Loading...
1992-02-19 '-- -- ~EENS8URY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR ŒETING FEBRUARY 19TH, 1992 INDEX Notice of Appeal No. 1-92 Francis & Carolyn Martindale 1. Area Variance No. 7-1992 Edward D. Lockhart 21. Area Variance No. 8-1992 Lawrence R. Larson 28. Area Variance No. 9-1992 Ray and Linda Faville 34. Area Variance No. 10-1992 Guido Passarelli 35. Area Variance No. 11-1992 Masullo Brothers Builders, Inc. 37. 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. "--- -' ~EEJlSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR "EETING FEBRUARY 19TH, 1992 7:33 P.... Œ"BERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY MICHAEL SHEA BRUCE CARR CHARLES SICARD ZONIrtG ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO 1-92 FRANCIS I CAROLYN MARTINDALE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 149, ACROSS FROM MARTINDALE ROAD TAX MAP NO. 30-1-13, 16 SECTION 179-10, 12, 15 SECTION 179-63, FARM CLASSIFICATION AT THE JANUARY 28, 1992 PLANNING BOARD ŒETING A Jl)TION WAS MADE BY THE BOARD TO RE~EST OF THE ZOrtING BOARD, CLARIFICATION OF THE FOLLOWING, AS REGARDS APPLICATION (SITE PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 3-92), FRANCIS ArtD CAROLYN MARTINDALE: 1. IS THE SALE OF FRUITS ArtD VEGETABLES GROWN OFF SITE A PERMITTED USE? 2. ARE ANY HANDCRAFTED GOODS SOLD? 3. IS IT RE~IRED THAT THEY BE PRODUCED Ort SITE OR eM HANDCRAFTED GOODS PRODUCED OFF SITE BE SOLD? 4. ARE ANIMALS, WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO SERVE AS AN ATTRACTION, CONSIDERED AN AGRICULTURAL USE? 5. IF SAP IS BROUGHT TO THE SITE FROM OFF SITE, IS THAT A PER"ITTED AGRICULTURAL USE, UNDER THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL USE? 6. DOES "ODIFICATION OF THE BARN STRUCTURE WARRANT Art AREA VARIANCE, IN TERMS OF SETBACK? FRANCIS AND CAROLYN MARTINDALE, PRESENT (7:33 p.m.) MR. TURNER-Okay. What I'd like to do with this is we'll take them one item at a time. We'll start with Number One. MRS. MARTINDALE-I'd like to request that we go to, seeing that we have a gentleman here to testify on the maple syrup production, I don't want to keep him here all night. So, I'd like to go to the question of maple syrup, and the sap being brought in from off the premises, that would be allowed. MR. TURNER-Okay. Who's your? JIM FARRAR MR. FARRAR-Mr. Jim Farrar. I live in Warrens burg , and I'm a maple producer. I'm currently a member of the Upper Hudson Maple Producers Association. I'm the President of that Association. That's affiliated with the New York State Maple Producers Association, which is a Statewide group. I've known Fran, in relation to maple production, for over 10 years. My sugar in the business is in Warrensburg. My sugarhouse is located, actually, in the Town of Lake George. I don't have any trees on the property that I use for maple sap. All my sap is transported in by truck. I have one sugar bush in the Town of Lake George. That sap is transported about two miles to my sugarhouse. I've got another sugar bush in the Town of Warrensburg. That sap is transported approximately seven miles to the sugarhouse, and I've got a thi rd bush in the Town of Thurman, and that sap is transported approximately eleven miles to my sugarhouse. The transporting of sap from other properties to a central location for evaporation is very common throughout the industry. There are several producers in Washington County that buy sap from landowners and transport it to their business to make into syrup. It's a very common thing to do. I don't have anything else to say. MR. TURNER-Lets see if we have some questions. MR. CARR-Your sugarhouse, it's in where, Lake George? MR. FARRAR-It's in the Town of Lake George. MR. TURNER-Whereabouts is that located? MR. FARRAR-It's on Trusdale Hill Road. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-And that's a residential zone? MR. FARRAR-Yes. 1 -- -' MR. TURNER-Do you make your sap there? Do you sell it there, or do you distribute it to distributors? MR. FARRAR-It's sold on the site, at my house, and we also wholesale syrup products in the area. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions? MR. SICARD-Is this normally a common thing to do, bring sap in like that? MR. FARRAR-Yes. Actually, our Association, the Upper Hudson Maple Producers Association, we had a meeting last night, and there were approximately 40 producers from this area at that meeting last night, and I would dare say that probably five to ten of them transport sap from some other location to their sugarhouse. Several people there buy sap from several different locations, and it's all transported. MR. TURNER-How much of the raw product do you put through yours? MR. FARRAR-We have 1300 taps that we handle. MR. TURNER-So, how many gallons of raw? MR. FARRAR-Last year we processed approximately 22,000 gallons of sap. MR. TURNER-And produced how much syrup? MR. FARRAR-Four hundred gallons of syrup were produced. MR. TURNER-What do you use for fuel? MR. FARRAR-We have a wood fired evaporator. MR. TURNER-That's all the questions I have. Anyone else? MR. SICARD-Is there some problem connected with bringing raw materials like this, or something? Is there some question about it? MR. TURNER-No. This is a question that's asked by the Planning Board. MRS. CRAYFORD-See, in the definition of Ag Use in our Ordinance, you can't bring products onto your property and sell it, in the Town of Queensbury, from another location. MRS. MARTINDALE-That's private interpretation. MRS. CRAYFORD-I'm just saying what's in the Ordinance. MRS. MARTINDALE-I would dispute that. I'd say that's private interpretation. MR. TURNER-We're not disputing anything, right now. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Farrar. Now, we'll take the first item. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question of Pat, first, so that I thoroughly understand Pat's position, here. I went to the Section 179-63, Agricultural Uses. I want to be sure I'm in the same Section, I'm on the same wavelength you are. I'm trying to see how you came to that conclusion, so I can take that under consideration. So, on Page 18032, if you'll bear with me, would you, in your books, Agricultural Uses. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Are you, and you use the statement, you define Agricultural Use as "limited to products grown or raised directly on the site". That's your interpretation. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. That's defined in. MR. TURNER-That's the definition under Agricultural Use. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's defined in the Zoning Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I don't find those words under Agricultural Use. MR. CARR-You do, Joyce, right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Am I in the wrong? MRS. CRAYFDRD-You have to go to the Definitions. 2 ~ - MR. CARR-Definitions. MR. TURNER-Definitions. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but how about this Paragraph Three, on Page 18032? MR. CARR-Right, but I don't see a conflict. MRS. EGGLESTON-But she's deriving it all from this, from the interpretation of the Agricultural Use. MRS. CRAYFORD- That's what I had to go by before I got into the Section, because the heading is Agricultural Uses, on Page 18031. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, it starts there. Okay. All right. Yes. I'm set. Thank you. MRS. MARTINDALE-Are you looking under Article II, 179? Definitions? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. MARTINDALE-It's that particular usage that caused me to go in to see Paul Dusek, in late January, right after our Planning Board meeting, because under there it says, "Including the sale of products". It doesn't say, to the exclusion of, and you have to go for further definition within the Queensbury Code, and other Ordinances within the Town, and this is how we arrived, which I will show further on, why we are permitted to do that with no questions, and there should be no further need of clarification, once we get into that, if you're looking to present them. MR. TURNER-What are you referring to, maple syrup? MRS. MARTINDALE-Maple Syrup. MR. MARTINDALE-Maple Syrup is an agricultural product. MRS. MARTINDALE-I have, right here, on January 25th of this year, we attended a teleconference at the Ramada Inn, and this is what they have on the New York State Agricultural Products. Number One is Maple Syrup. It shows apples, potatoes, carrots, products made from apples, eggs, dairy products, cheese, onions, lettuce, maple syrup, again. So, it's definitely defined, according to Warren County. This was put on by Warren County Extension, in cooperation with Cornell University, and this firmly establishes that maple syrup is an agricultural product, and we try to attend any meetings in the area concerning agricultural products. We are scheduled to go, next month, with Washington County Cooperative Extension in Hudson Falls. MR. SHEA-Does anyone here on the Board have a problem having maple syrup considered an agricultural product? MR. TURNER-No. I don't. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. CARR-I don't think so. MR. SHEA-I don't. Okay. So, we don't have a problem with that. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-But that's not the question. MRS. MARTINDALE-Well, it relates to it because they're asking to take sap from off site. It is an agricultural product. Sap has been taken off this premises. MR. TURNER-We're not denying it's not an agricultural product, but the issue is, whether you can bring it in from off site. MRS. MARTINDALE-Well, I will get into that further, as I said, under your Queensbury Code, and Article 81 of the General Municipal law. It's clearly stated, in Article 81, which you have copied there and you told me, today, was in your folder. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. 3 '-, -../ MR. TURNER-We just got them. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. In there it says, by the producer thereof. It doesn't have to be produced on site, as long as you produce it. It clarifies that, and this is what, Pat has informed me, is how they allow other people who don't even grow their produce to be sold in the Town of Queensbury, and I say that it shouldn't be, if they don't produce it, then they shouldn't sell it in the Town of Queensbury. MR. SICARD-You're probably referring to some of the stands around? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes, most definitely. MR. SICARD-That's definitely true. MRS. MARTINDALE-It's definitely true, is right. MR. SHEA-But there's no maple syrup extracted from your property. Is that correct? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes, there is. There has been for many years. MR. TURNER-You've got 1,000 taps? MR. MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. SHEA-And there will continue to be? MRS. MARTINDALE-There will continue to be. Yes. MR. MARTINDALE-We have two other farms that have large sugar bushes on them, and I can't take evaporators from one place and bring it over here and set it up for today and then run it back and forth, and the best location is in Queensbury, and it's to the Queensbury citizen's benefit to have it there. It will be open for educational purposes. MR. TURNER-So, when you bring the, if this is permitted, if you bring the product here, and you make the finished product, maple syrup, are you going to wholesale it, and you're going to retail it? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. MARTINDALE-It's going to be sold right there. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTINDALE-We've already been granted permission by the Planning Board to do so. MRS. MARTINDALE-But they said only on the premises, which is totally unreasonable, because there isn't enough trees on the site to produce what we should produce for our uses. MR. SHEA-Now, your witness here tonight, your expert. MRS. MARTINDALE-Jim Farrar. MR. SHEA-Right. They boil down their sap. MR. MARTINDALE-The same identical way. MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. SHEA-But he said that he does it with wood burning. MRS. MARTINDALE-We do, too. MR. SHEA-You do? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. SHEA-What were the two large tanks that are on the property? What are they used for? MR. MARTINDALE-Those oil tanks? MR. SHEA-Yes. 4 - MR. MARTINDALE-Are for future use for another project that we've got to come back before you people. MRS. MARTINDALE-Tomorrow night for. We're scheduled to meet with the Town Board tomorrow night. MR. MARTINDALE-There is a bulk tank that is a milk bulk tank that we store our sap in until we can get it through the evaporator. MR. SHEA-And is that one of the two tanks that I saw there? MR. MARTINDALE-No. There's the three tanks. That is the shiniest one. It's all stainless steel. It's a dairy bulk tank for holding milk, and it's the best thing you can get to hold your sap and to even put your syrup in after it's finished, and that's the reason for it. This has been building up, for many years, to try and get this far. MRS. MARTINDALE-And another thing pertinent to this is that the Town of Queensbury doesn't really recognize agriculture, in itself. They don't have any Ag Districts. Warren County doesn't have Ag Districts. We are forced to go outside of the County in order to get the property to grow the vegetables that we want to sell in the Queensbury area, and also for the sap, to get enough sap to justify us producing it. I think we have, like, 600 taps on 149. That's with the trees that are there, and it would be totally unprofitable for us to even consider just having that amount of taps. MR. TURNER-So, how much finished product do you figure you're going to end up with? MR. MARTINDALE-If we have a thousand taps, you'll have 250 gallons. If we have a good year, and I can't tell you what it's going to be, and nobody else can. We've got a lot of frost on the ground, and some old timers say it's going to be a bad year. There's no snow. MRS. MARTINDALE-I think you estimated, though, around 600 taps, which would give you less than that, and this is why we really need to have the sap brought in from outside, other properties that we own. We have over 300 acres, 360 something acres in Fort Ann. MR. TURNER-I think I read in the minutes from the Planning Board that you had 1,000 taps on the property? MR. MARTINDALE-We have 1,000 taps of 600 trees. MR. TURNER-And that'll only produce, you're saying, 250 gallons? MR. MARTINDALE-We will be lucky if we get 250 gallons. MRS. EGGLESTON-You reside at these premises? MRS. MARTINDALE-No, we don't. MR. MARTINDALE-You have to reside in Fort Ann, simply because the cows, the farms we have, that's where you have to go, at five o'clock in the morning, to those places. MRS. MARTINDALE-Up until 1989, we resided on Moon Hill Road, which is right around the corner from Martindale Road, which is right off 149, two minutes away from the premises. We sold that in 1989. I think it was May 17th, 1989. It was recorded in June of 1989. We had started a new house, in 1987, in Fort Ann, and then we moved over there. We have been life long residents of Queensbury. I graduated from Queensbury School, also, in 1961. MR. MARTINDALE-Mrs. Eggleston, I don't know if you realize, but this is family land, that's been in my family for years. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I've lived in Queensbury all my life. MR. TURNER-Yes. You bought it from your father. MRS. MARTINDALE-I have a map, here, too, that we have recently had the property on 149 surveyed, and this is in relation to the future project we want to have on the premises. MR. TURNER-We don't want to get into that because we've just got these issues, here, and I don't want touch that. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. Well, it's pertinent to one of the site plan review, here, tonight. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MRS. MARTINDALE-On the variance that they said we might need. MR. TURNER-Lets get the issues straightened out first. 5 - MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. MR. MARTINDALE-Basically, I want to bring my sap from Fort Ann farm over here and process it. That's the issue of that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions from the Board on this one? MRS. EGGLESTON-We're on Number One, right? MR. TURNER-No. We're on Number Five. MR. CARR-We're on Number Five. MRS. EGGLESTON-We're on the sap sti ll? Okay. Lets get the input from them and then we'll go to the public and then we'll discuss it. MR. CARR-This is just Number Five right now? MR. TURNER-Number Five. MR. SHEA-All right. Pick another number. MR. TURNER-Lets go with Number One. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. MARTINDALE-Number One? MR. TURNER-Yes. "Is the sale of fruits and vegetables grown off site a permitted agricultural use?" Lets have your input. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. Under RR-3A, 179-15 of your Zoning Ordinance, under Farm Classes, we are permitted to do so, and what I would like to say, here, is that for about 20 years, when Clayton Martindale owned this property, that we purchased in 1986, I believe it was, we had our maple syrup lines on the property at that time, and we didn't produce it on that property, but we had, we took the sap off it and did it on our property on Moon Hill, where we resided, and then we, later on, purchased this property, and all during the property, even before we purchased it, we had cows on the property. We had pigs. We had sheep. We had turkeys. We had chickens. We sold eggs on the property, from the property, from the chickens, and this letter's to buy the other parcel, which adjoins this, which is parcel 30-1-13, we purchased that in 1987, and in 1987, at the time we purchased it, those farm classifications were in effect, and I can present here tonight were I had picked those blackberries commencing with the season of blackberries in July and August, selling the blackberries from that site to Hudson Falls Produce, Glens Falls Produce, the Silo in Queensbury, Barbers Market in Glens Falls, and I have here some receipts of the sales that it was established in 1987. MR. CARR-Let me get that straight. You sold products grown on the land? MRS. MARTINDALE-Fruit, blackberries, yes. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. There's the receipts. MR. CARR-On the property, now, do you sell produce that is grown there, as well? MRS. MARTINDALE-All I've been selling, so far, is blackberries. When Dave Hatin came, this summer, to cite me to get a cooler out of the premises that we were using for agricultural products, I was picking blackberries at that time. I have continued to pick blackberries. MR. CARR-So, there's blackberry bushes on the property now? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. The only thing that has been sold from the property is blackberries and maple syrup, and vegetables that we have grown in Fort Ann and in the Town of Queensbury. We grew corn on Floyd Martindale's, his uncle's property. We grew squash. We grew pumpkins, Indian corn and regular corn. MR. CARR-That's on different parcels of land. MRS. MARTINDALE-It's on different parcels, but it's right across the road. MR. CARR-Okay. 6 ---- MRS. MARTINDALE-It was part of the farm, the original farm, that has always been a farm. There's no house on the property. It has always been agricultural use, Farm Class A and C. MR. CARR-A and C. Okay. And it still continues to be A and C? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. We have never stopped it. We have never stopped. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. MARTINDALE-We store our equipment there. We store hay there. MRS. MARTINDALE-Hay, everything. MR. CARR-All right. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further comment on thi s one, from anybody? Okay. We'll take Number Two, "Are there any handcrafted goods sold?" MR. MARTINDALE-The clarification of the handcrafted goods· is if I paint a face on a pumpkin, New York State says you have to charge a sales tax and that is handcrafted product, the pumpkins I raise and put a face on. This is getting ridiculous. MRS. MARTINDALE-Indian corn, if you put a ribbon on it. Also, this year we've told Beautification Committee that we're going to, they want us to plant some greenery in front of the property, and I have told them we would plant some vegetables and some flowers and herbs and things like that, and some of these flowers that I grow are the drying type flowers, and if you put them in a basket and put a ribbon on, that's also considered a handcrafted item, but it is something that's going to be grown on the property, and I would classify as such. It would just be a handcrafted, unique item that would be from off the premises there. MR. CARR-All your handcrafted items are food or plants, at some stage in their life? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes, right. MR. CARR-I mean, you don't take a tree and make wood carvings? MR. MARTINDALE-No. MRS. MARTINDALE-No. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. MARTINDALE-It's all related to agriculture, or the product of, but just, the fine line is, if you put a dot on it, that's not edible anymore. MR. CARR-Right. MR. SHEA-And you want to be able to sell handcrafted goods? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. CARR-Well, handcrafted goods, according to that definition, right? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes, pumpkins with faces, Indian corn, dried flowers and things that we grow, herbs and things like that. If we make a dried arrangement out of them, it would be considered a handcrafted item. Yes. MR. SHEA-And then, if the Board were to find that this were to be permitted, I mean, this is, you know, you're walking the fine line. MR. TURNER-That encompasses a lot of things that are made by hand, because the definition of handcrafted is to make something by hand. MR. SHEA-Yes. What happens next, if you go to the next step down, where it's a handcrafted item, clearly, but not one that was, at one point, edible? MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARR-I'm not sure about the dried flower arrangements, honestly. I mean, painting a face on a pumpkin, or putting a ribbon around, I guess, a stalk of corn doesn't seem to be really handcrafted, but it seems to me a dried flower takes a little more processing. To me, I see a little difference between those two items. 7 '-- - MRS. MARTINDALE-Not much, really. MR. CARR-Well, I see a lot of difference. MR. MARTINDALE-It's still a sales taxable item. MRS. MARTINDALE-It's still an item grown on the property, and it's still a handcrafted item. MR. CARR-Well, I guess you could say, you know, trees are grown on the property, but you really. MRS. MARTINDALE-We're not trying to sell those. MR. CARR-No, but we're trying to make definitions, here, that everyone has to live with, not just. MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. Right. Well, I've given you the three things that we consider handcrafted items, and I would hope that you would relate to those. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that's not the definition of handcrafted item. The definition, in the dictionary, is something made by hand, and that includes a lot of things. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. Then maybe they don't fall under that. Maybe we can just do it without having that, then. MR. TURNER-What I'm saying is, you could have some of your vegetables and your faces on your pumpkins and stuff like that, but you could also make little wooden things by hand, sell them. That's handcrafted. MRS. MARTINDALE-No. That's not what we're asking for, here. We are clearly defining. MR. TURNER-You're asking the definition of handcrafted goods, and that's what handcrafted goods are. MRS. MARTINDALE-As pertaining to our particular case, here, and you could approve it with those stipulations. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was going to say, wouldn't it be limited to that, agricultural, connected to things grown on the land. MRS. MARTINDALE-Right. MR. TURNER-To just give you a broad spectrum, and say, that's. No. MRS. MARTINDALE-We're not asking for that. MR. CARR-Well, no. I think we've got to define, based on the facts before us, how they fit into the Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions on that item? MR. SHEA-I guess I'm just trying to avoid the potential future confusion, whereby, if we were to say that this is allowed, that we're saying, we know what handcrafted means. I mean, it's not produce from the earth that's edible. It's something that's been altered by hand, as a gift. MRS. MARTINDALE-Right. MR. SHEA-Now, are we suggesting, at this point, or is the Board's position that if this were to be found to be permitted, that it would be a handcrafted item, but that originated on the property? Pardon me, that derived from an agricultural source. In other words, they can't go out and buy gifts from somewhere else and re-sell them. MRS. MARTINDALE-No. We don't want to, not at this point. MR. MARTINDALE-That is strictly a commercial situation to go and buy and re-sell, and we're not out for that, and future plans will come along where that will be covered, but at this point, we don't go out and buy things. I should clarify. I did buy some mush melons last year, because Hands mush melons are very popular, but that's. MR. SHEA-Well, we all like those. MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes, and if there's crop failure and things like that, we may have to buy some produce from other places, such as corn, because in order to keep people happy, you know, customers are coming to you for corn, then you want to be able to keep them with the fresh corn that they would like, etc. 8 MR. MARTINDALE-We put in over 50 acres of vegetables, including corn, and we still have another 60 to go, yet that's available. It's planted only to grasses of some sort. So, we don't want to go and buy somebody else's. That's not what we're building a name on, and it's not what the Martindale name has been. It's always been our own products and quality, and that's what we're striving for. It's just, we moved across the road. That's what this whole thing has come about. MR. TURNER-Yes, but at some point in time you might have to go out and buy that product, because you can't grow it. MRS. MARTINDALE-This is what we're saying. Crop failure or whatever, we would be forced to buy it in order to service our customers. Definitely. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets take Item Three, "Is it required that they be produced on site or can handcrafted good produced off site be sold?" MRS. MARTINDALE-And there, once again, we fall under the General Municipal Law, by the producer thereof, Article 81, in the General Municipal Law, saying by the producer. MR. CARR-Well, we can't answer that question until we answer Question Two. MR. TURNER-That's right. Lets take Item Four "Are animals, which are designed to serve as an attraction, considered an agricultural use?" MRS. MARTINDALE-In this case, we were being too honest. Like I said, we have always had animals on the property, dating back to when Clayton Martindale had his cows on there. After he passed away, we still had farm animals on there, and it was because of while we had the animals on there, 149 is a very heavily traveled road, and a car passed, and we found them stopping at our site there just to see the little calves, people from New Jersey and allover. I know when we had the electrical inspection done on the barn, back in the early 80's, Mr. Inzig was the Inspector at that time, and we had little piglets at that time, and he begged us to let him bring his grandchildren in to see the little piglets. I mean, everybody's attracted to small animals, and this is our basis for that. We have had animals on the premises, in the past, and whatever the purpose, it did serve as that purpose also. MR. CARR-So, you're having the animals on the property for a commercial purpose? MRS. MARTINDALE-Which is allowed under Farm Classifications. It says in there. MR. CARR-It's just a different way of marketing, I guess. MR. TURNER-Yes, but it's alienated to the sale of the produce. MRS. MARTINDALE-No, not really. MR. TURNER-It comes under a drawing card for the sale of the produce. MR. MARTINDALE-The corn that's left over is fed to those animals. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. MRS. MARTINDALE-They'll even eat squash. So, they would be serving that purpose as well. MR. CARR-Do you eventually kill these animals for food? MR. MARTINDALE-Yes, or milk them. MR. TURNER-You've got beefers? MRS. MARTINDALE-We've got beefers and dairy replacement, both. MR. CARR-So, they're raising animals. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's a permitted use. You can keep them. I don't see the animals as being a. MRS. MARTINDALE-It hasn't been a problem. MRS. CRAYFORD-I think where it came, correct me if I'm wrong. The animals aren't on 149. MRS. MARTINDALE-No. We took them off. The pigs we sold in 1987, but we replaced those with cows. MRS. CRAYFORD-And how long were the cows on the property? MR. MARTINDALE-Until 1989. 9 MRS. MARTINDALE-No, not 1989. I really don't remember. We took them off and put them in our Fort Ann barn because we were trying to keep them all in one place, but I would say, probably, late 1988, early 1990, and after we took our, we had a horse on there, too, Mary, and after we took them off, Jimmy Disisio, who is here tonight, and his mother owns property which is bordering, Judy Disisio Barrett, her son Jim is here, and he and his girlfriend had a horse there up until, well, after we took ours off. So, we've had animals on the property. MR. MARTINDALE-But it's always been a continuing agricultural use, from one form or another. MRS. MARTINDALE-Even though we took the animals off, we've still maintained the agricultural use on the property, and I still sell the blackberries. MR. CARR-Is one of the issues abandonment? MRS. CRAYFORD-Partly, but I think you would have to ask Jim Martin of the Planning Board why they raised this question. MR. CARR-All right. Well, we'll get to that with the public hearing. MRS. MARTINDALE-I would also like the Board members to look under Article 179, under Word Usage, I believe it's after 179-7. If you go into your Word Definitions of Nonconforming Use, under that, they classify the nonconforming uses, and then if you go, we are not a nonconforming use. Farm Classes are a conforming use. MR. CARR-Right, with site plan. MRS. MARTINDALE-It was an existing. We were not, so according to your definition of Discontinuation, it says, if a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of 18 months. We were not a nonconforming use. It is a permitted use. So, I would dispute it heavily, on that basis. MRS. CRAYFORD-The animals can be there with site plan review. MR. CARR-Right. MRS. CRAYFORD-The question came from the Planning Board whether or not these animals are an attraction, a commercial use, as opposed to an Ag Use. MR. CARR-Well, doesn't Ag Use say, for commercial purposes? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes, it does. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Number One does say keeping for. JIM MARTIN MR. MARTIN-Jim Martin, a member of the Planning Board. The problem, in our mind, was, and we wanted interpretation, from your Board, is what is the primary use, or the first use -of the animals on the site., They are currently not there now, and are they going to be there as an attraction, like a petting zoo like at Story Town or Animal Land, or is the, you know, and there was a confusion as to, if an agricultural use of raising animals is slaughtering for sale of the meat, taking the milk directly off the site, selling the milk from there, shearing the wool off a sheep and selling the wool directly off the site. There was just a concern over the importation of animals, are they going to be left there, then, year round, or are they going to be there permanently. It was those types of issues that were being darted around and we didn't feel comfortable with, in the context of a site plan review, approving such a use on that site, until we had further interpretation from this Board, and I think there's a fine distinction there. So, that's what we were looking for from this Board. MR. TURNER-Thanks, Jim. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay, and I would like to go one step further, here. Under Article 179-80, Discontinuance, If a nonconforming use is discontinued for 18 months. It does not say anyplace within the Town Ordinance, and I have read it very thoroughly, that if a conforming use is discontinued for 18 months, that it could not be put back on the property at any time. It only says, if a nonconforming use, and this is not a nonconforming use. We've had agriculture there for years, and this is my basis for contention. MR. SHEA-I'm not concerned with the time that it was not being used for that purpose. I'm more concerned with the real reason the animals are going to be on the land, and it would seem to me that unless the Martindales can really tell us that those animals are not going to be there as a draw. MR. CARR-Well, I mean, what if they are? I don't see, I mean, commercial is commercial. 