1998-06-24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 24, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY
LEWIS STONE
ROBERT MC NALLY
PAUL HAYES
BRIAN CUSTER
MEMBERS ABSENT
JOSEPH PORTER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
-CHRIS ROUND
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
-CRAIG BROWN
TOWN COUNSEL
-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-JEFF FRIEDLAND
STENOGRAPHER
-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1998 TYPE II SR-20 MICHAEL & DAPHNE
GREENWOOD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 3 GOLDFINCH ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL WHICH
CANNOT MEET THE REQUIRED 20 FT. SETBACK. APPLICANT PROPOSES 10 FT.
OF RELIEF FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF
FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. TAX MAP NO.
148-2-12 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION: 179-19
MICHAEL & DAPHNE GREENWOOD, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-1998, Michael & Daphne Greenwood, Meeting Date:
Present Location:Description of Proposed Project:
June 24, 1998 “ 3 Goldfinch Road
Applicant proposes construction of a 16 x 32 foot in-ground swimming pool which does not meet
the accessory structure setback requirements. The proposed pool is too close to both the rear
Relief Required:
property line and the deck on the rear of the house. Applicant requests relief
from the Accessory structure setback requirements of Section 179-67; specifically, 10 feet of relief
from the 20 foot rear yard setback requirement and 4 feet of relief from the 10 foot setback
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
requirement to an accessory structure.
Chapter 267 of Town Law:1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to
2. Feasible alternatives:
construct an in-ground swimming pool in the desired location. Feasible
3. Is this
alternatives may include a downsized pool, relocation of proposal or no construction.
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
10 feet and 4 feet of relief may be interpreted as
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
substantial. Minimal effects on the
5. Is this difficulty self-
neighborhood or community are anticipated as a result of this action.
created? Parcel History (construction/site
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments:
None applicable. Applicant proposes an in-ground pool in
the area where the subsurface septic system currently exists. Minimal impacts are anticipated on
the community as a result of this action. Relief on both sides of the pool may be interpreted as
SEQR Status:
substantial. An alternate location may alleviate much of the relief requested.
Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Before we get started, Chris, it says, “Applicant proposes an in-ground
pool in the area where the subsurface septic system currently exists”.
MR. ROUND-Craig’s familiar with that, and I guess Mr. Greenwood can maybe comment on that.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Greenwood, Mrs. Greenwood.
MR. GREENWOOD-Hi. There’s a section of our leach field that’s going to need to be moved, in
order to allow for the pool.
MR. THOMAS-Where is the majority of the septic system? Is it more toward the east?
MR. GREENWOOD-It’s more to the other side. There’s more section will be left intact than will
have to be moved. I guess, if that’s your question.
MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t show on this map.
MR. GREENWOOD-I’ve got two separate maps.
MR. THOMAS-This little one here.
MR. GREENWOOD-That’s the leach field.
MR. THOMAS-That’s the typical leach field for all the houses in that development?
MR. GREENWOOD-That’s all I had to go by. I guess we’ll know more when we start digging.
MR. THOMAS-I guess. Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-I have a question for Staff. Is this a nonconforming lot? You said it’s SR-20, and
this is 10,000 square feet.
MR. BROWN-It’s a lot in an approved subdivision.
MR. STONE-It’s an approved subdivision. Okay, that’s all I wanted to know. Okay. So it’s an
approved subdivision at 10,000. I just noticed that. Who owns the woods behind the house?
MR. GREENWOOD-That’s owned by the homeowners association. We have a common property.
MR. STONE-So that red mark, that red string is the property line?
MR. GREENWOOD-That’s our property line, and then there’s approximately 50 feet of wooded
area, and then there’s a neighbor to the rear of us, but 50 feet of community property.
MR. STONE-That’s owned by the homeowners association?
MR. GREENWOOD-By the homeowners association, by all the homeowners within the
development.
MR. CUSTER-Your development.
MR. GREENWOOD-Right, 42 homes.
MR. HAYES-That’s committed to remaining woods?
MR. GREENWOOD-That’s committed to remaining woods.
MR. STONE-Do they have a position on this variance?
MR. GREENWOOD-They all received a letter, and we did talk to the President of the HOA, and
he supports it, he supports the pool.
MR. STONE-According to you.
MR. GREENWOOD-I mean, you’re asking me if they have a position. I mean, that’s all I know
of their position. We did have the President come over and walk the property lines with us.
MR. STONE-When you put in the drawing here, 16 by 32. Is that the deck and everything else, or
is that merely the water area?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. GREENWOOD-That’s just the in-ground pool, right, and then there will be some concrete
around it.
MR. STONE-So there will be concrete, which is an essential part of the pool.
MR. GREENWOOD-I didn’t know that.
MR. STONE-Well, no, I’m asking you. You couldn’t just have the pool.
MR. GREENWOOD-Right.
MR. CUSTER-You’d need three feet of apron around it.
MR. STONE-Okay. So these numbers, the 10 feet, is probably more like 7 feet.
MR. CUSTER-But that’s not a structure, is it? What’s the Code say about it?
MR. STONE-That’s what we’re going to talk about later tonight.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to
speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Is there any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-“I support the applicant’s request”, Charles Adams, 1 Mockingbird Lane,
Queensbury, NY, and that’s all there is.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-For the record, where is 1 Mockingbird Lane? Is that to the west of you?
MR. GREENWOOD-He’s on the other street, right. It’s not a cul-de-sac. It’s a loop. He’s on the
opposite corner. He’s maybe 500 feet away from our property.
MR. STONE-Okay. I was thinking it was 1 Goldfinch.
MR. GREENWOOD-No. He’s not our next door neighbor. He is a member of our homeowners
association, though, a prominent member.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-I just wanted to know, when you said you were going to do some work on your
septic system by moving it, you really don’t have any idea how much or how far you’re going to
have to move it?
MR. GREENWOOD-I do have the permit application. We had to see where the variance was
going to put us. I’m not going to move it and then not be able to put in a pool. So we had to take
it a step at a time here.
MR. CUSTER-So you have engaged a septic contractor?
MR. GREENWOOD-Yes. I do have someone hired to come in and evaluate it, once we know
where we stand here.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s going to leave very little space in the back yard for a septic field, is that
adequate, looking at the typical diagram.
MR. GREENWOOD-I did get some notes today from a building inspector, Joel. I didn’t even get
his last name, but he didn’t say that there were any setback requirements from a pool, per se. So I
don’t know how it’s going to line up. As far as I know, we need to have 20 feet from the
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
foundation, 10 feet from any boundary, and 10 feet from any incoming water lines. We do have
City water. So we don’t have a well to deal with.
MR. THOMAS-That was 10 feet on any boundary. So, you can add, well, according to this,
there’s five and a half feet from the property line they could go to, on either end.
MR. STONE-For the septic system.
MR. THOMAS-For the septic, yes. So, they could add it on the other end, as long as they stay the
10 feet back, and they can go down another feet. What are the, between the runs, what are they,
four feet apart?
MR. ROUND-Typically, six.
MR. THOMAS-Six feet apart. So it’s not like they could add another run, back toward that back
property line. Well, that’s not our problem anyway.
MR. STONE-Chris and Craig, yesterday, when I was talking to you, you guys said something
about, to move the septic system you’ve got to get permission, and to get permission, you’ve got to
have, we can’t grant a variance until there’s permission. Are we in Catch-22?
MR. BROWN-I suppose you could grant it pending approval to move the system.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ROUND-I think it’s going to rely on Mr. Greenwood. He’s going to evaluate his septic
system and make sure he can install a conforming septic system before he goes and puts a pool in.
MR. GREENWOOD-Right. We understand that the septic system has to be inspected by a
Queensbury inspector after the permit is followed through on. They will come out and inspect it
before we cover it over. So, we understand that.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? I’ve got one. What’s the chances
of downsizing the pool?
MR. GREENWOOD-If we downsized it to something, say an above ground, you’re actually, the
smallest above ground, I mean, there’s six of us, just in my immediate family. So you’re talking
about at least a 21 foot round, which is actually going to require more setback variance than a 16
foot of width.
MR. THOMAS-Do they make a smaller in-ground pool?
MR. GREENWOOD-If we do, it won’t be deep enough to allow us what we want. I mean, as you
get them smaller, the deep end becomes shallower. We’d like to have a diving board, and we need
eight foot of depth to have a diving board.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Just asking. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, we’ll
talk about it. Lew, what do you think?
MR. STONE-Well, I think we’re, this is a new development, and I guess everything is basically the
same size in there, from what I’ve gathered, since it was planned to be 10,000. I’m very afraid of
creating a precedent here. We’ve got the setback regulations, to avoid clutter, especially in a
subdivision of a small, relatively small lots. I’m thinking, for example, of another area of Town
where we’ve been very concerned with the size of lots, namely on the waterfront properties. It
seems to me that we’re creating a precedent, by allowing this to happen, because I think we’ll be
inundated with a lot of other people. I mean, I recognize your needs, but I’m just concerned for the
whole neighborhood, and I guess I’ve got to listen to the rest of the people, but that’s the first
concern I have, at the moment.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I mean, the applicants want the pool, and I think it’s very clear that their
alternatives are limited, but I think the burden falls on the Greenwoods to find a place to put their
septic that meets Queensbury’s Code, and if they can do that and have their pool, I’m not opposed
to it, especially considering that they do have a 50 foot deeded, you know, wooded, barrier there.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
So, I mean, it’s not you’re going to be right on top of the neighbors. You’re not going to be. So
that would be a whole different case if somebody was right there. So I don’t really have a problem
with the application.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-Yes. Likewise with Jamie, my concerns are more regarding the septic system, and
as long as there’s going to be a qualified septic contractor analyzing that, I think that’s okay. I
think the soils out there are pretty sandy. So it shouldn’t really ever be a problem, from a leaching
system. There’s no opposition from the neighbors or anything, in fact, anything but support. I
don’t really have too much problems with it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I look at this, I don’t have a problem with the rear setback, because of the
homeowners association property there. It effectively acts as a buffer, so there’d be reason for
variance. The side setback’s only 10 feet, with an apron. It’s getting a little tight to the neighbor,
and it would be nice to see it moved over a little bit, as long as you’re going to be doing some work
on your septic system anyway, to make it a little bit further from the line, but generally, I don’t
think the effect would be substantial in the neighborhood. So I would be generally in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-All right, Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I feel pretty much the way the other Board members do, and as far as the clutter
that Lew mentioned, it will be hidden in the back yard, and it won’t be seen from the street. The
only thing I wanted to ask you, are you planning to have a fence or some kind of?
MR. GREENWOOD-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Because children and attractive nuisances.
MR. GREENWOOD-We’re between a five and a six foot privacy fence. We haven’t determined
yet, but we will have a privacy fence all the way around, right.
MRS. LAPHAM-I probably missed it because I wasn’t here on time.
MR. GREENWOOD-No, you didn’t, I didn’t mention it.
MRS. LAPHAM-So I have no problem with this.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, before you comment. In the description of the project, it says, it’s
too close to the deck on the rear of the house.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-Where is that? What are we looking at to tell us it’s too close?
MR. THOMAS-The six foot.
MR. STONE-I know, but where?
MR. MC NALLY-179-67.
MR. STONE-That’s what I’m, thank you, 179-67. I should have known that.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s got to be 10 feet from a permanent structure.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all, but that’s something that we have to grant, then, too.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s part of it. The side and the rear from the existing accessory structure.
I think that’s what it does say in the Staff Notes.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry, it does say, you’re right. I was reading that other 10 as the first 10. I
apologize.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-I have no problem with this one. I know this Inspiration Point is a Planning Board
approved subdivision of 10,000 square feet. These lots are small, and if you took a ride through
the subdivision, you would see only in the rear, down around the end, it’s the only houses that have
garages down there. All the other houses on both streets have no garages. So these are very small
lots, and being an approved subdivision, you know, I don’t see any other alternative to this. The
applicant states that if they put an above ground pool in, that anything bigger than 16 feet around
would still require a greater setback variance. So I think a 16 by 32 pool, as the applicant asks, is
no problem, as long as the septic system is reconditioned or re-dug and approved by the Town. So,
having said that, I’ll ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1998 MICHAEL & DAPHNE
GREENWOOD
, Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie
Lapham:
3 Goldfinch Road. Construction of a 16 by 32 ft. in-ground swimming pool, which requires a
variance to increase the setback requirements of the accessory structure and the rear property line.
Relief requested from Section 179-67 is 10 feet of rear setback relief and 4 feet of setback relief
from the 10 foot requirement to an accessory structure. The criteria considered in granting this
motion is as follows. Number One, the benefit to the applicant, by granting the variance we will
allow them to construct an in-ground swimming pool in the desired location on their lot. The
feasible alternatives, they are limited, due to the size of the lots developed throughout the planned
subdivision, and that restricts where and how they can site the pool. Relief is substantial relative to
the Ordinance, but is necessary, due to the lot sizes. The effects on the neighborhood and
community are minimal, and there has been no negative input from the neighborhood. The
difficulty is self created, as they would like to put the pool in, but they are restricted, due to the lot
size, and that does not seem to be an impediment to the variance. This variance is contingent upon
a revised septic system being planned for the site.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mr. Stone
ABSENT: Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. GREENWOOD-Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 29-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A LOWE’S COMPANIES,
INC. OWNER: NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF QUEENSBURY, LLC
NORTHEAST CORNER OF BAY & QUAKER RDS. APPLICANT AN ADDITIONAL
FACADE SIGN FOR LUMBER PICK UP. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIGN
ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 140) REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
6/10/98 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-5.5, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19.1, 19.2 LOT SIZE: 24.4 ACRES
SECTION 140-6 B2b1
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LAPHAM-“Dear Chris: On behalf of Lowe’s Companies, Inc., I hereby submit an
application for a sign variance for a proposed facade sign on the Quaker Road facade of the
building for lumber pick up. A variance is required because the “Indoor Lumber Yard” sign is
proposed as an additional sign to be located on the Quaker Road facade. As you will recall, the
Zoning Board recently granted a variance to permit the garden center sign and the Lowe’s sign on
the Quaker Road facade of the building. the sign variance is requested due to a recent modification
of the site plan to include a covered area at the southeast corner of the building for lumber pick-up.
The site plan modification was undertaken as a result of a new prototype design for Lowe’s stores.
The additional sign is required to direct customers buying lumber to park at the lumber yard area
of the store. The site plan modification and this additional sign were not contemplated at the time
that the applicant applied for the prior sign variances. For the record, the total square footage of
the two approved facade signs (Garden Center and LOWE’S) plus the proposed lumber sign is less
than the permitted total square footage for two facade signs. For all of the reasons discussed
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
above, I believe that the signage which Lowes is proposing is very reasonable, given the significant
setback of the building (650 feet) and the fact that the total square footage is smaller than what is
permitted. I trust that this application will be viewed as a minor variance request. Please place
this application on the agenda for one of the June meetings. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 29-1998, Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Meeting Date: June 24,
Project Location:Description of Proposed
1998 “ NE corner of Bay and Quaker Roads
Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 61.75 sf sign to read “Indoor Lumber Yard”.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief for an additional wall sign from the Sign Ordinance,
Section 140. A building on a corner lot is permitted two wall signs. Currently, the applicant has a
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
variance and permits for two signs.
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to
2. Feasible alternatives:
display a third sign on the buildings’ Quaker Road elevation. Feasible
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
alternatives include no construction.
