1983-02-02
'7ò
MINUTES
'''---'
Queensbury Town Planning Board
Wednesday, February 2, 1983
Present:
R. Roberts, Chairman
R. Montesi, Secretary
W. Threw
J. Dybas
H. Mann
K. Sorlin
B. Harrison
R. Case Prime, Counsel
W. Mathias, Counsel
M. Dean, Staff
The minutes of the January 1983 meeting were approved as written.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN REVIEW No. 1-83 - Gary Bowen (Hiland Farm) Ridge and Rockwell Rds. SR-30
Mr. Roberts turned this portion of the meeting over to Mr. Sorlin. Mr. Roberts
disqualified himself from participating in this site Plan Review. This is a
continuation of the Public Hearing held over from January.. Mr. Sorlin commented
that Wilson Mathias is representing the Town as Counsel. Some people have
questioned whether members of the Planning Board who were not in attendance at
the last meeting should be allowed to vote on this issue. Legal precedents in
the State of New York suggest that it is legitimate for these people to vote if
they feel they have familiarized themselves enough on the issue to make an in-
telligent vote. Mrs. Mann stated that she had received her packet of information
prior to the last meeting, had done some field work, read minutes of meeting,
correspondence, read original zoning ordinance covering the area and the new
ordinance, is familiar with the area and attended the workshòp meeting held on
Monday, January 31, 1983. Mr. Harrison stated he had reviewed the whole record,
had been through the property, is very familiar with the area and feels he is very
well informed on the issue. Mr. Sorlin said the way the ordinance is written,
this application will go to the Warren County Planning Board for review.
Mr. Gary Bowen read a prepared statement (attached) listing
points to the memorandum he presented at the last meeting.
response to questions raised at the last meeting.
eight additional
These points are in
Mr. Raymond Ryder, Ridge Road. Questioned if application was made for a breeding
farm. Mr. Sorlin responded that application is for a Class A farm. Mr. Bowen's
intended use is to raise and breed polled here ford cattle.
Mrs. Katherine Ryder, Ridge Road. Read definition from Funk and Wagnalls ency-
clopedia "animal husbandry". Her understanding of SR-30 zone does not allow
animal husbandry. Mrs. Mann responded that if what Mrs. Ryder thinks is true,
and the ordinance does not use the terminology "animal husbandry", there is another
legal question which is a preexisting nonconforming use or a preexisting conforming
use which Mr. Bowen cannot be rezoned out of.
Mr. Frank Murray, Ridge Road. He objects strenuously to having a large cattle
breeding farm adjacent to and behind his home. Last Fall, with just a few cows,
life was miserable due to offensive odors, flies and noises. The problem will
be multiplied with more cows. Asked the Board to think about what it will do to
/
7/
Page Two
February 2, 1983
'- the neighbors in the area. It will lower property values in the area. He
believes the few restrictions offered by Mr. Bowen would not in any significant
way protect the people. He stated a basic tenet of common law states if your
use causes harm and discomfort to your neighbors you have no right to use your
land in this way. It is a bad plan for the neighborhood and the Town and it
should be turned down.
Mr. Ronald Raynor, Clearview Lane. Only one realtor in this whole area wou1Jd
come forth and make a statement regarding devaluation of property. Letter
was read and submitted for file. Letter from Charles Caputo, Realty USA. Mr.
Caputo stated that upgrading to Class A farm could have a negative impact on
residential properties on the immediate perimeter of farm. Buffer zones of 150
to 200 feet would go far to minimize potential negative impact. Mr. Raynor wished
to go on record as being totally opposed to this project.
Mrs. Ryder. Questioned why this was allowed to happen. This is "animal husbandry"
which is not allowed in this zone. Should be zoned rural residentiål. She
respects what Mr. Bowen is trying to do but does not believe it should be allowed
under current zoning ordinance.
Mr. Frank Murray. Made a point about strong odor of silage and asked how many
cows would be allowed. Discussed the requirements for horses according to
ordinance. Feels that same should apply to cows and that if approved, they should
not allow any more cows than they would allow horses.
Mrs. Sue Bowen. Mrs. Bowen read a statement expresssing her thoughts. One good
thing that has come from Site Plan Review is that all neighbors now know each
other and this was not true before. She stated that they have done nothing wrong
and she resents the insinuations that have been made. They have opened their
land to the children in the neighborhood, their swimming pool, their home and
their cattle. Many have gone on tractor rides, watched the birth of a calf,
enjoyed the farm and vegetables from her garden. Mrs. Bowen thanked neighbors
who have supported them. Certain neighbors have libëled their name throughout
Queensbury, spread lies and exaggerated beyond possible reasoning. They have
always been open to their neighbors. Last summer they had five cows on the property
by the little red barn, no pigs and one calf was born on May 31. I don't tell
you people how to live, you have rights on your property and so do we. It is the
privilege of the landowner to do what they want with their land, within the
boundaries of the law.
Mr. Tim Havens. Not a resident of Queensbury. Comes from a fairly extensive
agricultural background. Knows Mr. Bowen and thinks that any operation he has
anything to do with will become a showplace and something the community will be
proud to have part of.
Mr. Stephen Miller, Ridge Road.
are not supposing that they will
had a severe problèm last year.
Stated they were talking from experience. They
have problems with flies and odors, they already
,~
7J
Page Three
February ~, 1983
Mr. Wilson Mathias. Mr. Mathias' advice to this Board is that under the Site
Plan Review, Type II, No.6, farms Class A and B are permitted if they find the
criteria they are supposed to find in making their decision. They are permitted.
Mrs. Betty Monahan, Lake Sunnyside. Asked Mr. Harrison if he had read the minutes
of the first part of the Public Hearing and had he listened to the tape. He
responded that he has read the minutes, he has not listened to the tape. Mrs.
Monahan asked Mrs. Mann if she had listened to the tape. She had not. Mrs.
Monahan asked if the chairman would ascertain from Mrs. Howe if the minutes were
word for word or a resume of the meeting. Mrs. Howe responded that the minutes
were a resume of the meeting.
Mr. Ryder asked how Mr. Harrison and Mrs. Mann could vote on this if they hadn't
read or heard the transcript word for word.
Mr. Montesi responded asking Mr. Ryder if when he made his first statements, when
he first came up and his wife helped him out, did he think if he read a brief
description of what he was trying to say or if he had listened to the tape would
he have a better understanding of what Mr. Ryder was talking about. Mr. Ryder
said he would think so. Mr. Montesi said he didn't know what Mr. Ryder was talking
about to this point.
Mrs. Mann asked if Mr. Bowen had any information regarding the preexisting use
of the larger parcels of land. Mr. Bowen said that on April 11, 1981 he pur-
chased 6 beef cows, on December 1, 1981 he sold one beef cow, on December 4, 1981
he purchased one beef cow, 40 bales of hay and pasture rental. December 6, 1981
sold two beef cows. Sale of beef cow on November 25 and December 15, 1981. Cows
were kept on original 27 acres. Purchased 32 acres last fall and submitted letter
from previous owner saying that for numerous years hay was harvested from that
property. The feed is stored in the little red barn or in the large metal building,
formerly Kubricky's. It is grain and hay. There is no silage either permanently
or temporarily störed now. Corn silage that is being used now is brought onto
the property on a weekly basis.
