Loading...
1997-02-19 , QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1997 INDEX Area Variance No. 5-1997 Tax Map No. 120-2-17 Area Variance No. 6-1997 Tax Map No. 15-1-39 Area Variance No. 4-1997 Tax Map No. 1-1-22, 1-1-23.2 1-1-23.1 Area Variance No. 7-1997 Tax Map No. 36-1-29 Use Variance No. 8-1997 Tax Map No. 59-3-10 Area Variance No. 9-1997 Tax Map No. 59-3-10 Notice of Appeal No. 1-97 Tax Map No. 10-1-19.2 George Mabb Ray Kraft Kraft Construction H. Croswell Tuttle Adirondack Outlet Mall David Kenny John Buecking John Buecking John F. Schriner FILE ORIGINAL 1. 3. 7. 14. 19. 19. 19. 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 2/19/97) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY ROBERT KARPELES BRIAN CUSTER PAUL HAYES MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE DONALD 0' LEARY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. THOMAS-The first order of business tonight is to welcome the two new members, Jaime Hayes and Brian Custer, welcome. You're in for a surprise. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1997 TYPE II SR-1A GEORGE MABB OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 464 SHERMAN AVENUE SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVENUE, ONE HALF MILE WEST OF 1-87 (NORTHWAY) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A ROOF OVER AN EXISTING PATIO. THE ROOF WILL NOT MEET THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF THE SR-1A ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-19, SR-1A SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 120-2-17 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-19 GEORGE MABB, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-1997, George Mabb, Meeting Date: February 19, 1997 "APPLICANT: George Mabb PROJECT LOCATION: 464 Sherman Avenue Proposed Project and Conformance wi th the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a roof and patio addition on an existing home. The proposed construction does not meet the front and side yard setbacks of the SR-IA zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a roof and patio addition to an existing home. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives are limi ted due to the fact that the patio and roof are already constructed. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 13 feet of front yard relief and 5 feet of side setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts are expected with this application for relief. Additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The proposed construction is intended to ease the difficulty of water damage effecting the existing home. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. " MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, just something I want to clear up. The patio was a pre-existing patio. That's not part of this application. The patio was there before. It's just the roof over the patio. MR. THOMAS-Just the roof over it. I don't see any drawings with - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) STAIRWAY WILL NOT MEET THE SHORELINE AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF THE WR-1A ZONING DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED SUN DECK WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR DOCKS AND BOATHOUSES. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WR-1A WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND THE SHORELINE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-60B,5,b,5. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/11/97 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-39 LOT SIZE: 0.10 ACRES SECTION 179-60B,5,b,5 RAY & WENDY KRAFT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-1997, Ray Kraft Kraft Construction, Meeting Date: February 19, 1997 "APPLICANT: Kraft Construction PROJECT LOCATION: Rockhurst Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a deck and stairway attached to a home, along with a sundeck and stairway on top of an existing dock. The attached deck and stairway will not meet the shoreline and side yard setbacks of the WR-1A zone. The proposed sundeck and stairs will not meet the dock setbacks contained in Section 179-60B, 5, b, 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build an attached deck and a sundeck on an existing dock. 2. Feasible alternatives: The location of the existing dock and house limit feasible alternatives. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The deck and stairway proposed to be attached to the house will require 4 feet of side yard setback relief on the north side, 2 feet of side yard relief on the south side, and 13 feet of shoreline setback relief. The sundeck over the dock will require 6 feet of side line relief on the north side and 3 feet of side line relief on the south side. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts are expected with the request to construct the deck and stairway attached to the home. The request to construct the sundeck may impact surrounding property owners' lake views. Additional comment may be provided at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The width of this lot and the location of existing structures limit where the proposed additions can be built. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant has submitted drawings which seem to indicate that the stairway will be built on the dock and will not be accessed from the land. Should the ZBA grant relief for this application, this proposal will also be reviewed by the Planning Board as a site plan review. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11th day of February 1997, the above application for an Area Variance for the construction of a deck. stairway. and a sundeck over an existinq dock. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact Comments: With the stipulation that systems be in place to control erosion to the lake on all sides, in all weather, during all phases of construction." Signed Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Is Mr. Kraft here? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. THOMAS-My first question is, on your drawings, you show the dock level with the property as it comes down, but in actuality the dock sits about two and a half to three feet below the level of the land. My question is, do you propose to raise the dock up? MR. KRAFT-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You're going to leave the dock at the same level? - 4 - ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MR. KRAFT-Right. MR. THOMAS-What about that little ilL" at the end of the, it would be the southern dock? MR. KRAFT-That five by six on the side of it? It's going to come off. MR. THOMAS-That's going to come off. anybody else have any questions? MRS. LAPHAM-I'm not sure I quite understand how the deck is, the deck and the stairs that are attached to the house, are they attached, is this a separate deck from the sundeck? That's all I have. Does MR. KRAFT-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-In other words, okay, you're planning a deck around the house. MR. KRAFT-No. There's a concrete patio out in front of the house, on the lake side. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. KRAFT-The proposal is to put a deck above it, for that side. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, and the stairs would be so that you'd just go out on the lawn? MR. KRAFT-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, because where I live there is a deck, a sundeck that is actually attached to the house, and I was hoping that wasn't what you meant. MR. KRAFT-No. MR. HAYES-You're going to bring fill in up to grade, then up to the? MR. KRAFT-On the south side of the house. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. KRAFT-There's a drawing that shows how the retaining wall (lost word) . MR. HAYES-And that's going to be made out of treated lumber? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. CUSTER-You'll have to move that propane tank there? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. CUSTER-That doesn't cause a major problem? MR. KRAFT-It'll just go up on top of it. MR. KARPELES- I've got a question for Staff here. It says the applicant has submitted drawings which would seem to indicate that the stairway will be built on the dock and will not be accessed from the land. MR. GORALSKI-The original drawing showed it coming from the land. - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) The County did not, the County won't approve a sundeck that comes from the land to the deck. So a new drawing was submitted. I thought that you had gotten copies of it. MR. KARPELES-No, we got the original, or at least .l got the original. MRS. KRAFT-We had preferred doing it the way it was originally submitted, but the County said that, well, somebody at the County said that it wouldn I t be a bad idea to have a second drawing prepared in case you decided not to overturn, they called it a land bridge. That's really the way the family would prefer to have it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's the way, as long as I've been here, that the County will not approve a land bridge, and they, I've seen probably four or five of them. This is probably number six. MRS. KRAFT-Right. If we have to attach it to the dock, we will lose that width of the dock for that section of area, the stairs, and part of the concerns is that the gentleman (lost word) has already had a quadruple bypass, and he is in precarious health, quite young man, and if he should end up in a wheelchair, the location of the stairs, having to come down onto the dock, he would not be able to pass in that area of the dock to get into the road, if it ever came to that, he was in a chair. MR. THOMAS-Well, since the dock is about two and a half to three feet, you'd have to put a ramp down anyway, down onto the dock, even now. The stairs coming off the back, he wouldn't lose anything on the docks because there's still eight feet between the shoreline and the dock that's parallel to the shoreline, so you could build a stairs over that, so you wouldn't be loosing any deck, or even sundeck area on that, and as far as, I think even a land bridge, as you had originally shown drawn, I don't think there would be a, the slope would be too steep for a wheelchair anyway. So they'd have to have some other means of getting a wheelchair up there, some mechanical things like they use in a house, a moveable chair that slides up a stair or something like that, but it's always been the County's contention that no land bridges. Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? If not, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-I'll start down with you, Brian, what do you think? MR. CUSTER-I'm in favor of the proposed variance with the change in the stairway, so that it avoids the land bridge use. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-When I investigated the property, there were other homes there that had boathouses with tops on them or were enclosed of some nature. So it looks like it's a good project, and I don't think it's going to change the nature of that shoreline or the other people's, the neighborhood, if you will, so I'm in favor as well. MR. KARPELES-Well, I kind of agree with the Staff's comments. I have no objection to the deck and the stairway attached to the home. The sundeck, it looked to me like it could impact the neighbor's view. I'm surprised that nobody's here. I have some reservations about that. - 6 - ',-- ----' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Being a great lover of sundecks myself, I think that's a good project and the deck attached to the house I have no problem with as long as there is no land bridge. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have no problem with the revised drawing for the sundeck over the existing dock as long as the stairs come down as the County has wanted and no land bridge, and as far as the deck on the house, I don't see any problem with that. I don't see where it's going to obstruct anyone's view. I think it will enhance the house. I don't believe there will be any problem with the stairs coming down off the deck or off the filled in area. There aren't any renovations going to happen with the house, is there? MR. KRAFT-There's a window there, and we're going to turn it into a door. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's the only thing, though, you're not going to re-do, tear it down and put a new roof on it or anything? MR. KRAFT-No. He had mentioned, I haven't seen the roof. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I saw the roof. Anyone else have any comments? motion. It's got a little sway in it. Having said that, ready for a MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Bonnie adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: 6-1997 Lapham RAY KRAFT KRAFT who moved for its The applicant is proposing to construct a deck and stairway attached to a home, along with a sundeck and stairway on top of the existing dock. The attached deck and stairway will not meet the shoreline and side yard setbacks in the WR-1A zone. The benefit to the applicant would allow the applicant to build an attached deck and a sundeck on an existing dock. The location of the existing dock and house limit feasible alternatives. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The deck and stairway proposed to be attached to the house would require four feet of side yard setback relief on the north side, two feet of side yard setback relief on the south side and 13 feet of shoreline setback relief. The sundeck over the dock will require six feet of side line relief on the north side and three feet side line relief on the south side. This is relief from the setbacks contained in 179- 6 OB, 5, b, 5 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury. We do not expect any negative impacts with this request. There has been no correspondence, there has been no opposition to this project and the width of this lot and the location of existing structures limit where the proposed additions could be built. So this difficulty is not self created. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Stone AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1997 TYPE II WR-3A/CEA CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 3 -1997 H. CROSWELL TUTTLE OWNERS: H. CROSWELL TUTTLE, CHARLES H. TUTTLE, I I , THOMAS F. CURRIE, I I I , JULIE L. CURRIE, THOMAS F. CURRIE, IV WILLIAM D. CURRIE LOCKHART LOOP ROAD, OFF ROUTE 9L, EAST OF LAKE GEORGE/QUEENSBURY TOWN LINE. APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.15 ACRE LOT INTO THREE LOTS. THE THREE NEW LOTS WILL NOT CONFORM TO THE SIZE, SETBACK AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR- 3A ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, WR-3A WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO'S. LOT SIZE: TOTAL 2.23 ACRES SECTION 1-1-22 179-16 1-1-23.2 1-1-23.1 MRS. LAPHAM-I've got some correspondence in here. MR. GORALSKI-You've got a letter from the applicant and a letter from the applicant's attorney, and then there are several letters from the public. MR. THOMAS-So what we'll do is we'll just open it up, go right through the public hearing. MR. GORALSKI - Yes. I'd recommend you read the letter from the applicant, and the applicant's attorney, and then open up the public hearing and decide what you'd like to do. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Read the application in first, and then we'll read those letters in. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. MR. THOMAS-Then we'll open the public hearing. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-1997, H. Croswell Tuttle, Meeting Date: February 19, 1997 "APPLICANT: H. Croswell Tuttle PROJECT LOCATION: Lockhart Loop Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing 1.4 acre property into two separate lots. The property is presently zoned WR-3A which allows one dwelling per 3 acres of land. The applicant is seeking relief from the lot area, lot width and side setback requirements of the WR-3A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to subdivide property into two lots. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant may have the ability to modify the lot lines shown on the map so that the existing structures would meet the required side yard setback. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Lot 2 is seeking relief to allow a lot that is .68 acres in size in a 3 acre zone. Lot 2 is also seeking 65 feet of relief from the lot width requirement and 10 feet of side setback relief. Lot 3 is seeking relief to allow a lot that is .72 acres in size in a 3 acre zone. Lot 3 is also seeking 58 feet of relief from the lot width requirement and 10 feet of side setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or communi ty? Because the subject property is already developed, staff anticipates no negative impacts with this request for relief. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The size of this nonconforming lot and the location of existing structures make it difficult to create lots which would conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff Comments & Concerns: The proposed subdivision of this property which contains existing structures seeks to create lots which do not conform to Zoning requirements. The proposed subdivision would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-All right. Read those two letters. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. The one that's from the attorney. MR. THOMAS-There's one from the attorney and one from the applicant themselves. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. Okay. The one from the applicant, H.C. Tuttle Real Estate, date 2/19/97, attention James M. Martin, AICP, - 8 - -- -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) Town of Queensbury, from H.C. Tuttle "Due to health problems, I am unable to meet with you this evening. I ask for a postponement of 30 days. Please notify me of the next meeting." And from the attorney, McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Meyer, Town of Queensbury, concerning Croswell Tuttle, "Please find my letter". "Dear Sir or Madame: I am writing to request that the variance application for Mr. Tuttle be tabled at the meeting of February 19th meeting due to Mr. Tuttle's illness and be rescheduled at the earliest possible date. Thank you. Sincerely, McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Meyer Daniel H. Ryan, Esq." MR. THOMAS-Well, since there's no one here from the applicant, what I'll do is I'll open the public hearing and I'll leave it open until the next, until we can get this application scheduled again. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JEAN OLTON MRS. OLTON-Jean Olton. I'm adjacent, two houses from the proposed additions. This is within the Adirondack Park Agency. It should have SEQRA investigation. The federal and state and local laws require that. The water front, it's a small bay in there. The water front is already very crowded. The area is crowded. I'm concerned about sewage disposal. Also drainage, the soil, it runs right into the lake. It's down hill. Buffering to establish and mitigate any impact to visual and noise pollution. We have not seen a map. Is there a map of this property? MR. THOMAS-Have you got another one over there. MRS. OLTON-Access is difficult. Parking, it's already crowded. So I'm sure it does have an impact on adjoining properties to put three dwellings in there. MR. THOMAS-Do you understand what this application is for? They're asking just to draw lot lines on the existing lots. They are not asking for anYmore buildings to be put up. The buildings already exist, okay, and all they're asking to do is to subdivide the one big lot, or the one big lot with two houses on it into two lots, three houses into three lots. One big lot with three houses on to it, into three separate lots. That's all they're asking. They're not asking for any new buildings or any type of new structure. MRS. OLTON-Well, I didn't realize that. It sounds that they were going to build three new buildings on the lots that already exist there. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it is confusing, but the only thing they're asking to do is draw lines on a map, like the map you've got right there, and that's the lot lines they're asking for. The reason they need a variance is because the lots are not wide enough. They're in a three acre zone where each lot is required to be three acres. The average lot width is not wide enough, and they do not have setbacks from the proposed lot lines, nor do they have shoreline setback on two of the buildings, but since they already exist, the shoreline setback, we can't do anything about that. The only thing we can do the lot line width or the lot width and the side line setback from the proposed lot line. That's the only thing we can ask them to change, to make it more conforming. MRS. OLTON-There's not going to be any additional buildings, then, on those three lots? MR. THOMAS-No, no buildings whatsoever. MR. GORALSKI-There aren't any proposed right now. - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MR. THOMAS-No, well, I can't say that there never will be, but there aren't any proposed, and if any more do, if they do want to put anYmore buildings on there, they would have to come to us, because each lot has a separate building on it already. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. THOMAS-So, they can't do anything more or they can't put anymore buildings up, other than probably a less than a 100 square foot shed, unless they come to see us, and then again you would be notified, but like I said, this is just to draw lines on a piece of paper, like you have in front of you. MRS. OLTON-Well, that's different. going to build. It appeared that they were MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you have any other questions you'd like to ask? Because the lawyer and the applicant will be here again next month, hopefully, sometime in March, one of the March meetings. So that'll be re-advertised. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We will make sure that that's re-advertised at the applicant's expense, and between now and that meeting can go up and come into our office and we can show them the plans and answer any other questions there might be. MR. THOMAS-Okay. opposed? Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to speak F. VANLADD MR. LADD-My name is Ladd, I live adjacent on the north, in the summer time, and this is the first I've seen the map, and I'd like to bring it to the attention of Staff. This map is dated November 1, 1982, and since that time, I've bought 10 feet from Tuttle, along my property line, and it's reduced that much. MR. GORALSKI-There's an indication on the map that says H. Croswell Tuttle to Ladd's Gas Station, Incorporated. That's the 10 feet you're talking about, right? MR. LADD-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-That's not included in these lots. MR. LADD-Well, my complaint was that I didn't feel I had fair amount of notice to look into this thing. I felt that everything else in the Town law speaks about 10 days notice, but I found out since that you can ship it off and give five days notice, and it's the usual good treatment that we've recei ved from the Town of Queensbury. We who are out of town don't get a chance to get up and look at it and give you a decent commentary on what is taking place here, but I know from experience that you give these people a chance to subdivide and approve, give them the variance, heaven only knows what's going to happen with that property in the near future, a week, ten days from now, 10 years from now. As long as they've got three. What did Staff say the total acreage was there? MR. GORALSKI-It's 2.23 acres. MR. LADD-Is there any indication on this map anywhere as to how much (lost words) . MR. GORALSKI-Each lot has a square footage amount indicated under the lot number. MR. LADD-Are there any extra copies of this map? I'd like to be given a little chance to study it. - 10 - ~, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MR. THOMAS-You could probably get one if you stop in at the Town Hall. They could probably, or see John, he could probably make you one. MR. GORALSKI-Unless there's an extra copy in the file. MR. LADD-My concern, personally, I mean, the Tuttles are fine people, but I don't know why the devil they didn't at least say something. It makes me mad that I have to get notice and have to run up here to find out what's going on. I've also known Bernie McPhillips, the senior member of that firm, for probably 40 years. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I know what can happen, and I want to give you a little warning that just because you're allowing them a variance, that means that some time in the future, they can sell to anybody. They can rent to anybody. They can lease to anybody. They're destroying the residential area that was supposed to have been created here. Your own Town created. I've been paying taxes in this Town for 30 years, and I think that if you make rules, you ought to stick with them. I don't think a variance ought to be granted. Let them take care of it among themselves. Let them work it out together, which they have done, apparently. I understand that the deeds have already been recorded and transcribed. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. That was done illegally. MR. LADD-In other words, here you are, boys. Now we want a variance. Why didn't they do this properly in the first place? I don't know, I just don't like the way it's been done. I don't like the way it's been handled, and I'd like to just merely voice my opinion on that. I wish Mr. Tuttle were here. I wish he'd said something to us. We've had some rare people in there as tenants. I mean, Charlie doesn't live there all summer. It's rental property. It isn't residential property. Tuttle lives there year round, but to give me notice, it's actually on five days, that's (lost word) and I don't like it. Mrs. Lapham, you got a fax from a Mrs., have you got a fax? MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I have a letter here from Mrs. Olton. I have, I think what appears to be a fax from Betty Hedges. A letter from John Boomer, and Deborah and Lionel Barthold, Walt & Steven Burnett. MR. LADD-Are those read into the record? MR. THOMAS-They will be read into the record when you're done. MR. LADD-Are they opposed or in favor? MR. THOMAS-I can't tell you until they're read. MR. LADD-Okay. You're treading on dangerous ground here, that's all, if you grant this variance. I would serious protest it. Now that I realize the size and what they've done here. That is all. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak opposed? JOHN SCHRINER MR. SCHRINER-My name is John Schriner, and I'm just curious, reading this over and listening to this gentleman, how did they get three houses in that three acre tract when you're only allowed one? They don't even have three acres. How did this ever get in there? MR. THOMAS-Those houses were probably built in the 40's. MR. SCHRINER-They're old houses? - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. SCHRINER-Long before that was zoned three acres? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Before there was any zoning. MR. GORALSKI-They were all built prior to 1988 when that was zoned three acres. MR. SCHRINER-That's all I care about, thank you. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else wishing to speak opposed? You might as well read the letters. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. February 19, 1997, conversation, Mrs. D. J. Olton from Loudonville, Subject: H. Croswell Tuttle Area Variance No. 4-1997, "Concerned about environmental impact statement. Concerned about SEQR investigations due to APA jurisdiction. No allowable area for this amount of space. It s already crowded there." RE: Application Croswell Tuttle, Area Variance 4-1997, "Dear Mrs. Lapham: Since I am not able to attend the public hearing, February 19, 1997, on the referenced application, I request that my comments be made part of the hearing record. The hearing notice does not give sufficient information. It is not clear why this request for subdivision is being made. I do not understand the request for 3 new lots when, according to the assessment roll, 3 separate lots already exist: 1.