The addition of a third sign which, along with the two approved signs, totals less square footage
4. Effects on the
than that allowed for two facade signs may be interpreted as minimal.
neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood or community are anticipated
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
as a result of this action. The difficulty may be interpreted as
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
self created. Sign Variance: SV 4-98 -
Staff comments:
to display both permitted signs on the same facade. Res. 2/18/98 Minimal
impacts are anticipated as a result of this action given the size of the building and the setback from
Quaker Road. The addition of this sign square footage does not exceed the allowed square footage
SEQR Status:
threshold for two signs at this setback. Type: Unlisted”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10 day of
June 1998, the above application for a Sign Variance for an additional sign for lumber pick up was
reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The
Warren County Planning Board believes that the applicant should conform to the Queensbury Sign
Ordinance.” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Before we start, for the information of the Board, since Warren County
has disapproved this application, we need a majority plus one to override Warren County. So,
having said that, Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. For the record, Jon Lapper. To begin with, this Sign Variance request
was brought about by a change in the design of the building that I referenced in my cover letter,
part of a new design of the Lowe’s buildings that are being built now, which was different than
how I got this approved last year, was to add a large canopy over the lumber section, which is on
the eastern side of the building, all the way on the right on the drawing, and the reason for that,
especially due to being built in the Northeast, if you’re coming in any kind of winter weather, in the
rain, and buying lumber products, this allows an area where the products can be brought out to the
road, and you can bring your pick up up, or truck to pick up lumber products, which are big and
bulky. The Sign Variance that’s requested is for a third sign, because as you’ll recall, the project
was allowed a total of two signs that could each be in excess of, 600 square foot in total, and I had
come in, last time, asking for them both to be on the front facade. One of them, the garden center
sign, is only 40 square feet. So the two together are far smaller than what is requested. When this
change was approved by the Planning Board, approximately a month or two months ago, to allow
the construction, and if you drive by, you can see the framing for this canopy all the way on the
right side of the building, it was determined by Lowes that they need to have a sign there, because
they want to direct people, if you’re coming to the store to buy lumber, that you know to park on
that side of the parking field. The building facade is approximately 500 feet long, and that makes a
big difference in terms of where you park and how much you have to walk, and this sign which is
extremely small when viewed from the road, 650 feet away, once you’re on the site, you’ll see the
sign and be directed to park your car in the lumber area, so people aren’t going to have to walk a
long distance and then come out and move their vehicle in order to bring lumber material to the car.
I think that this is extremely minimal, in terms of relief, because you really aren’t going to see it
until you’re on the site, because it’s such a small sign, given the distance from the road. However,
it’s extremely important to Lowes, because they’ve determined that they need these to direct people
to the lumber yard, and being a new business coming into Town, they’re very proud of what
they’re doing, you may have noticed that just today, the old hardware store was finally removed, or
partially removed. That’s going to make the appearance of the site very different from what it is
now, because that’s 75 feet of green space in that area, complying with the Travel Corridor
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
Overlay Zone, and it’s really going to soften up the site, once the building’s gone and that’s graded
out and planted with grass, so there’s no parking in that area at all. Based upon all of the
improvements, the fact that (lost word) back from the road, the building, the substantial
landscaping that’s being included, all of the work that was done in the stream corridor, I would
argue that this sign is extremely minimal from off site, but very important when you’re on-site, and
I’d ask you to grant it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Lapper?
MRS. LAPHAM-I just want to be sure of where this sign is. When you said on the east side, you
mean on Quaker Road, all right, the building would face this way, right? On Quaker.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MRS. LAPHAM-And the sign is going to be on the east end toward Ridge Road?
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. HAYES-You can see the colors there now.
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, that’s what I thought.
MR. LAPPER-It’s all the way, the main door is here, you know, 250 feet away from where the
lumber portion of the store is here, and the lumber sign is up there.
MRS. LAPHAM-This would almost be more directional.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I mean, that’s really the intention. If they wanted more than that, it would be
something the size of the Lowe’s sign. It’s not something that you can see from Quaker Road.
MR. CUSTER-Jon, isn’t there another building approved with this project, to that site, also?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s a good point that I didn’t think of when I was applying. That is
actually in front of this section of the parking lot. It’s on the Quaker Road facade, so that this is
actually behind that building.
MR. CUSTER-So this sign will be partially obscured, when you’re coming from the east side of
Quaker?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I didn’t bring a site plan, but that building is all the way on the east corner,
just along Quaker Road but behind the stream. So it sits up, and because this site, and because of
the seven feet of fill, this site now sits up, so when you’re on Quaker, you’re going to see the
building in front, and then this sign would be directly behind it.
MR. CUSTER-You really won’t see that sign until you come into the parking lot area and start
looking.
MR. LAPPER-Right. This is not to attract people onto the site to buy lumber that didn’t know it’s
a lumber yard. It’s just to direct them, as Bonnie said, to get them to the side of the building.
MR. STONE-I have two concerns. Jon, is there a sign on Bay Road now? You’ve given up any
signage on Bay Road?
MR. LAPPER-No. We asked for a slightly larger sign on Bay Road, which was 80 something
square feet, and what will be, there will be one sign at the very corner of Quaker and Bay, which
says, “Lowes”, which can be 64 square feet, under the Code.
MR. STONE-You mean a freestanding.
MR. LAPPER-A freestanding.
MR. STONE-No, I meant on the building itself.
MR. LAPPER-We gave up any signs on Bay Road, right.
MR. STONE-You gave that up. Okay. The other concern that I have, and it is modified,
mitigated a little bit by the fact the building’s going to be there, but in your letter, and in your
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
presentation, you said the site plan modification is undertaken as a result of a new prototype
design.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-And yet you submitted to us a picture of the sign, dated February 24, 1997.
MR. CUSTER-You noticed that, too, didn’t you?
MR. STONE-Yes, I did notice that.
MR. LAPPER-My client that I did this for is Newman Development, who has been building, they
built one in Auburn, and they built one in Vestal, that I’ve seen, and they do not have this. So for
what they’ve been building up here, it’s a new prototype for their design. It was not part of the
original site plan. So Lowes may have this in the south, where you possibly can have 15 signs and
nobody cares, but in terms of up here, this was not.
MR. STONE-I’m only questioning the fact that you said it wasn’t, and this says February ’97.
MR. LAPPER-I only heard about this for the first time two months ago, when I came in for the.
MR. STONE-I think the concern that we’ve got, and I hear it from other people, I don’t hear it
necessarily from the Board, is that, while we have a very good Sign Ordinance in Town, and I
think it’s something for the Town to be proud of. We do a very good job, but we seem to be
getting some creeping signage happening, and of course that’s our responsibility not to let that
happen, and as I say, it’s mitigated by the fact that you’re behind this building, but those are the
kind of concerns that I have.
MR. LAPPER-I’m well aware of the Board’s feeling, and I think you make a point to minimize
any Sign Variances, and you’re very good at that. I think in this case, because it’s 650 feet from
the road, that’s just a huge distance for a 61 square foot sign, and it really is not going to be
obtrusive. I also point out, by comparison, that the K-Mart has a separate sign for the restaurant,
just in fairness, in terms of treating people coming to Town, Wal-Mart has a whole slew of signs
for advertising what they do inside, but just to point out the K-Mart, there’s the restaurant on the
left side of the building, the garden center on the right side of the building, and a big K-Mart sign.
MR. STONE-I went out and looked at that the other day.
MR. CUSTER-I wanted to know if they had variances.
MR. LAPPER-I’m aware that they did have variances.
MR. CUSTER-I mean, that’s kind of pertinent to the discussion.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to
speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Is there any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Zoning Appeal Board, Town of Queensbury, Attention: Bonnie Lapham,
Secretary “Dear Mrs. Lapham: Please have this note to serve as my comment in regards the
request for relief from Sign Ordinance by Newman Development. As a business owner, I feel it
very necessary to have identification signs for that business. Location and or directional signs are
imperative. Customers must be able to identify where they should park and pick up merchandise.
This allows for less confusion and will also serve as a safe flow of traffic pattern. I have no
objection to the request for the additional sign. Sincerely, Michael Della Bella President of Della
Pontiac Buick Isuzu” Received 6/24/98.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-The total square footage of your signs, Jon, on the Quaker Road side are what?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. LAPPER-The main sign is approximately 322 square feet.
MR. MC NALLY-The garden center is about 40, and this one is about 60?
MR. LAPPER-Forty, and sixty-one. So it’s roughly 420 square feet, compared to 600, which the
Ordinance would allow.
MR. STONE-Jon, can you just place approximately where that other building is going to be, in
terms of, if I were looking head on?
MR. LAPPER-It’s really, if the sign is here, the building, it’s at the front end of the parking lot,
right at the right side of the site. I may have a site plan with me.
MRS. LAPHAM-Can you tell us what the other building’s going to be used for?
MR. LAPPER-The other building, when we had the site plan approved, it’s approved right now for
a 12,000 square foot building, which we had not specified. It’s approved for any use in the
Highway Commercial district, but we had said that Newman was negotiating with a tire and
battery place, TBA. Since that time, they’ve been negotiating with a restaurant, and I’ve just
submitted an application to change that from a 12,000 square foot building to a 5,000 square foot
restaurant building. I just submitted that today.
MR. CUSTER-Bennigans, Houlihan’s?
MR. LAPPER-They don’t have a signed lease yet. So they haven’t announced it, but it’s on that
order.
MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s going to be a one story building, then?
MR. LAPPER-That’s going to be a one story building.
MR. STONE-So it will partially obscure the sign, until you get directly abreast of the Lowe’s, if
you’re coming from the east.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Going the other way, you’ll see it, and it’ll disappear from view.
MR. LAPPER-But going the other way, when you’re coming from the west, just because of the
diagonal, because it’s even more than 650 feet.
MR. STONE-But, I understand, it’s going to be above the canopy?
MR. LAPPER-It’ll be actually above, but right on the front of the canopy.
MR. STONE-On the front of the canopy.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-So hanging down.
MR. LAPPER-Not hanging, attached.
MR. STONE-But to the canopy, not to the building itself.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, to the canopy.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Chris, this is an Unlisted Action. I don’t have a Short EAF.
MR. ROUND-I recognized that earlier today.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll just go through the spiel anyway. Are there any other questions for
the applicant? Before we start going around talking about this, this is an Unlisted Action, so I’ll
have to make a motion about the Short Environmental Impact Statement.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. LAPPER-The reason that, I didn’t submit a Short Environmental Assessment Form, because
this is, this whole action was subject to a full SEQRA review with an Environmental Impact
Statement, and when you prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, if there are other parts of
the application that are inadvertently left out, because they weren’t contemplated at the time, that
are of minor significance, the Planning Board, as lead agency, accepted the Final Environmental
Impact Statement, and issued findings, and all that this Board would have to do would be to say
that this is of minor significance, and doesn’t require any other SEQRA review.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, since the Planning Board has the full EIS.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Close enough.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I think you want to make that comment, that it’s of minor significance, it
doesn’t effect the findings.
MR. THOMAS-This project is of minor significance in considering the overall environmental
impact, and since the Planning Board is lead agency, for the Environmental Impact Statement, and
they have accepted it, I don’t see where this has any impact, where this project has any impact on
the environment.
MR. STONE-Do we have to vote on it?
MR. THOMAS-No, that’s just a statement. Okay. No more questions for Jon? We’ll start
talking about it. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I agree with Lew that, you know, our Sign Ordinance that we have is an
excellent one. We’ve, I know myself and some of the other younger members of the Board have
tried to call the lead and maintain the precedent, as far as that, but I think, you know, we have held
the line. I’d be willing to bet that Mr. Lapper and another attorneys that have come in to this
Board have had to explain plenty to corporate clients, why their signs are smaller than they are in
other venues, and I think that’s good. I mean, that’s probably been tough, but the purpose of this
ZBA, and the reason I signed aboard, was to be able to consider minimal relief, when effects on the
neighborhood didn’t preclude that consideration. I think in this circumstance, based on the size of
the project, and the fact that it is a 61 square foot sign, 650 feet from the road, which will be
probably partially obscured in the future, and the applicant is coming to us with less square
footage than they’re entitled to, which eliminates, to me, the idea that there’s some kind of
aggressive or angle being taken here. I think that we can defend decisions of this nature to other
people that don’t have three signs based on the fact that we’re still below the minimum allowed
square footage. So I think it’s a precedent we can live with, and I think it is minimal relief. So I
would be in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-As my voting record indicates, I tend to be a little bit more lax on the Sign
Variances than some of the Board members, but even I have some limits, and typically three on one
facade would be it. You had very compelling reasons to grant a variance, and I think Mr. Lapper’s
done a very good job of doing so. There’s quite an expanse across the front of that facade that
mitigates the impact of an additional sign. It also adds some balance to the project. It will
alleviate traffic congestion, at least guide people to the right area. There’s also some precedent
that would be the K-Mart case that was cited, and that building’s very similar in construction and
siting. Therefore, I have no problems with the variance.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree. The relief is insubstantial, given the setback of the front facade of the
building. The relative size of the three signs, and that it combines the square footage of all three of
them. The effect on the neighborhood is minimal, and I’d be for it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Actually, the large effect on the neighborhood is allowing the Lowes project to
be built to begin with. This sign is more directional in nature I think, and sometimes I admire Lake
Placid and Saratoga, for the stands that they’ve taken, but I don’t have a problem with this
particular sign.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-Having made my comments, I certainly agree with the rest of the Board that if we
have to grant a Sign Variance for anything, this certainly is as good a reason for doing it. I am
pleased to have the applicant re-affirm the fact that there will be no signage on the Bay Road
facade of the building, as noted previously, but at least it’s been said again, and I appreciate that,
and I can, in good conscience, vote for this.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. I was a little leery at first, but since
this, Mr. Lapper pointed out that does sit seven feet higher than it did before, and that there is
another building that’s been approved in front of the Lowes building, where the sign would be, and
the sign would be partially blocked, and the fact that it is 650 feet off Quaker Road, and you really
can’t see it off Bay Road, I have no problem granting this variance. Having said that, I’ll ask for a
motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 29-1998 LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC.
,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
The owner Newman Development Group of Queensbury, L.L.C. The applicant proposes
construction of an additional 61.75 square foot of sign to read “Indoor Lumber Yard”. This wall
sign will be placed on the eastern end of the building, above a canopy, and it will read, as said
before “Indoor Lumber Yard”. The applicant requests relief for an additional wall sign from Sign
Ordinance Section 140, a building on a corner lot is permitted two wall signs. Currently the
applicant has a variance and permits for two signs with an agreement that these two signs both be
on the Quaker Road side, and that no other sign be put on Bay Road side. In considering this Sign
Variance, the benefit to the applicant is that the applicant will be permitted to display a third sign
on the building’s Quaker Road elevation. Obviously, a feasible alternative includes no
construction, but the applicant has made a good point that there is a need to direct people to this
particular end of the building for lumber pick up, particularly in inclement weather. Is the relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance? The addition of a third sign, which along with two improved
signs, in total, that has less square footage and not allowing for two signs, may be interpreted as
minimal, and obviously this motion agrees to that. There will be minimal effects on the
neighborhood, particularly owing to the fact that there will be a building interspersed between
Quaker Road and this sign for a fair distance along Quaker Road, and while this difficulty may be
considered self created, it is of minimal consideration.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-You have five positive votes. So we override Warren County Planning.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, I appreciate it.