/
Mr. Ryder. Questioned if Mr. Bowen decided this operation was not profitable,
could he turn it into a dairy farm. Mr. Harrison stated that a Site Plan Review
did not go with the property, it goes with the individual. Under Site Plan Review
you deal with a specific issue and the approval addresses a specific issue and a
specific owner. Should the property turn over, a new owner would be required to
come before the Board for a different use. Mrs. Mann stated that prior to 1982
it was classified a farm. It is now classified as a Class A farm and the rights
are vested with the owner. What they do with C and D that they get a special
permit for, they might revert back to C and D, he may not be able to use them
again, but nobody is going to be able to take those non-conforming or conforming
rights that came down historically with that land away. Mr. Mathias asked exactly
wha t is Mr. Ryder "s question. He responded "i s this Site Plan Review that he's
having for all of his property, if you agree to this or whatever you do with
restriction, he has a farm that is a Class A farm and he can turn it, now this is
for his protection as well as mine. Right or wrong? He can turn around and sell
it for a Class A farm for a dairy farm or whatever they want to do with it. This
is what I want to know."
73
Page Four
February 2, 1983
Mr. Mathias responded. "If they (the Board) make a finding that they have a
pre-existing use on a portion or all of that property, as to the portion that
has a pre-existing use he can sell that and someone can continue that and operate
a dairy farm. The two older parcels. But the other two he is getting Site Plan
Review approval and that approval is limited to him as an individual."
Mr. Bowen. "The Site Plan Review as I have been instructed by this Board and the
Building Department encompasses the tötal property. I feel that I am almost doing
it as a courtesy because I purchased property prior to the zoning and property
after the zoning that met a pre-existing condition. In no way can you level
double jeopardy on me. I have been judged on these two parcels of property. I
will be judged on these parcels of property. 'As an economic decision on how I
will spend money on these two parcels of property, I have been instructed and
I believe right now, and if it's different you should tell me because I may have
to alter something. But, if you elevate this property, primarily the 15 acres
and the 3 acres to a Class A farm from a Class C and D farm that uplifting, if
you will, to that property, for the money spent and so forth on that property,
flows with the property, does not flow with the owner. If, in fact I sold that
to another individual for a breeding or a very similar operation in agricultural
purposes, it would not corne up for a Site Plan Review again. Now I asked uhat
question specifically when this project was in its infancy and I was instructed,
I listened clearly, because before I spent one red cent I wanted to make sure of
what kind of footing I was on and I feel that if you decide to upgrade this
classification, I think this should be seriously thought out, if you give me the
rights to upgrade this classification, that classification flows with the property,
not the owner."
-'
Mr. Harrison. "I disagree. I don't believe in the case of a Site Plan Review
that's not protected by a pre-existing non-conforming use that it would in fact
flow with the land. I believe that it goes with the owner. That's my belief,
I could be wrong and I will defer to Counsel particularly since I'm a member of
the Board and he is the Counsel.
Mr. Bowen. "Mr. Harrison, I was given an example, okay. The example was that
when I bought the property from Mr. Austin he had a special use permit that I
can operate under. That right flowed with the property. I asked the same
question with monies I spent on this property, what happens when either I termin-
ate interest in it or sold it and I was told that like that permit this Site Plan
Review, this upgrading of the property flowed and stayed with the ownership.
I don't think you would get an individual to split, to spend a thin dime in the
Town of Queensbury if in fact you knew, that the individual knew that when he
deceased or passed on or changed hands that all of a sudden some other individual
had to go back to square one and rebuild."
Mr. Harrison. "I'm not questioning the wisdom of your statement and just to
clarify the situation I think you've heard alot of opinions expressed tonight
that have some dubious distinction and when viewed legally. Don't accept my
opinion as legal advice. I'm sure you have an attorney as do we and our attorney
is telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll defer to Counsel."
7'1
Page Five
February 2, 1983
~
Mr.
and
the
Mathias.
that you
Planning
"I would like to state for the record. I trust you're not relying
didn't purchase that property based on any representatións made by
Board here with respect to what the effect of that"
Mr. Bowen. "No I did not. I got that from the Building Department, the head of
the Building Department, Steve Lynn gave me that information in numerous phone
calls of which I have notes of all the phone calls. It did not come from any
member of the Planning Board, I'm sorry if I insinuated that. I have not balked
to anyone about that. I went (I did not know anybody on the Board) to where the
rules and regulations are kept and the people who distribute the rules and
regulations. That's where I got my information."
Mr. Stephen Miller. Questions existing farms prior to May of 1982. ~Could this
be something that was done every year in succession. How far back do we go?
Do we say that once in five years it had to be harvested for hay and then the
property is considered an existing farm? Mr. Miller said he believed the statement
that was made was that it was a pre-existing farm and for numerous years it has
been harvested for hay. That was the statement I believe~
Mr. SorlinaskedMr. Miller if he was going to give the Board some input on when
it was or wasn't in your mind.
Mr. Miller stated that in his mind it has not been harvested for hay for several
years, certainly not every year. I'm asking you what is the definition of an
existing farm.
Mrs. Mann read a letter from Charles H. Scudder, Consulting Engineer to Richard
Roberts, Chairman of the Queensbury Planning Board (on file)..
Mr. Sorlin stated for the recbrd that Mr. Bowen has filed a short Environmental
Assessment Form with the Planning Board.
Mrs. Mann asked Gary Bowen about the type of. !.fencing' thatJLs to be used. Mr.
Bowen said it would be approved Cornell type fencing. It is cedar posts on
ten foot centers with strands of wire and four cedar holders with one band of
electrical fence on one foot post on the inside. Cedar bands located on top,
bottom and middle.
Mrs. Mann asked about the feeder wagons, and the lJocation of thèm,.', Mr . Bowen
stated that they were going to make every effort to keep the animals secluded,
you can control location of animals by controlling lo~ation of their feeding
stations.
Mr. Harrison asked if Mr. Bowen would object to the establishment of buffers
adjoining certain properties which feed and manure would not be applied.
Mr. Bowen said yes, in one of the books there is a pretty adequabe description
of manure storage, outside storage and so on, 100' setbacks from side boundaries
or 75' from side boundar±es and so on. He thin~s that those things are minimally
stated and they want those things long distances from boundaries and so on.
\.....--
15"
Page Six
February 2, 1983
~ Mrs. Mann åsked if Mr. Bowen had to constantly reseed the pasture area. Mr.
Bowen responded, no. Once every five or six years will be adequate with
fertilizing with a chemical fertilizer for speed recovery like a Triple 15.
Mrs. Mann asked where the potential pond will be located. Mr. Bowen stated
that one of the consultants he had been talking with suggested one of the lowlands
to the south of Mrs. KUbrickYs home. It would be a dry pond, one that is not
fed by a stream. It is a deþression, will create its own runoff. It's a good
wetland, we were told by the engineer that it will create its own bottom and
create its own fill (liquid fill, water fill).