-1-22 Thomas and Julie Currie 0.74 acres 1.- 1-23.1 H. Croswell Tuttle 0.80 acres 1.-1-23.2 Charles H. Tuttle 0.69 acres 2.23 acres (The hearing notice - 2.15) Whatever the purpose of this application, I object to the creation of a new subdivision with such undersized lots in a 3-acre zone, WR-3A Waterfront Residential zone and Critical Environmental Area. Obviously the 3-acre zoning district was established to protect the lake, which has suffered from the adverse impacts of overdevelopment. Should this request be granted, how could the ZBA turn down requests from other property owners in the area with non- conforming lots? As you know, Section 267 of town law (July 1, 1992) directs the ZBA to also consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance; whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The Town, in its wisdom, designated the WR-3A zone and Critical Environmental Area. It is my opinion that everything possible should be done to protect and uphold this zoning district, for the common good. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Betty Hedges Summer address: 11 Woods Point Lane, Lake George, NY 12845" John Boomer, 23 Woods Point Lane, Lake George NY, February 17, 1997, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY, RE: Tuttle Area Variance No. 4-1997, "If the ultimate purpose of this variance request is to add residences to an area which--it appears to me--is already densely populated, I would urge it be denied. Very truly yours, JohnN. Boomer" February 15, 1997, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, RE: Public Hearing: February 19, 1997: H. Croswell Tuttle Tax Map: 1-1-22, 1-1-23.2, 1-1-23.1 Variance request - WR3A Zoning "We will be out of Town on the date set for this hearing, Wednesday, February 19, and therefore ask that our written objection be considered and made part of the record. This hill- side section of the lake-front is already much more intensely developed than the lots on either side. Board members should certainly visit the site if they haven't already done so. WR-3A Waterfront Residential Zoning was enacted to limit the density of occupancy of lake-front land and the consequent environmental impact, both on the land immediately bordering the lake and the - 12 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) lake itself. We see no reason why, once enacted, those zoning provisions should be set aside, in a critical environmental area and on three separate counts...particularly where the density of residences is already high and the terrain steeply sloped. We urge that this request be denied. Lionel o. and Deborah K. Barthold" Ms. Bonnie M. Lapham, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY 12804, Dear Ms. Lapham: I received your notice of a public hearing regarding the Area Variance request No. 4-1997, Type II of Mr. H. Croswell Tuttle's property (Tax Map No. 1-1-22, 1-1-23.2, 1-1-23.1). As an adjacent property owner, I have no reservations to this subdivision provided that it remains residential. I do, however, request to be kept informed of the proceedings and would be most interested in receiving a transcript of the hearing under the NYS FOIA. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Stephen A. Burnett" MR. THOMAS-That's it? MRS. LAPHAM-That's it. MR. THOMAS-Well, I'll keep the public hearing open until it can be rescheduled for some time, one of the meetings in March. More than likely everyone will be re-notified. MR. GORALSKI-What I would recommend you do is make a motion, if you plan on tabling this, make a motion to table and require that the applicant pay another application fee to pay for the re-advertising and re-notification. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1997 H. CROSWELL TUTTLE, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Until a March meeting. I would also make a motion that the applicant bear the cost of re-notifying all neighbors and interested parties. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-So you'll all be notified again for the March meeting, and those that are here know what's going on now. AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1997 TYPE II HC-1A ADIRONDACK OUTLET MALL DAVID KENNY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ADIRONDACK OUTLET MALL, EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9, NORTH OF EXIT 20 OF 1-87 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RECONSTRUCT A PORTION AN EXISTING BUILDING WHICH WILL NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND TWO ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS AT THIS LOCATION. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-28. RELIEF IS ALSO BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 140-6B,3 WHICH REGULATES THE NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS ALLOWED. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/11/97 TAX MAP NO. 36-1- 29 LOT SIZE: 4.69 ACRES SECTION 179-28, 140-6B,3 DAVID KENNY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-1997, Adirondack Outlet Mall - 13 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) David Kenny, Meeting Date: February 19, 1997 "APPLICANT: Adirondack Outlet Mall PROJECT LOCATION: Route 9 Proposed proj ect and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to reconstruct a portion of an existing building which will not conform to the required front yard setback. The applicant is also seeking to construct a new building, which will not meet the front yard setback, and two wall signs. The two wall signs would be above what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to reconstruct an existing building, construct a new building and two new wall signs for a commercial center on Route 9. 2. Feasible al ternatives: The applicant may be able to utilize existing signage or construct a freestanding sign in place of existing signage, therefore eliminating the proposed building and two wall signs which are proposed. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 15 feet of travel corridor setback relief for the addition to the existing building. The new building requires 53 feet of travel corridor setback relief. The two new wall signs which are proposed are above the one wall sign and one freestanding sign which is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Staff anticipates no negative impacts with the proposed alteration to the existing building. The proposed construction of a new building and two wall signs would be above and beyond what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance and would not be in character with the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The signage at this location currently conforms to the Sign Ordinance and is compatible with signage used in this surrounding commercial area. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff anticipates no negative impacts with allowing the proposed addition to the existing building. The proposed building and signage would not be in harmony with existing conditions in the surrounding neighborhood and would allow more signage than is allowed under current regulations. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11th day of February 1997, the above application for an Area Variance to reconstruct a portion of an existinq buildinq which will not conform to the required front yard setback. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: The WCPB accepts the proposal separate from the bus shelter unless Glens Falls transit establishes access from the parking lot. The WCPB denies the bus shelter stating that it is dangerous to stop buses on the main road." Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. GORALSKI-I believe you have a letter from the applicant in the file, withdrawing the bus shelter portion. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. I should read that. Okay. Adirondack Outlet Mall, February 14, 1997, Town of Queensbury Planning Department, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, RE: Your Area Variance No. 7- 1997, "To Whom It May Concern: At the present time I wish to withdraw my portion of the above application that pertains to the bus shelter, since it appears to raise some issues that cannot be fully addressed at this time. If you have any questions, please call me at 792-9565, or 656-9740. Sincerely, David Kenny" MR. THOMAS-Mr. Kenny, you're up. MR. KENNY-Good evening. My name's David Kenny. I'll be glad to answer any questions. The bus shelter section of this application has been withdrawn, due to concerns, so that's not an issue. I am replacing the sign. The sign is going there, a new sign. (Lost words) the freestanding sign is going to be replaced with the new freestanding in that location. - 14 - ',-, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MR. THOMAS-The freestanding sign, you're going to replace your existing one? MR. GORALSKI-Right. There's issue with the sign in front of this Board at this time. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It conforms, that's all I want to know. MR. GORALSKI-The sign that's been submitted appears to be in conformance. The sign permit will be issued. If it doesn't, for some reason, you will hear about it. MR. KENNY-Just to explain what happened was we were putting a new building, re-doing it, and (lost words) bus shelter there. We didn't realize there would be a problem, but I guess they can go ahead and do it next week if they want. They're a free entity. I couldn't put a wall sign on it, but they could put a bus shelter there, without a variance, without anything, because they're a public transportation authority, and they plan on doing it. MR. THOMAS-They're a public utility. Would they be considered a public utility, and that's why they can throw that thing up there if they want? MR. GORALSKI-It's a little more complicated than that, but the Glens Falls Transportation is a quasi governmental body, and is exempt from zoning, but as far as locating the bus shelter, what it can be on and everything else, it's a little more complicated than that. There's really no need to go into it right now. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Then we'll forget it. So just take care of what we have at hand here. Is there anything else you want to add? MR. KENNY-The situation with the new entrance is, they're raising the roof line about three feet on the building, the existing building. Being that the building was built with 50 foot setback, any alteration to that building needs a variance because the building itself is not conforming with that. The building was built in 1987 or '86, that setback was changed from 50 feet to 75 feet. So we're not asking for any further encroachment. The building right now is existing 50 feet off the building on the whole corners, the north and south corner of the building. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. KENNY-We're not coming any closer to the road. What we're doing is widening the walkway. At the narrowest point it's five feet wide. (Lost words) There'll be defined entrances to the building. MR. THOMAS-Like the one on the south side now has the archways. MR. KENNY-Yes, right. It will be very similar. Actually, I do have a rendering of it here, if you'd like to see it. MR. THOMAS - Sure, we'd I ike to see it. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Kenny concerning this project? MR. KENNY-By raising the roof line, going with the four twelve pitch rather than the six twelve pitch, you know, when you walk through now it's very boxy, it's very (lost words). We're going to raise that original roof line up. We're putting all new trusses on the roof. This will be the new sign. It'll just have a bus shelter in it, but with the bus shelter it would look like this. It's just too big. MRS. LAPHAM-When you say you're adding more green space, you won't lose any parking spaces, will you? - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MR. KENNY-No, because this is the actual drawing, and this will all be green space here now, where now that the cars are parked at an angle. So this, we're straightening this out. This will all be green here. We're cutting out the blacktop and putting more green space in there in the front, just to improve the property. MR. KARPELES-I understand what you're doing with the tower, but I don't really understand what you're doing in here. MR. KENNY-We're raising the roof. MR. KARPELES-You're raising the top of the roof, not the bottom of the roof? MR. KENNY-The top of the roof. It's a six twelve pitch now. With the new trusses on it, it will be four, twelve. MR. KARPELES-Just making the peak higher? MR. KENNY-Not the peak, the peak is staying the same. From the six twelve pitch, we're going to go to a four twelve, and it's 30 feet which will give us, every 12 feet you pick up two feet. So you pick up six feet from the center line to the outside edge. What it'll do is raise the overhang. So the overhang will be 10 feet rather than (lost words). We'll still have a four, twelve roof. It'll be an ice cold roof, which will eliminate ice. MR. KARPELES-So the distance from the ground to the bottom of the roof is increasing, is that right? MR. KENNY-Eight feet to ten feet, yes, the overhang. MR. KARPELES-And the purpose of that is? MR. KENNY-The purpose of it is to make it look more appealing. Right now you can't even see the store fronts, because it comes right down, it's only about seven and a half feet. That's a very low roof, plus it will eliminate any icing problems, and it aesthetically would look a lot better. MR. HAYES-Mr. Kenny, the signage that's depicted there, that's a essentially the signage that's there now? MR. KENNY-This signage is there now, yes. MR. HAYES-It's just lower? MR. KENNY-No. Now the signage is the same height. The signing now is on the overhang. The Big and Tall and Corning sign is above the roof, okay. That sign will come down. The new roof will go on, and that will be a facade along the front because the roof will be higher. There'll be a three foot facade along the front of the building, like 10 feet up. The overhang will come out 10 feet high, right, and it'll be a three foot facade, and then the roof will go up, and the signs will be on the facade. MR. KARPELES-The same size signs? MR. KENNY-They'll be the same sized signs. The signs will be, I think they're like 40 square feet, the signs for each store there. MRS. LAPHAM-They won't be up here like they were. MR. KENNY-With raising the roof line, you'll have six feet, but you won't gain a full six feet, a three foot facade along there, plus you gain two foot of overhang, of pipe. I think there's a drawing on the next page that shows. - 16 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MR. HAYES-You say that's more consistent with the rest of the building? MR. KENNY-Yes, the overhang is. MR. KARPELES-It's kind of confusing. MR. KENNY -This shows the roof lirie right here. There's the existing roof line. There's the new roof line, on the next page. It shows the existing roof line. We're not changing, I don I t think there's a variance required for that, for changing the roof line. MR. GORALSKI -Not for changing the heiqht of the roof, but for extending the roof out the way it is. MR. KENNY-Right, to extend the roof out to where this new, this is required a variance, this tower here. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because that tower also encroaches in that 75 feet. MR. KENNY-Right. See, the roof line is changing. Here's the new roof line, right here. This is the existing set back line. This corner of the building here, it's on the next page, the setback is 60 feet. MR. THOMAS-Sixty feet to that corner. MR. KENNY-Sixty feet, and we're not changing that. Actually, it's right here this existing green space is. So you can see the existing green space, how much more we're going to have with the new, but we're not changing that. We're not coming out past that 60 feet. So the building is not getting any closer to the point than the 60 feet it currently is. Like I said, when we built the building, the setback was 50 feet, back in '86. MR. THOMAS-Right, but they've changed the zoning since then. How far does the front of that new tower sit back off the property line? MR. KENNY-Sixty-five feet, seven inches. MR. THOMAS-Sixty-five feet, seven inches. So they'll need a variance of nine feet, five inches, for the tower, and the tower, it says here, is 39 feet six inches tall. MR. KENNY-Correct. MR. THOMAS-From ground level to the peak, and that squeaks in, or is that too tall for the? MR. GORALSKI-The tower is how tall? MR. THOMAS-Thirty-nine, six. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, 40 feet is the maximum in the Highway Commercial zone. MR. THOMAS-He squeaks in on that. Does anyone else have any questions for Mr. Kenny before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie, what do you think? - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MRS. LAPHAM-I think it sounds like a fairly good project, myself. I mean, he's adding green space without taking away any parking. It's going to be aesthetically more pleasing, and it gives the customers, by looking at this property, it gives them cover to walk under between the stores. So it sounds quite practical, I think. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES - I agree. It looks like he's trying to improve the aesthetics. It has a pragmatic value as well. I'm in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-I'm in favor, also. I think it'll actually improve it with the traffic pattern, taking away the diagonal parking existing now. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members. I don't see any problem with this. There's really no more encroachment into the property than already exists. It will add to it. It'll add to the looks of the building, and it would make it easier for customers to use the entrance in the front there now. Having said that, I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1997 ADIRONDACK OUTLET MALL DAVID KENNY, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: The applicant is proposing to reconstruct a portion of the existing building, and the front portion will not meet the front yard setback. The benefit to the applicant would be it would allow the applicant to add to the building to put a new roof on with a less sloped pitch, and to add a new entrance to the front of the building. There do not seem to be any feasible alternatives to this proposed project, and it does not further encroach into the setback than it already is. The applicant is seeking nine feet five inches of relief from the 75 foot front yard setback in the Highway Commercial zone. This does not seem to be substantial. As I said before, the applicant is not going any further into the setback than he already is. There do not appear to be any effects on the neighborhood or the character of the neighborhood, and all the signage will stay the same, so that the signage, he will not need any sign variances. The difficulty is not self created. The applicant is trying to improve the appearance of the building. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-You can go ahead, Mr. Kenny. USE VARIANCE NO. 8-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A JOHN BUECKING OWNER: ARNOLD O'BRIEN 204 CRONIN ROAD, OPPOSITE FREIHOFFERS BAKERY OUTLET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED SFR-1A. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT MEET THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A DISTRICT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 179-20, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE. AN ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY - 18 - ~. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE IN THE SFR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES LISTED IN SECTION 179-20, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 59-3-10 LOT SIZE: 21.81 ACRES SECTION 179-20 AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1997 TYPE II OWNER: ARNOLD O'BRIEN 204 CRONIN ROAD, OPPOSITE FREIHOFFERS BAKERY OUTLET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A AN ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED SFR- 1A. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT MEET THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A DISTRICT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 179-20, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 59-3-10 LOT SIZE: 21.81 ACRES SECTION 179-20 MR. THOMAS-Use Variance No. 8-1997 and Area Variance No. 9-1997 have been withdrawn by the property owner. So that brings us up to the last business on the agenda. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-97 JOHN F. SCHRINER APPLICANT IS APPEALING A DETERMINATION FROM JIM MARTIN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, CONCERNING THE PARKING OF AUTOMOBILES BY EMPLOYEES OF THE DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT COMPANY AT THE BOAT STORAGE FACILITY WHILE WORKING AT THE MARINA. LOCATION: OFF OF ROUTE 9L, SOUTH OF THE DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT COMPANY MARINA, TAX MAP NO. 10-1-19.2 IN A LC-42A ZONE. MR. SCHRINER-My name is John Schriner, over on Dunhams Bay in Lake George. I'm appealing this decision. Number One, I think Jim has forgotten, back in 1972 when this property, before the Dunham's Bay Boat Company even owned it, it was residential. They had a special use permit allotted with the permission from the neighboring people, and I don't feel that all these rules that Jim sent me pertain to this piece of ground since it started as a special use permit. I think these are just general rules of parking, whatever the Town has adopted, and even though I've only owned this property since 1992, I've been on this property as a guest of Mr. Shortsleeves from Day One, 1963. Now anything I tell you is not second hand. This is first hand. I was present before the Dunham's Bay Boat Company owned this property, and I was present when they came up and asked the Shortsleeves and the Woodens who owned the right-of-way road going up to this facility, if they purchased this land from Virginia Allen, would they have any objection to putting in a winter boat storage facility. That's what they were asking, winter boat storage facility. Since both Shortsleeves and Woodens were weekend people, they could see no objection to this. They were promised by the Boat Company there would be no boats through the summer time, especially on the weekend. All the boats were to make one trip in the spring time down to the Marina into the water, back up in the fall, up to this storage. That would all be done in April and May, long before these people were ever weekend campers. That's about what they amounted to. The big concern was dust. They were promised the road would be blacktopped from Route 9L past the green camp that Mr. Shortsleeves had, just in case there was any traffic, it would eliminate the dust. Mrs. Wooden's big concern was defacing the front of her property. They were promised then, she was, that all the boats would enter from the north. This lasted about two months. From a 12 foot wide road to what it is today, that road that the entrance is probably 35 to 40 feet wide. The allowable size of the road is 20 feet for a right-of-way. All her flower garden was destroyed. The lawn was destroyed, the whole bit. There was just one thing after another over the years for these people. I, personally, put in posts to keep them off the lawn. I put rocks there for Mrs. Wooden. They were all removed or knocked down. Mr. Shortsleeves had a guest, people named Goodomote. They used the green camp from approximately 1966 until 1978, when we no longer could oil the road. We oiled the road ourselves, and then when they passed a law that you couldn't oil the road, it got so dusty, they lost all use of the green camp. The only time you could use it was at night. So they stopped coming up. That camp - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) laid empty. No one used it all through the 80's until these last few years, I remodeled it, put in whatever was rotted out, and my son uses it with his family, strictly at night, because you cannot open the windows in the day time, it's too dusty. So if this here goes through, like Jim says, we're going to lose the nighttime use of this camp, too. Because these employees go to work before seven o'clock in the morning, some of them. Not all of them, some of them, and there's a lot of dust just from one vehicle. When you take nine or ten employees going up through, that's a lot of dust. So someone' s got to get up in the morning, close the windows, otherwise the place is going to be full of dust again. So this is almost going to eliminate that green camp of any use to me whatsoever. The other property is owned by Gary Venton. He doesn't live there, the Wooden property. He rents it, very periodically. He rented it about four weeks of this whole last summer, and every one of the people that camped with him said they would never come back, because of the same problems, dust. You can't open the windows in the day time. The same problem. They told me they'd never come back, and I'm surprised Gary isn't here to complain. I don't even know if he was ever notified of this. I have no idea, but anyway. This came to light last July 4th weekend. I had an incident when we were having a picnic summer, and first a couple of cars came down out of the boat storage facility, they were going along reasonable, no complaints. A little dusty flies any time you get two or three cars on that dirt road, and then another couple of cars came down. What the heck's going on here? And then finally one fellow came down really traveling. Well, the dust really flew this time so I hollered at him to slow down. Well, he made it a point to let me know that he wasn't going to listen to no old man, tell him what to do, so he tromped down on it and then we really ate the dust for our picnic supper, and then eventually four or five more cars came down, all total there was about ten cars, and we got a lot of dust. At any rate, I still didn't know who the cars belonged to. I had no idea. So the next day I went to see Roger Howard, and told him what happened. He agreed with me that I shouldn't have to put up with that aggravation and he would take care of it. So I said to him, Roger, many times you have been told there's no parking allowed at this facility. There never has been. I've got letters from the Town Board. Letters were sent by John Goralski that it was illegal to park up there. John's letter is a little variation, but anyway, Roger told me, he said, they were my employees, and I have a perfect right to have them park up there, and I said, since when? He said, since last year. I have a letter from the Town authorizing that my employees can park at this facility. Well, I asked him to see the letter. I went down twice that day, he never produced it. He was too busy. So, right away, knowing Roger all the years that I've known him, I figured that he wasn't telling me the truth. I felt he didn't have any letter, and when I came down to see John the very next day, asked him about the letter, he said he couldn't remember any letter, and then as he dug through all the files, he found on the computer that, yes, he did send a letter. So I asked him, did you have the authority to change any variances or permits? He told me no~ Anyway, I told him what had happened, and he said he had no intentions of the employees parking up there unless they were working specifically at that facility. That's what I got from John, and this is what this letter states. So I came in to the Town Board that night. This happened to be on a Monday night at a Town Board meeting. Nobody knew anything about the letter. The Town Board didn't know, was all in the dark about it, and I asked how long it's been there, and