MR. THOMAS-No problem.
MR. STONE-Six.
MR. THOMAS-Six votes, it overrides it, whatever. We overrode it anyway.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1998 TYPE II MR-5/MHO ROBERT P. KING OWNER:
HAROLD E. PECUE, JR. CORNER OF OHIO AND CENTRAL AVENUES
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A MOBILE HOME (YEAR OF MODEL 1987) 14
FT. BY 70 FT. MOBILE HOME ON A CORNER LOT. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF
FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 127-5-9 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES
SECTION 179-18
ROBERT KING, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-1998, Robert P. King, Meeting Date: June 24, 1998
Description of Proposed Project:
“ Applicant proposes placement of 1987, 14’ x 66’ mobile
Relief Required:
home on a corner lot in a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. Applicant requests 5 feet
of front relief from the 30 foot setback requirement and 1 foot of rear relief from the 10 foot
Criteria for considering an Area
setback requirement of the MR-5 zone, (Section 179-18).
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant
2. Feasible
would be permitted to place and inhabit a mobile home at the desired location.
alternatives:
Due to size constraints of both the pre-existing lot and the mobile home, feasible
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
alternatives include no construction.
4. Effects on
Five feet of front and one foot of rear setback relief may be interpreted as minimal.
the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
of this action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments:
None applicable.
Minimal are anticipated as a result of this action, since homes of similar size and style currently
SEQR Status:
exist in the neighborhood. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. King, is there anything else you want to add, say?
MR. KING-No.
MR. STONE-You are Mr. King?
MR. KING-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Could I just organize myself as to the corner that this is on? Because there’s a
house on one corner, and across the street from the house there’s somebody putting in an above
ground pool. Then there’s a vacant lot.
MR. STONE-This is the northwest corner.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, there’s two vacant, I think.
MR. THOMAS-It’s the one with the fence around it.
MR. KING-Right.
MRS. LAPHAM-All right. Well, I thought maybe it was where the pool is.
MR. THOMAS-No, it’s the one with the fence around it. Okay.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I have it now.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. King?
MR. MC NALLY-What kind of home are you going to put on it, a mobile home?
MR. KING-A mobile home.
MR. MC NALLY-And you said, is it a new one, a used one?
MR. KING-It’s 1987.
MR. MC NALLY-’87, and will you be residing in it?
MR. KING-Yes.
MR. STONE-And this, according to the report, meets the current Code?
MR. KING-Yes.
MR. STONE-And that’s what this report that was in here, I guess, says, that it meets Code, I
guess. Okay. Is that what this means?
MR. ROUND-The inspection report, yes. The building inspector inspects it before they can bring
it on the site, to verify that it meets Code.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. STONE-So this means, it says “Data plate okay” and “Mobile HUD Seal okay”, that means
it’s all right.
MR. THOMAS-That means it meets all the requirements?
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-I mean, obviously, the rest of this has to be done when it goes on site.
MR. ROUND-Yes. There’s anchoring requirements and that’s part of the Building Code.
MR. STONE-But it’s one that can be considered to put on the lot?
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay. Do you own the lot now?
MR. KING-No, in the process of buying it.
MR. STONE-You have a conditional sale, based upon getting a variance?
MR. KING-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-What kind of foundation are you going to put on it?
MR. KING-Slab.
MR. STONE-The 25 feet that you show, no the 20 feet on the north side of the thing, is that
measured to the property line, or to the house that the current owner of the lot has? Because
there’s a porch on that southerly side.
MR. KING-Correct. I’m not sure how they measured it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-But on this print it shows from the property line, that the home would be located
20 feet south of the north property line. Right?
MR. KING-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-That’s what it shows. I was just trying to measure the lot. Just looking at it, I was a
little.
MR. THOMAS-You didn’t go down and step it off?
MR. STONE-Well, I stepped off a little bit, but I’m not perfect.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JENNIE STAUNCHES
MS. STAUNCHES-My name is Jennie Staunches, and I live right straight across the road, and I
don’t want any dumps across from me. I want the place to look decent. Otherwise, I’m against it.
Because there’s no way, an ’87 year old trailer, they don’t even let them in the trailer park after 10
years. Ten years they usually have to take them out. They get the money for the new trailers, then
they get the people with their homes that are paying good tax money get stuck with the old stuff,
and I don’t like that stuff. I mean, I pay the taxes on my property, and I’ve tried to fix my property
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
so it looks nice, and I don’t want a dumpy trailer across from me. I’m sorry. It just ruins
everybody’s, the appearance of everybody’s house, a trailer does. It brings your property value
down, when you put a trailer in.
MR. MC NALLY-Which property do you own, ma’am?
MS. STAUNCHES-I own right straight across the street. I look out my picture window an I see
where the trailer would be.
MR. STONE-On the east side of Ohio.
MS. STAUNCHES-Right. Right across the street from where the trailer’s going in, and I haven’t
seen the trailer. I’d like to see a picture of it, if it’s possible. I figured when they sold the property
that they would put something halfway decent, not long trailer, something that was going to be like
a modular home or something like that, which wouldn’t bring down the value of our homes, as
much as a trailer does, and you take an 11 year old trailer, and it’s just about beat at that time. I
mean, they don’t keep them even in the trailer court after 10 years. You have to move them out of
the trailer court. So where do you go? You go where people are already paying taxes on their
home, and we’ve put a lot of money into our house, and I don’t feel that I should have to have a
trailer right across the road from me that’s bringing my value down on my house. We’ve got
enough trailers up there. I don’t know why everybody has to have trailers on their, they have to
live in trailers, you know. I mean, you pay a lot of money to get your house and everything, and
then you get somebody with a trailer moving in. I mean, it’s bad enough we’ve got the piece of shit
that he’s got over there now, Mr. Pecue. He doesn’t even have a legal septic system. All he’s got
is three barrels he’s got sunk in the ground that’s been there for 25 years, when I lived there. I
moved there in October of 1970, and I know the couple that put the barrels in the ground over
there. Then the whole that he just dug, he buried garbage on the property that he’s supposed to be
buying. He put metal and wood and a whole bunch of trash in that big hole that he dug. The
inspectors came up to look and he was filling the hole, where it’s all freshly dug up down there.
I’m sorry, but I’m a property owner, and I pay taxes, and I don’t want to live in a shitty
neighborhood.
MR. STONE-Did you file a complaint about what he was doing?
MS. STAUNCHES-I called them and I told them, I didn’t know he was putting garbage in that
hole, but I found out afterwards, after the inspector had come, he had already started filling the
hole in, and he had the stuff covered, so they didn’t see it, but he was filling the hole in. I asked
him. I said, what are you digging the hole for, he said, I’m going to put Trixie in there, and he
ended up throwing his garbage in there, metal and a whole bunch of shit that he didn’t want to have
to pay to have taken away, but legally, his septic system is not legal. His house should be
condemned, because HUD went in there and they told him the house was unsafe for their men to
even work on it, and this guy doesn’t get, won’t get a job. He does nothing, and I have three other
people here that are with me that are also opposed to the trailer going in.
MR. MC NALLY-Who is Pecue?
MR. STONE-He’s the owner of the property.
MS. STAUNCHES-He’s the owner of the property. He sold to the girl out in back, which is a gay
lady he sold to. I mean, I have nothing against gays, but I think they should be in their own area,
too, and we didn’t know, when she went in there, that that’s what it was, and they have gay parties
out there all the time, if you want to see them, and my picture window, look over the fence, you’ll
see a lot going on.
MR. STONE-Okay, but Mr. Pecue owns that little red, I think it’s a red house, just to the north
MS. STAUNCHES-It’s brown.
MR. STONE-It has two for sale signs on it?
MS. STAUNCHES-Yes. That’s Mr. Pecue.
MR. STONE-Then I saw Mr. Pecue.
MS. STAUNCHES-Yes. He’s good at garden hoses, that’s all, his water hose is made out of.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. STONE-Has anybody looked at the?
MR. ROUND-I can’t speak directly about the complaint that was filed. I don’t receive a lot of
complaints.
MR. STONE-Of course, I understand that.
MRS. LAPHAM-Of course that’s not our thing.
MR. STONE-It’s not.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I think she’s had some problems with the property owner and existing
conditions on the adjacent property, and I’m not sure how that relates to the project at hand.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. King, what kind of septic system are you proposing?
MR. KING-I have no idea what Kings Brook Homes had in mind.
MRS. LAPHAM-Is Kings Brook Homes a mobile home dealer?
MR. KING-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-And so they would be aware of the Codes and what they have to do?
MR. KING-Yes.
MR. STONE-Well, it says proposed location will be built by Town approved, contracted to Town
specs.
MR. ROUND-Yes. They’ll have to put a system that’s in compliance with our current specs.
MR. STONE-We seem to have your complaint, and I hear you, a trailer, but this is more
traditional home that probably has never been on the highway, and never will be on a highway.
MR. KING-No.
MR. CUSTER-Do you have a photo, by chance?
MR. KING-Not with me, no.
MS. STAUNCHES-If you look at the trailers over in Homestead, they’re all, most of them are
crappy looking trailers, I’ll tell you. I’ve been through Homestead.
MR. CUSTER-You’re buying this from a dealership?
MR. KING-No, I already own the home.
MR. CUSTER-In Homestead?
MR. KING-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-And you’re having the dealer move it and make sure your septic and all that in
order?
MR. KING-Yes.
MR. STONE-Now, just to ask the question, since it was raised here, are you being forced out of
the mobile home park?
MR. KING-No. I’m just tired of paying rent there.
MR. STONE-Okay. So your trailer has not been condemned by them?
MR. KING-No.
MRS. LAPHAM-And does that happen, that you know of?
MR. KING-There are a few in there that are dumps.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MRS. LAPHAM-And they should be.
MR. KING-Correct.
MR. CUSTER-But have they been evicted from the Park?
MR. KING-The ones that I know of are vacant, abandoned.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed?
GAIL CHALICH
MS. CHALICH-Hi. I’m Gail Chalich of 30 Ohio Avenue, about five houses down toward Corinth
Road. I have a trailer about 10 feet from my property line, which was granted a few years ago by
my mom, who owned my property, but it was for handicapped, you know, and it was closer to my
line. Now I’m the owner there, and I’m a little opposed to having that there, because the person
has deceased since that time. So I’ve got this trailer like 10 feet away from my house. There’s
about six trailers, five to six trailers on Ohio Avenue, most of them which are new, except the one
which is near the store, which is right next to Luzerne Road. That one’s like sort of a dump, but
you keep putting trailers on a street in the Town of Queensbury, and it’s going to be a trailer park.
They have trailer parks for trailers. This one’s 12 years old, going to be 13 years old. I think it
would be nice to see a picture of it. I’m just opposed to having another older trailer there like that.
I mean, if it’s extremely nice, I think we would see a picture, you know, we would see how nice
this looks. So I’m viewing to be opposed.
MR. HAYES-You are aware this is in a Mobile Home Overlay Zone?
MS. CHALICH-Well, yes, there are some there now, yes, but I mean if you keep putting them on
there, I mean, the whole west end is going to be a trailer park, and as we all know, it’s always been
sort of a bad area, and it’s going to be a worse area. think to improve the area lines along that
should be to think to have the area improved. I mean, if you keep thinking and letting lower things
in there, it’s going to be lower.
MR. CUSTER-Did I hear you say that you live in a trailer now?
MS. CHALICH-No. There’s a trailer that was let in as a handicapped variance from the Board by
my mom, which I grew up in the house that I’m in now, and she let that in because it was an older
neighbor, and they, you know, let that be pulled in to the neighbor’s yard, because that was the
only way they could get it in there, because he was in his 80’s and old and dying, so they did let
that one, which was a new one, but still, I’m stuck with looking out my kitchen window. That’s
my driveway right there, and the trailer starts at that wall.
MR. CUSTER-And how old is that trailer now?
MS. CHALICH-It was probably put in eight, nine years ago, maybe, eight years ago or something.
I’m not sure because I’ve had my house now when my mom passed away for about three, four
years, and I’m not sure exactly when it was put in before that. Bonnie, I’ve lived in a trailer park
myself, you know, at one time, but I just don’t feel like you want to keep putting them down the
street, and especially older ones. I mean, I feel if it’s somewhere newer or, within a reasonable, not
12, 13 years old, within a reasonable amount, that it would be more beneficial for Queensbury as a
whole. I mean, Queensbury’s like an up and coming place, keep it as an up and coming place.
Don’t go reverse when you can go forward. So I vote no. Any questions?
MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions?
MR. STONE-I just want to be sure that we’re talking, trailer and mobile homes, according to our
Code, are very different, and I know some people call mobile homes trailers, but 66 feet long, this
is, by our definition, not because of the length, but it’s a mobile home. It is designed to basically
be there, once it’s put in place. It can be moved. A trailer is a travel trailer, according to our
Town Code.
MS. CHALICH-I realize that.
MR. STONE-Those are smaller and usually mobile. It’s just that we have to consider this whole
thing that way.
MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak opposed?
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
DIANA WILLIAMS
MS. WILLIAMS-My name is Diana Williams, and I live on 55 Ohio Ave. I’m opposed to this
trailer being over there. The fact is that I don’t believe this septic system would be any good for it,
because the people that live in the house right now, they have no power. They have no water, and
they’re just totally slobs, and we’ve put up with them being slobs, you know, for a long time, and
we’re just sick of it, and, you know, there’s a lot of kids around there and everything, but I’m
totally opposed to the trailer being there.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Ms. Williams? Is there anything else you’d
like to say? Okay. Thanks.
MR. HAYES-I guess I’m a little confused as to what your relationship is with the people that are
right next door in that brown building?
MR. KING-No relationship.
MR. HAYES-So you’re coming from Homestead then?
MR. KING-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-And he’s buying the lot. It sounds like that what’s happening here is.
MR. STONE-Where is the trailer now, by the way?
MR. KING-In Homestead Village.
MR. STONE-It’s in Homestead right now?
MR. KING-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No, just a letter to the applicant on meeting dates.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-The only question I had, do you know where, there’s fencing around two sides. Is
that on the property line, do you know?
MR. KING-Yes.
MR. STONE-So the ground in front of it is part of the right-of-way of both streets between the
edge of pavement?
MR. KING-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? All right. Lets talk about it. Brian, what do you think?
MR. CUSTER-Well, I listened to the opposition. I share your concerns, and certainly I’m
sympathetic to them. However, consistent with prior positions on very similar type applications, I
have approved them with, because the impact in my estimation is minimal for what’s being
requested. Mr. King looks like he’s a fairly decent guy, could be a good neighbor. I’m assuming
what he would put there is something he could be proud of and wants to live in and take care of.
MR. KING-Correct.
MR. CUSTER-As regards to the septic system, if there’s been stuff that’s been put in there
illegally or dangerous or something, when he goes to dig that, whoever puts that in for him, they’re
going to uncover that. They’re going to, someone’s going to have to come out anyway, and he’s
going to have to put in something that’s approved, before he’s going to get a CO or even move in
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
there. So even though there is some neighborly opposition, I don’t really think that it’s a problem,
if Mr. King’s putting in there a mobile home, and it’s still in decent shape. Mobile homes that
were built in the 80’s, especially the late 80’s are a lot better construction than they were 25, 30
years ago. They were built as homes, homes to last for a long period of time, and I don’t really
think this is a problem to grant the variance, but I will listen to what my colleagues have to say
before I make a final decision.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-We’re really not here to decide whether nor not a mobile home should go on the
site, because the Town Board already decided that mobile homes can go here. The question is
whether a variance from the setbacks should be allowed, and as I look at this application, there is a
minimal relief requested of five feet on one front side, and one foot of relief on a neighbor’s
property line. The property is going to actually improve with the mobile home, and no one’s going
to put 55 gallon drums in the ground and discharge their sewage into it.