Mr. Ryder asked if the Planning Board"goes for this and there is an appeal
and they find that Mr. Bowen is illegal, wnat happens.
Mr. Mathias stated that if you bring a proceeding and this decision is said to
be arbitrary and capricious, then you don't have a decision.
Mr. Ryder. "If he's illegal right now the way the things are going, what happens,
nothing? Then he can file other applications, he can do this, do that, become
legal and everything's fine. Is this true?"
Mr. Mathias. "He can file another application if it's determined that they made
a mistake this time."
Mr. Ryder. "You made a mistake~':.
Mr. Murray. "Unfortunately I don't like to keep talking on this point but even
with what Mr. Bowen says, apparently there are no restrictions which the Board
that I can see are setting up here. Everything will be done at his discretion.
Now, that leaves thè people who live in the area at his mercy. I mean if he's
going to do these things, when, where, how and what is he going to do? I mean
what is going to be the'size of the herd, What are the hours of operation, where
is the location of the herd going to be, where's the location of the silage and
the pond. Where is he going to spread the manure, definitely, where is he going
to do it. Where is the storage going to be of the green cut hay if he uses such.
How about the environmental impacts on the Halfway Brook. What do we do with the
wet acreage if he doesn't want to put the pond there, where is he going to put
the pond. These things are all questions that are left to his discretion, this
leaves us out in the cold if it's unfortunate enough that you allow this plan to
go through."
Mr. Sorlin thanked Mr. Murray for raising the question.
Mrs. Danielle Kumitsch. I live next door and I have the same questions. We like
to have family picnics and if you hear tractors and noise and such it's unpleasant.
Mr. S6rlinasked for anyilew input from the public. Hearing none the Public
Hearing was closed.
Mr. Montesi stated that "after reviewing alot of the input from one month ago I
made a field trip to walk the boundaries of the property in question. Part of
it I rode with Gary, part of it I walked with Mrs. Bowen but I walked pretty much
the whole boundary all the way around. It took us five hours but we did it.
'-c
,-.
'--.--
710
Page Seven
February 2, 1983
There were some questions that I had as to buffering zones, what effect it would
have if approved on some of the neighborhoods. I'm of the opinion as one of the
members of the Board that the parcels of land that were in question that were a
farm prior to 1982 can remain as a farm. That would mean that they would remain
as a Class A farm in our new ordinance terminology. The other two parcels, C
and D, I looked at those very closely because my concern was that as a member of
tþe Planning Board I could impose some restrictions on that particular C and D
area to provide a buffering zone. I'm not sure where the buffers should be, I'm
not sure what they should look like. At our workshop meeting the other night I
a~ked a few of the neighbors what they thought a buffer zone should look like,
a 50' buffer zone, if in fact it is 50'. When we have an industrial or commercial
zone that abuts a residential zone we ask for a 50' buffer. My thoughts are this
and it's just my thought process, if you put up two fences, one on the property
line and one 50' in, what do you do with the larid in between those two fences.
Do you mow it, do you hay it or do you let it grow wild. DO you ask the owner
Mr. Bowen to grow trees in that area, will that provide a better buffer than
leaving it double fenced. The end result is that we are asking him to take 50'
of land out of production on the perimeter of the C and D group. I'm not sure
how much land that comes to he's paying taKes on it and he can't use it if he has
to just grow trees on it or if he can úse it if double fencing is desirable and
he can hay it. Those are my initial thoughts. Mr. Bowen has told me that he has
spoken to a few of the neighbors that talked at the last meeting about buffering
and it appeared to me, and no one has come forward to challenge that, now I'm
talRing about the C and D areas as to what, he said he could work out an arrange-
ment with them. No one has come to us at this meeting or at the worksháp meeting
and said that they can't work out that kind of an arrangement. I have to assume
that those areas, the C and D areas are workable. I don't particularly see a
buffer zone on the Ridge Road area because that, in my opinion, was a farm before.
Those are some of my thoughts on the proceedings thus far."
Mrs. Mann. "I would like to make a comment or two. I think, number one, we have
to look at the law, not only as it stands now but what it stood for previous to
the existence of the ordinance of May 1982. The original area, as I said earlier
tonight, was called an R-3 area, the original map is right here. Permitted
principal uses in an R-3 area included farms, one-family dwellings, farm uses,
etc., public buildings, public schools, even sewage disposal facilities were
allowed in that area. They were permitted principàl uses of the original zoning
ordinance prior to May 1982, not anything special permitted. A farm was permitted.
A farm had to be only ten acres of land. There were no specifications on how many
animals you had to have or how many animals you didn't have to have, or any. Let's
say you have ten acres of land and you have 100 pig~. There is nothing in that
law that said you ever had to spread those pigs over all ten acres. You could have
them penned in a 100 foot by 100' f,böt spot right 100 feet off Mr. MurrayJls back
porch. The only thing the law did say was you had to keep your manure pile 100
feet from his property. In 1982 we instituted a new law and we don't call it just
a farm anymore because we got fancy. We've got farms A,::B, C and D. Three of
them are commercial in description. Farm A, we could have called it eeny, meeny
mJÌ1ny, mo is still the ten acre-'farm. It can be used for agricultural purposes,
for raising of livestock and it still can have pigs on it and it can still have
100 pigs on it and it still doesn't say they have to be spread over all ten acres,
so even though we said horses had to be spread over a few acres, we didn't say
another thing about any other animal. If indeed this gentlemen has a pre-existing
conforming use or a pre-existing nonconforming use, he cannot be zoned out of
business and neithèr can you. The advantages of a Site Plan Review for the people
outside of the area, including the new acreage that he wants to have included
77
Page Eight
February 2, 1983
~. is that we have at least some handle on it, that you can ask the questions about
whether there is water contamination, where his fertilizer will be spread, whether
or not he's going to have a pond, what kind of fencing. Otherwise, if he didn't
come forward with the Site Plan Review he has a perfect right to just keep rolling
along and put his 100 pigs or whatever, his hogs would probably be the better
terminology these days, and we don't even have to be 100 feet from the line anymore
with a manure pile. You've got to give him a 50 foot, if you want to call it a
commercial operation. So really what the Site Plan Review has done and what Gary
has done by proposing it, is to actually give everybody a chance to oversee what
he is doing. And he came forward with it and presented it so that we all have an
opportunity to have our two cents worth in what's going on. But no matter whò you
are if you operated a business in this area prior to this zoning ordinance or any
zoning ordinance anywhere you have a right to continue unless you get out of it.
So we have, unfortunately, the obligation to try to go by the law, not what you'd
like to say or what you wouldn't like to say - what is written in the books and
that is a permitted use under Site Plan Review, even if it were a golf course it
would be a permitted use under Site Plan Review, but it didn't happen to be a
golf course."
Mr. Dybas. "I think there were alot of questions from one month ago. We've done
some research ourselves, had some professional input, we've done some of our own
inquiries and studies, some of our questions have been answered. I think we had
an excellent workshop meeting the other night. Several people came in and gave
their input, Mr. Bowen was there and I thXnk most of the questions we've had from
last month to my satisfaction, speaking for myself, have been properly answered.
