obviously flatly incorrect. Is there any specific situation where he hasn't addressed the issues, I guess? I mean, it looks like we've got quite a list of responses here. So, I'm not quite sure I understand what your issue is. MRS. DAVIDSON-Our issue is that it has been so long since the co u r t 's d e cis ion, tot 0 day, t Il a t the Tow n had not go n eon tot h e pro per t y, 0 I' eve nun t i 1 Mr. H a I' I' is' ma p . The t i me bet wee nth e court's decision and Mr. Harris' map, there has been a tremendous amount of expansion in the physical boundaries. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You keep using that word "expansion". MR. CREEN-I don't like that word. MRS. DAVIDSON-I don't like it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. "expansion", all Now right, you're going in terms of? to have to define for us MRS. DAVIDSON-Physical boundaries. MR . CAR V I N - All I' i g h t , we 11, bey 0 n d w hat we' v e add res sed her e '? Okay, but we've addressed those. MRS. Di\VIDSON-I don't know how to explain this to you. The problem wit h t hat ma pis t hat i t was don e in, I be li eve, 1 99 1. The I' ewe I' e three years in which Mr. Harris expanded his business that the Town never went out there and measured. So there's three years of fill in the back, the parking area that was never addressed. The annex of the triangular section to the east of the garage was not commercial. The Town had pigs removed from there. They issued him a permit for an agricultural barn. These things should have proven to the Town that it was an agricultural use to the east of the garage, and they did not define it at the time, before he expanded it. So I'm trying to get the Town to go back, not to Mr. Harris' - 34- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) map, but back in their own records, to see the physical boundaries of the business. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I got part of it, I think. MRS. DAVIDSON-It's a very long and difficult issue. MR. GREEN--I guess, is there any way that you can prove what the site consisted of at the time of the decision, versus what Mr. Martin feels the site is today? MRS. DAVIDSON-We have photographs, some of which you should have at your disposal currently, and I have additional ones. The difficulty comes in that we take pictures of the thing that's bothering us, the issue that's causing the problem. We don't think to take pictures of the part that's fine. I have limited number of pictures, between the court decision and currently, where I took pictures of the property across from my home, that triangular section, without cormnercial activity. I mean, there was no reason for me to take them. MR. CARVIN--Okay. Well, I'm going to ask Mr. Martin, do you know what the approximate dating on this? When was this line put into place, you're using as your basis? MR. MARTIN-That was '91. MR. GORALSKI-The site plan review application was 1991. it was November. I believe MR. MARTIN-It began In November of '91. I think it was concluded in February of '92. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now let me ask you this. This is after the court cases, is that correct? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and is it your contention that Mr. Harris has defined this area, under the site plan review at that time, as the only area that he would conduct his nonconforming use? MR. MARTIN-That's my recollection, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I was on the Planning Board at the time that was discussed and acted upon. MR. CARVIN-Okay. the court case, Now, again, I'm going to ask that this was after is that correct? MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-All right, and is it safe to assume, and again, I may be throwing out a whole bunch of gasoline on a fire here. You see, I'm not clear in my mind, but the court has addressed the whole lot. MR. GREEN-See, that's my feeling exactly, that he's able to conduct his logging business anywhere on his property he wants. MR. CARVIN-On the whole lot, and that Mr. Harris, in 1991, after the court, has agreed to confine his activity to this area, and that, because 18 months have gone beyond, that this other area has been abandoned. - 3S - (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. MARTIN-That I cannot answer for you. I mean, you have as much documentation as we have as to how the court defines the property. MR. CARVIN-Well, make sure that after the court that Mr. Harris I'm just saying that this area here, I want to I want to know what your basis is, and this was case and in conjunction with the site plan review agreed to, essentially, these dimensions? MR. MART IN-Cor r ec t. MR. CARVIN-All right. I'm going to ask Mr. Harris. Is this a correct, in other words, this is the approximate area that you have indicated would be the use for your nonconforming use, based upon that 1991 site review? MR. HARRIS-That is the site plan review for farming. It has nothing to do with my commercial use. All I was trying to do with my best knowledge, being what little bit of an engineer and a des i g n e r I am , i s s how i n g the Boa r d, I bel i eve i t was the Tow n ß 0 a r d, tog 0 to sit e pia n rev i e w for ani ma 1 s . I can' t i ma gin e anybody bringing a site plan review for farming, and use that for a, you know, against my con@ercial use. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, was this outside area, this was all being requested for an agricultural use, was it? MR. HARRIS-At that time, it was an agricultural use. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then this was only going to be the logging use? MR. HARRIS-At that time, yes, but previous, before 1960, as I told you before, there were four ~:>awmills on the property. There were over 100 cows. MR. CARVIN--Okay. Well, I'm just going on the assumption that if this was allowed for agriculture, and the logging activity ceased for longer than 18 months, does that negate his using this, going forward? MR. SCHACHNER-You could certainly construe it that way, because the Zoning Ordinance does state that, and I'm not quoting verbatim, but the gist of it is that a pre-existing, nonconforming use which Lapses for a period of 18 months is no longer grandfathered. MR. HARRIS-I think what Mr. Schachner is forgetting, this is 20.89 acre piece of property. It is showing only the southern west corner of the property. It is not showing that certain piece of property is 20.89 acres. The property's always been used for logging, agriculture, construction, everything we've always done there since the late 1700's, and my biggest problem with the Town and the neighbors is, you know, I went to court. The Town wasted the money. We all wasted the money. We wasted the time, and, you know, the loss of privacy to our lives, and these neighbors of mine, I'm not going to even get involved, and you can ask