MS. STAUNCHES-Well, that’s what we’ve got out there now.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, it’s not happening today. It may have happened at one time, and I
understand the neighbors may be upset concerning one of the neighbors, but I don’t have any sense,
from this application, that this individual is going to feel the same way, act in the same fashion,
and I’d be generally favorable to this application.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I generally would be in favor of this application, because, as the other Board
members have pointed out, it is a mobile home overlay zone, and I really, the animosity that I see
here is really directed more toward his former lot owner, or soon to be former lot owner, Mr.
Pecue, than to Mr. King, and some of their concerns, as far as Mr. Pecue, should be taken up with
whatever appropriate measures the Town has, and I think actually Mr. King might even be a big
improvement over Mr. Pecue. So the land would change hands into better hands. So I would be
for this.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-Yes. I basically agree. I think as Bob said very clearly, this is, a mobile home is
allowed on this piece of property. The only question is, is one of the size that you own and
contemplate putting on the lot going to be allowed because to do so you need a slight variance. We
did not hear from Mrs. Rice, who is the westerly neighbor where the one foot of relief is being
asked for. Therefore, we have to assume that she doesn’t care, one way or the other, apparently.
The other, the five foot of relief on the Ohio Avenue side, if in fact the property line is the fence,
and I don’t know that, but you’ve said it is, and I’ll assume it is, then there’s at least five or six feet
between the fence and the actual pavement on Ohio, which adds, in terms of encroachment on the
road way, makes it even further back than it has to be, although technically it does require relief,
and I think Mr. King has heard both from his future neighbors and certainly our concern, that in
granting the variance, we are relying on concern, that in granting the variance, we are relying on
you to maintain this property in a manner befitting how you want to live and how you want the
neighborhood to be. Because you’d like the property to appreciate, and hopefully your neighbors
do, too. So having said that, I have no problems with this variance.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I also, too, have some understanding for the concerns of the neighborhood. I
drive through that neighborhood every morning to work, and there’s been several major
improvements in that area, and there’s a lot of people doing some nice things with their homes, but
in this particular circumstance, Mr. King, you know, he doesn’t have a lot of alternatives, as far as
placing that trailer. The relief is minor, as has already been pointed out by the other members of
the Board, and I think, you know, on balance, I think that we have to give him a chance to have a
positive impact on the community. I don’t think that we can say that it won’t, and the very fact
that our own Department Code, you know, the Department can come in and examine his septic
system and everything else might, in fact, be an improvement for some of the very concerns that the
neighbors have pointed out. So I would be in favor of the application, as it sits.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. A mobile home is allowed here
on this lot, and if it weren’t for the setback violations, that the applicant wouldn’t be here, and that
mobile home would be sitting on that lot anyway. As long as the applicant puts in the required
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
septic system and does as any good neighbor should, keeps the property up, I see no problem
whatsoever with this. So, having said that, I’ll ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1998 ROBERT P. KING
, Introduced
by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Intersection of Ohio and Central Avenue. The applicant wishes to place a 1987, 14 ft. by 66 ft.
mobile home on a corner lot in a mobile home overlay zone. The applicant requests five feet of
front relief from the 30 foot setback requirement, and one foot of rear relief from the 10 foot
setback requirement of the MR-5 zone, Section 179-18. The benefit to the applicant would be that
he would be permitted to place and inhabit a mobile home at the desired location, and would own
his own property, rather than paying rent at a mobile home park. There are not really feasible
alternatives, due to the size constraints of both the pre-existing lot and the mobile home. The only
feasible alternative would include no construction. The relief is fairly insubstantial, being five feet
of front and one foot of rear setback relief. There are minimal effects on the neighborhood, and the
neighborhood may even be improved by selling the land from the neighbor that’s been talked about
here to Mr. King. The difficulty may be self created. My own feeling is that it really isn’t, since
this is a mobile home overlay zone, and he’s asking for very minimal relief.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. STONE-May we ask Staff to look into the Pecue property?
MR. ROUND-Yes. I think the issue was addressed, from what I understand.
MR. STONE-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-1998 TYPE II SFR-20 WILLIAM & LIZ GEORGE
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 335 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREENED-IN PORCH ON BACK OF THE HOUSE.
APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO.
59-6-3 LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-20
WILLIAM GEORGE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-1998, William & Liz George, Meeting Date: June 24,
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
1998 “ 335 Ridge Road Applicant
Relief
proposes construction of a 140 sf screen porch addition to the rear of an existing home.
Required:
Applicant requests 6 feet of sideline relief from the15 foot minimum setback
Criteria for considering an Area Variance
requirement of the SFR-20 zone (Section 179-20).
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be
2. Feasible alternatives:
permitted to construct a screened porch at the desired location. Due to
existing doorway and window locations, feasible alternatives are limited to reconfiguring the
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
doorway and no construction. Six feet
4. Effects on the neighborhood or
(40%) of relief may be interpreted as moderate relief.
community:5. Is
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action.
this difficulty self-created?Parcel History
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments:
None applicable. Minimal impacts are
anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed porch is no closer to the property line than the
SEQR Status:
existing house. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. George, anything else you want to add, tell us about, say?
MR. GEORGE-No. I have a paper here signed from my two neighbors saying it’s all right for me
to.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ll read that in on the correspondence part. This screened in porch,
what kind of construction is it?
MR. GEORGE-It’s just going to be treated wood, and then it’s going to be sided afterwards. It’s
going to be sided to try to match the siding on my house.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. GEORGE-It’s going to be screened windows. It’s not going to be three season.
MR. THOMAS-So you’re going to side it up, you know, up to three feet and then screen up the
rest of the way?
MR. GEORGE-Right. That’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you just have a pitched roof on the back?
MR. GEORGE-Yes. It’s going to be pitched a little bit so that when the snow comes, it’s easier to
get it off.
MR. STONE-Okay. This will be screened, no windows?
MR. GEORGE-No, no windows.
MR. STONE-So in the winter it’ll be open.
MR. GEORGE-Right.
MR. STONE-It’ll be cold.
MR. GEORGE-Right. I’m going to have to put a plastic or something up to protect it, that’s all.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to
speak opposed? Opposed? Correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Just this one letter.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Read it in.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay “To Whom It May Concern: Town of Queensbury Board We (William
& Liz George) would like to build a screened in porch (10’ x 14’) extended off the back of our
house. (335 Ridge Rd. Queensbury) Richard & Sandra Casey who reside at 333 Ridge Rd. have
no reservations about us building a screened-in porch onto the back of our house. Signatures:
Devin & Bonnie Spencer who reside at 337 Ridge Rd. have no reservations about us building a
screened-in porch onto the back of our house. Signatures: Bonnie Spencer Devin Spencer
Richard E. Casey Sandra Casey Sincerely: Wm. & Liz George”
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, we’ll talk about it. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I went by and I thought that, since the proposed structure is not that much
closer, or not any closer than the existing one, and because the garage on the one neighbor’s side
basically blocks the view from the neighbor’s house, the proposed structure is relatively modest,
and I don’t see it’s going to have any substantial impact on the neighborhood. There really are no
feasible alternatives, because of the window in the back of the house, and while it is substantial in
that they want six feet off a fifteen foot setback, I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I have no problem with it. In fact, I went to look at it today, I thought to myself,
if I owned that house, that’s exactly what I would want to do.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. STONE-I have absolutely no problem with it. I think, this is the second time that I’ve gone
into this neighborhood and I’ve talked to, talking to Mr. George about it. These are extremely long
properties. The fact that the garage is already there, the fact that it’s, the house is currently at nine
feet, this is, to me, a very easy decision to make on the positive side.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, when Lew has no problem, I guess the mountain has been climbed. So I agree
with the Board. I think it’s a fine project, and I don’t think six feet of relief is substantial, and the
property is well kept. It would be an improvement. So I’m for it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I concur with the thorough analysis of my colleagues on the Board. I’m in favor of
the variance.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’m also in favor of this. The new porch really won’t be seen from either
neighbor’s house because of the garage and the fact that it sits on the south side of the property.
Six feet off the property line doesn’t encroach any closer than the existing house does, and there’s
really no other place along the house that you could build a screened-in porch, that the applicant
wants. So I have absolutely no problem with this application being granted. Having said that, I’ll
ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-1998 WILLIAM & LIZ GEORGE
,
Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
335 Ridge Road. The applicant wishes to construct a 140 square foot screened porch addition to
the rear of an existing home. The applicant requires six feet of side line relief from the 15 foot
minimum setback requirement of the SFR-20 zone. The criteria for considering an Area Variance I
think has been met. The benefit to the applicant would be that he could construct a screened porch
at the desired location. Due to existing doorways and window locations and the location of the
home itself, there are almost no feasible alternatives. Six feet of relief may be interpreted as
moderate, and there should be no effects on the neighborhood or community, and indeed, we’ve had
no complaints at all from the neighbors. Most of them seem to support this project. So the
minimal impacts anticipated seem to have upset no one.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. GEORGE-Thank you. Can I just ask you one question? Now, what do I do to get a building
permit?
MR. THOMAS-Go to the Building Department and get a building permit.
MR. GEORGE-Tomorrow? Can I do it tomorrow?
MR. THOMAS-Sure. They’re not open right now.
MR. GEORGE-Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 33-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A AMERADA HESS CORP.
OWNER: GERALD & ROGER HEWLETT INTERSECTION OF QUAKER AND DIX
AVE., NORTHWEST CORNER APPLICANT PROPOSES 5 SEPARATE SIGNS,
ALLOWED 2 BUILDING SIGNS. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIGN
ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 140). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/10/98 TAX MAP
NO. 110-1-27 LOT SIZE: 0.88 ACRES SECTION/CHAPTER 140 SIGN ORDINANCE
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 33-1998, Amerada Hess Corp., Meeting Date: June 24, 1998
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ NW corner of Quaker and Dix Ave.
Applicant proposes construction and display of 6 separate signs, 3 wall signs, 2 canopy signs, and
Relief Required:
1 free standing sign. Applicant requests relief for; 3 additional wall signs and
Criteria for
16 sf relief for the free standing sign, from the Sign Ordinance (Section 140).
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct and display 6 signs in the desired locations.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives include consolidation of the signs, downsizing the
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
free standing sign and no construction.
Relief for three additional signs may be interpreted as substantial, however the total square footage
is less than the allowed square footage for two signs. Additionally, 16 square feet, of relief for the
4. Effects on the neighborhood or
Free Standing sign may be interpreted as moderate relief.
community:5. Is
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action.
this difficulty self created?Parcel History
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Site Plan Review - SP11-98 res. 4-21-98 Area Variance
- AV 10-1998 res. 4-22-98 relief from buffer zone and separation between ingress and egress
Staff comments:
locations. Minimal impacts are anticipated on the community as a result of this
SEQR Status:
action. Type: Unlisted”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10 day of
June 1998, the above application for a Sign Variance for 5 separate signs - 2 building signs are
allowed was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Return
Comments: Since a majority decision could not be achieved, no action could be taken on this
application.” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. O’Connor.
MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of
Little & O’Connor, and with me is Kendall Gilgore, who is a representative of Amerada Hess
Corporation. If you will, I’ll try and run through this quickly, and then come back to questions
that you have. I don’t think the request is as substantial as it may appear on its face. Basically,
this is a new site. You’ve had it before. You approved an Area Variance to allow us to build
within what would be a buffer zone, because of a change of zoning line. The Planning Board has
approved the site plan as it is. On the site plan, we did show a freestanding sign up here. We did
not show the signage in total for this site. This site’s a little bit unique. It’s more than on two
corners. It’s on a very triangular type lot, and if you take a look at our building, our building is
back almost 700 feet from the intersection, if you will. Comparable maybe to buildings like Wal-
Mart, although that’s probably a little bit further, but buildings that are setback, really, a far
distance from the highway. The actual building is back in here. If you took this distance from just
the property line to here, I think it’s 452 feet, and then if you can take a look at the travel
intersections, there’s another 100, or another 75 feet out in there, to tell you what I’m talking
about. I mention that because people have talked about the site, and probably when we talked
about the visibility of this site, probably the signage is going to be best served to those that are
waiting at the light. It’s a fairly busy highway, and when it goes back and forth, the signs, I don’t
know if people are going to read the signs, the size that we’ve got, to be honest with you. People
that are at this intersection over here coming up Dix Avenue are even going to be further away than
the almost 700 feet. I say almost 700 feet. It’s 664 feet. On the other side, it’s even further than
that. So, what we begin with is a request to have this sign here 16 feet larger than what is
permitted. Part of the reason is trying to be uniform. We came in on the Aviation Road project
with a sign of 100 square feet, when we started. We had that same sign set up here, but taking the
lead from what you approved up there, we’ve changed it to the smallest sign that we have. This
will be a freestanding sign, and the upper panel will be the Hess logo. I think you’ve got a large
map of it or a large showing of it, and the next one will be the price panel, which is informational,
and the next is a panel for the two code brands. This is even a little different than the Aviation
Road site. Up there we had one code brand on site. Here we’re going to have two. We’re going to
have the pizza and also Blimpie’s. So what we’ve tried to do is utilize the sign that we have on
maybe another 50 to 100 locations. That’s the smallest sign that we put out on them, rather than
try to build a sign that would have one set of faces, one set of bulbs, one set of print for your
pricing numbers and what not. We’ve tried to get as close to the Queensbury Ordinance and still
meet the marketing needs that we think that we have. We have to put up a freestanding sign for
our code brands, in order to qualify for those operations to be on site, and for us to operate them.
We’ve talked before. It’s not necessarily a separate business because it all goes in one cash
register, but there are three separate operations within this one site. One will be the Blimpie’s
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
operation, the other will be the pizza operation, and the other is the Hess operation. We, in fact,
did something which is even unique here. On the other code brand signs, when they’ve gone down
to this size, they’ve had 10 square feet, or 16 square feet for each code brand, and we are going to
do a panel which would split that 16 feet below the two other signs, so that we have eight square
feet devoted to one code brand, eight square feet devoted to another code brand. This sign right
here is 115 feet from the point where the two highways meet. I gave you, in the application, the
setbacks on the sides, if you will, 40 and 42 feet, but if you actually look at how far back it is, it’s
significantly further back than what, typically, you have. You can have a sign, as I remember, 50
square feet at 15 foot setback, and you can have 64 feet at 25 feet setback. We did try to
maximize that by pushing this sign out, so it would be further out, and maybe make it less
necessary to ask for the 16 square feet. I don’t think anybody going up and down the highway is
going to know that that sign is 16 square feet larger than some of the other signs. It actually is not
going to be any larger than what’s across the street at the Sunoco Station, and their signage that’s
over there. That’s the one request that we have on that particular sign. The other signage, and
even if you add that 16 square feet, let me add that, too. Even if you add that 16 square feet to
what we ask for the total of the wall signs, our total would still be less than the 200 square feet of
wall sign that we’re permitted. We’re permitted, because we’re on two street frontages, to have
two 100 square foot wall signs, and basically these people have put together their marketing talents
and their idea of what they would like to present and changed it, I would think, and we got into a
lot of discussion with the County Board, although we couldn’t get a majority one way or the other,
and that’s why there was no action by them, that the goal here is to limit the square footage of
signs, as much as the number of signs, and there ought to be some way of recognizing that, and this
is an attempt to do that. If you take a look at the individual five signs, let me begin first with the
two signs that go on the canopy. Facing Dix Avenue, on the end of the canopy that faces Dix
Avenue, there will be a 24 square foot sign, I think I call it a 25 square foot sign in my application,
which just says “Hess”. Facing Quaker, there will also be the same thing. If you actually look at
the property from those two streets, those are the only wall signs you’re going to see. You’re not
going to see the other wall signs because the other wall signs are perpendicular to them. The other
wall signs, if you will, are at this end of the canopy. You’re probably better off looking at the Site
Plan. The two wall signs we were talking about is one place right here, which would be opposite
the K-Mart entrance or exit onto Dix Avenue, and one on Quaker Road, on this end here. The
other wall signs that we talked about are right here. They’re right in this building here. There’d be
a limited area here, where people may see that wall sign and see the building with the wall signs.