Quality of water, runoff, a host of others, and I feel at this time with the input
that I've received from the citizens and from Mr. Bowen, I can make an honest,
objective answer."
Mr. Threw. "I agree with most everything that's said so far. I've been to all
the meetings, I've been to the workshop, I've taken it all into consideration
and what we have to do here is go by our own guidelines thàt we've drawn up and
worked so hard to do and stick by them and I think I can make an objective decision."
Mr. Harrison. "In reference to the definition of what it is that we're attempting
to do, as I understand it we're restricting the use to 95 cows. Is that the under-
standing of the Board? (Affirmative reply) I understand that we're restricting
the use of such things as manure and the congregation of animals according to the
provisions of the ordinance so that's specifically designed in our ordinance. Is
there any need to exceed that? Mrs. Mann responded (According to the agricultural
standards). Mr. Harrison continued. In the new ordinance it says you can spread
manure to within ten feet of the property line. My suggestion is that-' in the case
of manure and adjoining property owners that you restrict it to 50 feet from the
property line. I don't believe that roads conform to that. Roads I think are an
absolute buffer alread~." I'm a little troubled trying to define the buffer other
than that because every time we've dealt with the buffer as an issue in the past
a field seems to be what we considered a buffer to be and that 's"what' I'm ii'little
confused about. Trees and grass were always what we like to see as a buffer. Does
anyone have any firmer ideas of what that's supposed to be on the board. I think
grass and trees are a neat buffer, that's all I think is necessary other than
restricting the application of manure to within 50 feet of adjoining land owners."
',--,-
7;
Page Nine
February 2, 1983
~ Mrs. Mann. "And also I think Gary made the commitment of keeping the feeding units
away from' the houses and away from the street so they would be in the center of the
property or as close to the center."
Mr. Harrison. "I also 'Wlderstand it that the feed is not going to be concentrated,
that it in fact will be spread in amongst the interior of the property. I'm stating
this deliberately because I want it in the record for our own purposes later on
down the road. That we do know the location of the pond and that the pond will be
in the parcel indicated in the Class C red cross-hatched area of the map. We
discussed and agreed upon the access points and find nothing either obnoxious or
unreasonable about them. Are those all the buildings that you intend to buila.
As we understand it now, is there anybody here that finds anything about that _II
Mrs. Mann responded "no". "Is there normally any reason for operating a tractor
in the middle of the night on something like this around the perimeter of the
property?" Mr. Bowen responded "no". "I just wanted to make sure that was the case."
Mr. Harrison. "Do you intend to have any exterior concentrated storage of manure,
like some dairy farms are required to do?" Mr. Bowen. "If you're talking about
stockpiling or anything, no, I do not intend to make enormous amounts of stockpile
of manure." Mr. Harrison. "You've mentioned silo type configurations for the
eventual storage of silage. Can you locate those for us?" Approximately how
close to the nearest property line would that be? Mr.,Bdwen stated "approximately
250 feet from the nearest bO'Wldary the storage of silage will be, if any. But it
will not be visible from Ridge Road." Mr. Harrison stated he had no more questions.
Mrs. Mann. "But it is also an undergro'Wld storage, is it not, and covered. It's
not a silo. Mr. Bowen responded "That is one of our options that we are considering."
Mr. Montesi moved for approval of Site Plan Review #1-83 based on this criteria.
Motion seconded by Mr. Dybas. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLVED: From the information gained from the Public Hearing and
the Workshop meetings:
1. Larger parcels of land do in fact have a pre-existing use as a
farm.
2. The smaller parcels of land which are presently zoned C and D
farms, will be brought up to Class A status and the entire
parcel of 65 acres to be deemed Class A farm.
3. Criteria for the following has been met and satisfied:
Water quality
Eros'ion
Air Quality
Noise Quality
The following restrictions will apply:
'----
'-'
'---
79
Page Ten
February 2, 1983
1. Maximum number of head to be 95,at any given time.
2. No manure spreading within 50 feet of entire parcel.
3. Feeders will be kept a minimum of 50 feet away from
Ridge Road in order to keep the congregation of cows
away from Ridge Road.
Mr. Sorlin called for a ten minute recess.
/,/tfrQ/??p""r ð/ R~t:7R~
.~~ ló
'-'
QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD
ADDITIONS
TO HILAND FARM PROGRAM OUTLINE OF
FEBRUARY,6} 1983
0/
..2 -;¿ - '3
ADDITIONS
QUESTIONS RAISED DURING FEBRUARY'S PUBLIC HEARING AND INFORMATION
REQUESTED BY VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD SINCE THAT MEET-
ING ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1, BIGHWAY ACCESS - THE MAIN ACCESS FOR THIS FARMING ACTIVITY
WILL BE IN FRONT OF AND TO THE NORTH OF THE EXISTING CONCRETE
BLOCK TRUCK GARAGE ON RIDGE ROAD I WITH ADDITIONAL ACCESSES
FROM ROCKWELL ROAD AND CLEARVIEW LANE AS NOTED ON ACCOMPANYING
MAP,
2, FEED USED - MORE SPECIFICALLY1 CORN SILAGE HANDLING, IF} IN
FACT} SILAGE IS STORED ON THE PROPERTY FROM THE TIME THAT IT
IS HARVESTED UNTIL IT IS FED TO THE CATTLE1 IT WILL BE STORED
EITHER IN A CONCRETE TRENCH WITH A PLASTIC COVER OR IN A ROUND
METAL OR CONCRETE ENCLOSURE. THE ECONOMICS OF THIS PROGRAM
WILL BE INVESTIGATED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS SITE PLAN
REVIEW, IN ANY EVENTI SOME SILAGE WILL BE FED FROM A WAGON
FEEDING SYSTEM DURING SOME MONTHS OF THE YEAR; HOWEVER} IT
SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN THE BEEF CATTLE PROGRAM CORN SILAGE
IS NOT NECESSARILY A MAINSTAY TO THE AVERAGE DIET,
PREDOMINANTLY1 HAY AND GRAIN PROGRAM SATISFIES A MAJORITY OF
THE FEED REQUIREMENTS.
3. NOISE CONTROL - THE NOISE GENERATED FROM OUR FARM ACTIVITY ON
AN ONGOING BASIS COMES FROM TWO SOURCES: THAT OF OPERATING
MACHINES AND EQUIPMENT; AND~ THE MOOING OF COWS AND CALVES,
IT IS OUR INTENTION TO USE REASONABLE JUDGMENT IN THE TIMES
AND PROXIMITIES OF OPERATING EQUIPMENT ON THE PROPERTY. As
TO THE NOISE CREATED BY THE MOOING OF COWS AND CALVES} IT WILL
BE OUR INTENTION TO SEPARATE(WEAN)COWS AND CALVES DURING THE
'--
1/
PAGE 2
"-
',--
WINTER MONTHS (WHENEVER POSSIBLE) WHEN PEOPLE ARE INSIDE
THEIR HOUSES AND THE NUISANCE FROM THE THREE DAYS OF LOUD
MOOING CAN BE SOMEWHAT MINIMIZED AND CONTROLLED.