Nil'. Martin and Mr. Goralski. They sued me for farming, for the business, for my dog. I can't even turn around in their yard without getting sued. Now, just for the record, you know, I've bought a whole different piece of property. I plan, some day, to develop this piece of property, some day. With economics depending on it, and the way the economy is, you know, I've got the gravel in there. I went to the Town of Fort Ann and I got plenty of approvals. Mrs. Davidson was there. She witnessed it. She knows I plan on leaving. It's going to be a residentially zoned piece of property some day. Who knows when. The garage is $200,000. The project is about a quarter of a million dollars. Nobody's offered to give me a penny. They're trying to get the tax payers to sue me again, and I am not going to stand for it. I'll tell you what's - 36 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) going to happen this time, is I'm going to go public. I'm going to hire a lawyer that is from out of town, and you're going to have another Mooring Post deal on your hands, because I have no other choice. I took this when I was younger, and paid the price. You go to Supreme Court. You're supposed to have your justice people up there deciding the case. He decides. The neighbors aren't happy. They appeal you in the Albany Appellate Division. So I run down to Albany. I hire a law firm down in Albany. We handled the court. I won again. It's been 10 years, and it's ridiculous. I can't imagine that these people would ruin 10 years of their life, take 10 years of you people's lives, and tax payers, and I've done everything. I've planted trees. I've tried to calm down. I've tried to be a good neighbor. I've planted shrubs allover. Not asked anybody for a penny or a bit of labor. Now I bought a piece of land for $60,000. I've engineered it, got it approved with the County, Town of Fort Ann. I've got over $80,000 in the property. I need another $200,000 for the building. I've asked Jim to ask me. He's tried. We've worked together with the neighbors. I think if the whole con~unity of the Town of Queensbury knew this deal, you know, I mean, we're in ~nerica. MR . CAR V I N- Well , through this, and unfortunately, we're trying I appreciate your comment. to work our way MR. HARRIS-And I did think this was America, and I'm not trying to be harsh with you, but. MR. CARVIN--No. Well, I appreciate that, but, actually, like I said, we've got more of a bone to pick with this applicant than you, at this point. I mean, that may come later, but I want to find out what this applicant's list of problems is with Mr. Martin, and I'd like to try to keep it focused on that area. MR . HARR I S - Yes . The 0 n 1 y t h i n g cons i del', though, is we wen t to acres. Some was agriculture, some I'm using about two acres now. I'd just like to ask you to court, the property was 20.89 was construction, some was wood. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, all I'm concerned with is what basis Mr. Mar tin i s us i n g for his d e t e, I'm i n a t ion s, and t hat's the 0 n 1 y thing, I think, that we have to zero in on at this point. MR. MARTIN-I've researched the rc:cords thoroughly, and John researched the records. I know Paul did when he was here, and that is the best thing that we can hang our hat on, in terms of documentation, that is in the file, to determine what the boundary IS. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and this was post court decision? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right, and I have to agree with Mr. Martin on that. Okay. Have I missed anything? Has everybody gone through here? MRS. DAVIDSON-I understand that you're reviewing things right now, but ¡ would like you, I would encourage you to look at Mr. Harris' own testimony, during the site plan review that you're using that map for, in which he states that he uses, his quote is "I use less than an acre for the garage and the rest is, it's agricultural use". Now he's saying he's got two acres. That alone should tell you, that I'm not being an unpleasant neighbor. ¡ just don't want him to double his physical boundaries of his business, and he's done it. He told you right now, just looking at his own quote. MR. GREEN-But I guess in mY opinion, as far as I can determine, from what I've read, so long as he's continuing the same business, - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) on his property, I'm not deeming that an expansion. MRS. DAVIDSON-I would encourage you to look at the judge's finding, I believe this was Judge Muller, during the issue of the pigs being kept on the property, and in his finding, which you have a copy of, he states, Professor Robert Anderson, a well recognized authority on matters of zoning, states that New York Zoning Law and Practice, Third Edition, consistently, with prevailing policy of careful restricture of nonconforming uses expansion to new land has frequently been regarded as an unlawful extension of use. MR. GREEN-I guess we have to decide what "new land" is. MR. HARRIS-If the Board please, I'd like to try something. It's the same ownership. I own. We went was the same deed. It hasn't been changed. It expanded. ['m not using a different lot size, or different lot, or expanded that piece of land in whatsoever. to verify to court it hasn't been a bought a no manner MR. CARVIN-Let me interrupt you here. We're not here to determine whether you've expanded. We're here to determine whether Mr. Martin has made right decisions. MR. HARRIS-Yes. understand this, but. MR. CARVIN-So, I'm going to zero back to the applicant, here. I've got one, two, three, four, five items. I've got the log area, and I'm using that as this, as Item Number One, the delineation. I've got the automobile parking on the south property, across the street. I've got the fill, and expansion of use into the fill area. I've got the log piles, whether they are part of the logging business or if that is a new and expanded use, and I have the number of vehicles, in other words, the growth of employees, which you are saying Mr. Martin is wrong, in other words, that you're saying that that is an expansion of use, and the unwillingness to enforce. I guess that's an issue, is it? I think we've addressed it. I mean, I don't quite understand what you're saying, an unwillingness to enforce. MR. FORD-I don't know that that's In our bailiwick anyway. MR. CARVIN-Well, it's Martin has addressed documentation that we that you feel that Mr. unwillingness to enforce, and I think Mr. that. think that there's plenty of seem to be, and are the rea n y 0 the I' are a s Martin has addressed incorrectly? MRS. DAVIDSON-You have the stock piling of the logs, the number of vehicles, and the physical dimensions of the business, right? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MRS. DAVIDSON-Those are the areas that we have strong concerns with. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then I also have in addition, the south side parking. MRS. DAVIDSON-Yes, well that's another physical expansion. MR. CARVIN-And then the unwillingness to enforce. MRS. DAVIDSON-And that, too, relates to physical expansion. As I tried to explain to you, my frustration is not with Jim Martin. It is with previous administrations or people in his position, who did not define the physical expansion at the time of the court decision. So he is left coming in later and looking at it and seeing an expanded site, but he doesn't know that, unless he goes - 38 -- (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) back through Mr. Harris' own testimony and previous site plans, and permits that have been issued to him in regard to his agricultural uses. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that it? MRS. DAVIDSON-I think so. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's all I need to know, I think. Okay. Now, I'm not sure, Mark. What do I do now? Do I open up the public hearing? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you definitely do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. contention? Are you gentlemen aware of the areas of MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. GREEN-What are we doing? We are determining whether Mr. Martin has answered these questions raised by the applicant, and whether he's responded to them in a logical manner? MR. CARVIN-Right. MR. GREEN-Right, wrong or otherwise, it was responded to in a provable, procedural manner. MR. CARVIN-Right. All we have to do is, Mr. Martin has made various determinations on all of these issues, and what this Board has to do is determine whether he is correct or the applicant is correct. He says black. She says white, and we have to determine whether it's black or white. MRS. LAPHA~-And what they're saying is that Mr. Martin is saying that he arrived at these decisions in a proper, professional manner, using logic and reason and law. MR. CARVIN-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-And Mrs. Davidson is saying that he did not, he was capricious and didn't use any LogicaL, professional reasoning. MR. CARVIN-Essentially, that's correct. MRS. LAPHAM-I just wanted to make sure { understand the issues. MR. CARVIN-That Mr. Martin came to a determination, based upon his available knowledge of the facts, and the applicant has arrived at their decision based upon their available facts, and it's quite literally in this Board's lap as to. MR. GREEN-And we have to determine who's right? MR. CARVIN-Yes, absolutely. We have to come down on either one side or the other, on each and everyone of these issues, based on the testimony you've heard here so far, and what we are about to hear when I open up the public hearing. There may be additional issues that may be either raised or argued, going forward. MR. SCHACHNER-Fred has said what I wanted to say in better words, actually. I just wanted to make sure that the Board understood it. It seemed that some of the members were just thinking that the inquiry is limited to, did Jim go about it in the right way, not did he reach the right or wrong result, and I think Mr. Carvin has properly pointed out that, although you should certainly also - 39 - (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) consider whether he went about it in the right or wrong way, the actual determination is just as Fred has just indicated, is of upholding or reversing the determinations that he's made. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So having said and heard that, I'd like to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DEBBIE DAVIDSON MRS. DAVIDSON-The Potters had to leave, but they were here with the intent of supporting the applicant, but due to the late hour, they had to leave. I don't know if you've received any mail in regard to that. MR. MARTIN-We got a letter from Dorothy Burnham, I believe, it's in the file. MR. THOMAS--There's a couple of them from Dorothy Burnham in here. MR. CARVIN-Once we get to the other side, then we'll read the correspondence. Our normal procedure is to have for and against, and then the correspondence. So if there's no one else wishing to speak for, is there anyone opposed to the application? MRS. DAVIDSON-Am I allowed to speak? MR. CARVIN-In favor? Sure. MRS. DAVIDSON-I would urge the Board to understand. I'm not saying that Jim Martin did his job poorly. I'm saying that he didn't do it thoroughly enough. I feel strongly that the Town is looking for an easy way to get a measurement of the physical boundaries of Mr. Harris' property. Obviously, the easiest way is to use Mr. Harris' testimony, his own drawings, whatever they can. I would encourage you to review the copies of quotes of Mr. Harris' own testimony, defining and describing his business at the time of the trial, and at the hearings thereafter for site plan review. If the judge based his decision on what Mr. Harris told him, then it doesn't seem logical, to me, that Mr. Harris would say, I don't cut and split logs. I don't have any reason to brings logs onto my property except for my own personal use, but he's given that right, because the judge said it happened five years previous to that, or seven years previous to that court, because those seven years the judge said happened up until 1980. From 1980 to 1987, Mr. Harris was describing his own business in court testimony and he said he did not cut and split logs on site. He had no reason to bring logs onto the property except for his own personal use. If he's doing that now, because he wasn't doing that for seven years that he operated his business, and that's per his own court testimony. That's per the judge's decision. So I would encourage you to review Mr. Harris' testimony, so that you have a full picture of what Mr. Harris has described his business as. I would also urge you to look at the map that my husband drew. At the time Mr. Harris originally got a permit for a building, this garage here, this is the beginning of that triangular drive, or the driveway that causes the triangular section I'm discussing in the expansion, this barn he had approval for was definitely, absolutely in his permit application for agricultural use only. This area here was where the pigs were. When the pigs were first brought onto the property, they were brought on to Town property, even, because they were so close to the road, and I called David Hatin, and David Hatin had him move them back. Mr. Harris didn't move them into conunercial property. Mr. Harris moved them into agricultural property, and that agricultural property was within the triangular section formed by the driveway, the garage and Pickle Hill Road. That's where those pigs were until Judge Muller ordered that they - 40 - (Queensbury ZßA Meeting 3/21/96) be removed. Then Mr. Harris brought them back and went through the Planning Board