Again, it’s not going to look like it’s cluttered. What we’re talking about is going to have very
little impact, and I doubt if it’s going to have see that wall sign and see the building with the wall
signs. Again, it’s not going to look like it’s cluttered. What we’re talking about is going to have
very little impact, and I doubt if it’s going to have any impact. The other thing that you have to be
aware of is, again, the three signs that we talk about on here, two of them are only 16 square feet,
two feet by eight feet, and I’m told that this is part of their marketing project, and part of their
planning and what they have done to be successful, but when you take a look at the fact that that’s
almost 700 feet back from where you’re looking directly on to it, these are almost, in my mind, on
site directional signs. They’re more aimed at the people that are parked at the pump stations
directly in front of them. You also have to understand that the canopy that we’ve shown on the
other has a clearance of 16 feet. The bottom of this sign right here is probably about 14 feet. This
sign right here is above the 16 feet. So if you put the canopy directly in front of the building,
which it is right here, it’s a little bit off canter toward Quaker Road. These signs are not going to
be visible way out in here. They’re going to be visible more on site when the people are in here.
The idea, I understand, is that if people are at their pump stations, and, Ken, you can correct me
anytime, and they see that they have these food products in there, maybe they’re going to get out of
their car and go in and get some food, and then come back into their car. I don’t know, we don’t
have an exception for directional signs, I guess, except for small ones that you put on the ground,
but this is not something that is obnoxious. It’s well planned. There’s a couple of other facilities
around here that you’ve seen these at. It’s an attempt to, this is a brand new facility. They’re
upgrading some of the old ones. The one up on Aviation Road that you approved signs for before
is now under construction, the new facade is going up on that. So that’s basically it. The five
signs here, I think we gave you the square footage. The total of those five signs is 172 feet, and
we’re allowed 200 feet. Now I could take little placards, if you want, and add Blimpie’s, add
Godfather’s Pizza, or add Hess Express, and if they were attached, you’d say, okay, what’s the
total square footage you can do it? It really is getting into a sense of architectural desire and
design, and they think that this is tastefully done, and you obviously have the control when we have
to come in to you on an individual case basis and show you what we’re doing. It’s not something
that somebody can just go out and say, we’re going to divide the numbers of square footage into
however many signs we want, so you don’t have the old shading signs that were, berber shades that
were along the edge of the road or something like that. You have control, and maybe that’s a good
reason for making us make the application for a variance. When you go through the different
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
issues that you have, what are the impacts on the neighborhood, what are the impacts on the
community, and you take a look at what’s presented, I think you’re hard pressed to say that, other
than numbers, other than actual numbers, is there any impact? And the manner in which they’ve
done this and the way they’ve presented it, I don’t think that there is any significant impact, simply
because of the change in numbers. So, the freestanding sign, we’re looking for 16 square feet. It
meets all the setbacks. In fact, if you’re looking at it from the front for that triangle, you’re much
in excess of your front setback. The wall signs, we simply have broken up the signs into two small
ones on the canopy and two small ones on the face of the building, and a 40 square foot sign at the
top of the building. Do you have any questions?
MR. STONE-The only question that I have is one that we may have mentioned the last time is the
little Hess signs above the pumps. I don’t know what we consider those to be. Are those signs?
This is a concern. I mean, it’s something that we’re aware of. All of your competitors do it. A lot
of them have little signs. Are they signs? I mean, obviously, they’re telling the public something,
therefore, they’re a sign.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think it’s considered part of the equipment, for the most part, identification of
the equipment. We’ve done a few of these. I’ve done one for Sunoco before. We’ve never gotten
into that, and some towns won’t even count the square footage that’s devoted to prices. That’s
exempt.
MR. CUSTER-They’re logos.
MR. STONE-Well, a sign is a logo. It’s just a question. I mean, I don’t really have a real
problem with them, but they are there and they fit, if your name, if the major name wasn’t Hess, if
you didn’t have, I mean, it’s a repetition of the signs, one might say. I don’t think I really have a
problem with it, but I think it’s something that we ought to have in the Ordinance somewhere,
excluding them, I would think, if we’re not going to worry about them.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I don’t think, our Ordinance hasn’t fully addressed that, and we haven’t taken
a formal position on it, I know. In general, if a sign is not visible from a public right-of-way, we
don’t regulate it, and maybe that’s a way to address that. If you can’t read it from 30 feet away, or
whatever the case may be, then it’s not recognized as a sign. So then it’s not advertising.
MR. STONE-I would bet that, at least on Aviation Road, you can read it from the road.
MR. O’CONNOR-I’ve not paid attention.
MR. STONE-Well, you’re a good driver. You’re not looking.
MR. O’CONNOR-No, no. There are a number of signs. I did look. When I was doing the
Aviation Road, I looked at the Mobil station. I looked at the Sunoco station, and all of them. It
does not really seem to be totally uniform. I still don’t know how the Mobil station on the corner
has two freestanding signs, one on each intersection, or one on each exposure. They have two 50
square foot signs on each side. The Sunoco station opposite this one appears to be bigger than 50
square feet, but I’m not sure how they do that or don’t do that.
MR. STONE-Well, I think as Mr. Round says, we haven’t addressed that particular issue yet.
Will we or won’t we? It’s not our call, obviously.
MR. CUSTER-A quick question. Maybe, Chris, you can help out, or any of the Board members.
When the Aviation project was first approved with the canopy addition, prior to our last variance
request, there must have been a variance for that, too, because there was additional wall signs
necessitated.
MR. O’CONNOR-From the time that I made the presentation, it was my understanding that there
was, that those signs were on the canopy as it was approved.
MR. CUSTER-Was that a variance request, Chris, do you remember?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, it was. It was part of the variance.
MR. CUSTER-All right. So it’s similar in nature to this application?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. CUSTER-The Board had, obviously, no problems with that.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-No problem whatsoever with those.
MR. STONE-The one you’re talking about was before the last one that we, before the April one.
MR. CUSTER-Before the April one.
MR. STONE-Before the April one, they were there, and all we were doing.
MR. O’CONNOR-Before the April one, you still had the two on the chimneys.
MR. STONE-Right. The chimney is gone. I saw it today. It’s gone.
MR. O’CONNOR-And you had a combination of two freestandings that were kind of attached to
the same pole.
MR. CUSTER-But when the canopy addition was put on later, you had to add the two more, so it
required a variance, then.
MR. O’CONNOR-I did not do that application, Mr. Custer, but as I understand it from Mr.
Thomas’ discussion, recollection, it was.
MR. CUSTER-That helps me. Thanks.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for Mr. O’Connor? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing
to speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-I do have one question. The area out where the freestanding sign is, on the triangle,
is that going to be landscaped, graded, grassed or? It’s not our call. I know that.
MR. O’CONNOR-That is grassed.
MR. STONE-It’ll be grass. Attractive grass rather than, mowed. That’s okay.
MR. THOMAS-I have a question for Staff over here. This is an Unlisted Action. Did they do an
EIS on this?
MR. ROUND-There’s a Short Form right here. I couldn’t get forwarded to you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. O’Connor?
MR. HAYES-I guess the one question I have, is this going to be basically, you know, contiguous
with the Aviation Road design, as far as, I mean, is this a plan that has, is doing State wide, this
type of set up, as far the three, the smaller signs?
KENDALL GILGORE
MR. GILGORE-The front elevations will be similar. This is, obviously, a brand new building, and
it’s typical of what we’re building everywhere in the eastern sea board. The Aviation Road is an
existing facility that we’re trying to make look like the new prototype. So Aviation Road is close
to this, but it is unique, because we had an existing structure to design around.
MR. STONE-Main Street’s going to stay the way it is?
MR. GILGORE-Yes. At this time, there’s no plans on that.
MR. STONE-The small mini mart will just, that’s all that will be in there?
MR. GILGORE-Yes. I think there’s not enough room to do anything much more than what’s
there.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? If not, lets talk about it. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Well, the thing I kept noticing all through this was, Lew was always
talking about precedents, which we sure did earlier this very evening with Lowes. So it’s going to
be hard to do much with this, if we’re not happy, but I almost think, as I said before with Lowes. I
think this is more of a directional thing, that you’re not going to see, hopefully, from the road this
tiny little Blimpie’s and Godfather sign, until you get there, particularly because you said, Mike,
the canopy is going to block those out, from the road.
MR. O’CONNOR-The canopy almost comes to the, almost to the bottom of those signs. The
elevations are shown on this map.
MRS. LAPHAM-But, see, you’ll see the Hess sign. You’ll only see the Amerada Hess, and then
you’ll see the canopies.
MR. O’CONNOR-From this direction out here, you will not see any of these three signs. You will
see them when you get along side, when you’re looking at the front of the building, kitty corner, on
a very quick basis, maybe, but I don’t think from one, the distance. You’re almost 700 feet, just to
this point right here, to this point where the two white lines meet, and you’ve got your canopy in
front of you. The canopy is, the elevation on the canopy, the bottom of the canopy, is 15 feet, and
there’s three and a half feet of canopy above that. So you’re going to have to look under that.
MRS. LAPHAM-Right. Because you said they were like only two feet high.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. Maybe that’s something I should have done, but I didn’t do a site line, as
to how far back, underneath the canopy, or how close to the signs underneath the canopy you’d
have to be to be able to see above the end of the canopy to see the building, but I think you’re going
to have to be in under the canopy to really see the three, particularly see this sign. These two here
you may not have to be all the way under the canopy to see them.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, the Amerada Hess sign you should be able to see, so you can identify the
business.
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, that’s why they’ve got the two canopy things and the freestanding. I
honestly think that this is on-site directional, logo type signage.
MRS. LAPHAM-And I tend to agree with that assessment. Although usually I would be against
so many signs, but you’re also coming under the required amount, too, or under the allowed
amount, rather.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, total square footage is less than what’s required.
MRS. LAPHAM-And I think there’s been a lot of pains taken to make this project fit nicely with
the land.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-I think this is well done. I think the applicant has listened to our previous discussion,
recognizing that signs are very important to us and to the Town of Queensbury. I agree with Mr.
O’Connor that the signs on the building, it’s going to be hard for us, for anybody to see them,
particularly as they’re going by on Quaker or Dix, unless they actually pull in. I do hope that if I
were to buy gas there that somebody wouldn’t stay at the pumps while they go in to get a pizza or
to get a Blimpie made for them, I hope they would pull into a parking spot. I assume you will have
some kind of signage to that effect, that that’s certainly directional, instructional, if nothing else,
but I agree with Bonnie that you have made a determined effort to minimize any visual pollution, if
you will, and that’s the whole purpose of our Sign Ordinance. The freestanding sign, while it’s
larger than we allow, is so far set back, compared to what our minimum is, that I have no problem
whatsoever. I think it’s a well thought out thing, and I don’t think that it sets any precedent,
because this lot is unique. There is no question that there is no other lot in Queensbury of this size,
and of this geometrical dimensions and layout.
MR. THOMAS-Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I agree with Bonnie and Lew. I think in this particular circumstance, it’s fairly
analogous to a lake application where the applicant is not going closer to the lake. So, in this
particular circumstance, boiling it down, I think that they’re coming to the Board and asking for
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
less square footage than they could ask for, and therefore my level of scrutiny goes down a lot. I
think that their rational for wanting the signs that they do makes perfect sense to me, and I think
Hess is a major corporation. I’m sure that they’ve thought this out pretty well. I’m pretty
confident about that. So it is a unique lot, and the signage that they’re proposing, in almost every
circumstance, is going to be substantially away from the arterials, including the signs that are on
the building itself, the facade of the building, are going to be partially obscured, in my opinion,
from most of the drivers. So, in effect, they’re less than the square footage that’s permissible, and
in effect, I think it’s even less than that. So I think the effects are minimal, and the relief is, you
know, is minimal, and I don’t think we’re setting a dangerous precedent for that reason. So I
would be in favor of the application.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I’m basically in agreement with Jamie and Lew. I think the presentation speaks for
itself, that the Hess Corporation is concerned about the impact of their signage on the community
and the Town of Queensbury, and that they’ve done everything to alleviate it, to the best of their
ability. I travel, not only in this State, but the Northeast corridor frequently, in my employment,
and I can’t remember when I’ve gone to a Hess station that isn’t impeccable in condition. They’re
absolutely fanatical about keeping clean, for a very high traffic business, and I think that should be
commended. I think it speaks to the character of the type of business that they’re going to bring to
this community. So I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with the application. The reasons of the other Board
members are quite accurate, and I don’t want to belabor the point any further.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll say the same thing Bob has. I think all the Board members have
brought out the, all the pertinent points of this property, and the uniqueness of this property, and
why we should grant the variance for the sign. Before we do that, though. This is an Unlisted
Action, and I do have the Short Environmental Assessment Form here. Would anyone like to read
it? If you want to just like to look at it, before I make a motion.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS
PROJECT
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Now I will ask for a motion to approve, deny or table this application.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 33-1998 AMERADA HESS CORP.
,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brain Custer:
Northwest corner of Quaker and Dix Avenue. The applicant proposes construction and display of
six separate signs, specifically three wall signs, two canopy signs, and one freestanding sign. The
applicant requests relief for the three additional wall signs. Specifically, they’d like one additional
wall sign than the two otherwise permitted. They’re also requesting 16 square feet of relief for the
freestanding sign and two canopy signs also, as part of the relief requested, so the total would be of
five wall signs. The benefit to the applicant, of course, would be that they would be permitted to
construct and display six signs, in desired locations, for the benefit of their business. While the
feasible alternatives might include consolidation in size, downsizing or no construction, the relief is
not substantial relative to the Ordinance, because the total square footage of the signs is less than
what would otherwise be allowed for two building signs. Additionally, the 16 square foot of relief
for the freestanding sign is, in my opinion, minimal, given the fact that it’s setback a good distance
from the road, the amount of additional square footage is minimal. The effects on the local
community and neighborhood is also going to be minimal, given the fact that this is a commercial
area, and the project plans, as proposed, are going to be a decent looking development of the
parcel. For these reasons, I move that the application be approved as submitted.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we’re all set.
MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you very much.
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-98 KENNETH ERMIGER APPLICANT (KENNETH
ERMIGER) IS APPEALING THE DETERMINATION BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR THAT A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED GO-KART TRACK AT
FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (SKATELAND) DOES NOT REQUIRE
SETBACK RELIEF AS ISSUED IN CORRESPONDENCE DATED MAY 22, 1998.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: WEST SIDE OF NYS ROUTE 9, SOUTH OF ROUTE 9
CINEMAS, (TAX MAP NO. 73-1-8.3 IN AN HC-1A ZONE.