,4. MANURE AND WASTE SYSTEMS - THE GOAL OF A SUCCESSFUL MANURE
HANDLING SYSTEM FOR BEEF CATTLE IS EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF
AN INCREASINGLY VALUABLE FERTILIZER WHILE PREVENTING ODOR1
INSECT GATHERING AND POLLUTION OF GROUND WATER. EFFICIENCY
INCLUDES EFFECTIVE AND ECONOMICAL USE OF LABOR1 FACILITIES1
EQUIPMENT AND LAND. WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS RELATED TO OUR
FARM ARE OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE BECAUSE OF THE SHOW PLACE
ATMOSPHERE THAT MUST BE CREATED TO MAINTAIN HERD VALUES, OUR
PROGRAM WILL CONCENTRATE ON CREATING DESIRABLE ANIMAL LIVING
CONDITIONS - IN THE PASTUREI FEEDING AREAS AND CONFINEMENT
FACILITIES. A NUMBER OF ALTERNATE PROGRAMS ARE BEING
INVESTIGATED WITH FINAL DECISIONS TAKEN AFTER DENSITY AND
TOTAL OCCUPANCY NUMBERS ARE AGREED UPON, METHODS OF DISPOSAL
EITHER OF LIQUID OR SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS ARE YET TO BE
CONCLUDED BUT MOST CERTAINLY SOME RETURN TO THE LAND OF THIS
VALUABLE BIODEGRADABLE ENRICHMENT AND LAND SUSTAINING PRODUCT
IS REQUIRED.
5. FLY CONTROL - ALMOST EVERY HERD HAS AN ANNUAL PROBLEM WITH
FLIES THROUGH THREE MONTHS OF THE GRAZING SEASON, FLIES ARE
A PERSISTENT AND CONTINUAL ANNOYANCE AND IRRITATION TO CATTLE
WHICH CAUSES REDUCTION IN FEED EFFICIENCY I MILK PRODUCTION1
DISEASE RESISTANCEI WEIGHT1 FERTILITY AND HIDE VALUE,
THEREFORE1 IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT I INTEND TO TAKE EVERY
PRECAUTION AND PREVENTATIVE MEASURE TO LIMIT AND ELIMINATE
FLIES1 NOT ONLY FOR THE ANNOYANCE THEY CAUSE BUT BECAUSE OF
THE ECONOMIC LOSSES I WILL SUFFER. THE PROGRAMS WILL
CONCENTRATE ON:
A. MANURE AND WASTE CONTROL.
B, PEST CONTROL EAR TAGGING.
C. MINERAL SALT DISPENSING WITH PESTACIDE ADDITIVES.
D. DUST BAG APPLICATIONS.
E. CABLE TYPE BACKRUBBER.
F. HIGH PRESSURE SPRAY ON A WEEKLY BASIS.
fz.
PAGE 3
""-' 6. PASTURING ADJACENT TO RESIDENCES - IT IS OUR INTENTION TO
USE REASONABLE JUDGMENT IN PASTURING OF ANIMALS WHERE THE
CLOSE PROXIMITY TO YARDSJ SWIMMING POOLSJ AND/OR STRUCTURES
WILL CAUSE ANNOYANCE AND/OR DISCOMFORT TO THE NEIGHBORS;
HOWEVERJ REASONED REQUESTS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND THE
COMPLETE EXTINCTION AND ANNIHILATION OF THE FARM ACTIVITY
IS NOT AN OPTION. ROADSJ EITHER COUNTY OR STATE HIGHWAYSJ
ARE NOT CONSIDERED BORDERING RESIDENTS AREASJ THEREFORE ARE
DIFFICULT TO WORK INTO THE PLAN.
7, BUFF~R AREAS - SINCE THE CURRENT AND PAST TOWN ORDINANCES
DO NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS AND DEFINE BUFFERS BETWEEN
RESIDENCES AND FARM PASTURE LANDJ WE WOULD ATTEMPT TO OFFER
A 25' EXCLUSION FROM PASTURING OF COWS TO NEIGHBORS WHO REQUEST
THIS EXCLUSION ON THE RECENT PROPERTIES ACQUIREDJ WHICH CARRY
THE CLASSIFICATION SR-30 CLASS C & D FARMS. HOMES THAT ARE
LOCATED GREATER DISTANCES FROM PROPERTY LINES AND/OR HAVE
THEIR OWN BUILT IN BUFFER WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED, ON THE
PROPERTIES ACQUIRED PREVIOUSLY AND RECENTLY} WHICH CARRY THE
CLASSIFICATION SR-30 FARM CLASS AJ NO SUCH "CARTE BLANCHE'
EXCLUSION IS OFFERED. HOWEVERJ WORKING WITH RESIDENTS AND
NEIGHBORS ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS TO PROMOTE HARMONY IN THE
COMMUNITY WILL BE ENTERTAINED. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT USE
EXCLUSIONS ARE FOR PASTURING OF COWS ONLY AND OTHER NECESSARY
ACTIVITIES WILL NOT BE PRECLUDED ANDJ OF COURSEJ REASONABLE
JUDGMENT WILL PREVAIL.
THESE EXCLUSIONS GRANTED TO INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORS WOULD NOT
BE AS DEED RESTRICTIONS AND CERTAINLY WOULD NOT SURVIVE THE
SALE OF EITHER THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND/OR OUR PROPERTY}
AND WOULD ONLY BE IN EFFECT WHILE THE BREEDING OPERATION IS
BEING CARRIED ON AND AGAINJ ONLY EXCLUDES THE PASTURING OF
COWS,
IF A BUFFER AREA IS AGREED UPONJ THE ERECTION OF STOCK TYPE
FENCING AND TREE PLANTING WILL BE AN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP}
MAINTENANCE PROBLEM AND POTENTIAL EYE SORE AND NOT CONSIDERED.
"---
v
PAGE 4
THIS STAND IS IN KEEPING WITH THE REASON HEARD RECENTLY WHY
,-
BUFFERS ARE NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE - THAT OF STOPPING
COWS FROM CONGREGATING UNDER SHADE TREES THEREBY CAUSING A
NUISANCE. FURTHERI WE ARE AWARE OF NO PRACTICAL BUFFER TO
STOP THE MIGRATION OF NOISEI ODOR AND FLIES ACROSS PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES IFI IN FACTI THEY ARE CAUSED BY COWS CONGREGATING,
8. ~AND DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT - WILL BE CARRIED OUT WITH
THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR LAND USE WITH REGARD TO
FERTILIZATIONI SEEDING AND EROSION CONTROL} STREAM POLLUTION
AND ANY OTHER AGENCY OR PROGRAM THAT LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLY
IMPACTS ON OUR USAGE OF THE PROPERTY.