meetings in order to get the rights to put in a barn, and then you have his map there, and there's also the other map that my husband submitted which still shows him wanting to put the pole barn within that triangular section. If you look at those two maps, you can see that that was not conm1ercial property. He later, when we started suggesting to the Board that they needed to try and define his conm1ercial activity, he at that point moved the barn back and annexed that entire triangular section as commercial. It was not commercial before that. The only commercial activity, so to speak, that went on there was occasionally cutting a splitting of logs, which we were told repeatedly was for his own personal use. If it was commercial, the Town should have addressed that physical expansion then. Now I understand Mr. Harris has presented himself as a really nice guy, tries to get along with us really well. He also suggests that we're being extremely di ff i cuI t. I feel I need to respond to that, because I think it's an unfair portrait. His accusation about me complaining about his dog resulted after four times that this dog came onto the property and attacked children. I operate an in home day care. MR. HARRIS-The dog never attacked the child. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. DAVIDSON-It never bit. It never injured. MR. HARRIS-Never touched. MRS. DAVIDSON-It never touched. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't think the dog, I'm going to say, lets keep it relevant to Mr. Martin's determination. MRS. DAVIDSON-[ understand that. I just am trying to get you to understand that I '01 not trying to be unfair to this man. I really am no t. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. DAVIDSON-I just do not want the little bit of quiet that we used to have, and it was very little, because he had a conGercial operation on the east side of the garage, I '01 sorry, on the west side of the garage, but now he's run over on the east side of the garage, and included the stock piling of logs. It has been unbearable to live there. The constant loading and unloading of trucks is extremely difficult. I called Fred Champagne a year ago when it first started, and Fred Champagne came over and he said, yes, Mr. Harris agrees there's been an expansion here and he knows he's got to move, but he can't do it yet. He said he'll do it in about six weeks. He's still there. The Town needs to stop this man from continually expanding. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone wishing to be heard in opposition? KEITH HARRIS MR. HARRIS-I'd like to oppose, just for the simple reason, you know, Mrs. Davidson moved on this property in 1986. I was born and raised on the property, last 34 years, and I guess I could just best give you my knowledge of the conm1ercial use. At that time, it was a farm. When I was about eight, my father built the sawmill on there. My neighbor, Marshal Clemens, who's sitting behind me, was the first one to ever live on Pickle Hill Road. I don't know if he'd like to come up and speak, but, I mean, the probl em is, we've always used the property for a conm1ercial venture, whether it's farming, logging, agriculture, digging. As I told you before, I'm very sorry and sympathetic to Mrs. Davidson that they moved there, - 41 (Queensbury ZRA Meeting 3/21/96) and thought that we were hiding in the cornfield or somewhere, and then all of a sudden woke up, realized we were there, and we battled this thing in court. It went on, it went several years. We all lost a lot of money. We took the thing legally, because I tried to negotiate with this Town. I came in front of this Town, I dOl1't know how many times, and we just couldn't get this matter resolved, taken care of, so we took it to court. After I won the Supreme Court, I came to the Town again, for one more chance to try to negotiate, calm these neighbors down and resolve the problem. It didn't work. They appealed the decision. I'm not saying, because they appealed the decision, that I can go and put a pulp wood mill there or furniture factory, but I'm going to stick by my guns what I paid for, what the lawyers say I've got, and, you know, the only reason that I'm leaving is for, Number One, I can't expand the building. That's a proven fact, but I'll tell you what. As far as the conm1ercial use, I could go back to the sawmill. I could go back to the 120 cows, and the 52, 53 pieces of farm machine we had on the property. It was a commercial venture for the last, 1 i k e I told you, a 1 mo s t 200 yea r s, t h r 0 ugh f 0 u r g en era t ion s 0 f Harris', and I'mnot, you know, I'm sorry I'm getting upset, but you just don't understand. My son here, okay, is 12 years old, has asked me for the last nine years, you know, this bunch of litigation's over, whatever you want to call it. I said, because, you know, I try not to take that much of my life, private enjoyment with the kids, but you just don't understand the time and the aggravation, and as far as Debbie, you know, Mrs. Davidson, it's everything. It's not only the business. Like I said, it's the dog, it's the kids, it's my neighbors, my rental property. They're fighting with the rental property. There's two neighbors here tonight. If I had the time, I was going to get some sort of a document signed, something I could bring here. The neighbors, I have no problem with any of the other neighbors. I work with them. I try to be a good neighbor. Everybody knows I'm planning on leaving. I'm trying to economically leave, leave when I can afford it, with no help from any neighbors or any people from the Town or anything, and this IS life, like I told you. This is life, and we're there. We tried to resolve this problem. It's not going to resolve until I'm gone. I can't afford to leave. If anybody has any ways of funding this project so I can leave, I'll be more than glad to sign any legal documf'!nt to leave any time whatsoever. Until I can afford to do the project without going bankrupt, I'm not leaving, and I'm not going to give up my stand, and the only reason that I ask you people to consider what's going on, because if this does go to litigation again, by the taxpayer's money of funding this litigation, whether it's Mr. Schachner or whoever the Town hires, I'm going to let everybody know this time, because the first time, I was younger. I bit the bullet. I paid for it, because, naturally, you get sued, you've got to go to court, and everybody can see. All they've got to do is drive to Fort Ann, what 1 'm planning on doing. I can't tell you it's going to be this year. I can't tell you it's going to be next year. I t might be this year. It's looking like it might be this year. If you want to check my checking accounts it's surely not going to be tomorrow. I've tried. Like I said, I've planted shrubs. I've tried to be a good neighbor and stuff. I'm running a business up there like