JACK LEBOWITZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Now I’ve got a letter somewhere that said we weren’t going to do that
tonight. That the appeal was going to wait because somebody was out of town.
MR. ROUND-You should have a letter in your file requested.
MR. LEBOWITZ-Mr. Chairman, I’m Jack Lebowitz of Lemery & Reid, and I’m representing Mr.
Ermiger, and I’d understood that the matter was going to be put over another month, but I think
we’ll also be heard in opposition of the next appeal 4-98, which is substantially the same matter, it
involves the same project.
MR. THOMAS-Would you, as the applicant’s representative, have any problem with combining
the two appeals together, to be heard as one?
MR. LEBOWITZ-I think they should be heard as one appeal.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lebowitz is not the applicant’s representative. I think
you’re getting that mixed up. I believe Mr. O’Connor represents the applicant.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, on the first appeal. Okay, and you represent Ken Ermiger?
MR. LEBOWITZ-I represent Ken Ermiger, who’s an opponent of the relief requested.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-So you’re replacing Mr. Rehm?
MR. LEBOWITZ-Yes. Mr. Rehm couldn’t make this meeting, but, you know, substantially the
same matters can, we’re prepared to address them tonight.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. ROUND-So, I guess I’m not clear. Mr. Stafford requested that we did postpone this appeal
until the following ZBA cycle, but you’re prepared to combine them and hear, and make a decision
on both tonight?
MR. LEBOWITZ-That’s correct.
MR. ROUND-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, because I’m going to ask the same question of Mr. O’Connor, since he is
representing Ferraro Entertainment, right?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, I am.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would you have any objections to the two appeals being combined into
one, since they are essentially both the same?
MR. O’CONNOR-I have no objections.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So Appeals No. 3-98 and 4-98 are going to be combined, and will be
Appeal No. 3-98
further known as , and Appeal 4-98, the reference to that will be deleted, and any
Appeal No. 3-98
reference to this will be . Okay.
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-98 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT APPLICANT
(FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT) IS APPEALING THE DETERMINATION BY THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT THE GO-CART TRACK CONFORMS TO
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE HC-1A ZONE AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR
OVERLAY ZONE. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: WEST SIDE OF NYS ROUTE 9,
SOUTH OF ROUTE 9 CINEMAS, TAX MAP NO. 73-1-8.3 IN AN HC-1A ZONE
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and your first name is what?
MR. LEBOWITZ-I’m Jack Lebowitz.
MR. THOMAS-Jack Lebowitz. That’s right. We’ve seen you here before. Right?
MR. LEBOWITZ-I’ve been here a few times.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. ROUND-I’ve prepared a brief summary, but this didn’t contemplate both appeals. So this is
just directed to Mr. O’Connor’s appeal, and it doesn’t include anymore information than is
nd
included in my May 22 correspondence.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Take this one here, and read this one in. Have you got that?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I have it, but I don’t have the cross outs. I can just substitute Jack
Lebowitz for, all right, and do you want me to read this from Chris?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, we’ll read that one afterwards.
MRS. LAPHAM-Afterward.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Read the appeal in first.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s Decision issued in correspondence
dated May 22, 1998 The applicant is proposing an expansion/modernization of an existing go-cart
track at the Skateland facility on Route 9 adjacent to the Cinema Theaters. The applicant
requested a determination and clarification of the applicability of the setback requirements of the
HC-1A and Travel Corridor Overlay zones for the proposed structures. I indicated in my May 22,
1998 correspondence that the proposed structures constructed outside the area historically
occupied by the existing track would require relief from the referenced setback requirements. I
also indicated that the portions of the track constructed within the area historically occupied by the
same structure did not require relief implying they had vested rights to the noncompliant locations.
I based my decision on the ZBA determination of June 12, 1996 indicating that the go-cart track
structures were subject to the setback requirements of the HC-1A and Travel Corridor overlay
zone. The applicant contests my determination and that of the June 12, 1996 ZBA decision.”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Lebowitz, do you want to come up first and make your presentation?
MR. LEBOWITZ-Certainly. I think the Zoning Administrator’s determination runs afoul of the
zoning code in several different ways, and what he’s basically finding here is that when one does a
major reconstruction of a facility, you have vested rights to a noncompliant location, and I don’t
believe that’s what the Ordinance says. Particularly in Section 179-79, which I think is the most
important section for the purpose of reconstruction. This Board has already decided, in the June
12, 1996 decision, that the Zoning Administrator’s memo references, which is the go cart track,
which is owned by Mr. Ermiger, whom I represent, the Adventure Racing Track, which is about
800 feet north on Route 9, and is a competitor, this Board decided that the go cart facility was a
structure, and that the go cart track had to meet the 75 foot setback requirements of the Travel
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
Corridor Overlay Zone of Section 179-28, which is a very important provision of the Ordinance,
the travel corridor that’s mentioned, Route 9, and that area is the first travel corridor mentioned,
and its setbacks are there to preserve aesthetics. They’re there to preserve the ability to widen the
road. What 179-79 says is that, and this deals with continuation of a nonconforming use, which is
something which violates setback provisions, “subject to the provisions of this article, a
nonconforming structure or use may be continued and maintained in reasonable repair, but may not
be enlarged or extended, as of the date this Chapter becomes law, except as follows”, and then dot,
dot, dot, and then it says, “Sub E. An existing structure which violates only the area requirements
of this Chapter may be enlarged or extended so long as such enlargement or extension does not
violate the area requirements of this Chapter”. So what I think that’s saying is that if you do
what’s being proposed here at the Skateland/Ferraro facility, which is rip up an existing track,
which is a structure, and replace it with a newly configured track, a new facility, you must either
meet the setback requirements, or you must apply for an Area Variance. You don’t get to, as the
Zoning Administrator determined, you don’t get a grandfathered footprint of wherever the structure
was before. When you replace that structure, do something other than continue and maintain it in
reasonable repair, and undertake a new land use and development, which this most certainly is, you
have to get a variance, or comply with the Ordinance, and that interpretation, I would say, is also
kind of echoed or mirrored in what the requirements of 179-105, which is the criteria for issuing a
zoning permit later on, which is a pre-requisite for a building permit, the Zoning Administrator has
defined, this is A2, the new land use or development, meets the area, setbacks from property lines,
bulk and height controls, and so forth, unless an Area Variance has been granted, and lastly, I’d
just like to, you know, I’m citing provisions of the Ordinance, but I think that some of the
considerations that this Board obviously wrestles with all the time and was dealing with earlier on
the Sign Variance issues, are also pertinent here, which is equity, consistency, and precedent.
You’ve got, as this very memo refers to, a competitor who built a facility in 1996, 800 feet up the
road, and was told, this is a new land use or development. This is a new facility. This is a new
structure. You must comply with the setback requirements, and that business was required to
comply with the 75 foot setback requirements in the highway overlay zone, and I would submit to
you that the same, at least initial threshold step is that if the applicant, Ferraro, wants this Board to
entertain a request to vary the setback, the 75 foot setback in the front yard on the Highway
Commercial and the side yard setback, which I understand is very close to a zero lot line situation,
I think the Code, and just normal zoning principals, is going to behoove the applicant to come back
before this Board, and make that request in the form of a variance, rather than a grandfathering
type request, and argue the normal Area Variance criteria, that this Board’s familiar with. So with
that, I would say that this application, on it’s face, is incomplete, should be denied as a matter of
law, and I would think that if this does come back before the Board, in terms of the Area Variance
precedent factor, we would again be heard in opposition to a variance of the 75 foot setback,
because that’s something that we were forced to abide by. Thank you. Do you have any
questions?
MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Lebowitz?
MR. STONE-Well, are you saying that, you’re asking us if the, you’re saying the applicant should
ask for the total property, relief from the total property, not just the small section that would be
within, the new section that would be within the 75 foot?
MR. LEBOWITZ-Yes.
MR. STONE-In other words, we’ve got this, and this area that’s now close, you’re saying, should
be subject to the same variance that the other part of the parcel is?
MR. LEBOWITZ-Yes. I’m saying that all new land use and development there, if you rip a
structure up, my understanding of this is to rip the existing track up, the structure, replace it with
an all new track, all new materials, all new configuration, which, to me, suggests a new land use
and development, which, under your Ordinance, and most normal zoning principals, is not
grandfathered in terms, he doesn’t get an automatic Area Variance because the old structure was in
a certain place. He has to start over and make his case for, if he’s going to do this, why he can’t do
something new that conforms with the Ordinance.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions?
MR. LEBOWITZ-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. O’Connor?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-I have a preliminary question of the initial appellant if I could, but let me state
for the record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the firm of Little & O’Connor, and I have a question
for Mr. Lebowitz, which I think is necessary for the record. Is his applicant or his client’s
connection to this transaction, that fact that he’s a competitor who owns property some 800 feet to
the north of this property? Is that his standing claim?
MR. LEBOWITZ-Are we arguing standing here?
MR. O’CONNOR-I’d like to know, on the record, what the claim of standing is to even issue an
st
appeal or file the appeal on the Zoning Administrator’s initial letter of May 21?
MR. LEBOWITZ-That’s my understanding, although I did not, I’m here basically because this
matter is here to be heard now, and Mr. Rehm couldn’t make it with his schedule. I haven’t looked
at what his papers said, in terms of the aggrievment, Mike, but, yes, I think that, in all candor, we
are dealing with a business competitor situation, similarly situated, same type of entertainment
business up the road that wants a level playing field, as far as the rules.
MR. O’CONNOR-And that’s his claim of standing to raise an objection to the appeal by the
Zoning Administrator?
MR. LEBOWITZ-That’s his claim. If you think he doesn’t have standing, you’re free to make that
claim.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would, on the record, make a statement that I do not
believe that the appeal is appropriate, that the applicant does not have standing to make the appeal
that has been made. There’s no showing that he is in any way prejudiced by the appeal, in the
sense of zoning, and the effects, environmental and what not, effects of that nature of zoning.
Whether or not you have 50 restaurants or two restaurants in a town, is not the basis for standing
when you challenge a Zoning Administrator’s determination.
MR. LEBOWITZ-Mr. Chairman, I think we may be splitting hairs here, but, we might come out to
the same place. I have no objection to, the matters got consolidated a minute ago. My primary
objective tonight is being able to be heard in opposition to the Ferraro appeal, which was originally
called No. 4-98. I have no problem with drawing a separate appeal against the Zoning
Administrator’s determination and just jumping into the fray, with saying that in terms of the
appeal and the public hearing in 4-98, I will be heard in opposition, if that helps clear up, you
know, what I think we’re arguing about here, whether a competitor has standing to have his own
separate appeal.
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s my legal right to put that on record, and I don’t mean to play games with
Mr. Lebowitz, and I don’t want to delay the process, or prolong it. If you withdraw your appeal, is
what you just said, I will withdraw my appeal, and I will go forward with my variance application.
st
My appeal is only reactionary to your appeal. I had no, if you look at my letter of May 21, I kind
of indicated, notwithstanding my objections to Mr. Round’s initial determination, I filed a variance
application for the area that lay outside of the original fencing.
MR. STONE-And your presentation would be the exact same?
MR. O’CONNOR-My presentation would be as to the justification of giving a variance for that
area that’s outside the 75 feet.
MR. STONE-And if it was the whole area, you’d make the same argument?
MR. O’CONNOR-No. The area that’s outside, if I were put in that circumstance, I would, but
right now, I think we’ve colored coded the area that we thought Mr. Round was referring to, in his
determination, and that’s not, this is a total site plan that’s up there of what we propose. It doesn’t
show, separately, the area that was shown on the application in color, I think aqua color.
MR. LEBOWITZ-Again, not to split hairs with this. I just want to make sure that we’re going on
record, in terms of this whole package and what we’re asking this Board to find, which I think is
germane and is before the Board, no matter whose appeal it is, and who’s technically allowed to
raise it. I think that this Board is mandated to decide the issue of, that was raised by the building
inspector, which is, which part of this facility requires Area Variances, and I guess, you know,
you’ve heard my speel, the whole kit and caboodle does.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-Counsel for the Board may disagree or agree, but standing and issue of
standing is not a technicality. If a person doesn’t have standing, we need not go forward, and if the
person withdraws the appeal, we need not go forward on that appeal.
MR. LEBOWITZ-Well, I’m not going to withdraw to the extent that I’m not going to, you know, I
mean, that’s up to the Board to determine whether somebody, I mean, this is a public hearing issue,
and I know that this has been litigated, in some Article 78 proceedings, as to whether, you know,
how many 100 feet you have to live from something, or whether you have to be one of the people
who’s statutorily entitled to notice, but I also know that this Board entertains, during public
hearings, comments of the public and comments of other residents and tax payers and business
people, and I don’t know that the rules for standing are so strict when I’m directing my comments
to something which is within the original jurisdiction of this Board, which is to decide what you’re
going to have to decide in this instance and on this application, it’s a threshold issue, what portions
of this new land use and development require an Area Variance, and, you know, Mr. O’Connor’s
suggestion notwithstanding, I don’t think that this Board is not going to reach those issues on some
claim that Mr. Ermiger lacks a standing to raise them.
MR. O’CONNOR-For the purpose of the record, are you withdrawing that appeal, or are you
proceeding with that appeal?
MR. LEBOWITZ-Well, I guess if my understanding is that, by withdrawing the appeal, I would be
essentially agreeing that these issues shouldn’t be before the Board, and I have no right to raise
them, I’m certainly not going to do that. So what I would suggest is where we started with this
thing, that all these issues be consolidated in one ball of wax, and if Mr. O’Connor wants to object
to Mr. Ermiger’s standing to raise them before the Board, he’s free to do so, and the Board is free
to either decide or not to decide to agree with that, and his objection is noted, in terms of whether
we ever get any judicial review of this.
MR. O’CONNOR-My suggestion would be, if you withdraw your appeal, I’ll withdraw mine. I
will proceed with the variance application. If the Board on its own thinks that the variance
application is not broad enough, perhaps the issue will be reached in that manner. Our application
is for an Area Variance for a portion of the front of the track that was color coded on one of the
maps.
MR. LEBOWITZ-Okay. I don’t know what to say, but I’ll leave it to the Board’s discretion as to
what they advise the applicant it has to do, whether getting the one variance is enough, or whether
he needs more, or the Board won’t decide it, but I guess I’ve said about all I can say about, that it’s
germane, and it’s part of the same ball of wax.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything you want to throw into this, Jeff?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. There is a legal concept called standing that applies in courts, where
courts look at somebody that sues and decide whether they have a right to be in court to sue,
whether they have the standing to sue, and we could spend hours talking about what standing
means. I’m not aware of any standing, of any doctrine, of any legal theory that bars an economic
competitor from appealing a Zoning Administrator’s determination. I don’t think that doctrine
would apply to Mr. Lebowitz’s client, so as to bar him from appealing the Zoning Administrator’s
determination.
MR. O’CONNOR-My point, Mr. Friedland, is that not that it bars him, but if that is his only claim
for the right to do it, that is not sufficient. It’s not that he’s barred, but he has to have some zoning
impact, other than a potential monetary impact, or economic competitor impact, in order to be a
valid objection in the zoning issue.