WE ARE CERTAINLY OPEN TO DISCUSSIONI SUGGESTIONS AND/OR RESTRICTIONS
FROM THE QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD ON THIS SITE PLAN REVIEW
ACTIVITY AND APPRECIATE THE TIME AND EFFORT PUT FORWARD BY THIS
GROUP IN DEVELOPING A FAIR AND EQUITABLE APPROACH FOR LAND USE FOR
ALL THE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY.
THE ABOVE EIGHT "ADDITIONS" TO OUR EARLIER PRESENTATION SHOULD
ACCOMPANY THE INITIAL APPLICATION AND ARE OFFERED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE FIRST PRESENTATION TO CLARIFY AND SUPPORT THE
AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT.
GARY D, BOWEN
LAND OWNER
2/2/83
'",---,
!'f
Page Eleven
February 2, 1983
"~
NEW BUSINESS:
VARIANCE No. 808 - The Silo (Harry Troelstra)
north side Aviation Road
PC-lA Zone
To place six - six square foot wall signs for advertising country store's
various departments.
Mr. Harry Troelstra present. Mr. Sorlin commented that he drives by the store
every day and has never noticed the signs. It is a bad precedent to allow six
signs on store when only two are allowed, but if they are not blatantly standing
out it does not seem like a major problem. Mr. Troelstra stated that when he
put up the signs he was not aware they were not allowed. He noted he had re-
ceived a Beautification Award when the signs were there. Mr. Sorlin questioned
if the signs were all together in one big sign, would that be legitimate. Mr.
Dean said he would be allowed one big sign. Mr. Troelstra asked if he was allowed
to have a bulletin board where various groups put up their flyers, ego Girl
Scout cookies. It is a community bulletin board and allowed as long as you don't
advertise your own products.
Mrs. Mann offered a motion to recommend approval of this variance, seconded by
Mr. Sorlin. Motion carried unanimously.
COMMENTS
The Planning Board recommend approval of this
Sign Variance. Six small signs be the only signs
allowed on büilding in lieu of additional wall
sign which is allowed. Reasonable trade off to
have these six wall signs in place of another wall
sign. Signs are already up.
VARIANCE No. 810 - Adirondack Baptist Church, Country Club Rd.
UR-5 Zone
To build a church building for the purpose of public worship services.
Mr. Robert Lynn, pastor and Mr. Garry Nelson present. Mr. Lynn presented plans
for a log building to be used solely for church services, bible study and
Sunday school. There will be bathroom and kitchen facilities. Mr. Robert's
noted that when they drew the ordinance they didn't deal with, "churches. Mr.
Lynn stated that the remainder of the 5.9 acres would be left as natural forest,
it would make a beautifül recreation area. Mr. Sorlin offered a motion to
recommend approval, seconded by Mr. Montesi. All in favor with the exception of
Mr. Harrison who voted no. Mr. Harrison stated that his training in dealing with
zoning and zoning issues are that a use variance requires some demonstration of
hardship which he does not see from his standpoint. He said hardship could be
interpreted because èhurches are not dealt with in the ordinance, therefor not
,allowed anywhere in the Town.
'~
fs
Page Twelve
February 2, 1983
""-
COMMENTS
The Planning Board recommend approval of this
Use Variance. Churches are not covered in the
Ordinance. The Planning Board feels churches
are not a bad neighbor to a residential area.
Hardship shown because they can't go any place
in the Town without a variance.
VARIANCE NO. 809 - Top 0' the World Development, Inc.
off Lockhart Loop and on Lake George
LR-lA zone
Access for Top O~ the World Development, Inc. in accord with Exhibit A annexed
hereto and made a part hereof. The area variance is specifically sought with
regard to the minimum shoreline frontage conditions set forth in Section
7.011AS of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Harrison removed himself from the Board for this variance because of a
conflict of interest.
Mr. Frank DeSantis, Esq. representing applicant with regard to an area variance
on a parcel of land in lake shore residential one acre zone. Parcel of land is
slightly in excess of 2 acres with approximately 330 feet of frontage on Lake
George. Application seeks to allow access to Lake George by some of the people
who will own the time snare units on the Top 0' the World hill. They are asking
for an area variance from the provisions of the ordinance which are known
commonly as the "contractual access" provisions. The current ordinance would
give access to 13 multiple family dwelling units. The struatures that are
referred to presently exist on the property and have been there for many decades.
The docks that are referred to, one of them exists and one of them is proposed to
be constructed and they are all within the size requirements of the Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance. The propsed usage is one whereby a maximum up to 150 people
would be allowed access to this property through a reservation system. There
would be gate~controlled access, no private motor vehicle parking, people will
be delivered by shuttle bus or van. They will provide bathroom facilities and
propose to create a holding tank system with both audio and visual alarms that
would hold the effluent and have it removed from the property site. They have
also proposed not to allow certain types of activity which are commonly allowed
on Lake George specifically enumerated in Exhibit A. They intend to have power
craft essentially to be used in safety operations and to shepherd the people who
are out in the water if they become stranded etc. The suggestion has been made
by the Planning Board that these be inboard motors in response to a feeling that
these would be less polluting and quieter than outboard motors. The other
activities allowed on the property would be typical beachfront activities such
as picnicing, swimming, etc. There would be a lounge per se, not to serve
alcoholic beverages. There would be food storage facilities. There are no plans
to prepare food on the premises. There would be no quick launching for power
craft. Docks have been designed so that tour launches could stop by and pick
up guests. Mr. DeSantis stated that although the number may seem to be somewhat
'~
g6
Page Thirteen
February 2, 1983
--
excessive and out of the ordinary, they believe they are making substantial
commitments with regard to controlling certain uses of the property which are
otherwise currently allowable and beyond the jurisdiction of any review agency.
They believe they do have a practical difficuIwgiven the size of the development
on the Top 0' the World PUD, given the number of linear feet that would be
currently required. It is impossible to acquire that number of linear feet on
the lakeshore to allow access to the number of people they would like to. In
view of that they have proposed a limited number and established procedures whereby
they would have control over that number as opposed to the 13 unit contractual
access there would be no way to control either the number or the activities.
Under the current ordinance they would be allowed three docks and they have
committed to have two docks.
Mr. Robert's asked if they could clarify a couple of the items of proposed usage.
With regard to a number of utility power boats - Mr. DeSantis agreed there would
be no more than three power boats to be utilized for safety purposes. They are
asking for a total of 30 boats. Three power boats would then leave a remåinder
of 27 human or sail powered craft such as canoes, wind surfers, sailfish.
With regard to numbers. If 20 or 30 people were out on a tour craft, they would
be included in the 150 maximum allowed to use the lakefront at anyone time.
Mr. Montes! read letters into the record. Telegram from William and Margaret
Sullivan owners of property at Plum Point. They are opposed to granting variance.
Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Ftiehofer, property owners to south of Top 0'
the World lakeshore property. They are opposed to any of the development plans.