10 - -- MR. SHEA-Because I think commercial draw goes back to what Jim was alluding to, that it's really more a commercial endeavor, maybe they're not going to charge for petting the animals, or whatever the case may be. MRS. MARTINDALE-We're not going to let them pet. We don't want it, for insurance purposes. They can be there to look at, for observation, but they're not going to touch. Definitely. MR. CARR-I mean, I don't see a problem. I mean, if the animals are allowed on there for commercial purposes, I mean, who's to say what is a primary, secondary commercial purpose? They do raise these animals. They feed them on the premises. The animals eventually go to slaughter or whatever. Why not get a little use out of them during their growth period. I mean, I don't see this as a big issue. If it had become a petting zoo, if they wanted to set up a petting zoo, I mean, that's something else, but just to have animals, which it looks as if animals are allowed on this property. MR. CRAYFORD-With site plan review. MR. CARR-With site plan review. for commercial purposes. mean, the reason they're there is really secondary. It just says MRS. EGGLESTON-See, I've got to agree with you, and I look at this Class, Page 18032, it says, "any parcel of land in excess of 10 acres", which you have, you have 32, or something, I read. MRS. MARTINDALE-We have 34. Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Used for the ralslng of agricultural products or the keeping of poultry, foul, livestock, small mammals or domestic animals for commercial purposes. So, even if they don't graze there and live there year round, if they're there six months and people pet them, they're still being kept there, so, keeping of animals for commercial purposes is actually the zoning law. MRS. MARTINDALE-But what 1'm, basically, getting at, here, and I wish to get my point across, is your nonconforming use definitely states, if a nonconforming use it discontinued for 18 months. This is not a nonconforming use. MRS. EGGLESTON-We didn't have an issue with that. MRS. MARTINDALE-So, what I'm saying is there should be no issue of the animals being on the property. Most definitely. It has always been a use there. MR. CARR-I think we're just trying to determine some definitions. I don't, we're off the nonconforming use. MRS. EGGLESTON-Get down to the areas of where we do have issues, and get rid of the ones where we don't. MR. TURNER-Okay. Are we done with the animals for a minute? MRS. EGGLESTON-For a minute, yes. All right. Lets move to Number Six, "Does modification of the barn structure warrant an Area Variance, in terms of setback?" MR. CARR-What are they going to do with the barn? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Didn't we read they're not going to do anything with the barn, at this time? MR. TURNER-They're not going to do anything, but that's not the question. The question is. MRS. MARTINDALE-We sold vegetables out of it. Yes, we are going to be doing something with it. MR. TURNER-No. That's not the question. The question is, "Does modification of the barn structure warrant an Area Variance, in terms of setback?" MR. SICARD-There's going to be no modification, to speak of. MRS. MARTINDALE-There's going to be no modification. MR. TURNER-Wait a minute, modification, if they modify the barn, that's what they're saying. MR. SICARD-Yes, but they're not going to modify it. MRS. MARTINDALE-Exterior wise is modification, according to your zoning. MR. TURNER-Right. 11 -- MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay, and there's no modification going to be done, no additions or anything. We are going to use the interior of the barn. MR. TURNER-You're missing the point. The point is, if you modify the barn, do you need an Area Variance for the setback. That's the question. If they modify the barn, or if they extend the barn, do they need an Area Variance? MR. CARR-If they extend it, possibly. I don't know what the lot lines are out there. MRS. CRAYFORD-But we'd have to cross that bridge when we come to it. MR. TURNER-No, but that's the question. That's what the question is. MR. CARR-I mean, how do you know until we know where the lot lines and where they're going to extend it, and. MR. MARTINDALE-There is no exterior modification going to be done here. MR. CARR-Right. We know that. We aren't asking that question. We aren't asking that question. We're asking an entirely different question, I think. We're tal king about exterior, if you were going to, which you aren't going to do, and we know you aren't going to do that, but if you were going to do it. I don't even know why this question is before us, since it's not being presented. I mean, it's not an issue. MR. CRAYFORD-No, it isn't. MR. SICARD-But, if it were an issue, that barn's been there a long time, and I can remember back that far, and that barn's always been there and they have repaired it, at times. MR. CARR-Right, but if they go closer to the road. MR. TURNER-The problem with the barn is, the barn, if you read the minutes from the Planning Board, the barn is only six to ten feet from the property line. So, the question is, according to the minutes, that's what it says, six to ten feet from the property line. MR. SICARD-I think the barn was there before the road. MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. This is why I brought this here tonight. This barn was here before the road. This was taken, this shows all the Hendrick's property, which was formerly, Clayton Martindale married into the Hendricks family, and this is what, the property all around that area was Hendricks property. In 1937, Warren County, at that time, was doing the purchasing for the State of the roads in Warren County, and they have, here, evidence that the barn is situated, right here, okay, and the County, for the State, bought up to the barn. So, the barn was there way before the road was even in use, and Michael O'Connor made a statement at the last Planning Board meeting, on January 28th, that the barn was six feet or more on State property, and that I s totally wrong, totally wrong, and we talked to Fred Stone Tuesday of this week, and he told us that, at the time this road was put in, that they considered base line, not center line, from the road. It was a base line that the purchase was determined upon, and they bought up to it. They didn't want to buy the barn and move it or anything, so this is why it's not on State line. MR. MARTIN-Again, Jim Martin, Planning Board. I just wanted to make a point of clarification, as to the reasoning behind Number Six, there. It was presented, or it came up during the context of our discussion on this project, that the ultimate goal for the property is a pancake house or restaurant style operation there, and then we were concerned, if such a use was present there would that mean expansion of the barn to accommodate a need that may arise for more space or seating capacity or what have you, or whatever's envisioned, and so with the barn so close to the road, and there was some feeling among the members that if we're a Planning Board, we want to know what the ultimate plan is for the whole property, and not do this incremental piecemeal approach. So, that's where that arose out of. If the ultimate use is a restaurant or a pancake house or what have you, and that does bring about the need for modification of the barn, it being so close to the road, there was some concern. It's a 55 mile an hour speed zone in there. So, that's where that came from, just as a point of clarification. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARR-Well, if the barn is modified, it's got to have a setback variance, and also it would probably, that's only if, and if it's not, it doesn't, but I think you're right. MR. MARTINDALE-First of all, for us to put a pancake house in, we have to go for a full zoning change, which we are very well aware of, and the Planning Board brought this out without our real approval, and it was only in the case of argument that this had to be brought out. There is no way that that pancake house would ever go by either one of these Boards unless we had a full Zoning Board, and I've 12 - - already been warned by your Chairman about this. Now, I'm not looking for that. This came up over one of the Planning Board members was concerned over the fact that we were going to sell maple syrup and vegetables out of that existing barn, and that's why this whole barn thing came up. Quite honestly, as much as that barn is beautiful and it means a lot to me because I've spent many days in there, if I put a pancake house up and go back to the zoning, which is coming, that barn will have to be removed. There is nobody that recognizes the danger that that barn could cause more than me, but that was all, and it came up that we wanted to sell, please, just so I can get some money ahead, sell my vegetables out of that barn. It's inside. I came to this Town with these ideas, at the request of the head of Zoning, the head of Building and Codes, and Lee York, the head of your Planning. I came so that I would be able to put a parking lot in, so I would get people off of the road, so we'd have a safer situation. They aren't driving up beside the road, getting out of there car, and parking. Believe me, this Town has put me through perfect hell, and I'm tired, I'm upset, and this is why we're here. We have to argue. We have to go to the extent for ~ to prove to .lQ!! what your laws are saying, not to you, but to certain people, and this is why this has come up. MRS. MARTINDALE-And what I would like to say is we wouldn't even have to be here tonight if the Planning Board, on January 28th, had done their job, they would have known that, under Article 81 of the General Municipal Law. They would have known, also, under the Code Enforcement, that as the producer of, we should not have been questioned. We shouldn't have even brought here tonight. Pat Crayford indicated that night, and Mike, they weren't questions that, they should have answered those themselves. MR. CARR-They are not empowered to answer the questions, as to interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. If they had a disagreement or misunderstanding about what was really meant by the Zoning Ordinance, that has to come to this Board. So, I think they acted very properly by sending. MRS. MARTINDALE-All right. Okay, but they could have answered those questions themselves, along with, under Municipal Law 81, they would know, their main reason for sending us here was just under your agricultural definition, including the sale. They didn't go any farther than that, that evening. MR. CARR-Well, they don't have the power to interpret. misunderstanding, they can't say, well, we interpret it this way. If there was a disagreement They can't do that. or a MRS. MARTINDALE-All right. Then I'm wrong. MR. CARR-So, I mean, I know it's a bureaucracy, but it's got to work. MRS. MARTINDALE-And we want to go through the legal channels because we want to sell produce on the property in the barn. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED COLLEEN SHAW MS. SHAW-Good evening. I'm Colleen Shaw from the firm of Little and O'Connor. I'm here to represent Irving and Lillian Martindale who are neighboring owners of property. I think tonight we're looking at an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and if you'd look at the Zoning Ordinance, this area is zoned for residential and agricultural uses only. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Definitions of Agricultural Use, it includes the sale of products grown or raised directly on such land. It does not permit what is defined as commercial uses, transient and/or temporary commercial uses, which is what the applicants are requesting. MR. CARR-How would you define that, Colleen? MS. SHAW-Commercial? MR. CARR-No, the Transient Uses, where did you get that? MS. SHAW-That's defined in the Section 179-7, Page 17917. It's defined as any commercial use where a retail display is principally outdoors or within temporary structures, including tents. Said use is typically seasonal, not a principal part of a commercial establishment operating from the same site. It goes on. Also, Commercial Uses defined right about is a retail stand, including a retail stand. MR. CARR-It says a retail display. I mean, it's not a retail stand, but are you saying that it's a transient use because it's a farm stand and it's not open all year? MS. SHAW-Because it's just seasonal. MR. CARR-But isn't that the definition of a Farm Stand? I mean, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think you're stretching Commercial Use, because, I mean, agriculture, in this climate, is not a year round use. I mean, you've got to look at it as kind of being reasonable, here, and you wouldn't expect them to keep somebody at a Farm Stand with no produce. 13 - MS. SHAW-Yes. I was under the impression that in the winter they were going to sell Christmas Trees and it was going to be a seasonal sales at that premises. MR. CARR-Well, that would seasonal products, but if they sell Christmas Trees, then it would be a year round sales, because just the products would change. MS. SHAW-Either way, I'm kind of stating that I think that it's a commercial use and not an agricultural use, and that they're not sell ing products that are produced on the land. According to the minutes, the appl icant stated that over 75 percent of the products that they're going to sell on the premises are not grown on the premises. They're being brought from other areas. I think that's clearly against the Zoning Ordinance. It doesn't fall within agricultural use, which is what this area's zoned for. Lastly, I guess, my client is very concerned over the safety of the barn and allowing public to go in there to purchase any products, if they're permitted to be sold there. He sees it as a major fire trap. He doesn't feel that it's structurally sound. I just wanted to bring that up, to make you aware of that also. MR. SHEA-Colleen, who do you represent? MS. SHAW-Lillian and Irving Martindale. They own the property across the street, kind of kitty corner. MR. SHEA-And are they related to these Martindales? MS. SHAW-They are the parents of them. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? None? Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? Does anybody else want to speak? MR. CARR-Obviously Dave's looked at the building. I mean, if it doesn't meet fire codes, whatever codes, it will be made to meet those codes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. That would be taken care of with Dave. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-Does anyone else wish to speak? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MARTINDALE-Can I go back to dispute what Colleen was saying? MR. TURNER-Sure. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. She misspoke because she didn't go far enough into the Classifications. Under the General Municipal Law, I once before showed you that, under Article 81, we are the producer and we can sell on the site. Also, according to Queensbury Code 160-14, Under Exemptions, the sale of farm produce, as defined and accepted in Article 81 of the General Municipal Law, by the producer thereof, or his employees. Going further into the Queensbury Code, under Transient Merchant, etc., under 160-14, C and D, this Chapter shall not apply to anyone having an established place for transaction of business within the Town of Queensbury, nor to persons soliciting, collecting, or selling goods on behalf of any bonafide not for profit corporation, and we have an established business in the Town of Queensbury which is Glens Falls Carpet Center, and we have been told that because we own the business, that even if we were to sell as a Transient Merchant, hawking or peddling, we could do so, bring wagon loads in, and put that on the property that we own and sell, even as a Transient Merchant. We are under exemptions because we own the business, as well. MR. TURNER-Yes. You don't pay a fee. MRS. MARTINDALE-We don't pay the fee, and this is what lId like to bring up. The party that is strongly in opposition, my husband's parents. Irving Martindale has on the premises, currently, commercial motor home storage. MR. TURNER-That's not. MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes, it is, because he's complaining about the usage, the commercial usage, and he is doing commercial usage, in violation of the Queensbury Ordinance. MR. TURNER-You take that up with the Code, that's not ours. MRS. MARTINDALE-Who should we take that up with? MR. CARR-Pat. 14 MR. TURNER-Right there. MRS. MARTINDALE-I have, and I haven't gotten any success, way back last year. MR. TURNER-You'll have to work with her. MRS. MARTINDALE-Then should I take it to the Town Board? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. MARTINDALE-We will, tomorrow night. BOB MARTINDALE MR. BOB MARTINDALE-I'm Bob Martindale, their son. Colleen said that if we grow 75 percent of our produce off site, we shouldn't be able to sell it in the Town of Queensbury. That means that every produce stand in the Town of Queensbury should not be able to operate, because the majority of them buy it in Greenwich, Cambridge, all over, and bring it in and sell it. The people that are on Bay Road and on the corner of Tee Hill Road and Bay Road, especially the one on Bay Road next to Quaker Electric. There's no fields to grow anything there. They bring it off site and sell it. So, if we can't sell it under that reason, why can anybody else sell it in the Town? MR. TURNER-They shouldn't be able to, according to that. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-That's right, according to what she's saying, they shouldn't be able to sell it. MR. TURNER-No, but, according to that definition, they shouldn't be able to. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Right, under what she says. That means my grandfather can't sell his produce there, because he doesn't grow it there. MR. TURNER-I didn't say that. I said, if he grows it there, he can. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Right, but he does not grow all of his corn there. MR. TURNER-You don't grow all your corn either, do you? MR. MARTINDALE-Yes we do, the majority of it in Fort Ann. MR. TURNER-In Fort Ann. Okay, but that's not there. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Okay. If he grows an acre, he only has almost three acres of land there, which he has a house, an apartment building, a garage, three pole barns. The property that he has to grow corn is maybe an acre, if that, with the rest of his produce. Now, for him to be open year round to sell corn, he can't produce enough corn on that piece of property to sell year round, so he's got to get it, and I know he gets it in Greenwich, and he brings it in, and he's in with another person named Jessie Styles, who also has property on, he has a stand on Bay Road and Tee Hill Road. Now, he does not grow any corn on that piece of property. He buys it and then re-sells it. So, they shouldn't be allowed to do it, and Pat Crayford has known about my grandfather doing this and she has not said anything about it. Now, why should something like that hurt us if everyone else is doing it. MR. TURNER-I hear you, but that's not the issue. The issues are these items right here, and that's what we're going to do. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Right. What I'm trying to do is say what she said. She came up here saying that it shouldn't be a permitted use because we're not growing everything on site. Well, nobody else in the Town of Queensbury is either. That's all I have to say. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-I just want to interject this, here, for your consideration. I think what's causing the confusion among people here, is what you have is, as Bobby just cited, our Transient Merchant Law, you know, these are people that are taking advantage of that Law, and what we had before us was someone who was coming in for a site plan review for establ ishment of a use on a property, or approval of a use on a property, and I think those are two entirely different things. I think Paul could probably highlight on that, in terms of what the intent is behind the Transient Merchant Law, and what the intent is behind site plan review. So, I just want to bring that distinction to light. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thanks. MRS. MARTINDALE-Mr. Turner, you said that if Mr. Martindale produces on site, he can sell from off site. 15 -- -../ MR. TURNER-That's what the definition says. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. Mr. Martindale owns two and a half acres on the property, under two sites, and under your Farm Classes, he is not permitted to do so, because under Class D Farm, which is under five acres you can raise only personal use. You can't grow it there and transport it anyplace it else and sell it. You can't sell it off the site. If you check under Agriculture, 179-63 D, he is under five acres, and he cannot do that. MR. TURNER-That's okay, but how long's he been doing it? MRS. MARTINDALE-He started doing it in 1989. MR. TURNER-Clayton had a garden there for years. MRS. MARTINDALE-Clayton did, but not Irving. Irving was always camping, every weekend and all summer long. He was camping. MR. TURNER-Well, I know, but that piece of property has always been a garden, for as long as I can remember. MRS. MARTINDALE-It's been a garden, but it has been a personal garden, under Class D. MR. CARR-I mean, we're getting into a whole other issue. I don't want to talk about Irving's property. I mean, we're just talking about. MRS. MARTINDALE-Well, this is in relation to Colleen's statement, and Ted Turner's statement, that we. MR. CARR-Well, Colleen's just making an interpretation, her view of the interpretation, just like you're making your view of the interpretation. I think we're going to weigh it out and we're going to decide which way. MRS. MARTINDALE-Right, but I just wanted to clarify Mr. Turner's statement, that he cannot grow and sell it there because under Farm Class usage, having under five acres, he can't sell it there. He can't grow it there, only for personal use. MR. TURNER-If he's grandfathered, he can sell it there. Okay. That's it. Correspondence. CORRESPONDENCE A letter from James M. Weller, to Lee York and Zoning Board of Appeals Members, dated February 18, 1992, "I have lived in the immediate area of the subject "Martindale Land" for over 50 years. I own more than 100 acres of adjacent residential land. I have lived at my current location since 1965 and have made a substantial investment to enhance the residential character of the area. As such, I am, without reservation, vehemently opposed to any use of the subject "Martindale Land" for any purpose other than those that can be considered residential or agricultural in character. Although in some instances there may be a fine line between agricultural and commercial use, the Martindale proposal is clearly commercial in all respects. The existing barn was built and used for agricultural purposes. Using the barn for the sale of products to the public requires that the barn comply with the standards for commercial buildings which it does not. In addition, there has never been any farm produce grown on the land other than maple sap. The barn was used for livestock and the adjacent land was a pasture. Everything that has been offered for sale recently has been imported from the same source of supply that supplies other commercial markets. The subject application should be denied. It is not in keeping with the residential/agricultural character of the neighborhood. There is no demonstrated hardship to the property owner. The proposed use violates the zoning ordinances of the Town of Queensbury and there is no valid reason to give consideration to a variance. Thank you for the opportunity to be heard." MR. TURNER-Okay. Do you want to discuss them, one at a time, and then rule on them? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Lets discuss them all and then rule on them. Okay. Number One. "Is the sale of fruits and vegetables grown off site a permitted agricultural use?" How do you feel about that, according to the definition? MR. SHEA-They are going to be growing some of these products for sale on the property, and then they're going to augment them with supplies from elsewhere, correct? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. She said there's blackberries. 16 - MR. TURNER-Let me just ask one question of the Martindales. How much tillable land is there? MRS. MARTINDALE-On the property? None, it's all pasture. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It's all going to be in raised plant boxes. We have to bring in soil from Fort Ann and make plant boxes, and this is going to be the buffer area that the Beautification Committee asked us to do, and we agreed to do, and it will be real perishable items, with some flowers. We'll have the lettuce, that type of stuff. MR. TURNER-So, how much area are you going to actually use up? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Percentage wise, of the whole 30 acres? MR. TURNER-No. Forget the tree front. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I don't think it would be a full half acre, because it's going to be a divider, it's going to be a beautification thing as much as anything. MR. CARR-How many acres of the sap trees? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-They're spread out over the whole farm, or sections of the whole farm. MR. SHEA-I'm still a little confused. It seems to me that, I don't have a problem with the sap, but with the fruits and vegetables, if none of the land is being tilled, and they're not grown on there, I mean, I was about to say, if some of the vegetables are grown on the property and some additional is brought in to supplement the supply for sale, in that context, I don't have a problem with it. I would say that it is a permitted agricultural use, but I'm not so sure, if they're not going to be using any of the land for this, and they're bringing in little boxes, I mean, it seems to me it's window dressing, in order to sell the product, which is, to me, more of a commercial use. MR. TURNER-A commercial effort, yes. MR. CARR-But if you say that, then what's the percentage? Then you've got, again, I mean, how many plants do you have to have on the property before you can't augment it with outside? I mean, it's got to be one or the other. If the land is used for any agricultural use, then perhaps, maybe that's the rule. If the land is used for any agricultural use, then whatever other agricultural products they import can be used on it, but if all they're doing is taking a piece of land and are growing absolutely nothing on this property and just want to set up a stand and call it an agricultural use, maybe that's not what you should be allowed to do, but as long as you have those trees going, and you've got some farm animals that, eventually, are going to make it to somebody's table. MRS. EGGLESTON-Then does it encompass the whole thing? MR. CARR-Because I think we could get into a real argument if we say, you know, if it's augmented, well, what's, how do you determine that? MR. TURNER-Do you agree with the definition of agricultural use, on Page 17911, per the Zoning Ordinance? MR. CARR-Well, not the way ~ mean it. I mean, I kind of agree with the Martindales that are here tonight, as to the definition of "Including the sale". Including does not exclude other possibilities. MRS. MARTINDALE-Especially with Article 81. MR. CARR-Including is just a start of a list, and not an all inclusive list. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. CARR-Perhaps that is not the intent of the Ordinance, and I really don't know if the intent was only to allow homegrown stuff to be sold, but the way it's, right now, without having a specific history on this provision, I mean, I think we have to look at it broadly. You almost have to interpret it broadly, when there's kind of ambiguous terms within an ordinance. MR. SHEA-I would say, on that basis, that certainly the land from the growing and tapping of the sap is agricultural, and then I guess if you apply the broad brush to it, the produce that they're selling, they do produce off site, but they're going to be selling it commercially on land that is agricultural. So, I wouldn't have a problem with it, in that framework. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me just say one thing. Where this started from agricultural use. When the Zoning Ordinance was amended, in '88, there were people in the Town that had Truck Farms. So, the people that drew up the Ordinance felt comfortable with the fact that if they had a Truck Farm there, that they could have a stand, also, to sell the produce, and anything else other than that would be commercial, or retail. If they trucked it in, it would be considered commercial, or retail, whichever. That's where that came from. 17 -- - MR. CARR-But I think they had their opportunity to say that. MR. TURNER-Yes, but, I'm just saying, that's how it got started. MR. CARR-I mean, they could have said, agricultural use, I mean, it's very easy not to say, including the sale of products grown, but saying, l! the sale of products grown directly on the land. MRS. EGGLESTON-Instead of including, which could mean more, more or less. MR. TURNER-There's no doubt that if they're in the corn season, they might run out of corn, any of them that sell the corn have got to go get it from some place, usually, as a rule. They just can't grow enough on the land. Potatoes, unless they commit a huge field of potatoes, they're not going to have the production of potatoes to satisfy the sales. What the dictionary says, just for reference, is that agriculture is "the science and the art of cultivating land and the raising of crops, husbandry, and farming. Also the production of crops, livestock or poultry." That's what the dictionary says agriculture is. MR. CARR-Right, but our agricultural use includes orchards, and horticulture. MR. TURNER-I know, but I'm saying, it says, cultivating. Cultivating is the key word. Any further discussion on that? None? Next item. Two and Three "Are any handcrafted goods sold?" Is it required that they be produced on site or can handcrafted goods produced off site be sold?" Discussion? MR. CARR-I would go along with the State that what's, if you change it, you've changed the character. The State says you've changed the character, that it's not an agricultural product anymore, and that it's not allowed in the zone. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I mean, this one's tough, because a painted pumpkin, obviously, cannot, I wouldn't consider it a handcrafted good, but someone in the State has considered it a handcrafted good, for tax purposes, and there are so many handcrafted goods, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that handcrafted goods are allowed in this zone. MR. TURNER-No. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Just list the three items. MR. CARR-You could come in for a variance on those three items, but according to what, the question before us is, is handcrafted goods allowed there, and my feeling would be, no. MRS. MARTINDALE-It would be permitted under regular usage, under Home Occupation. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that's not Home Occupation. MRS. MARTINDALE-But it's under your Zoning. MR. CARR-Yes, but you don't live there. Home Occupation, you have to live there. I mean, by the very definition. MRS. MARTINDALE-And it would be included under the Transient Merchant Law, which we are allowed to do, under the Queensbury Code, and under the Exemption of. MR. CARR-Perhaps the Code isn't perfect. I mean, we know it's not, but the question is, are handcrafted goods allowed as an agricultural use. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-But my son lives right on that property. He is part of this whole thing. MRS. MARTINDALE-He has a house right in between the two parcels, which are contiguous to each other. MR. CARR-Well, I mean, that's not, we didn't know about the house. We don't know who owns the property. Is it his house? Is he a renter? He can have a Home Occupation there. That's up to him. MRS. MARTINDALE-So, then he could sell those products. MR. CARR-If he fits under the Ordinance. He's allowed to do that. If he doesn't, he doesn't. MRS. CRAYFORD-A Home Occupation doesn't permit retail sales. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. MARTINDALE-You told me that it did. 18 --- MR. CARR-Well, I don't want to get into that, here, tonight. We've taken up a lot of time. MR. TURNER-We've taken up a lot of time with this, okay. All right. Any further discussion on that item? Okay. "Are animals, which are designed to serve as an attraction, considered an agricultural use?" No. I don't agree with that. MR. CARR-Yes. I think so. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, I think the Zoning Ordinance almost defies you to say, yes, no matter what the definition of Agriculture Use is. MR. CARR-I just think, it says the raising of cows. They are raising those cows there. MR. TURNER-Are animals, which are designed to serve as an attraction. That's the key word, attraction. MR. CARR-Okay. I mean, if they're going to have it as an attraction, no. MR. TURNER-That's the question. MR. CARR-Okay. The question, strictly, I guess, would be no, but who can interpret that? I mean, an attraction, I think, would be, you'd have to charge, because then we get into the thing about sales. Remember that boat discussion we had about when the sale occurs? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-And everything like that. I don't want to get into that. MRS. MARTINDALE-But it was a previous use on the property. It's an established. MR. CARR-Strictly speaking, I think Mr. Turner's looking at the very strict question. MR. TURNER-The specific question is, "Are animals, which are designed to serve as an attraction, considered an agricultural use?" No. MR. CARR-Which would mean, if you put the petting zoo on your property. You aren't. I'm just saying, if you put the petting zoo on your property, would that be an attraction, an allowable use? No, obviously, it's not. MRS. MARTINDALE-So, if we just bring the animals back there and. MR. CARR-If you raise your animals on the property. MRS. MARTINDALE-There's no question. We can do that. MR. CARR-I have no problem with that. MRS. MARTINDALE-All right. Then we'll bring them back. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion on that one? MR. SHEA-No. I know my answer to that one. MR. TURNER-Okay. Number Five, "If sap is brought to the site from off site, is that a permitted agricultural use, under the definition of agricultural use?" MR. CARR-I think we go back to One. It's just supplementing what's already grown there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SHEA-Right. MR. TURNER-The last one, "Does modification of the barn warrant an Area Variance, in terms of setback?", and I'd say yes, if they modify it. MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. TURNER-If they modify it, yes. MR. CARR-Interior or exterior? MR. TURNER-No, exterior. 19 - MR. CARR-Exterior? Probably. MR. SICARD-Fixed, repaired. MR. TURNER-Because that was, you know, his remark was as to, if they were going to put a pancake house there. MR. CARR-Yes, not fixed or repaired now. If they were enlarging. TIMOTHY BREWER MR. BREWER-If you replace something that's existing, you can't stop it. If somebody breaks a window, then you've got to fix it. MRS. MARTINDALE-We didn't ask for modification of the barn. MR. CARR-No. MR. TURNER-No. Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was going to say, the only one we really don't agree with is Three. MR. CARR-No. Three? You mean the only one we said no to? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, the handcrafted goods. Yes, the one we think no. MR. CARR-I think that's the feeling. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are we in agreement, here? MR. CARR-Is handcrafted goods even defined? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. MARTINDALE-No. It's not. Those aren't defined as handcrafted goods, there. like I said, under the Transient Merchant Law, we can bring them in anyway, because we produce them. MR. CARR-All right. MR. TURNER-Okay. Do you want to make a motion? We'll just list these items and go down through, and say, yes or no, whatever, and vote on them. Do you want to vote on them individually? I think we ought to. MR. SHEA-Why don't we vote on them individually, and have Bruce make a motion. MOTION ON NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-92 FRANCIS ArtD CAROLYN MARTIrtDALE: AS TO (JIESTIOII NUMBER ONE, IS THE SALE OF FRUITS ArtO VEGETABLES 6RCIßI OFF SITE A PERMITTED AGRICULTURAL USE?, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The answer would be yes, provided the off site fruits and vegetables are used to augment fruits and vegetables or other agricultural products grown on site. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr NOES: Mr. Turner MRS. CRAYFORD-How are Dave and I supposed to enforce that? MR. CARR-If they grow something on site and they bring in something else? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. I mean, are we going to go back and around and say, now, are these, did you run out and did you bring these in? Do you know what I'm saying? MR. CARR-Well, no, I'm saying, if they grow sap on it, that they can sell fruits and vegetables there. It doesn't have to be the same product. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. I just wanted to understand what you're getting at. Okay. MRS. CARR-Is that the way you understand it, Joyce? 20 "-- ---""" MRS. EGGLESTON-Why don't you just answer them yes or no? Do you have to give that definition? MR. CARR-Yes, because I don't think just bringing in any fruits and vegetables, I don't feel that was really the intent. I think they're asking to augment. MRS. MARTINDALE-The classification, under Farm, is for commercial purposes, according to your Zoning Ordinance, under Site Plan Review, which is what we're under, and is allowed with 10 acres or more, and, like I keep saying, under General Municipal Law Article 81, we are permitted, as a producer, to bring in, from off site onto the premises, to sell them. It is perfectly legal, and it is an established use. MR. CARR-Well, if you disagree with my interpretation, which is basically allowing you to do what you want to do, I mean, you can appeal our decision, too, if you want further clarification. REGARDING tlITION ON NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-92 FRANCIS ArtD CAROLYN MARTINDALE: AS TO WESTIOIIS NUMBER TWO AND THREE, ARE Arty HANDCRAFTED GOODS SOLD? IS IT RE~IRED THAT THEY BE PROIIICED ON SITE OR CAN HANDCRAFTED GOODS PRODUCED OFF SITE BE SOLD?, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: No, handcrafted goods are not allowed to be sold on this site. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE REGARDING Jl)TIOII Ort NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-92 FRANCIS AND CAROLYN MARTINDALE: AS TO ~ESTION IIJMBER FOUR, ARE ANIMALS, WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO SERVE AS Art ATTRACTIOII, CONSIDERED AN AGRICULTURAL USE?, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: No. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE REGARDING MOTIOII Ort NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-92 FRANCIS ArtD CAROLYN MARTINDALE: AS TO ~ESTIOII NUMBER FIVE, IF SAP IS BROUGIfT TO THE SITE FROM OFF SITE, IS THAT A PERMITTED AGRICULTURAL USE?, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The answer would be yes, provided that this sap, or the sale of this sap or syrup, is used to augment existing agricultural products produced or grown on the site. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston NOES: Mr. Turner REGARDING tlITIOII ON NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-92 FRArtCIS ArtD CAROLYN MARTINDALE: AS TO ~ESTIOrt NU_R SIX, DOES MODIFICATION OF THE BARN STRUCTURE WARRANT Art AREA VARIANCE, IN TERMS OF SETBACK?, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: In all likelihood, yes, depending on the modifications proposed. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (8:57 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1992 EDllARD D. LOCKHART (liNER: SAŒ AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF DREAM LAKE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE TO ENABLE VEHICLE STORAGE/PARKING. DOES NOT ŒET SETBACK RE~IREŒNTS. TAX MAP NO. 51-3-14 LOT SIZE: 0.313 ACRES SECTION 179-16 EDWARD LOCKHART, PRESENT (8:57 p.m.) STAFF INPUT 21 Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 7-1992, Edward Lockhart, 2-12-92, Meeting Date: February 19, 1992 "The applicant seeks relief from the minimum yard setbacks in a WR-IA zone. The minimum setbacks are a sum of 50 feet with a 20 foot minimum. The garage is 5 feet from the eastern property line and 22 feet from the western property line. The lot is ± 298 feet in length and approximatelY 65 feet wide at its widest point. The biggest issue with development along lake shores is storm water runoff. With the garage, the impermeable area on the lot is 4,211 sq. ft. (31%) and the permeable area is 9,407 sq. ft. (69%). The property drains to the lake with the drop of 32 feet. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance: 1) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The size and shape of the lot prohibit a structure from being placed in any location without setback variances. 2) Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? The applicant could construct a one car garage which would be 15 feet from the western property line and 22 feet from the eastern property line. Also the garage could be straightened to make a setback of 13 feet on the west. 3) Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or pol icy of the Town? The majority of the residences along the road are rather unimposing. The applicants house is 849 sq. ft. only 273 sq. ft. bigger than the proposed garage. The garage does not appear to obstruct vision on the road way or anyone's view of the lake. 4) What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? None 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? This is a discussion for the Board and the applicant." MR. CARR-How many cars do you have? MR. LOCKHART-There's normally two cars on the property at any time. We own two cars and that's why the plan for a two car garage was for that. Over the years, we've had several problems, as we've had to park on the top of the garage, or the top of the driveway. A battery turned up missing, a tape deck, through the years things have happened. MR. SHEA-The garage doors are proposed to be where? MR. LOCKHART-Facing where your finger is, right now, so that you'd be able to drive right in. With the contours of the land, and where the driveway is, if I straightened it out and made it parallel with the driveway, driving into it would be more of a difficulty, coming around to it. So, that's why it's turned a little, so that it's facing coming into it, with a vehicle. MR. TURNER-You couldn't put an apron over there and drive into it, if you turned it? MR. LOCKHART-That's the way we had it engineered, so that for a best fit situation, and I think if it was turned any, the vehicle would have to come over farther, according to the map. The 24 by 24 is a typical outlay of a two car. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. You don't feel you could turn the garage and square it up with the road way, and then come into it, with an apron? MR. LOCKHART-I don't feel that that would, I would still require a variance. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I mean, a lesser variance. MR. LOCKHART-I don't feel that it would, as far as bringing the vehicle in, or improving the situation, that I would want to turn it in that respect. MR. SHEA-It's a one story garage? MR. LOCKHART-Yes. There'll be no drain off from it or anything, if there's any question of that. MR. CARR-What do you mean by that? MR. LOCKHART-Well, there was something brought up about draining from, drainage impermeable soils, or whatever. The only thing we'd have there is electricity. There's a power pole right near the site, power line, I should say. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FLOYD BATEASE MR. BATEASE-Mr. Chairman, Board, I'm Floyd Batease and I own the property on the east side of the proposed building. The setback requirements are set in place for specific reasons, and I think we should adhere to them, as much as possible here. The building can be rearranged to make a better 22 - --../ setback. There is a problem with runoff from the roof. Whenever you put a roof on a building, the water runs off the eaves and it can cause erosion. If it was set back further, then it would be better. The property is on a steep hill, and in order to be able to erect a building, there would have to be six feet of fill. I think you can recognize that from the tap outlines. MR. CARR-Mr. Batease, may I ask you, are you opposed to this garage in principle, or, you said something about, I mean, if it's squared up a little better, maybe moved from the property line a little further, would that change your opinion at all? MR. BATEASE-No. I think if somebody owns property, they should be able to use it pretty much the way they want to, as long as it goes to regulations, if possible, and without problems with the neighbors property, but I am opposed to the building being in that location in that position the way it's gone, and as far as Mr. Lockhart saying the engineers designed it, I think you ought to look at the name on your plan. I think it's initialed by Mr. Lockhart. That's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else? GLENN BATEASE MR. GLENN BATEASE-My name is Glenn Batease. I live in the house directly next door. MR. CARR-Is that further east? MR. GLENN BATEASE-That's on the property that we're talking about, where my father owns. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. GLENN BATEASE-I put a house up on it. MR. CARR-So, your father doesn't live on the property? MR. GLENN BATEASE-No. He owns property. I built a house on it. I live on the property. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. GLENN BATEASE-What I have here, I have some pictures. These pictures here, that would be the front of the garage. I measured off from all the lines, and that's where it would be sticking out. This is that corner there. Coming down into the garage, I think that, if you look at the driveway, here, going down in, that's looking right down the driveway, as you're looking at it. So, in order to put it, if he's going to put it anywhere, it seems like you'd put it over here, because you can see that. That's all flat area. This area here, he'll have to bring in six foot of fill. So, that would require a retaining wall of six foot, or whatever. See, there is a water problem, because if you're driving down in, the water will follow the area right down. There's a water problem now, with the rain that we've had. So, before anything is, I think that somebody should go out and look the area over, because it looks a little different on paper. He drew the plans up, so, I mean, he can make anything look good on paper. I think that the Town should go out and look at the area instead of just looking at the paper. MR. TURNER-I tried to get up there. I got down the hill and I got stuck on the ice, and that was it. MR. GLENN BATEASE-See, if he had it in this area, then all these trees wouldn't have to come down. This is the area he wants to, and the camp now, he does not live there. That's just a rental camp. MR. LOCKHART-Relatives are living there. MR. GLENN BATEASE-He lives in Warrensburg and he rents this camp out. MR. TURNER-What's this right here? MR. GLENN BATEASE- That's the property 1 ine that runs up, and then that's the set back line, this one here, running parallel to it. MR. TURNER-This is what? MR. GLENN BATEASE-That's just looking up the driveway, coming up my driveway, up the hill. MR. SHEA-Well, it's pretty obvious, I was there today, and from the plot plan, there's not much space to work with, and he's entitled to the use of a garage on the property, and there is not much space to work with. So, where are you suggesting is a better placement, given the topes and the drainage problem? MR. GLENN BATEASE-Okay. The road way comes right down in here. So, if you were to position the garage in this area, or straighten it up. 23 -.. MR. SHEA-Well, this is the size of the garage. So, you're drawing it one third its size. MR. GLENN BATEASE-Well, and the way he has it, the garage is almost as big as the one bedroom camp. Couldn't he go with a smaller garage. MR. SHEA-That's a possibility, too, but if the garage were to be moved to, in your estimation, a better location, where is that suggestion? MR. GLENN BATEASE-It could be moved on to this line, here, and then you'd just have to take a, well, he's going to have to cut trees, anyway, so he could take a few along this line, here, to widen the driveway, or it could be straightened up and put over here, because this way you'd be driving right down into it. Those pictures probably really don't. MR. SHEA-If he moves the garage to any location other than what Mr. Lockhart wants it, he's still going to have to cut down trees, which 1'm sure is not desirable, because this is all full of trees right here, and Mr. Batease is saying maybe over here would be a better location, but you'd still have to cut all these trees down because he'd have to swing the driveway around there, and there really isn't much choice. It takes up all that space. This is the roadway in. MR. CARR-But wouldn't you like to see, I mean, I wish I could see it more square on the property, then you could buy some setback, at least. MR. SHEA-You're talking a couple of more feet. In actuality, you're not going to improve it dramatically. MR. LOCKHART-I looked at that situation you're talking about. It really didn't make much of a difference, overall. MR. SHEA-Not if you stay with the 24 by 24, because it's a squared structure. It's the same dimensions. If you turn it, you might be improving the side yard setback on the eastern side by a couple of feet, not much more than that. MR. LOCKHART-I wanted to include, as far as where my existing driveway is and coming down into my driveway, that you could just turn the car and go into the garage. My feeling was, no matter what I did, I would require a variance, and this best suited my situation, as far as the layout of the lot, and complying with my existing driveway, and I only plan on taking down whatever, to put in that size of a structure. It's just a typical size for a garage, and that's where the choice, a one car garage, I don't feel, there's still going to be a car out there, and especially in the winter time, I always park up on top of the hill, and I think there's couple of police reports that can prove that I've had my vehicle vandalized on three occasions, and I've got no protection because of the steepness of it, and it's kind of a secluded area down there. Most other people have some kind of a garage that they can utilize. I have nothing there that can protect my property, and we've had the property there for about 22 years, and I would like to construct something to protect what we own. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I think everyone needs a garage. I guess what I don't understand is why you can't just straighten it so it goes with the lay of the property, which is what would make your neighbors happy, and get away from the side line setback. MR. LOCKHART-No matter what I'm going to do. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're still going to violate them, but not as much. You're supposed to be looking for minimum relief. MR. LOCKHART-And driving into my, I'd have to construct, really, two driveways, and coming inside the garage, or angling the car in such an odd way that, that's the only reason I situated it the way I did. MR. TURNER-You'd have to provide an apron, right there, to get in, but that's not unusual. MR. SHEA-No. I think that would work best. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just straighten it up. MR. CARR-You said, Mr. Lockhart, that this was engineered by your firm, or people of your firm, or yourself, whatever, that you thought it was best. Did you think it was best just because of the driving in, or did you think it was best because of the land? MR. LOCKHART-I think I would have to say, with both in mind, with the contours of the land and with the existing driveway, and coming in, you know, as far as the parking situation, to enable the vehicle to practically go into the structure. 24 - -' MR. CARR-Right, but that's the vehicle going straight into the structure. I'm saying, for the building itself, the lay of the land at that particular location doesn't, if it was straightened out, there wouldn't be that much difference than if it was cock-eyed the way it is? MR. LOCKHART-Well, I think Jack Huntington spotted the structure on there, as to his experience, and I didn't design it, particularly. I assisted with some drafting on the project, but as far as straightening the structure out, I would be just straightening it out, paralleling my property line. I think I would be creating more, the way it's situated now, as far as visually, I think it's more advantageous to have it the way it is, visually. I don't know where the pictures were taken and how they relate to the property lines, but this property is all staked out, and I don't have it flagged as to whatever these pictures are showing. So that the construction of how it's, it appears like it's cocked, but it's not. It's only because of the lay of the property line. MR. TURNER-Do you want to look at these pictures? MR. LOCKHART-This is trespassing, for one thing. I don't go on other people's land tying off anything, particularly. As you can see, there's posted signs up. MR. GLENN BATEASE-In my deed, I have egress and ingress across the property. MR. LOCKHART-I am not interfering with any right-of-ways or any deed situations, with what I have in my. MRS. EGGLESTON-With where the garage is going to go? MR. LOCKHART-Exactly. See, that is a case of trespassing, right here. MR. CARR-That's not really to be discussed at this Board. One thing to be considered, if we do, I mean, we don't want to move the garage too far over, because of emergency vehicles having to get down to the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. TURNER-You'd almost but the driveway, Bruce, if you squared it off. MR. CARR-Yes. Well, that's what I'm, I don't see why it can't be straightened out. MR. LOCKHART-I'm willing to compromise to whatever I would have. MR. CARR-I think your neighbors would be most happy if we could just maximize the setback. I don't think they disagree that you should have a garage. I don't think anybody's saying that. I think they're just saying, we'd like as much of the setback protected, for our reasons, which they have a right to, as well as you have the right to the garage. So, I think maybe if we could work out something. MR. LOCKHART-The deed setbacks were, well, they've been changed in Queensbury over the years. They were always 10 feet. Now, I think I'm asking for five. MR. CARR-Yes, but it looks like you could, by straightening it out, get the 10 feet at least, on that one side, and it would just, almost looks like it abuts the current driveway. MR. TURNER-There you are. I drew it right in there. It could give you 15 feet there. MR. LOCKHART-I would be right up tight to my existing. MR. TURNER-Yes, right there at that corner. MRS. EGGLESTON-You'd be right up tight to your what? MR. LOCKHART-Existing driveway. I would like, as you can see, that driveway's only about eight feet wide, nine feet wide. It would be to my advantage if I could make it a couple of feet wider. MRS. EGGLESTON-And it goes down into the house, over the hill to the house, the driveway? MR. LOCKHART-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, you need that open for emergency, which is what you said. So, we have to be sure that there's enough room there. MR. CARR-Ted, I think you're design would work fine. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. 25 - - MR. CARR-I think it might make everybody happy, although it might be a little more difficult to maneuver your car. I think it's still, the room is there to maneuver it. MR. TURNER-Is there trees right here? MR. LOCKHART-Yes. There's quite a few trees, right in here? MR. TURNER-How far back are they from the road? MR. LOCKHART-They're right up on the edge, and this road is cut in to the point where. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that's 11 feet. You've got a scale that's 11 feet. That's 11 feet wide. You only need 8 feet to get a vehicle through. I mean, if you had 9 feet, no, a truck. MR. LOCKHART-A fire truck? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. TURNER-If you squared the garage up and put it like that, you'd have a 15 foot setback, right there. You could come in here and just put an apron here, come in, swing right in the garage. Again, you know, Mrs. Eggleston said, we're supposed to grant you minimum relief, not, we know you can't get on there without a variance of any kind. You need a variance to put the garage. We understand that, but you have to understand that you have to mitigate your scenario, here, to get the relief that's required, and still make it functional for you, and that's functional. MR. LOCKHART-I wouldn't enjoy being that tight to my existing drive. Even if I could move it over a little, it would create more excavation and removal of trees over here, and I would have to really take out all the trees over here. I'm just bringing up, counter point, here, to enable, to swing around into here and then to come back out to this straightened out. If I came in, I'd be right in. MR. SHEA-Just about the same number of trees are going to have to come down, irregardless of whether it's tilted this way or straight, as the Chairman suggests. MR. LOCKHART-I think, you know, he's got 15 down here, I went for a 5. As far as leaving a 1 ittle leeway with my driveway, I would ask for a little bit less than that 15. I mean, I'm willing to compromise. If I could go for 10 and keep it that way, I think that it would leave me a 1 ittle leeway with my driveway situation, as it is my only access to my house. MRS. EGGLESTON-I wouldn't be opposed to that. MR. SHEA-Can we give him a couple of feet between his current driveway? We'll make this 12 feet, and that would give you 3 feet in there. All right? MR. LOCKHART-Okay, because I'd just like to point out, this gets icy, as any time of the year. I don't want to sl ide into my garage, because I'm pulling in anyway. It would take less fill, too, to come out this way. MR. CARR-I was just asking Mr. Batease if that satisfies his concerns. MR. GLENN BATEASE-Well, looking at these pictures. you know, he's got plenty of room on the driveway to bring it over. See, he has all this room here. So, if he had the garage here, you still, you might have to clip that one tree down, here, but then. MR. SHEA-Well, this way he won't have to do any of that, and he'll have three feet from the driveway, here. to where the garage would be, and that's this space, here, from here to where it's going to be now, 1 i ke th is. MR. GLENN BATEASE-So, the garage side would be right in this area here? MR. SHEA-It would be three feet off from here. It would start three feet over, and on this side, it would start three feet over, and on this side it would be 12 feet from the property line. MR. TURNER-Instead of five. MR. FLOYD BATEASE-I didn't hear anyone address the problem with runoff from the roof. As you can see, and from what Mrs. Eggleston read, the drop from this building site to the lake is a 32 foot drop. Is that what you read? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. 26 - MR. FLOYD BATEASE-Now, that's a pretty steep hill, very steep, and from the top of the hill where the garage is, like I said before, if that's a six foot drop by the topo lines on the plot plan. Now, I don't know if you have any control over what he puts on there for a roof, but the only way I can see to keep the flood control is to have a shed roof on it, draining onto his property. There is going to be a problem, and if the shed roof is put on in the opposite direction, away from his property, it's going to be terrible. MR. CARR-Well, we can't control the roof. MR. LOCKHART-If I needed to, I could put a drywell in to control any runoff from the water, and then direct it into the driveway, if that was a necessary situation. I think all these buildings have been constructed on the contour lines that we're now looking at, and I don't see any problem that they've had. It's all sand and gravel in there, and highly permeable soil. MR. FLOYD BATEASE-Actually, the soil is all hard gravel. MR. CARR-Mr. Lockhart, could I ask you, would it cost a lot of money to put a gutter on each side, and a drywell, do you think? MR. LOCKHART-I don't think it would cost a lot of money. I think that's more than a typical garage would have, but if I was required to do it, I believe I could comply. I don't think any houses around there have gutter drains and drywells to direct. MR. TURNER-Obviously, you're going to pitch your roof east to west, right, from the way of the garage? MR. LOCKHART-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. So, if you put a drain on the west side and put a drywell to catch the west side, that would take care of it, wouldn't it? MR. LOCKHART-Yes. MR. TURNER-The east side would migrate into the ground by itself, wouldn't it? MR. LOCKHART-I think a four foot drywell would handle that one side that would be. The other side would drain down my driveway. MR. CARR-Mr. Batease, would that satisfy your? MR. FLOYD BATEASE-Well, it would all depend on where the drywell is. MR. CARR-Well, he's going to put it on your side of the property, so that it won't drain onto your property. MR. FLOYD BATEASE-But the well for the house is, if you look at the plot plan, you'll see where our well is, and that might have an effect on our well. MR. CARR-How would that effect your well, do you think? MR. FLOYD BATEASE-If it's too close, it would drain directly into it, because like I say, it's all hard gravel, very coarse cobble stones. MR. CARR-Well, I guess I would leave it up to you, basically, as to, I mean, he's got a right to a garage, and we're trying to mitigate it as best we can, but we can't force him to take all the water off to one side. I mean, your roof is pitched. MRS. EGGLESTON-Then you've got a neighbor on the other side who's irritated it. MR. FLOYD BATEASE-But all the water drainage would be towards my property. MR. TURNER-He's agreed to put a catch basin and gutters on the garage. MR. FLOYD BATEASE-As long as we don't have any problem with flood control. MR. TURNER-That's nothing we can do, here, tonight. That's not ours. He really doesn't have to agree to it if he doesn't want to. I don't think anybody can make him. MR. FLOYD BATEASE-I guess that's the extent of my comments, then. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else in opposition? If not, the public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 27 -- MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. MR. SHEA-Does Mr. Lockhart agree to the plan revision? MR. TURNER-Do you agree to the plan revision, giving you a 12 foot side setback, in lieu of the five that you requested? MR. LOCKHART-Yes. MR. SHEA-And what about the gutter, the gutter and the catch basin? MR. LOCKHART-Yes. MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. tlJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1992 EDWARD D. LOCKHART, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant is seeking side yard setback relief to place a 24 ft. by 24 ft. garage on the property that can easily be described as unique in nature with its shape and size and one that presents practical difficulty with placing the garage on the site. The applicant has agreed so as to minimize the side yard relief for setback to relocate the position of the garage whereby the garage, . from the easterly side of the property, will be placed 12 feet from the property line, thereby granting relief of eight feet. The applicant has also agreed to install rain gutters on the roof, along with a catch basin to minimize the runoff. This is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty, and this would not be materially detrimental to the Ordinance, nor effect public services. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. GLENN BATEASE-I have a question on where the garage is going to be. Now, it says, for a 24 by 24 garage and parking. I was wondering what he had in mind for parking, because if the garage is going to be here, and the parking in front of the garage, and like, in the winter time, right now, how slippery it is. You've been down there. If I get skating down through, it's going to become a problem on this corner, with the vehicles. MR. SICARD-Parking will be in the garage. MR. TURNER-The parking will be in the garage. MR. LOCKHART-The parking was meant to be in the garage. MR. GLENN BATEASE-You said the 24 by 24 garage and parking. So, is the garage going to be just used for parking? MR. LOCKHART-Vehicles were meant to park in the garage. They're parked outside now, versus parking them in the garage. MR. GLENN BATEASE-Okay. I just wanted to make that clear, because that'll be a problem in the winter, coming down through. MR. TURNER-Yes. (9:37 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-I0 LAWRENCE R. LARSOrt (lINER: SAŒ AS ABOVE 23 NATHAN STREET, AT SUNSET AVENUE TO tlJDIFY THE SINGI.f FAMILY HOlE TO BECOIE A 11fO-FAMILY DUPI.fX. TAX MAP NO. 117-5-1 LOT SIZE: 10,350 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-17 LAWRENCE LARSON, PRESENT (9:37 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 8-1992, Lawrence R. Larson, 2-12-92, Meeting Date: February 19, 1992 "The request is to double the density in a UR-lO zone by modifying a single family residence into a duplex. The residence was constructed two years ago. The applicant states that the house in question was constructed to be able to be converted to a duplex. This area of the neighborhood has substantially upgraded itself through new construction and additions. The applicant indicates that a personal practical difficulty exists because he has been unable to sell the structure. The stated goal is to renovate it as a duplex and rent it. 1) Describe the practical difficulty which 28 '-' does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. There is currently a structure on the property which does not meet the zoning requirements. 2) Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? The practical difficulty appears to be personal and financial and not created by the unreasonableness of the Ordinance. 3) Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? The neighborhood is substantially single family. The duplex next door to the house was the first one in the neighborhood, although there is another one approved but not built on a lot that has been recently cleared. Duplexes are allowed in UR-lO zone. 4) What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? There do not appear to be any effects on public facilities and services. 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The practical difficulty appears to have been created because of an investment by the applicant and a downturn in the economy. The appl icant has not demonstrated that the regulations are unfair to him." MR. TURNER-Mr. Larson, any further comment? MR. LARSON-I know what the law was there, a long time ago. I know some new regulations have come in, but I know you can make exceptions, and I'm only asking that you make an exception. I've come so close to bankruptcy over a situation, because of the downturn, and I made it through, just by the skin of my teeth. I lost everything I had for my retirement. I've spent many years in this area, 21 years as a Foreign Missionary. I gave, and I give, and I keep on giving, and I'm asking ~ to give me a chance to just come out even, instead of having to go into debt, probably dump the house, for way below what it's worth, so I can do something to get out of it and pay off a debt for some years to come. I think it I S very reasonable. It's on a corner. It has no problem in getting in and out, and the facility made, right now, that is there for a two family, and the area permits it, but it isn't enough land, now, but it used to be, and I'm asking for some relief. Thank you. MR. CARR-Mr. Larson, just a question. I think, in your letter, as well as in the Staff Notes, they mentioned two other, one proposed duplex, one existing duplex. Do you know the size of those lots? MR. LARSON-Yes. They are the right size. They are ones right behind me, owned by a gentleman sitting here, and the next one to it is also that same size, as is planned to be put on, but he has no objection. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. SHEA-What modifications have to be made, in order to create. MR. LARSON-Just finish it off inside. MR. SHEA-So, one family's, you're talking about a basement, then, that is presently unfinished? MR. LARSON-Yes. It's got the big windows, everything in there already. MR. TURNER-It's a bi-level, right? MR. LARSON-Yes, but it's presently used as just a basement, but it is a bi-level. MR. SHEA-But, right now, there's one main door to the house? MR. LARSON-One family upstairs, right. I have no other house. I lived in a parsonage all my life. I have no other assets. MR. SHEA-No. I saw the house tOday. I'm just trying to get an idea of how you're going to make this into a two family. The lower level needs to be renovated inside, or built out. MR. LARSON-Right. MR. SHEA-As I recall, is there one door on the front of the house, or two doors? MR. LARSON-Yes. It's one door in the front, but it goes up and it goes down. I'd just make a little variation upstairs, so it would be two separate doors, but one door outdoors, and then on the basement, there's already put into the wall down there, it's a poured foundation, but in one area some blocks were put in there, and a framework and everything. It's already to just punch out and make a door to go outdoors. No problem at all. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? None? Okay. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. 29 .-' PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANDREW TELLIER MR. TELLIER-My name is Andrew Tellier. I live on West Mountain Road. I own the property right behind this house and the duplex, as well as the piece of property behind that has an approval, now, for another duplex, and I'm just a little bit aware of the problem with that particular house, in that it hasn't sold, and I think that there's .a lot of problems in that neighborhood which have been detrimental to the sale of the property there, because I was involved in one of the other houses, there, for quite some time, and the sale of it, and it was very difficult to get people who would be interested in it, and it's a very nice house. It's a bi-level, and in the construction it was built so that the lower area can completely be finished off, and the desire was not to make a two family out of it, I understand, when it was built, but when it was built, it would be a very nice lower area with family room and later a garage could be added on to it, and this area that you were asking about could be punched out and steps could go up into the garage area, and it would be very easy to do that, and the soil and everything is acclimated toward two family houses. There are a lot of very small houses and a few trailers in the area that are on, I think the requirement is something like 5,000 square feet, and there are several. Just down the street there, on Nathan Street, it's been brought to my attention that it is less than 5,000 square feet, and in one particular area, there's three trailers right together, and each one of them is on less than 5,000 square feet, and this is maybe 500 feet away from this house. So, also I'd like to point out that right next to my property there's a strip of land that is owned, is being held by Niagara Mohawk for a right-of-way, and I doubt very much if these lots would ever be used for anything, which really loosens up the density of the entire area. So, if one more family coming in on this particular is certainly not going to make any difference, since there is a lot of open space there, owned by Niagara Mohawk, coming just, it's 230 feet away from this property, that is owned by them, and so that does make for a looser population in the area. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Tellier, is yours just vacant land in back? MR. TELLIER-I own that, too. MRS. EGGLESTON-You don't live, there's no house on the property now? MR. TELLIER-There's a house. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it rental property, the house you have in? MR. TELLIER-Yes. There's a duplex rental here, and there's approval for another duplex here. MRS. EGGLESTON-And is this duplex yours? MR. TElLIER-Yes. It's rented. I might say, too, that it's been very hard to even rent it, let alone sell it for that area. So, I'm certainly for relieving him of this burden. MR. TURNER-Okay. FRANCIS GIROUX MR. GIROUX-My name is Francis Giroux. I have a piece of property around the corner from there, on Columbia Avenue. I used to own the property that Mr. Tellier has, and I believe that both people have made considerable investments to improve the area, and I don't think it'll be a burden to the community to have that property be turned into a two family, since two families are allowed there. There's two family next door, another one ready to go in next door, and a lot of the single families that are in the area, whether they be trailers or the small houses in the area, a lot of those are rentals as well. I don't know much more to say, except for what Mr. Larson has already said, about the difficulty that he's been in. I think the investment he made there was a risky investment. I think it was in the best interest of the community to upgrade the neighborhood in the way that he did, and I think the investment that he made, being risky, deserves some relief. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Anyone else? Opposed? Okay. Public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE A letter from Leon Duell, at Alta Avenue, "I am writing in reference to the appl ication of Lawrence Larson. I have lived on Alta Avenue for 36 years, along with my neighbors that have lived here as long, and single family homes. I strongly object to the single family home becoming a two family duplexes. My reasons, One, it could cause a snowball effect by the rest of the development becoming duplex. Two, it would open the door to existing houses to become multi apartments. Three, duplex housing attracts people that only want to rent until they get a down payment for a home or a trailer. If this is the case, we would have an influx of strangers every two years. After 34 years, I've found it necessary to put locks on my windows and lock my doors. The project started out to be single family units, and it's my opinion it should stay that way." 30 --- A letter from David and Tammy Summer, 25 Nathan Street, corner of Nathan and Sunset Ave., we are not in favor of Lawrence Larson's request to convert the single family house located at 23 Nathan Street into a two family duplex. We've had to look at the duplex that was built on Sunset Avenue by Mr. Larson and his Associates for over a year, with the yard unfinished, piles of trees and brush in the back yard, no sidewalks, to name a few things. The people that have rented from Mr. larson in the past few years, at 21 Nathan Street, entertain the neighborhood with beer parties, loud music and loud yelling until three or four in the morning, the same house, single family, had at one point, three families living there. I spoke with Mr. Dave Hatin about it, and shortly after, it was back to one family. The duplex on Sunset Ave. also has parties, domestic disputes and even large fires in the backyard. I feel we have had to put up with more than enough from these rental units and their owners. Please do not consider the variance. Thank you." MR. LARSON-The duplex I have nothing to do with. He has that, like it's in my name. It belongs to this gentleman. It's not mine. I didn't build it. I have nothing to do with it. As for the renter in the other house, I told you I sold that under priced, so as to just avoid bankruptcy, and it has been purchased by a very reputable man and his wife, now. They're Chinese people who, he is a professor at ACC. So, that is taken care of. I had a contract for sale on it, when all that went on, that the parties were going, and I couldn't wait to get them out either, and the law prohibited me from getting them out there quicker. I lost $2.000 of no paying rent and people squatting. I was stuck. I couldn't do a thing about it. I was totally out of the picture. It wasn't my fault, one single bit. how those people acted. I had it on a contract for sale, and it fell through, and that was not my doing whatsoever, and the people who are presently in it are very good people, and the ones in the other house, that I'm trying to get this variance for, are very respectable people also. MR. TURNER-I've got a question. You built them when, those two houses? MR. LARSON-The one that we're talking about, here? MR. TURNER-And the other one, the both of them. The one you sold to the other gentleman. and this one here? MR. LARSON-That's about three years. and this one two years. We were trying to up build this community. We paid more than we should have for the lot, the two lots there, and we thought we would try to build up the community and that area, but we got hit instead of helped. MR. TURNER-And the other lot size was the same as this lot size? MR. LARSON-Yes. MR. TURNER-I0,000 square feet? MR. LARSON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Discussion? Do you want to talk about it? The lots were 10,000, at the time, all right. Now, they're 20,000 for a duplex. MR. CARR-Mr. Larson, when did you buy the property, the land? MR. LARSON-I think the year before. MR. TURNER-1987? MR. LARSON-Roughly four years ago, or something like that. MR. CARR-Okay, so, '88 some time? MR. LARSON-'88? MR. GIROUX-It was in the winter time, wasn't it? MR. TURNER-Well, you said you built one house in '89. You built the other one in '88. Is that correct? MR. LARSON-One of them is two years old. One is three years old, since they've been finished, I'm talking about. and the land was purchased, I believe, the year before that. MR. CARR-All right. MR. TURNER-So, you purchased it in 1988, then. MR. GIROUX-I think it might have been late in '87, because it was winter time when he purchased it. MR. TURNER-Okay. So, he purchased it under the old Ordinance. 31 --- ~ MR. LARSON-There's been an Ordinance change since then. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-And back then it would have allowed a duplex on 10,000? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-What was the zoning in that area? MR. TURNER-What was the zoning then? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER~It was UR-5, probably. UR-5 would have been a 5,000 square foot, and 10,000 for a duplex. MRS. CRAYFORD-You got it. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you this, all the plumbing is in for a duplex, on both sides, is that correct? MR. LARSON-Yes, it is. MR. TURNER-Okay. So, it was planned for a duplex? MR. LARSON-We had hoped for that, if we ever got approval. MR. TURNER-Right. Okay. So, there's a separate electrical service, then, also. MR. LARSON-No. MR. TURNER-No? So, you're going to have to put one in then. MR. LARSON-Either that, or else rent it with splitting the cost. You can do it either way. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON~Would the septic system accommodate two family, since it was built as a one family? MR. LARSON-Well, those things have to be addressed with the Building Department. Whatever is needed is what we would do. MRS. CRAYFORD-This also has to go to the Planning Board. MR. TURNER-Yes. He'd have to put a septic in for the separate. MRS. CRAYFORD-He and Dave would have to work that out. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON~Well, what is the practical difficulty? Because for an area variance the economic hardship is not one of the, so what is the practical difficulty? MR. SHEA-Lot size. MRS. EGGLESTON-Lot size? MR. SHEA-It's not big enough. MR. CARR-And it was purchased at a time when it was big enough. MR. TURNER-When he bought the lot in '87, if he bought it in '87, he could have built a duplex on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, why not, then? MR. LARSON-I only intended this to be a single family, but now I see things are in the way they are. It could be a five bedroom house, or you have have three apartments, three bedrooms in one place and three in another. MRS. EGGLESTON-I must admit, they're better looking than a lot of other places in that neighborhood. I drive through there a lot. MR. LARSON-We made an effort to do something like that. 32 '- MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm trying to find the practical difficulty, here. MR. CARR-Well, the practical difficulty was that the land was purchased when it straddled an Ordinance change, and it was anticipated that it would have been a duplex. MRS. EGGLESTON-It was not anticipated. It was anticipated to be a single and built as a single family. MR. LARSON-Well, we had that in mind, but we applied for at that point. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's like saying, you bought it with a mind to put a drug store, and you built a swimming pool or something. MR. CARR-Well, no. You've got two plumbing units, and you built a bi-level. It's easily converted to a duplex. So, I mean, the thought at the purchase of the land was to a duplex. The zoning changed. He tried to comply with the zoning, by making it a single family, but had a back up, in case it didn't fly. The economy down turns. Now he's stuck. He's got a white elephant, or whatever it's called. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, let me say this. I'm in sympathy with Mr. Larson, and I think, in my opinion, it should be allowed as a duplex. You guys figure it out and get the motion. That's my own opinion. MR. TURNER-The only difference between this being a duplex and a single family is the size of the lot. It's already there. MRS. EGGLESTON-But, Ted, the plumbing's not there. MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. He just said it was. MR. LARSON-Not for the septic. She was talking about the septic system. The septic system, itself, is not adequate, as of yet, but it can be expanded very easily. MRS. EGGLESTON-But, are you saying there's two kitchens, and two everything in this house? MR. GIROUX-The plumbing's in the floor and the basement, for the kitchen and the bath. MR. TURNER-For the service water coming in the building, the plumbing's in, all right. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. I'm in agreement. MR. TURNER-Are the outlets in for the septic tank, for a proposed septic tank that will go with a duplex? Are they in? MR. TELLIER-Well, the septic that is there could be utilized, if the single gallon flush toilets were installed, okay, and then, in that way, they could accommodate a two family. There would have to be an extension on one or two of the septic lines, for another line, which can be done off the D box, that can be done, and there is space in the area. I looked it over with him, and the maps and everything, and it could be done. MR. TURNER-So, you've got the vent for the toilet in, for the other one. So, you'd have to go up through the ceiling, and then you're going to tie into the existing vent? MR. TELLIER-This is true. It was a modular house, and those modular houses come in with a future vent all the way through and up through the roof. That's New York State Law, now, as of this year. Last year, or two years ago, it was not a law. However, most of the modular manufacturers had already started doing that, because most of the States were requiring that. MR. TURNER-Is this provided in this house? You're saying this is provided in this house? MR. TELLIER-Yes. The vent stack for the lower area is already in. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, if we were to grant it, Dave would see that all of that, and it's got to go to site plan and all of that. So, that really isn't an issue. MR. TURNER-No. It's not the issue. The only issue we've got to deal with is the size of the lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. ÞlJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE rtO. 8-1992 LAWRENCE R. LARSON, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: 33 '-- '- And allow the applicant to modify the existing single family home into a 2 family duplex. The applicant purchased the property at a time when the area, or the existing area, would have been sufficient to construct a duplex. Shortly after the purchase of the property, the zoning requirements changed, which created a practical difficulty for the applicant. The applicant attempted to comply with the new Zoning Ordinance, but now finds it financially impossible to continue to do so. The only method to alleviate the difficulty caused this applicant is to allow this variance. The granting of the variance would not be adverse to the purposes of the Ordinance, nor would have an adverse effect on public facilities. A review of the Short EAF indicates no significant environmental impact. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (10:21 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE rtO. 9-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-1OA RAY ArtD LINDA FAVILLE (liNER: SlUE AS ABOVE OFF GAGE HILL ROAD TO BUILD A SUtlER CAJF WITHOOT FRONTAGE Ort A T(IIN ROAD. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 31-1-9 LOT SIZE: 145.34 ACRES SECTION 179-70 RAY FAVILLE, PRESENT (10:21 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 9-1992, Ray & Linda Faville, 2-14-92, Meeting Date: February 19, 1992 "The applicant requests a variance to be allowed to place a structure on 145 acres in an LC-lO zone which does not have 40 feet on a Town road. The access to the property is provided through the Town of Luzerne via an old wood road. The provision in the ordinance for 40 feet on a Town road is for emergency access to the site. There is an existing camp. The Board may wish to ascertain if the applicant will be using both camps or a rental is anticipated. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance: 1) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The property is accessed through Luzerne. Development of a Town road to meet the requirements is impractical. 2) Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? Yes. 3) Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? No, unless further use of the property is anticipated. 4) What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? None. 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes." MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-How long have you owned that property? MR. FAVILLE-Approximately five years. MR. TURNER-Five years. MR. CARR-You heard the question about the existing camp and your structure? MR. FAVILLE-Yes. The existing camp is an old camp, and it doesn't belong to me. The gentleman who owns it owns two acres within my 145 acres, and he uses it for camping. MR. CARR-Okay. So, it's not your property? MR. FAVILLE-It's not my property. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. FAVILLE-I primarily use the property during the summer time, just for camping and recreational facilities, and I'd just like to put up something a little bit more substantial then a tent. MR. CARR-Do you intend to be the only occupant, you and your family, the only occupant of that building? MR. FAVILLE-Yes. MR. CARR-You don't intend to rent it out to hunters during the season? MR. FAVILLE-No. I'm totally opposed to killing anything. MR. CARR-Okay. You are aware that the rationale for the 40 foot is emergency access? MR. FAVILLE-Emergency access. 34 -- - MR. CARR-And that if you move up there, you're basically almost foregoing. MR. FAVILLE-Yes. No, I have a home on Lake Champlain that I spend, we have a business there, and I spend most of time there. We spend the summer, approximately 20 days, you know, weekends, basically, just as a camp. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? None? Okay. Anyone wish to be heard in favor of the application? Opposed to the application? Hearing none, the public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CotI£NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MRS. EGGLESTON-Pat, do they need, from Town Law, relief, like we used to have to do? MR. TURNER-Town Law 230A? MRS. EGGLESTON-Whatever it is we used to have to do? MRS. CRAYFORD-Town Law 280A? As far as I'm concerned, it's just from our Zoning Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. We've done them, before, though, where we've had to put in the Town. MR. CARR-Yes. I think then they said we didn't have to do that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. SHEA-There are no road or services up there. MR. TURNER-No. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIAllCE NO. 9-1992 RAY ArtD LINDA FAVILLE, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: And grant them relief from Section 179-70, which is not having frontage from a Town road, and this would allow them to place a structure for a camp on the premises. This is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty, and there is no other option available which would require no variance. This variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, and public facilities and services would not be effected. We have reviewed the Short EAF and it shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (10:21 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF WEST JOJNTAIN ROAD, JUST A LITTLE NORTH OF JOJNTAIN VIEW WE A RE~EST TO VARY THE LOT SIZE FOR PHASE I OF THE LEHLAND PARK SUBDIVISION, EXCWSIVE OF LOTS 19 ArtD 20. (WARREN coum PWNING) TAX MP NO. 74-2-999 (ALL LOTS WITHIN) (FOIUER TAX MP NO. 74-1-30.1) LOT SIZE: 60.13 ACRES SECTION 179-20 DAVE BOLSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:21 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 10-1992, Guido Passarelli - lehland Park, 2-13-92, Meeting Date: February 19, 1992 "The request is to allow lot sizes in an existing phase of a subdivision to be varied so that the 20,000 sq. ft. lot size approved in 1987 can be maintained. The zoning is now 1 acre. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance. 1) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The subdivision was created prior to the zoning change of 1988. The lots have been approved by the Planning Board. The design and development costs were based on the approvals of 20,000 sq. ft. lots. A drainage land engineering redesign and modification of an existing subdivision with the Planning Board would be needed if one acre lots were required. 2) Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which 35 ~ - would require no variance? Yes. 3) Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? A SEQRA review of the subdivision was previously completed. 4) What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? The effects of this subdivision on public facilities and services was reviewed under SEQRA in 1987. 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes, since the infrastructure is in place." MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, Approved. MR. BOLSTER-I'm Dave Bolster with VanDusen and Steves. It would be just like a permanent relief, not a yearly relief, because of the number of lots we have. MRS. CRAYFORD-I would think, once one building permit is obtained under this variance, that would take care of that, that they would have activated that variance. MR. TURNER-Yes, but don't they have to get a building permit for each building? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, but I mean the variances for all of the lots, therefore, one lot getting a building permit would take care of keeping that variance active. That's my opinion. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you don't issue the building permit, only on application of a house. MR. CARR-Right, but I think what Pat is saying is, in that sense, it's a blanket. As soon as you use one, that variance is being used. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. That takes care of the variance being used. MR. CARR-Unless we grant a variance ~ lot, but then we'd have to do all the numbers for. So, I mean, it runs with the land anyway. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. The variance runs with the land. Okay. Any further comment or questions? None? Public hearing's open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COfIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE A letter from Mark Hoffman, "This letter's in reference to the Area Variance requested by Guido Passarelli for Lehland Park Subdivision, scheduled for consideration at a public hearing 2/19/92, 7:30 p.m. I will be out of town on that date. Given that the intent of the current zoning is to maintain an appropriate population density, and that the proposed variance is for a density significantly greater than that intended, such variance should be issued only in the presence of substantial hardship or extenuating circumstances. The circumstance which is likely to be claimed is the presence of a previously constructed infrastructure based on prior zoning. This is a valid concern, however, I do not believe the requested Area Variance should be approved outside the context of the entire project, since infrastructure for the entire project, including Phase II, has not been constructed, and the Town has the opportunity to require that the entire project conform to currently intended, overall zoning density by considering Phase I to be a cluster development of the overall subdivision. Further construction could then be limited so that the overall density of the entire subdivision would not exceed the current zoning. This approach of linking Area Variances for Phase I to the above noted clustering concept could protect environmentally sensitive areas close to Rush Pond, and unusually attractive forest of graceful rolling hills, while allowing maximum economic benefit from previously constructed infrastructure and Phase I. It would help maintain the character of nearby neighborhoods, while making the lots in Lehland's Phase I more appealing to potential buyers. Thank you for your consideration." With a copy to Nicholas Caimano. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion? None? Okay. Motion's in order. ÞUTIOrt TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-1992 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Grant the applicant relief from the current lot area and setback requirements of the Ordinance. The relief granted would be to allow the lots the same lot area and setbacks they received in their original subdivision approval for Phase I. A review of the Short EAF shows no significant negative environmental impacts. 36 -- - Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (10:30 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA MSULLO BROTHERS BUILŒRS, INC. IIIfŒR: SAŒ AS ABOVE FAIRWOOD DRIVE ArtD OLD MILL LAIE DIXON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION OF LOTS FOR DUPLEXES AND FOORPLEXES. LOTS ARE SMALLER THAN RE~IRED SIZE OR SETBACKS. (WARREN CDUm PLANNIrtG) TAX IMP NO. 95-1-999 (ALL LOTS WITHIN) LOT SIZE: 3.6 ACRES SECTION 179-19 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:31 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 11-1992, Masullo Brothers Builders, Inc., 2-13-92, Meeting Date: February 19, 1992 "The request is to maintain the existing lot sizes and setbacks in a townhouse subdivision. The lots are all ± half acres but then are further subdivided to go with the separate townhouse units. The Board may want to check with the developer as to the exact side yard setbacks or refer in the motion to the Planning Board approval of 2-28-89 for the final approval of Phase III. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance: 1) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The subdivision received approval under a different standard and all the infrastructure is in place. 2) Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? Yes. 3) Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? No, the subdivision was reviewed under the SEQRA when approved. 4) What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? None. 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes. The applicant has requested that the one year time frame for expiration of variance(s) (Section 179-92) be varied also. The Board has done this on rare occasions because of the specific land uses. The Board may not want to vary the time frames in this case. The Town Board anticipates having a public hearing soon on extending Section 179-77 for another year. It might be more appropriate for the developer to apply for an extension of the variance, if the need should occur." MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved. MR. CARR-I do have one question for you. This is Phase III? MR. STEVES-This is Phase III. MR. TURNER-Who's representing this application? MR. STEVES-I'm Matt Steves, of VanDusen and Steves. This is for Phase III only. That's the only Phase that Masullo Brothers currently own. MR. TURNER-What was the required setbacks? Do you know? MR. STEVES-I believe it was 10 feet, was it, with a total of 30? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. CARR-And that's what was approved on 2/28/89? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. STEVES-Yes. I believe the current is 20 foot side line. Most of the buildings in there are between 15 and 20 feet on the side, to begin with. MR. TURNER-Yes. They're not very far apart. MR. STEVES-But 15 to 20 to the lot line, okay. So, that would be a minimum of 30 between the buildings. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's minimum 10, total of 30, now. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. Okay. Public hearing's open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COIIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 37 -- MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets move it. tlJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1992 MASULLO BROTHERS BUILDERS, INC., Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: Grant the appl icant rel ief from the current lot area and setback requi rements of the Ordinance. The relief granted would be to allow the lots the same lot area and setbacks they received in their original subdivision approval for Phase III. A review of the Short EAF shows no significant negative environmental impacts. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (10:43 p.m.) CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 18th, 1991: Page 3, first motion down, to approve, the first sentence, I feel the applicant does have, not does not have; Page 13, motion to approve Area Variance No. 93-1991, big long paragraph, requiring minimum water frontage of 150 feet, not on 150 feet tlJTION TO APPROVE AS CORRECTED THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18TH, 1991, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE January 15th, 1992: Page 2, four Mr. Reiths up from the bottom, sib it will be pitched, not slated; Mr. Shea was not present at this meeting, sib noted at beginning of this set of minutes; Page 2, Mr. Carr, yes, the concern is structures have to be 75 feet back from, sib shoreline tlJTION TO APPROVE AS CORRECTED MINUTES OF JANUARY 15TH, 1992, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Shea On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 38