MR. FRIEDLAND-So if it’s not sufficient, what does that mean then?
MR. O’CONNOR-Then he doesn’t have the grounds to make it.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Then you’re saying that he’s barred from appealing it?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, unless he has some other impact.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. Again, it seems to me he’s made the appeal. Again, I’m not aware of
any doctrine that says he can’t appeal merely because he’s an economic competitor. If you’d like, I
could spend some time researching that further, but my recommendation would be, the appeal is
here, unless it’s withdrawn, that you hear the appeal, and you’ve already combined the two of
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
them, so I’d recommend to go ahead and hear both of them, unless one or both of them withdraw
their appeals.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would either one like to withdraw their appeal?
MR. O’CONNOR-If they withdraw their appeal, I will withdraw mine which was reactionary, and
I will proceed to the Area Variance application.
MR. THOMAS-Mr. Lebowitz, do you want to withdraw yours, yes or no?
MR. LEBOWITZ-I don’t really see a need to. My brain is spinning. It seems to me that the Board
could decide all of these things, all in one fell swoop. It’s all the same matter. It’s all the same
package, but I’ll let the Board make that decision. I don’t want to withdraw what’s on the table.
MR. CUSTER-We can’t make that decision, can we?
MR. THOMAS-No, we can’t. What do you think down there, Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-As I understand it, all right, Mr. Lebowitz is bringing an appeal to the effect
that we have to have a no vote determination of all variances for the entire site, and that if he
doesn’t do that, we’re still faced with an application for a variance by Mr. O’Connor, on behalf of
his client, for that little aqua portion in the front, and Mike’s application opposing Lebowitz’s
would be there only if Mr. Ermiger’s application is still there. In other words, they’re going head
to head.
MR. O’CONNOR-No. My application I initially, when I looked at this, I met at the site with
Chris, I think we might have met with somebody else from Staff there once, maybe talked to Chris
a couple of times. My understanding of our Ordinance, and of the application, was that we were
grandfathered to the extent that we already projected into the travel corridor. My understanding,
also, initially was that what we’re talking about is not a building. So we really weren’t subject to
the setback requirements in the first instance. I was surprised to find that an applicant up the street
by this Board was told that that proposed track was, in fact, a building or a structure that was
subject to the setback, the corridor setback. Apparently, they did not appeal that determination of
this Board. I can recognize by the faces that probably most of the Board members here weren’t
Board members at that time.
MR. THOMAS-Two of us were.
MR. O’CONNOR-Two out of the six. See, I have a real problem saying that, and I gave you a
little note behind my appeal, which gave, my cross appeal, if you will, which, in fact, have you
st
seen my earlier letter, my letter of May 21?
MR. STONE-Yes.
nd
MR. O’CONNOR-And then his response of May 22?
MR. STONE-Right. We have that.
MR. O’CONNOR-All right. I don’t have really an objection or an argument that what is proposed
here is a structure under our Ordinance, but I don’t believe our setback requirements are related to
structures. They have not been related to structures in my past experience. Parking lots, under the
same definition and same interpretation, curbing of parking lots, would be considered structures.
Nobody has ever told me that we talk about building setbacks for parking lots. Sidewalks that you
have in front of places of business are of the same nature as the track that we’re talking about. No
one has ever told me that you have to have a building setback for your sidewalk. Some of the
couple of different Hess applications that I have have different parts of their property, or different,
there’s a kerosene pump on one. There’s a telephone booth on another. I think there’s a couple of
other things. They were not, they were structures, yes, but they were not subject to building
setbacks. I think, in 1996, the problem got confused because of some neighborhood concern that
probably could have been handled, and still would be handled, in the site plan review process. Site
plan review process is not bound by any geometric configuration or any lineal setback. They could
tell us, we have to have the process or the operation that we propose out behind our building. A
living example of it is the water slide on this property. That water slide was initially proposed out
front, and it was moved to the back, not because of setbacks, not because of anything. It was a site
plan issue. They thought that it would be distractive, I guess, and I wasn’t here, but I was told that
they thought, the argument was that it would be distractive of traffic. You take some of the rides
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
at Storytown, or we now call it The Great Escape. They just re-did their rides, right along Route 9
on the east side of Route 9. They didn’t come in and ask for variances. I really have a problem
with understanding the 75 foot setback, in the very first instance, as being applicable to what we
propose. We have a concrete pad. We have a rail on the inside of the concrete pad. We have a set
of tires that are touching each other, behind the rail, and then we have a concrete curbing behind
that. That’s our surface. I don’t understand that to be a building. If you look at the definition of a
building, you’re talking about something that is an enclosure for the purpose of protecting persons,
animals, or property. This certainly not an enclosure. I think that’s half the sum of the concerns
that they have, is the fact that it is wide open and that it might be a problem. I mean, I’m prepared
to argue the merits on each and every issue that you have before you, and I think I can convince
you that we are correct. I filed the variance application with that aqua thing. It was simply the
st
simple thing to do. I think in my letter of May 21, I indicated that, and somebody called me on
this and asked me what I meant, and I’m not sure who did, when I said, notwithstanding the
foregoing, I will file for an application. The idea was, not withstanding my reservation, I accept
same for purposes of this letter, and ask for your determination with an understanding that you are
considering the travel portion of a go cart track to be a structure. As I understand it, the actual,
see, what is, what was the structure that was a building that was supposed to be set back? As I
understand it, the one that was built up the road isn’t 75 feet. It’s 75 feet to the rail. Everything
outside, the bumper system and everything else, is within the 75 foot travel corridor. I may be
corrected on that. You have a real definition problem here. Are we now going to call flag poles
buildings? Are they going to have to be setback 75 feet?
MR. STONE-I have a response, but I’ll wait for it.
MR. O’CONNOR-How about signs? We just talked about a sign. That’s certainly a structure, in
the definition of “structure”. It’s attached to the land. It’s permanently attached to the land, and I
just showed you one that was 40 feet and 42 feet, and there’s a travel corridor on that highway.
We put the building on that property 75 feet back. We didn’t put all the rest of the accouterments
that go along with it. So I’m not afraid of precedent. I think I bring to your attention the fact that
this has been treated differently. Unfortunately, the last time a Board made a determination,
nobody pushed or nobody appealed it, in the sense of trying to get a more definite answer, but I do
not see where what we’re talking about is subject to the 75 foot setback, not by our definitions.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Back when this track was built, in, I think it was ’86, ’87, there was no
such thing as a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone on Route 9, and since then, it’s been added. So at
the time, I do believe the track did meet the setbacks, the 25 foot setback, for that zone. So the
track was, in fact, a legal track.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t know why it was placed where it was placed then. I don’t think there
was any determination then, that that was required to meet the setback.
MR. THOMAS-Even on your print, it shows the setback.
MR. O’CONNOR-It was 50 feet.
MR. THOMAS-As 50 feet.
MR. O’CONNOR-Right, and I’ll also say this, too. The applicant here did, since 1986, when they
put the addition on for the kiddie cart track, which is the small portion that goes to the front, they
have applied for a variance. I think there’s a lot of law that says that is not binding if it’s not good
st
law. They were like I was in my letter of May 21, what’s going to be the easier course here?
Here we’re talking about an existing go cart operation. You think that this is totally ridiculous and
you turn us down. What do you have? You have an existing go cart operation there. When we get
into the nuts and bolts of showing you what we’re going to do, we’re going to show you the
improvement of what we’re going to have, the improvement to the community, the improvement to
the neighborhood, and many of the different impacts that we presently have. Selling this variance
is not going to be a tough variance to sell, whether we look to the aqua piece or we actually look
for even more than that, to be honest with you. It’s not like the application up the street. That was
a virgin piece of land. That was not something that was grandfathered. There’s a great distinction
between that application and this application, but if you look at the Travel Corridor section, and I
try not to read these things while we’re here, all buildings, hereafter erected or altered, within this
Travel Corridor Overlay District shall be set back 75 feet. You’re telling me that this is a building.
I look at your specific definition for building. It doesn’t include what we’ve got here.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-Back when we made the decision, back in June of ’96, we said that the track itself,
the blacktop part of the track itself, was an accessory structure, and according to Section 167A(2),
any accessory structure, I take that back.
MR. O’CONNOR-Any accessory structure shall be subject to the same setbacks of buildings.
MR. THOMAS-As the principal structure.
MR. O’CONNOR-Buildings.
MR. THOMAS-Of the principal structure.
MR. O’CONNOR- I think buildings.
MR. THOMAS-179-67A(3) Accessory Structures in other zones, and A(2) gives us the zones,
and this is in the, it’s on Page 18044.1, Accessory structures in other zones. “Accessory structures
shall comply to the front and side yard requirements for the principal structure to which they are
accessory and shall not be closer than ten (10) feet to any rear property line or buffer zone, if
required, or closer than fifty (50) feet to another building”.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. In your determination in ’96, I don’t see the language of accessory
structure. Am I wrong?
MR. THOMAS-I’ve got it right here. Did you get a copy of this, of the ’96?
MR. O’CONNOR-June 12, 1996?
MR. THOMAS-The Zoning Board of Appeals, the record of resolution? Have you got a copy of
that?
MR. O’CONNOR-The go cart device and accessory use structures do not meet the front, side
setbacks.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, the go cart devices and accessory use structures.
MR. O’CONNOR-All right. Show me a setback for a principal structure.
MR. THOMAS-And a principal structure in a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone is 75 feet from the
property line.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t think you can make that jump because you’ve got to look at 179-29C.
It says “all buildings”.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and then you go back to 179-67A(3), where it says “Accessory structures
shall comply with the front and side yard requirements for the principal structure to which they are
accessory, and shall be no closer than 10 feet. Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-We, in our proposal, comply with the normal setbacks for this zone, which is
50 feet. The only one that we don’t comply with is the 75 foot Travel Corridor, which I think is
specifically for buildings.
MR. THOMAS-Well, a building is a structure, but a structure is not necessarily a building,
according to our definitions.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think that that’s true, except where you, there’s a generalization in the
definitions that gets you to where you’re going, but if you have a specific definition of buildings, as
being one that is used for the enclosure and protection of personal property, persons or animals, I
think you have a distinction. I think it’s tough to tell me that this is different than a parking lot
with a curb.
MR. STONE-Yes, but it does says, in 179-28A, the purpose of having Travel Corridor
Overlays…”In order to maintain the rural character along these roadways and/or to allow widening
of these roadways in the future, increased setbacks for new construction has been established along
the major regional arterials in the town.”
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Follow the intent of that. If that’s why you’re making your
determination the way you’re, but follow your intent. There is about 15 feet between us and the
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
curbing, right now, on Route 9. There is 50 feet between us and our front property line. That’s 65
feet. What widening of Route 9, in our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of you, your grandchildren and
your grandchildren’s grandchildren is going to be 65 feet?
MR. STONE-But the Ordinance says 75 feet.
MR. O’CONNOR-No, it’s for the intent of the Travel Corridor.
MR. STONE-You’re picking 65 as an arbitrary number. The Ordinance talks 75 feet, which is
arbitrary, but at least it’s written down.
MR. O’CONNOR-And that says you’ll have no buildings within that.
MR. STONE-That’s what it says.
MR. O’CONNOR-What’s the difference between this track, that extends from 52 feet, or 51 feet
out to 51 feet, from the 75 feet, as opposed to a parking lot with a curb?
MR. STONE-Because it is, it relates to the principal use of the property. That’s where I’m
coming from.
MR. THOMAS-The track is an accessory structure to the principal use of the property, which is a
go cart track, the principal use. The parking lot, we went through this with Mr. Martin, because he
brought up the same question two years ago, that parking lots are not accessory structures.
MR. O’CONNOR-Why aren’t they accessory structures? Under your definition, anything that’s
attached to the land is a structure.
MR. THOMAS-No, anything that’s accessory use to a principal structure.
MR. O’CONNOR-And a parking lot’s not an accessory use to a business?
MR. THOMAS-We determined that it wasn’t.
MR. O’CONNOR-You can’t establish a parking lot by itself, can you?
MR. THOMAS-No you can’t. I take that back, yes, you can.
MR. O’CONNOR-It doesn’t have to be accessory to?
MR. THOMAS-No. You can establish a parking lot, by site plan review. Am I right or wrong?
MR. ROUND-I don’t know that answer, but I do know that our Ordinance specifically addresses
setbacks for parking. So I don’t know if that’s.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. How about Pirate’s Cove?
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets talk about Pirates Cove.
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s not 75 feet back from the road, without a variance.
MR. THOMAS-I did a little research on that with Mr. Brown, and we came up with something to
the effect that they were given a building permit for that before a determination was made that that
track, and any accessory structure, had to be outside the 75 foot setback. Am I right, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s what I got out of it.
MR. THOMAS-That’s what we found out, that before this whole thing started, back in, I think it
started in February of ’96.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I don’t necessarily need to argue each and every case with you, Mr.
Thomas, but my position is, under this Ordinance, I do not believe that this is a building. I believe
that the Travel Corridor restriction of 75 feet applies to buildings.
MR. THOMAS-Well, we made a determination, two years ago, that an accessory.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t think that’s binding on us tonight.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s the determination we made two years ago, and no one ever appealed
it.
MR. O’CONNOR-That doesn’t make it binding tonight. It didn’t effect us. We weren’t
prejudiced by it until we filed the application. We have the right to raise this issue.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you do, but in my opinion, I’m going to tell you the same thing that we told
them two years ago.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t think two wrongs make a right.
MR. THOMAS-That’s my opinion. It’s not a right or wrong. I’m not right. I’m not wrong. It’s
my opinion, and that’s what I’m here for, is my opinion.
MR. CUSTER-If both these appeals are withdrawn, we’re going to hear this all again at the
variance request, correct?
MR. STONE-Yes, right?
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, you’ll hear it with a different burden of proof. I’m here as a matter of
right, as to probably 95% of what we propose, by being grandfathered, and that’s opposed to
coming in, looking for an Area Variance for everything that falls within the 75 feet, or the side line,
20 feet.
MR. CUSTER-But you’re not opposed to coming to do that, either, like you said before.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think I should be put to that burden.
MR. CUSTER-But you’re willing to do that, if both appeals are withdrawn?
MR. O’CONNOR-Not unless I have a ruling against us, and we probably will appeal that ruling to
the court, and we may come in with the variance application in the mean time anyway.
MR. STONE-Okay. If Mr. Lebowitz’s client says, don’t withdraw his appeal, then we have to
make the determination that it’s either the small portion or the large portion, or the total portion
that requires a variance. I mean, that’s what would be before us. Then we’d have to take on Mr.
O’Connor’s appeal of that decision.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-Jeff, what do you think?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes, that’s right. I think that’s right, and I think maybe for the record you
should ask Mr. Lebowitz whether or not his appeal has been withdrawn, or I’ll ask him.
MR. LEBOWITZ-No. I want it to be before the Board that the Zoning Administrator was
incorrect, that only the small portion that Mr. O’Connor wants to seek a variance for is the only
variance that’s required. Our position is, they need a variance for the replacement that’s within the
Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, even if, as Mr. O’Connor’s claiming, he’s grandfathered, in terms
of application.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Okay. Mr. O’Connor, are you withdrawing your appeal?
MR. O’CONNOR-No.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Okay. So you have two appeals in front of you. You’ve already combined
them, hear and decide on the appeals.
MR. THOMAS-I could split them back up again.
MR. O’CONNOR-Let me go on to just one other issue which may also be determinative, too.