Mr. Tom West, Esq. representing the Lake George Asaociation. The)! would like
to register their opposition to the requested variance. They believe that bpth
a use and an area variance is required and that those variances' should not be
granted. In the zoning ordinance under the definition 0;1; "cOII1IrIQn ;l;ad:lities'"
number 27. This definition definitely applies to the propqsed use.. Also, under
the section dealing with PUD"s', one of the subsections speci:Ucally' states that
PUD's are not allowed in the lakeshore residential area.. It i~ apparent that
what we are dealing with is a common facility which is as' much. a part ot the rUD
as any of the accessory structures which are proposed on the hill., The lakeshore
property and the picnic, eating changing areas with the 30 small craft is no
different except by definition and actual use than the riding facility that they
have proposed, the racquet facilities proposed, the restaurant facilities and
golf facilities that are already there. Essentially they are all cOIl1IrlQn facilities
for the use of all of the owners in the condominium association. The only' di;l;ference
between this proposal is that it is not contiguous' to the residential development
itself. There is nothing in the ordinance that he can find that prohibit~ having
a common facility separate and apart from the reS± of the )?UD. There is that one
section of the ordinance that is referred to which expressly prohibits PUD ';5 in
the lakeshore residential area. Before you get to the question of whether a
variance is proper under the standards provided in the ordinancef this Board has
to address the fact that part of this PUD is proposed for an area where PUD';s are
not permissable. There is no doubt that under the law thirteen units is all that
can have contractual access to a piece of property with 330 feet of shoreline.,
The project sponsor haa made a representatión that there would be a practical
'--..-.
ð7
Page Fourteen
February 2, 1983
difficulty which is the standard that's applied to an area variance. They do not
believe practical difficulty has been shown. There is nothing to prohibit this
project sponsor from trying to buy developed property and thereby meet the require-
ments. It is not a practical difficulty to come and say that he can't find any
more property or doesn't want to buy any more. Mr. '. West thinks they have a self
created hardship in the sense that this property isn't owned, it is his under-
standing it is a contingent offer, contingent upon approval from the Town of
Queensbury, the Adirondack Park Agency and that's similar to the arrangements that
are made for any large scale development. The Project Sponsor is coming in with
full knowledge of what the zoning ordinance says, exactly what limitations apply
to this residential area and exactly what limitations apply in the contractual
access section. We believe that what's been proposed tonight, this type of
common facility, which is really a multi-family use, it may not be an actual
residential unit where multi-families sleep, but it is a multi-family use. To
propose this in the lakeshore area and to propose to change the structures that
exist on that property from the single family residentiål structures that they
are now and have been for many years to this multi-family common facility type
of usage is a dramatic change in usage. The common theme that you will hear from
the neighbors is that they want to keep the property residential. It was brought
to my attention that even before Queensbury adopted a zoning ordinance in the 60's
which clearly zoned this area as residential, there was a Plum Point Association
Zoning ordinance for many years. On the basis of the uncontroverted fact that
we're dealing with residentiål structures that are being proposed to be changed
to uses which are not allowable in lakeshore residential area, we feel that a
use variance is required. The requirements for a use variance are unnecessary
hardship. There are other standards this Board should consider - whether or not
there are more reasonable uses, there are a whole series of standards that are
applicable. Do not believe they have proven unnecessary hardship. We would
recommend that this Board deny this variance on the grounds that there has
not been the required showing under the terms of the ordinance.
Mr. DeSantis. Would like to specifically address the reference made by Mr.
West, to the fact that commOn facilities are not allowed in a lakeshore residential
zone. I concur that no where is it 'listed in the ordinance under lakeshore
residential. However, in one breath we talked about the fact that this is of
definition a contractual access situation and the next 'breath we say common facilities
not allowed in a lakeshore zone. In theth±rd breath we say the Lake George
Association was fully involved in drafting the contractual access to the shores
of Lake George provision of this ordinance. If you,àäopt Mr. West's argument
there is no contractual access in a lakeshore residential zone in the Town of
Queensbury, whether it's by two people or thirteen people. By a very accurate
reading of the zoning ordinance, when you start taking this term "common facilities"
as defined, I think it fits anything that two people own in common including
property in a lake shore residential zone. I believe that's an oversi~and that
in itself constitutes the praètical difficulty on the property which constitutes
the basis for an area variance from the exact provisions of the contractual access
ordinance.
'-
gf
Page Fifteen
February 2, 1983
~
Mr. West. To clarify the difference between contractual access and common
facilities. If thirteen people propose to buy 330 ft. of property to utilize
as contractual access from homes that they owned elsewhere, contemplates the
concept of common ownership but it does not address the actual use that you
can put the property in'terms of what buildings can be built and constructed
or modified, so that the oontractual access provision says that you can have
thirteen units, lots or parcels, have contractual access to this property but
in terms of what you can put on the property, may it be docks or búildings is
something that has to be viewed entirely independently within the zoning
ordinance. If that's true then if thirteen families were to buy contractual
access to that property, then through the process with the Town and the Lake
George Park Commission I would presume that they would make applications for
docks (hypothetical situation) and they may want to put some sort of building
or structure on that property. If they were to apply for a permit to put a
building or a structure on the property, then that building or structure would
have to be viewed to determine if it is a permitted use. Going back to the
facts of this proposal, what we have here is structures that are proposing to
be converted from existing residences to facilities structures that fall within
the definition of common facilities. Common facilities does not refer to the
common ownership, but the buildings. The section of the ordinance which Mr.
DeSanits quoted relative to the lakeshore residential area you do not find
common facilities as a permitted use or accessory use. Contractual access tells
how many people can own it , the zoning ordinance dictates what kind of structures
can be put on the property both in terms of docks and buildings and that's why
we feel you have both an area variance requirement relative to the number of
persons that can own it and a use variance requirement to change buildings from
their residential character to something other than residential.
Mrs. Mann. I take issue with that. In all of our meetings drafting the ordinance
we never spoke of only empty properties. It was always available that if 13
families wanted to get together and buy 300 feet of property with a house on
it, they could use it any way they wanted to. What Tom is saying is that you
can't own common facilities on the lake and that was not our intent.
Mr. West. For the record, I don't believe we were involved with any real
negotiations because we didn't ha~e any negotiating position relative to this
point. We reviewed a proposed ordinance and came in on some of the workshop
sessions and had comments that we felt that the contractual access provision
which had been adopted from the APA guidelines was not nearly as restrictive
as it should be, especially considering the fact that prior to that time, the
Town of Queensbury didn't have any contractual access provisions at all. We
were not in a negotiating posture but only making comments to a legislative body
adopting an ordinance. We believe the adopted ordinance is clear, that the
number of people that can own the property is determined by the amount of front
footage on the lakeshore. The types of buildings that you can have on that
property are determined by the rest of the zoning.
Mr. Sorlin. Are the houses on the lakeshore property houses in a different
sense than the rest of the property at the Top 0' the World or a;¡'.e·,'tbe?"::-,D.érttal
uni ts .
'--
i¡
Page sixteen
February 2, 1983
Mr. Van Ladd. Resident on North Side of lakeshore property. Stated Mr. Tuttle
'- built beach house about 8 years ago and has lived in it. He lived in it 3 or 4
years year round. Building at top of hill (lakeshbre) was built about 6 or 7
years ago and has been used as year round facility. Mr. Ladd stated that this
would be a funnel operation. There is only one building that was built long ago,
the other two have been built within the last ten years. He asked the Board to
remember this is a promise by a developer. Does not believe the reservation system
is practical. Questions whether there will be any restriction of use.