Roger had it about a year. I didn't feel this was fair to me, our neighbors or anybody, without having some kind of a public hearing. So it sounded to me like a deal was made between Roger and John. This is my opinion. Whether or not they feel personally, I don't care. I can't help that. I'm just stating what I feel. Now Jim Martin, he felt maybe we ought to have a meeting. So Fred Champagne agreed he would like to have a meeting. So we did have the meeting, with Jim Martin, - 20 - ',- -..,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) Fred Champagne, John Salvador, who's a neighboring property owner, Roger Howard and myself. John was away on vacation. So this all came to light and so forth, and we had another episode right after this. I ended up with a spotlight on my camp. Thanks to Mr. Howard, he ruined my whole half a summer and my family's, too, making it impossible for us to see the beauty of the lake at nighttime. So I went to him a couple of times and asked him, got nowhere, and Fred Champagne asked him to move the light, put a block in front of it, anything. He flatly refused. The light is still there. Well, anyway, as this meeting came, Jim Martin went out and produced the letter and specifically told Mr. Howard that the only time parking was available for the employees was while they were working at that site, and this was agreed upon. Fred felt the same way. That's what the letter stated. John sent the letter. Well, at that point, Roger got up and left. That was the end. That was our last word, and just before we left, Fred asked him, what about the light, and Roger asked, is the light legal or illegal, and he said, well, we have no lighting ordinance, so I guess it's legal, and away he went. That was the end of that. So now, in September, employees cars were parked up there again. So I came down, turned it in to the Town, turned it into Jim Martin, asked them what they're going to do about it. He asked me what I wanted to do about it, and needless to say, looking in to this light all the time, I was really mad, and I still am mad, and I said, I want you to enforce the rules that you made. I didn't make the rules. You made them. Enforce them. So now we come up with this letter from Jim. Instead of enforcing these rules, we change them. That's the easy way out. To me, this is a cop out. We don't even enforce the old rules that we set forth. This same thing happened in 1989 and 1990, to the previous owners, Shortsleeves and Woodens, both turned in the Boat Company for being in violation of Permit No. 35. This Town never made them live up to that permit. Never penalized them in any way. They gave them a new variance, or whatever you want to call it, permit, for what they were in violation for. It's strictly a cop out, as far as I'm concerned, the way the Town is acting. This has devalued this property tremendously. We've still got all this dust. It's just aggravating, and I don't feel that it's fair, and with this decision of Jim's, this was the final. That took the cake, as far as I was concerned, and what I want to know, if this is allowed, who's going to enforce it? That's what I want to know, who's going to enforce it? I believe it's John's job to enforce, but I want to know how John's going to know who's car is up there? According to Jim's letter, customers cannot park up there, but employees can. Who's going to know what car belongs to who? That's what I would like to know, and all these infractions take place on the weekend. They don't take place through the week. John isn't available through the weekend, and nobody else in the Town is available. So all you're doing here is, Jim, this Town is, is creating an open parking lot, strictly against everything that was ever intended to be from this original agreement that the people had, and I don't feel it's fair. I don't feel it's fair. In fact, I don't feel, why do we need it? This is the question. We don't need employee parking up there. There is plenty of room down on Dunham's Bay Road, and when that gets filled up, if it gets filled up, it won't be filled up by the employees, because they start to work at seven, eight 0' clock in the morning. They'll have a parking spot. You've got Alexy Road, probably eight, nine hundred feet long. That's a Town road. They could park on that if they have to. I don't see any reason why my property should be devalued. I've got all this extra traffic and all this aggravation that I have to put up with for these young people. When they go to work in the morning, they're not on Dunham's Bay payroll. They haven't punched in the clock yet, and when they leave at night, they've already punched the clock, and they're on their way out. Who's going to tell them how fast they can drive on my road? Nobody. You might just as well tell the kids, hey, you go down Route 9L 30 miles an hour. They're not going to listen to you. I've had plenty of encounters - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) with his employees, plenty of them over the years, and even after this incident, I had some with his customers plus his employees, since all of this took place. He isn't even aware of that because I don't bother telling him anYmore because it doesn't do any good. The only thing I get as an answer from him is, I'll take care of it, and that's the end of it. That's all I've got to say. I appreciate your time. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Schriner? No? Are you going to speak for Mr. Martin, John? MR. GORALSKI-You have a copy of Mr. Martin's letter. MR. THOMAS-No, we never got a copy of it? MR. KARPELES-We never got a copy. about. I don't know what this is all MRS. LAPHAM-The only thing I have in here is to Jim from you. MR. GORALSKI-There's a letter that I wrote that Jim asked me to research, this was just when this last came up. All right. Well, let me try to fill you in on what we've done. In 1990, Mr. Schriner is correct, there was a complaint regarding the boat storage facility. At that time and currently, this property was zoned Land Conservation 42 acres, which allows commercial boat storage as a site plan review use. So, the Dunham's Bay Boat Company applied for site plan review to operate a boat storage facility on that property. There were several meetings, probably three or four meetings. The result was a site plan approval for boat storage facility. There was nothing in the motion that even discussed parking. After the motion was made, one of the Board members said, now there aren't going to be any patrons parking up there, right? And the attorney for Dunham's Bay Boat Company, I believe it was, said, that's right, there won't be any patrons parking up there. That's the only discussion there ever was about parking. Any commercial establishment needs to have parking for their employees. This, as far as we can tell, this is Dunham's Bay Boat Company, whether it's boat storage, boat sales, a marina, they're all operated and the employees go, have different tasks. I can't tell you which employee is working doing boat storage, which employee is working at the dock, which employee is selling boats, since there was never a restriction in the site plan approval for employee parking there, there was only a discussion about patron parking. It was my determination, and Jim's as Zoning Administrator, that there is no restriction regarding employee parking in that area. MR. THOMAS-Back during the site plan review process, back in 1990. MR. GORALSKI-I believe it was 1990. It may have been '89, I'm not sure. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Schriner alluded to the fact that someone had said that the road was going to be blacktopped. Was that any part of that discussion? MR. GORALSKI-No, there was, I believe the discussion of the road being blacktopped was done back in 1972, for the special use permit. Whether or not that was done, I'm not sure. During the site plan review, there was a discussion about dust control and spreading some type of chemical dust control on the road, and that is part of the motion, and I've spoken to Mr. Howard about that, that that is something that has to be done periodically during the summer. MR. THOMAS-The special permit back in '72, there was no expiration date on that? - 22 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MR. GORALSKI-Well, the special permit in '72 is really irrelevant at this point, because the zoning changed to LC-42, which allowed boat storage, and they came in and got a site plan review to legally establish a boat storage facility there, based on the current zoning. MR. THOMAS-That was before the Planning Board, do you have copies of those minutes? MR. GORALSKI-I do, not with me, but I can get copies of those minutes for you. MR. THOMAS-Because I think the Board members would like to read those, see what they say exactly, see if there was anything left in, left out, because I don't think we'll make a decision on this tonight. I think we'll get copies of that. I'd also like a copy sent to every Board member of the letter that you sent to Jim, and any other correspondence or memos or anything else that pertains to this particular piece of property, and if you could do that, I would appreciate it. MR. GORALSKI-Sure. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you want to add to it? MR. GORALSKI-No, that's it. MR. SCHRINER-Jim Martin requested from me that I ask for a determination of the permit that Dunham's Bay Boat Company has, and I asked Jim, why would you want this from me? Why can't you do it? And he said, it'll help me a lot if you will only do it. I agreed to this, and I asked for a determination from the Planning Board. I drove 60 miles up for that meeting, same as I did tonight, got up here, and when it came time, we were last on the agenda, same as always, it was 10:30, quarter of eleven. The attorney for the Town, he intervened, and he said it's illegal for me, as a taxpayer in the Town of Queensbury to ask for a determination. It's illegal. He said the only one that can ask for a determination of any permit or whatever, it has to be done by the person that holds the permit for the variance or whatever you want to call it. He said, he told the Planning Board, you can listen if you so desire, and it was agreed at the beginning of that Planning Board meeting, since we all were here, Mr. Howard was here, I was here, John Salvador was here, they agreed to listen, but right from the very beginning, the Chairman said there will be no action taken by this Planning Board in favor or against, absolutely nothing, and he did. He listened and he listened and so forth. We all got it off of our chests, and at the end of it, it was just like he said. There was no action taken at that Planning Board meeting whatsoever, absolutely nothing, and they said, as far as they were concerned, actually, me, or in fact one of the Board members asked, well, what's Mr. Schriner supposed to do? As far as we are concerned, this should be a determination of Jim Martin's office, and that was the end of the meeting. I got a hold of Jim, told him it was illegal, the whole bit, and he said, I know, I heard about it, I was wrong. I advised you wrong. It didn't do us any good, and then he said, you'll be hearing from me, and that's when I got this letter, and naturally I'm going to appeal this, and that's what came out of the Planning Board. So you can get all the minutes you want, but regardless, they don't say anything. MR. GORALSKI-You meant the Planning Board minutes for the site plan review? MR. THOMAS-Yes, for the site plan review back in '89 or '90. MR. SCHRINER-Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize. I thought you meant this last one. - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MR. THOMAS-No. I've asked for all the relative information regarding this from the Planning Board minutes back, '89 or '90, any letters, memorandums written, anything about this to be sent to all the Board members. MR. SCHRINER-Can I just read this one letter. This one came out of a Town Board meeting, and it was sent by John. Mr. Roger Howard, "Dear Mr. Howard: At the June 5, 1995 Town Board meeting," it had my name in it, but it was a mistake. It's supposed to be Nick Caimano, because I have a copy of the minutes here. At the Town Board meeting, Nick Caimano requested that you be put on written notice that there is no customer or employee parking allowed on your boat storage site. Furthermore, you are allowed to store no more than two unregistered vehicles on this site. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this. John Goralski. This is a letter sent on June 7, 1995. Every letter I got says no parking, and then all of a sudden Jim comes up with this. Like I said before, this is the easy cop out. We don't have to enforce it, do we? Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Anything else you want to add before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROGER HOWARD MR. HOWARD-My name's Roger Howard. It seems like every one of these meetings I've come to, the stories get taller and taller, and more exaggerated. I'm not going to answer all of those allegations point by point, but I certainly will answer any questions anyone has. We certainly are trying our hardest to run a clean operation, and we certainly don't intend to antagonize anybody. Some people, it seems like everything we do is wrong. I would ask you to look through the minutes of the meetings. I think they speak for themselves. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Howard? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, are we going to do that now, or are we going to wait? MR. THOMAS-No, we've got to, he's going to send us all the information for another meeting. We'll make a determination at another meeting. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, but we can ask questions now. MR. THOMAS-Yes, you can ask questions now. MRS. LAPHAM-I'm just curious, how many times a year do you use that parking for anyway? Although I can't imagine customers ever walking that far. MR. HOWARD-I use that on occasions when we have a special event at the marina, an open house, a boat show, or holiday weekend when I know it's going to be overcrowded. I think this year there were two occasions, fourth of July weekend and in September when we had our boat show. There were two occasions when we used that facility for customer parking. MR. GORALSKI-For customer parking? MR. HOWARD-Employee parking. MRS. LAPHAM-And how many employees parked up there, roughly, approximately? - 24 - '-~ '-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) MR. HOWARD-In the season, I'd have about seven employees who drive, I'd say a maximum of 10, but I think that would be an exaggeration. MRS. LAPHAM-And that's only twice a year? MR. HOWARD-That's all it was this year. MR. KARPELES-Are you going to send us a map showing us where this property is? I don't even know what the property we're talking about. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, right across from Dunham's Bay. I saw it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I drove up there today. MR. KARPELES-I drove up, but I didn't know what I was supposed to look for. How are we supposed to know. MR. CUSTER-Roger, do you own the road itself? MR. HOWARD-The road is a right-of-way. MR. CUSTER-Just a right-of-way, okay, and my understanding, you're supposed to put a dust retardant down periodically? MR. HOWARD-Right. MR. CUSTER-You do that? MR. HOWARD-Right. MR. CUSTER-Okay. MR. HAYES-Roger, did you purchase that right-of-way, I mean, from the people that own the parcel? MR. HOWARD-I purchased the 14 acre track on top of that hill that I own, and there's a right-of-way that goes from it, from 9L to that property, from the lake. It's a deeded right-of-way. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? MRS. LAPHAM-Does the right-of-way serve anybody else but you? MR. HOWARD- I don't believe so. There's more property up there, but nobody, it's not (lost words) . MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for Mr. Howard? MRS. LAPHAM-I don't think so right now. MR. THOMAS-Anything else you want to say, Mr. Howard? MR. HOWARD-I don't think so. I'd like to see this resolved. It seems to me if I own the property, I should be able to use it, and I don' t think allowing that few amount of employees to use it occasionally is asking too much. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Schriner. MR. SCHRINER-You asked Mr. Howard if anybody else had use of that right-of-way road. Yes, they do. I don't own all of the right-of- way road. The first portion of it, maybe the first 100 feet, is owned by Gary Venton, and then he has a right-of-way across my property to get to his property, and he also has a right-of-way across Dunham's Bay property to get to his property, and I just received a letter here about two weeks ago, a copy of a letter, - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/19/97) that went to Mr. Howard, from a law firm that John Salvador, owner of Dunham's Bay Lodge, sent to Mr. Howard. Now he says, you just asked him if anybody else has access to it. He might have forgotten that he got this letter. If ~ got a copy of it, I'm sure he got a copy of it, stating that they have a legal right-of-way across his property, and to get to his property, they've got to cross ~ property. So John Salvador at Dunham's Bay Lodge, he has access to his land also, across their property, and I resent that statement that the stories get bigger and bigger all the time. You check back through any meeting that I have been to in the later years of speaking for Mr. Shortsleeves who got elderly and couldn't handle his own affairs, and you dig out those minutes, and you see if I've changed my story in any way. That's all I'm saying, and I resent that remark from him, and I'm sure he and I will have words over it. MR. THOMAS-Is there any correspondence of any kind? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-97 JOHN F. SCHRINER, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: For up to 62 days, so that more information can be sent to the members of the Board for further review of this application. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: MR. GORALSKI-We'll get you a map, and we'll get you copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meetings, and the letters. MR. THOMAS-And any other pertinent correspondence that goes along with it. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-And we'll be hearing this either in March or April, for a decision after we get all the pertinent paperwork, we have reviewed it. MR. SCHRINER-Thanks very much. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. I guess that brings to a close this meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman - 26 -