we always have. I don't know if anybody owns their own business. If you've got a car lot or a garage, today you're selling cars. Tomorrow you're doing tires. The next day you're painting. The next day you might have a wrecker. You might have two wreckers. You might have seven wreckers or six junk cars, or you might have a doctors office with a dentist and a nurse. I mean, if you've got a business, where do you stop? I mean, who's to say, okay, in 1980 he said he wasn't processing wood. In 1980 I was doing other things. The market's now, 1 sort out veneer, slicer logs, different grade logs. I have to sort the wood. In 1965, we had two running sawmills on the property. When I was eight or nine, I worked on one of the sawmills that were up by the barn. We've now torn the barn down. So the agriculture/conm1ercial - 42 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) venture has lapsed into kind of a depression and now I'm logging. It's nothing we've ever done. Sure it's changed, but the Davidsons, they're just very hard people to deal with. I have nothing against them. I wish the kids would get along, we could get along, but we're never going to get along until the business is gone, and I can't leave the business. I've got 15 years invested in the business and I have no money to leave right now. If anybody has any means of funds and would like to fund this project, like I said, I'd be more than glad to sign off, do anything the neighbors would like, the Town would like. I'll be in the Town of Fort Ann, because I'm all approved. I've got 12 and a half acres of commercial land. I'm right on 149. I've got a lot of plans. Some day I'm hoping to be there. I think if the economy. I'll just do the best I can do. I mean, we have a bad problem on Pickle Hill Road. It wasn't so bad until certain neighbors moved there, but Slnce. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, let me bring you back in here. I mean, I want to try to get this back to Mr. Martin and his determination, and I think you've given us quite a bit of input there. Is there anyone else that has any connents in opposition? I don't mean to cut you off. Is there any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have several letters. A letter dated March 13, 1996, addressed to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, "Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: We regret that we will not be able to attend your March meeting concerning the continuing problems on the Keith Harris property on Pickle Hill. When we built our retiren1ent home on Boulderwood 17 years ago, Mr. Harris owned no land there and the land was zoned' rural/agricultural'. In spite of repeated calls and legal action, Mr. Harris has continued to expand his parking area, the number of trucks (which rattle around at all hours of the day and night), the junk piles, and the piles of logs. We have given up part of our view to trees so we don't have to look at the mess. But the almost constant noise from loading and unloading logs is very hard to live with. Surely the term 'agricultural' cannot include the importation and warehousing of logs??! We need some group in this town which will stand up for the town laws and the law abiding ci tizens. Mr. Harris continues to thumb his nose at the laws and he is a blight on our neighborhood. Please take action to halt his expansion and give us back our peace and quiet. Sincerely yours, Mrs. Richard Marvin" A letter dated March 13, 1996, "Greetings: Because I will be away at the time of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting to consider subject appeal, I ask that this letter be read for the r e cor d . The C orrnn e r cia 1 use 0 f the pro per t y i n que s t ion was determined by the court to be a pre-existing, nonconforming use. The laws of the Town of Queensbury prohibit expansion. Since the time of the court's determination, not only has expansion occurred, but continues, despite recent efforts of the Town to address one aspect of violation; i.e., 'storage of logs.' The supporting documents to the 'Application for Appeal' clearly define our concerns wi th the Zoning Administrator's recent decisions. The problems existing at this property are many. To date, our numerous requests to the Town to specify that commercial activity be confined to the area which existed at the time of the court's decision have not been successful. Mr. & Mrs. Davidson have my full support and may speak for me. We respectfully request your careful review and consideration of this appeal. Thank you, Dorothy M. Burnham" A letter dated March IS, 1996, addressed to the Zoning Board "Dear Sir: Re: the enclosed letter, please be advised that I support Mr. and Mrs. Davidson, and Dorothy Burnham. T h a n k you, F red e r i c k E. Bur n h am " And t hat 1 s sup p 0 r ti n g the 1 e t tel' I just read from Dorothy M. Burnham, and that's all we've got. MR. CARVIN-If there's no other public conment, I'll close the public hearing. - 43 -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? Does everybody understand what we're looking to do here? MR . GR E EN - Yes. I ' ve got a que s t ion, I g u e s s, jus tab 0 U t the s e logs. What do you do with them? Are they just off loaded from one truck and loaded on another? MR. HARRIS-They're off loaded and it's sorted for different types of veneer. Sometimes they're cut back, you know, cut out defects. MR. GREEN-And then loaded again, trucked away? MR. HARRIS-I guess it's wood processing, to the best of my knowledge, wood handling, processing. It's not something that -ilways happens. Wi th higher qual i ty woods, they're sorted through higher paying markets. It's not done to be a nuisance or cause anybody trouble. MRS. DAVIDSON-In case you haven't been at the site, I have several pictures of the past May and June, if you'd like to better understand this operation, and you're more than welcome to review them. MR. FORD-I'd like to review those, because I don't want anything said in the future that we didn't look at everything. MRS. LAPHA~-Yes. I'd like to see those, too. MRS. DAVIDSON-I would urge you to compare those pictures with the ones submitted, so you can understand the dramatic difference and impact that that has on my home. MRS. LAPHAM-These are the latest ones? MRS. DAVIDSON-This is since he's expanded his logging operation to that triangular section, and the stock piling of logs. As he said, he didn't always do it. He didn't for a long time. The first ones were pictures that I felt would prove our contention that that triangular section was not conm1ercial until recently, or was not used as commercial until recently. It had been agricultural at the time of the lawsuit, and for several years thereafter. MR. HARRIS--I'd just like to address that, that there's been logs on, I believe, three corners of the property that was testified in court, and two corners of the property that I've personally worked on since!l!Y lifetime. So, I mean, I don't have any pictures, but if you look in the minutes of the court, you know they'll testify, my uncle and grandfather and father ran these sawmills and operated them, and that was our whole main thing in court was whether this commercial use was allowed on the property, and it was, and I'm not trying to tell you to vote on this, but legally I know why I'm there, and even though it's a problem that I'm there, that's why I'm there, and like I said, I'm going to stick by the guns 100%. I mean, I'm trying to leave. If we could hold this meeting for who knows, a year or two or three, and then try to do it again, it wouldn't bother me, but I'm sure, if I have any more litigation to pay for or any more grief and time loss, I don't know if I'll ever be able to leave. The way the economy is now, I don't know if I can ever leave now, but I sure am trying, and I think Jim Martin will let you know what I've gone through to do it. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? MR. FORD-Now I want to get back to the parking issue. Did you, at any time, have your employees parking on that conm1ercial portion of the property'? 44 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. HARRIS-All the time. They always parked there. MR. FORD-They did and they do? MR. HARR I S--And they do now. Occas i onall y they park acr os s the road. Like I said, Colin works with Bob Rosick and Jimmy Maddison. They meet in the morning. They go in and have coffee. They probably talk about what went on the night before, but hopefully they talk about what they're going to do that day. They hop in the one vehicle. They go to work. I've had a log trailer over there, equipment trailer over there, just because in the simple time, in the winter, a lot of snow, I should plow a little bigger, maybe I should start plowing the whole field, the whole 20.89 acres which was in the lawsuit, but the piece of property across the road, legally, was not a commercial venture. It never will be without a variance. It can't be. So Mr. Martin asked me to move the pieces, I did. MR. FORD-Just one other question in that regard. So the people go there, congregate, and leave in one of the vehicles to go to a job site? They do not park their vehicles there, go across the road and get in another of your own vehicles, such as a truck, skidder, or whatever? MR. HARRIS-They might do either or. I've got a pick up with a fuel truck and tools on it. If it's across the road, they walk across the road. They get in that and leave. I'm not going to say they don't, because if it's there, they do. If it's across the road, they do, you know, I mean, I'm just telling you the way it is, and that's the way it is. They do park there, and they go to work. It's not something I ask them to do. There's a big driveway over there, so they park over there. The main reason they park there is they go in and have coffee, and they go to work. Sometimes they do walk across the road and get in the vehicle and they go to work from there. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HARRIS-I don't want to test the zoning regulations here, but I believe the zoning law reads, any vehicle over a ton and a half in a residential zone is not in accordance with the zoning regulations, but like I said, I'm not an expert. Maybe we should ask Mr. Martin. That's!l!.Y belief of it, but I'm in the logging contracting business. So I wouldn't want to bet much money on that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. As I see it, we have, again, it looks like approximately six items. We've got the log area, the south side parking issue, the fill, and expansion of use, the log piles. In other words, is that a new use or is that an allowed use, the number of vehicles, is that an expansion, and the unwillingness of the Town to enforce its zoning. I'll start with you, Chris. What are your thoughts? MR. THOMAS-Well, to me, I think everything hinged around on this, Judge Dier's decision, and I think Judge Dier, in his decision, was a little ambiguous in writing his opinion. He really didn't state the size of the Harris property. It just says, "The defendant's father and grandfather conducted lumber harvesting as well as wood processing on the property from the mid 40's through 1980", and just before that, Number Six, "The property in question has been continuously under the control of defendant's fanlily for over 200 years. The area in which the property is located is in fact known as 'Harrisena'." Now, the Judge hasn't said how much of the property, and Mr. Harris has stated that way back when, in the late 1700's, early 1800's, they owned 2800 acres. He says now he states that he has 20.89 acres. -- 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. HARRIS-I have more, but that piece, that certain piece. MR. CARVIN-I'm going to tell you, don't interrupt. This us. Unless we have a specific question, I would prefer rnak i ng any cOlrunen t s . is jus t you no t MR. THOMAS-So think with the Judge's decision being somewhat ambiguous, that I think Jim Martin is really trying to enforce the zoning regulations based on what really the Judge has tried to say or, in fact, has said, and I think that applies to all five issues before us. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom? MR. FORD-I find the applicant has not proven to me quantification of expansion, and I find that Mr. Martin's determinations are appropriate, both in process and in conclusion MR. CARVIN-On all items? MR. FORD-On all items. Okay. Bill? MR. GREEN-I think Mr. Martin has done as best he can with the information that is based in fact. As far as I can tell from what he's gone through, he's arrived at appropriate conclusions and addressed, as best as possible, the Davidson's concerns. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHA\\-Well, while I truly feel for Mrs. Davidson and can understand where she's coming from, I have to agree with the rest of the Board. I think we have a legal decision handed down by a court, and Mr. Martin has tried his best to professionally enforce the law, and I support his decisions. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess I have the ability to take something that looks simple and confuse it. I agree with Chris. I think Judge Dier is certainly vague in certain areas, but he's also very specific in others. I'm going to try to address each of these individually. First of all, I think that, overall, I think Jim is correct on all of his interpretations. So I'm going to make that as a blanket statement, but I think there's an awful lot of grey area here. The question that I have is that, in the Judge Dier action, that the Town aspect was that, in Action Number One, Item Number Two, "that the defendant is conducting business on the north side of Pickle Hill Road in violation of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance", is addressed in his Fact of Law, that the Judge basically does state that "The defendant is conducting his own business on the north side of Pickle Hill Road in the Town of Queensbury, but said business is not in violation of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinances, since it's a pre-existing nonconforming use of said property." And I '01 relying on Mr. Martin to define what that business was that was under contention, because I'm not positive wood processing, without the whole gruesome little file, was ever mentioned. I mean, is that the business that we are talking about? MR. MARTIN-You're asking me? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-To me, the business really is multi faceted in everything that I've seen, in that its construction, excavating, timber harvesting and wood processing, and associated with that business comes the repair of heavy equipment, and that's how I have come to interpret the nature of this business, based on all the things I've seen in the files. -- 46 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay, because as I said, "business" covers a multitude of sins, and I'm not quite sure what the Town was defining as the business, and what you're saying is that the documentation indicates that the term "business" refers to the activity that is currently going on there today. MR. MARTIN-And base it, if you really get into the guts of the file, like the affidavits of, or the depositions given during '89, leading up to the decision by the Judge, those were the things indicated by the defendant at the time, where the nature of the business, what it consisted of, and I think that's why the Judge, in my opinion, that's why the Judge is somewhat vague in how he refers to the business, because it is a multifaceted type of a business, and I know that to be true in practice since then. I've seen some of the sites that Keith has worked on around Town. He works in town and out of town, and I've seen him do things from driveway installation to lot clearing to foundation digging to timber harvesting, and that's just by seeing the inspectors going around to the job sites where houses are being built. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm not concerned about his job sites. I'm concerned about that piece of property, in other words, the activities that were and are occurring on that particular. MR. MARTIN-That is the business that is occurring out of that property. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because I think, I'm addressing the log pile issue first. I want to find out whether that is, indeed, a continuation of an existing business, because I think the rest of this sort of falls into place. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think the log piling outside of the defined commercial area there. MR. CARVIN-I'll get to that in a minute. I just want to make sure that the applicant has indicated that log piling was not a use that was in place for a period of time, and I'm going to leave that open, but as I said, the Judge has indicated in his decision that the business, that Mr. Harris does have the right to use the business, and I just want to make sure that I'm understanding that the business as defined in Judge Dier's action included what we are assuming is the activity that's going on there now, that he's not referring to a plumbing operation or some other business. MR. SCHACHNER-If you re trying to characterize Judge Dier's decision, I think the best you can do with that is look at the express finding, and I think it's Finding Number Five on Page Two, and the way Judge Di er wr i tes it, it says, "The def endant has owned or utilized said property since 1980 for the storage, maintenance and repair of various types of heavy equipment used by him in connection with his timber harvesting business." MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, I've read that, and I agree with you as far as the equipment and the timber harvesting business, but I'm not positive that logs is a use that falls out of that. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not either. don't know that Jim. I'm just saying that as far as, MR. MARTIN-I'm not saying that either. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. MARTIN-I'm saying that log storage in the location that we've seen since approximately late last spring is, that business now has grown outside of its, what we have defined as a parameter. It has physically expanded. - 47 - (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) MR. CARVIN-Well ~ again, as I said, I think that most of this has to do with the equipment and the garage~ but it also, as I said, In Item Number Two, in other words, the Town was saying that the defendant is conducting a business on the north side that is in violation of the zoning, and I'm not positive I understand what that business is, that the Town was so upset about that they took this man to court, and the only thing that I can see is that the defendant did have a wood processing activity on the property, which indicates through 1980, which indicates that the wood processing aspect ceased in 1980, but the Judge's grey area is the business aspect because as I said, the Judge says that he does have a right to conduct business there~ but I don't have the testimony that says that wood processing was conducted in this time frame of 1989. Now, again, my feeling is that if wood processing ceased in 1980~ and started up in 1991, that he loses his pre-existing nonconforming use of the wood processing aspect, unless I'm incorrect on what that area is zoned for. Do you see what I'm saying? Now the court has said he has a right to conduct business there, but I'm not positive what business or businesses he's allowed to conduct. MRS. DAVIDSON-May I interrupt for a second? MR. CARVIN-No~ point blank. And tllis is what I want to make sure that your determination is based on what this definition of business is, and that this activity has not ceased. MR. MARTIN-Again, my recollection of the definition of the business is timber harvesting and wood processing, excavating and construction. Now, there was deposition to the effect, also, that the wood processing was for personal use~ so called wood splitting and that type of thing for his own personal wood consumption. I can personally recall, both from the time when I was on the Planning Board and made site visits to this site, in preparation for the site plan review, and since being in this position, we're talking now a period from '91 or '92 right on up through present time~ I can recall wood processing occurring at that site, consistent with that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're basing your determination that there's been no cessation, and that this business is the business that they're referring to? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. have no problem with that. MR. MARTIN-Now, you know, I think the wood processing has taken, you know, what do you call wood processing? Cutting and splitting? And I, quite frankly, think that the cutting and splitting was for a commercial nature also, in my opinion, beyond his personal consumption, but now, lately, it's taken on this more intense nature of this veneer business with the stock piling of logs, and that type of thing, and sorting and transport and all that. It is of a different type, but what else would you call wood processing? I don't know. MR . CAR V I N - Ag a in, Ida n 't h a v e a n an s we I' . define it at this point, but we may at some have to define that. We're point not asked to in the future MR. MARTIN-You're looking for my definition of business, it's wood processing, timber harvesting, construction and excavation. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Because that segways into the other area that is this, and I think that, again, you have based your determination upon the best available information with regard to the site plan, because I think that the Judge has said, and again, I'm probably - 48 - "'- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) b r i n gin g up a s 0 res u b j e c t, and a gal n , t his ma y be a bon e 0 f con ten t ion, but I t h ink i t rev 01 v e s a r 0 u n d ani s sue t hat ma y be even greater, is that if the wood processing has ceased to exist out here for a period of 18 months, I mean, does he, indeed, lose the pre-existing, and is that the basis for your saying that the logs that are stored outside of this area are not in compliance with the use? MR. MARTIN-No. The basis for my saying that the logs being stored in that area are not in compliance with the use is that they have never been seen in that location in any of the information we have or in any of the on site visits made to this site by myself or any of the other inspectors. That is the basis for that being a violation. It's not that the use was never occurring there or it lapsed. It is now occurring in a place not previously seen. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but that this boundary was the agreed upon boundary? MR. MARTIN-I don't know that it was the agreed upon boundary, but it was a boundary, as indicated by the applicant that was the limit of his commercial use. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because as I said, I'm not quite sure, you know, Judge Dier doesn't specify the area. MR. MARTIN-That's right, and that is the first time that we have seen a definition of what that area is, and I'm hanging my hat on that, so to speak. MR. CARVIN-Okay. As far as the parking on the south side, I think your interpretation there is right on the numbers. I think that your logic and decision is correct. As far as the number of vehicles that are now utilizing this site, I don't think that that can be construed as expansion. I don't think, just because the number of employees have gone UP, that that use is changing or has changed, which does not necessarily constitute an expansion. So I think your interpretation of the number of vehicles out there not leading to an expansion of use is correct. As far as the non enforcement, I think that's, I think you've documented that you've been right on the numbers as far as any enforcement actions, and that you did not seem to be lax in that area. MR. MARTIN-And I'll state this for the record. We have, and we will continue to respond to every complaint received, because quite frankly we have received complaints also from Mr. Harris about the Davidson property, and we will respond to each complaint fairly and consistently in each case, and repetitively, if need be. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think that's pretty much my spee!. anybody have any additional questions? All right. In which do you want to move this? All right. I'm going to ask, anyone have a motion, or is anybody going to move this, or is my shoulders by default? Okay. Does case, does it on MOTION REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-96 DOROTHY BURNHAM PAUL & DEBBIE DAVIDSON, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant has appealed six items, or decisions, that have been made by the Zoning Administrator with regard to property that is owned by Keith and Pamela Harris. With regard to the first item, the applicant has indicated that there were or is an expansion of use beyond the area designated as the nonconforming pre-existing use. Mr. Martin has determined, based upon a red line with dinlensions that was approved by a site plan review in February of 1992, that any activity outside of that area has been addressed by Town action. So as far as any expansion beyond the agreed upon - 49 - (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 3/21/96) area, we agree with Mr. Martin that his determination is correct. As far as Item Number Two, which has to do with parking on a lot south of the nonconforming use, we also agree with Mr. Martin's determination that, again, there is no expansion and again, he has demonstrated that whenever a violation has occurred that actions have been taken. As far as Item Number Three, the area of fill that, again, we agree with Mr. Martin's determination that any unauthorized activity outside of the red line has been addressed by the Town, and again, we concur with his determination. As far as I tern Number Four, that a new use has occurred on the lot in the form of log piles, that here again, Mr. Martin has used an appropriate interpretation in that these log piles do not constitute a new use. So we, therefore, again concur with his determination. As far as Item Number Five, that the increased number of vehicles and/or employees associated with the pre- existing nonconforming use is a sign of expansion, we here, again, agree with Mr. Martin's determination that an increase in vehicles and/or employees in this particular instance does not constitute an expansion of the pre-existing nonconforming use. As far as Item Number Six, the Town's unwillingness to enforce its zoning, we here again, agree with Mr. Martin who has, again, demonstrated that the Town has been very active in both the follow up and enforcement of any zoning irregularities with regard to this parcel. So, overall of the six items that the applicant has presented, we would concur on all six items that the Zoning Administrator, based upon the best available information, has made the right determinations in all six matters, and we would therefore support the Zoning Administrator in his determinations. Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles MR. CARVIN-As far as the appeal, we support the Zoning Administrator. All right. Is there any further business to come before the Board? Okay. If there is no further business, I move for adjournment. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman - 50 -