Mr. Robert's raised the question of the brochure depicting a number of people at
the lake shore site.
Mr. Charles Admason stated that the brochure required bringing people in to pose
for the pictures, the brochure was no way representative of the number of people
using the lakeshore.
Mr. Sorlin stated thàt it is a matter of record that Mr. Tuttle on December 22, 1982
sUbmitted a letter in which he listed all of the various units at the Top 0' the
World and the total nùmber of people who could use that property is 169. He goes
on to say that the property was available to all of those people but after he built
the swimming pool at Top 0' the World nobody wanted to go down to the lake anymore.
Mr. Adamson said that issue came up at the informal meèt~ng and as a matter of record
from that meeting, from the same source acknowledges 10 or 15 people would be an
unusual number using the lakefront.
Mrs. Adamson, Assembly Point. Asked if there was any precedent for the boats
stopping by and picking up passengers. She sees that as an infringement on peoples
privacy that live there. Couldn't these people do as she does with guests, take
them to the Village and get on the tour boat. She feels that they are being treated
unfairly because they (the Board) thinks they are trying to keep the lake all to
themselves and that is not true. They believe there is a limit as to what Lake
George can handle and this should be taken into account.
Mrs. Mann stàted she knew of no other group in the Town of Queensbury who had a
full time attorney to speak for them in any regard (Lake George Association).
Mr. Adamson asked what is the most valuable asset in this area for almost everybody.
Mrs. Mann responded it was probably Lake George.
Mr. Adamson asked if,it was therefore unusual if there has been traditionally a
group of people who wanted to protect that asset. Mr. Adamson stated he can see
the property although it is not that close to him. What you dècide here tonight
is a precedent and could affect everyone on the shoreline. He believes it is
clear now that the PUD aspect cannot technically be tied in with the lake property.
It would seem that Mr. Boice has to decide whether or not he wants to establish the
PUD not on the basís of whether he can get the shore property but totally independent
of that. Regarding the pre-existing rights, basically what you had before was a
hotel where guests occasionally came down and used the lakefront. Now you are
'-.....
9ó
Page Seventeen
February 2, ~983
'-'
proposing an entirely different relationship. These aren~t the same type of
guests. The access is quite different. Density is a consideration.. I feel
this is residential property. There are three residences there, what we
would all like to see is it remain residential.
Mrs. Denise Friehofer. Spent two years looking for a camp on Lake George,
did not want one close to anything commercial. Happy with their camp in ~lum
Bay because it is quiet, have always considered it residential and would like
it to stay that way.
Mr. Hugh Sullivan, resident of Lake George Village and member of Zoning
Board of Appeals. Mr. Sullivan stated that there is' gross misinterpretation
going on by Top 0" the World enterprises as far as these variances'. Believes
a use variance as well as area variance is required and bbth of them are only
generated by a self imposed hardship.
Mr. Burnett, resident on south side. Wishes it to remain residential~
Mr. West. Asked that the letter he sent on behalf of the Lake George Association
to Attorney Case Prime relative to what transpired last week and their position
on the lack of non...conf:'orming use status of this parti~ular property be made a
part of the record. Based on what he has heard tonight about the Plum Point
zoning ordinance which predated the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and predated Nr.
Tuttle's use of the property, there is a very substantial question as to whatever
use was down there was ever legal if in fact the prior residential zoning in that
area and there was no variance from that zoning requirement then we may very well
be dealing with.a situation where we have an illegal use over the entire period
of time.
Mr. Montesi's ópinions for the record.. There are some things about variance that
trouble me. .. the burden of monitoring the number of people would seem in a way
to pass to the neighbors. Idón"t believe it is in the framework of our Building
Inspector's office, nor in the budget to keep count.. It has been and basically
always will be a single family residential area. The increaséd activity that will
obviously take place there has not been there in tbe past or hasn~t been evidenced
to me and will put a burden on the neighbors. Not comfortable with try.ing to
administer the type ôf limitations we(ve put on, and lastly feel that Charlie
Adamson's comments about our Board setting a precendent that may open some things
up on Lake George should be considered.
Mr. Prime. It might help the Board focus on the issues here to discuss a little
about the distinction between area and use variances-~ The applicant has ;t;iled
for an area variance and that means he is asking to change something physical or
characteristic about the lot rather than the use of the lot., Area variances have
to do with setbacks, heights of buildings, dens ity. What he "s asking for is to
increase the density of the access use on lakeshore lot., A use variance would be
required where he was seeking a nonpermitted use. If you feel that the use that
he is asking for is outside the use permitted in that zone then a variance would
be required with a higher degree of proof which would be hardship. You can have
a combination, an application which would require both a use and area variance..
'--
Mrs. Mann asked Mr. Prime what consideration should be given to the Plum Point
ordinance.
91
Page Eighteen
February 2, 1983
"-"
Mr. Prime responded that it has no bearing on the issue here but you can take into
consideration as to what use is being made of the residential property around the
lake, whether it's for bathing, swimming, boating, picnicing, if that is the use
that is being made in the residential zone and that is what the applicant is asking
for, and you feel hè has proven a practical difficulty, then you can do it on the
basis of an area variance. If you feel that he is asking for is greater or it
proscribes by the uses that are permitted in the LR zone, then I think you have to
get a use variance.
Mr. DeSantis and Mr. West agreed with Mr. Prime's definitions. Mr. West stated they
would stand on their position that the proposed change in the structures is a change
of use requiring a use variance.
Mr. Sorlin. If they (APA) has identified the houses on top of the hill as multi-
family houses I would suggest to the Board that you consider that the precedent
that you might be setting here. If, for example, Top 0' the World were developing
50 single family homes, would you allow as a Board this same number of people
access to the lake on that basis as you would a pseudo-resort type operation.
Mrs. Mann stated she felt they had a negotiated situation where they have limited
access, depending on the people who are granted the variance for enforcement. They
have kept off the boats that would have been allowed, the cars that would have
been allowed and there is no reason why they can't limit the hours of operation.
Mrs. Mann said they shouldn't forget that 13 families with whatever number of
children are entitled to unlimited use. She feels they have a way to control it
through the variance.
Mr. Ted Friehofer, resident. Does not believe that 150 people is reasonable.
Does not see how you can turn a residential area into a commercial beach. This
would be a difference in usage.
Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Prime in dealing with pre-existing usage, rights on the
property, can they deal with what was allowed, the number of people who could have
had access to it or what actually occurred.
Mr. Prime responded that decision should be based on the history of the use of
property, not on speculation as to what might have happened.
Mr. Montesi moved for disapproval of variance, seconded by Mr. Sorlin. All voted
in favor of disapproval with the exception of Mrs. Mann.
COMMENTS: The Planning Board recommend disapproval of Variance
No. 809.
Reason for disapproval: Hasn't proved practical
difficulty of use in the expansion of th~ density
of access to the Lake.
"'-
0uLL -ø QJJ;--
Richard Roberts, Chairman