Because, implicit within the letter of May 22, 1998 is something separate from what we’ve all
talked about. We’re arguing, and I’ve been arguing with you as to whether or not what is there, or
what we propose, is a violation of the 75 feet. If I take the same position, for argument purposes
only, that I took in my letter, and said that some of it may be a violation, that we have an
exemption because of the existing operation that’s within the 75 feet, and that it’s grandfathered,
that is a separate finding that you can make, or that’s a part of the first appeal. If you take a look
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
at the section that Mr. Lebowitz referred you to, the 179-79, it talked about a nonconforming
structure or use or a structure containing a nonconforming use may be continued and maintained in
reasonable repair, but may not be enlarged or extended as of the date this Ordinance, Chapter
becomes law, except as follows. Basically, they’re saying you cannot expand it. Okay. What we
propose, within the area of the present go cart track is not an expansion or an enlargement. It’s a
repair. It’s an improvement. It’s a significant repair and improvement, but you have to look at the
nature of what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a 20 year old go cart track that is on the
ground, that has some problems with it because of root growth with the trees. That has some
problem because of deterioration of it, because some of the earlier trees that were there became
diseased and came down, so that parts of the track that were not exposed to the sunlight are now
exposed to the sunlight, and those tracks, because they don’t have any canopy over them, become
super heated, apparently, with the vehicles that go around them, and even though it’s not
tremendous speed, but that friction breaks that track up on a regular basis, without the canopy.
The change in heat of the track surface requires that we replace it. Now I’ve gone through a
number of different applications, and going up with a nonconforming structure is not an expansion.
We went through this for almost a year arguing about going up within a structure. As long as we
stayed within the height requirements of the particular zone, it was not determined to be an
expansion. We’re changing the grades, and will have to change the grades to accommodate this
track. This track is, in fact, much shorter than the existing track. The existing track is over 1,000
feet long. This track is going to be some 630 feet long. In order to do that and still maintain the
process of having a bridge, which is unique to our operation, we will change some of the grades.
I’ve talked about going in with a concrete saw or something like that and cutting up some of the
existing pavement and trying to utilize it, cover it over. That would be, it’s impractical to do that,
and it’s kind of a waste of expense, as opposed to removing that surface area there, but if you look
at the area, if you look at the application that we put in, we show the fence area of the existing
operation, and we will be resurfacing our track within that area. I think that’s a grandfathering,
which is the same thing as Mr. Round believed, which is an exemption from whatever Travel
Corridor restrictions might be. I don’t think we’ve ever argued that if something is pre-existing, it
can be grandfathered under this particular provision that we’ve talked about, and I would also say
that that would be support for Mr. Round’s determination, and I think it was part of the reason that
he made the initial determination, and if you agree with that, I think you can deny the appeal of Mr.
Lebowitz’s client, and then that renders my appeal moot, or I would then probably withdraw my
appeal, and would stand on a variance application for the area that we’ve shown, that’s outside of
that 75 feet, if you agree that we are grandfathered for that part.
MR. THOMAS-Let me ask you one question, Mr. O’Connor. The part that’s within the 75 foot
setback, the part of the track that’s within that 75 foot setback, are you changing the course, the
direction, the elevation?
MR. O’CONNOR-We’re changing the course within the fencing. We have perimeter fence that
totally utilizes the area within the fenced area, but the actual course is a different configuration.
MR. THOMAS-It’s a different configuration, part of the different configuration is within the 75
foot setback.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, it would be.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. So the course of the existing track will be changed within the 75 foot
setback.
MR. O’CONNOR-I haven’t done an overlay type thing to see whether actually, there’d be some
areas, some small areas, within the 75 feet that would not be covered by track, and utilized by
track right now. As I understand it, the track as it, and Keith Ferraro, will you come up with me.
As I understand it, the existing track comes out, comes to a point out here, goes back, and then
comes back. So you probably would draw a, there would be an area in here that is not presently
within the track.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that’s within the 75 Travel Corridor?
MR. O’CONNOR-A portion of it is.
MR. THOMAS-A portion of it is.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-And that’s where the kiddie track is now?
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-No.
MR. STONE-The kiddie track is within the 75 foot.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-So you’re going to re-locate the existing “track”, your definition track I assume
meaning the big one, the 1,000 feet, you’re going to re-locate that into that 75 foot overlay, by
taking out the kiddie track and putting the new track over it, but are we hearing Mr. Lebowitz’s
appeal right now, is that what we’re doing?
MR. THOMAS-We’re hearing them both. Right now, we’re hearing them both.
MR. HAYES-We’re going to need to hear Chris’ rationale, then, as far as Mr. Ermiger’s appeal,
so we can hear why he ruled that way.
MR. THOMAS-Right. I don’t know how we’re going to go on this tonight, but we’ve got, what,
five here. We’ll see how this comes out and we’ll take it from there. Okay. What did we
determine?
MR. O’CONNOR-I may not want to call for a vote, then.
MR. THOMAS-You may not get one tonight.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think at this point you were going to ask for Mr. Round’s determination.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you still haven’t given me a definitive answer yet as to whether a portion of
the new track is going to be within the 75 foot Corridor Overlay Zone.
MR. MC NALLY-Isn’t the portion that you marked in blue new track?
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s new track outside of the fencing.
MR. MC NALLY-And within the 75 feet?
MR. O’CONNOR-Within the 75 feet.
MR. STONE-That’s on grass now. The part we’re talking about is where that kiddie track is,
mostly.
MR. O’CONNOR-And I’m looking for a map that I had that showed the kiddie track. Have you
got your map there? The one with the blue on it shows the kiddie track.
MR. STONE-Here’s the blue, right here.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Here’s the kiddie, right here, and this fenced in area is the kiddie part.
Okay. This portion of the track is, this piece, this piece is entirely on track right now. This piece
right here is entirely on a track.
MR. STONE-But not on the track.
MR. O’CONNOR-Not on the track. The only, no, well, it’s used for track purposes right now.
MR. STONE-I understand, but the track is this, the 1,000 feet. I mean, I just want to know for
definition purposes, that’s all.
MR. O’CONNOR-But it’s used for go cart track.
MRS. LAPHAM-Now what is this blue, Mike?
MR. O’CONNOR-The blue is outside of the fenced in area. It was a new area that was going to
be used for a track.
MR. STONE-Here’s the setback line, that’s his 75 feet.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-And, okay, Keith, in this area, I know that this is entirely track in there, okay.
This area here, because this is the 75 foot setback, okay. Is there a track in this piece and in this
piece?
KEITH FERRARO
MR. FERRARO-Like you said before, there’s a void in the middle, because the present track has
two hair pins toward the front.
MR. O’CONNOR-So there is perhaps a void like that, and that’s not track right now?
MR. FERRARO-Yes, correct.
MRS. LAPHAM-It’s going to be track?
MR. O’CONNOR-So, it’s going to be track, yes.
MR. STONE-The track’s going to go way out here.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, but the rest of it lays on area presently occupied by track. This area is
fenced in, enclosed, and has been used for track purposes.
MR. STONE-Okay, but if we accept the 75, we’re talking the blue has to be, whatever you’ve got
there has to be within, be further than 75 feet away, then we’re talking the blue area and this little
area.
MR. O’CONNOR-Unless we ask for a variance.
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what I mean.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you have a variance.
MR. STONE-But you have an application pending.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. FERRARO-Another point, I don’t know if it matters or not, but you’re talking about the 75
foot Travel Corridor here. Presently, our fence comes out to here. We’re giving you back 20 feet
to begin with. So our new application gives you a wider corridor than what you have now.
MR. STONE-Well that’s, when we get to the variance, that’s, we’ll listen.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but what we’re trying to determine is, does that piece, that blue piece right
there, of that track, and that other piece that Mr. O’Connor just drew in in pen, do they need an
Area Variance from these setbacks, the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone?
MR. STONE-Now, does your appeal address this? If we rejected his appeal, Mr. Lebowitz’s
appeal, then we’re talking this area here still requires a variance?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-And you’re not appealing that. You’re going to argue the variance?
MR. O’CONNOR-If you reject his appeal, I apply for the variance.
MR. STONE-Right, and you’re arguing for this?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-Plus this if, we believe strongly in the (lost words). So you’re arguing this total
piece here, since it’s not used for track now. Going, I know you don’t agree with that definition.
We understand that, and I’m not trying to get you to commit.
MR. O’CONNOR-I have a reservation to that, because it’s within the fenced area, and there is a
lot of law that if you have devoted a site to a particular use, you’re allowed to use all four corners
for that use, by a grandfathered basis, and I can provide you some recent law on that.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. STONE-We’re not, I mean, I’m not deciding on that.
MR. O’CONNOR-I mean, the fact that it’s paved as use for track, as opposed to be grassed for a
grassed area inside the track, is not a material issue, as far as the grandfathering rights go. If it’s
inside the fenced area that’s used for track, I think we’re entitled to use that fenced area, as a
grandfathered right. See, they argued, I guess, that there was no, there’s no such thing as
grandfathering because of the extent of the renovation that we’re doing.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-And I don’t mean to (lost words) what they’re arguing, but.
MR. FERRARO-That’s right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are you done, Mr. O’Connor? Is there more you want to add on to this?
MR. O’CONNOR-I’m confused. I think I’m done.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Mr. Round, is there anything you’d like to add, other than your letter?
MR. ROUND-No. I think the letter spoke to my, I mean, that was my interpretation, and I based
it, Number One, that the go cart track is interpreted as a structure that’s subject to setback
requirements, on the basis of your ’96 decision, and that the track, basically, it’s the same use.
Our Ordinance doesn’t speak specifically to vesting or what portion of expansion triggers a new
structure or doesn’t and I think the rest speaks for itself.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything you want to throw in this, Jeff?
MR. FRIEDLAND-No. I think it’s been said.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to say, Mr. Lebowitz?
MR. LEBOWITZ-One thing I would like to point out is, I’ll be very brief, I didn’t want my earlier
remarks to be entirely limited to the Travel Corridor Overlay proposal. As I understand it, there’s
also, and I’m not sure how much of the side yard setback issue is wrapped up in Mr. O’Connor’s
pending variance, application, the one that he agrees that a variance application is necessary for,
but I just wanted to make sure that our position, with respect to the side yard setback, almost a
zero lot line. I haven’t looked at the plot diagram, but I understand there’s pretty much a zero lot
line setback being proposed for the side between the Skateland facility and the A-2000 Jiffy Lube
to the south. I just wanted to be clear that we take the same position with respect to the side yard
setbacks as well, which is, this is not a replacement of a facility in kind. This is ripping up one
structure and replacing it with another structure, and the location of the previous structure also
does not, under the Queensbury Ordinance afford any vested right to put a new structure in the
same location without getting a variance. So I just wanted to make sure I was clear that we’re
talking about all portions of the new proposed structure, that will violate any side yard or front
yard setback on their face, require an Area Variance. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-Maybe one thing I should have brought out here to your attention, to. We’ve
canvassed the immediate adjoining owners of this property. We have a letter from Edward
Gardner, which I’ll submit to you, saying that he has no objection to our proposed plan. Mr.
Gardner owns the property that’s to the back of the property. If you’ve gone through the prior
minutes of different hearings or what not, he’s been an active party and taken part in it. We, in
fact, are probably improving his site, because when you talk about the side line, our side line is a
zero side line right now, for the full length of our property, and it goes all the way back in here
with actually an active track. When we are shorting our track, we’re bringing the track much to
the front of the property. So he had no objection. The property is adjoined also right here by
Jeckel, who actually owns the auto dealership down further south, and the undersigned owns
property immediately south of the property of Ferraro, along the southwesterly boundary. The
undersigned has no objection to the granting of a variance from the front setback for a portion of
the track. The undesigned has no objection to recognizing the grandfathered zero side line setback
as my property adjoins the property, and he owns right along here. Bill Leonard, who probably is
more remote than anybody else. We’re a little different than the track up the road, but Leonard is
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
right across the street from us. The other thing across the street is that big drainage way that the
State put in there for the highway. “Since my business is located across the street from yours, I
have had the pleasure of watching Skateland develop and grow over the years. I would like to
congratulate you and your entire family for running such a fine operation and being such good
neighbors. I fully support your plans to renovate the go cart track. Best of luck. Sincerely,
William P. Leonard, III”
MR. STONE-You have no letter from the front part of the lot there?
MR. O’CONNOR-The best is always last.
MR. STONE-Good.
MR. O’CONNOR-The owner right here is Keith Crist. A-2000, I guess, is the name of his
business, and he wrote a letter “To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to state that A-2000 and
the Crist family supports Skateland and their expansion project, their re-building the go cart track,
and can see no problem with this project.” These are the people that are subject to the zero side
line setback right now, and that have that operation. “Skateland has our permission to grade our
land as needed to accommodate this expansion”. Somebody on Staff raised an issue that we may
need to go on their property to grade, when we change the grades, and Mr. Crist is present. Steve
Sutton is also present, and I don’t know if I’m getting off of the appeal thing, but this is a little
different presentation than what you’ve had from the other properties immediately up the street.
This is recognized by all of the adjoining owners as being an existing operation, a grandfathered
operation, to the full extent within the fencing that it presently has, whether or not it’s paved within
that fencing or it’s walkway within that fencing.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. At this point, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in
favor of the appeal, the joint appeal. We’re still joined. That could change any second.
MR. STONE-Why don’t they speak just about the appeal.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Would anyone like to speak in favor of the appeals? Would anyone like to
speak against the appeals? Any objections?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
STEVE SUTTON
MR. SUTTON-I’m not sure, the way you put it, whether I’m in favor or against, or what I’m
talking about, but being a neighbor, and being there for, since 1975, I’ve always been blessed with
good neighbors, and things that made common sense always seemed to win out, and I’m hearing
about this 75 foot corridor. My restaurant sits 50 feet from the road. I don’t think, in the
foreseeable future, that’s going to be an issue, whether they’re going to tear down our business to
widen that road. There’s no sidewalks going through and everything right now. From a
competitive standpoint, I understand Mr. Ermiger’s concerns about having competition. I just
think, and I’m a real believer, that when quality things are put in on our road, and we enhance what
we’re doing, we all gain. It’s a competitive world. Tourism is our number one industry, and every
time something improves that situation, more people come. We have a lot more choices today. We
don’t have to come to Lake George, NY or Queensbury. We can hop a plane and go to
Washington or Florida or anytime we want. In fact, Brian’s heading to Florida tomorrow.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. SUTTON-But when we do things like this, and we enhance the area, it brings more people,
and I’d be really surprised, no matter how good they do, I’ve seen what Ken has done and what the
golf course has done, and I kept quiet during the last site plan review. I was concerned about the
noise, and I heard some arguments on both sides, by Jim Valente from Agway, who nobody
listened to about the noise. I heard Tom Nace’s arguments. There’s a lot of noise, and it effects
our deck, but we live with it, and generally they’ve been a good neighbor. The golf course is doing
great. It’s made us adjust the way we do business a little bit, but I think when everybody does a
good job, more people come to the area, and I think both places will prosper. Looking at what
they’re looking for, I certainly, as a neighbor, have no objection. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Just for the record, Steve, would you state your name. You didn’t do that in the
beginning.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. SUTTON-Steve Sutton, Sutton’s Market Place, Route 9. Thanks.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. Would anyone else like to speak concerning these two appeals?
Is there any correspondence?
MR. ROUND-I don’t believe there is any correspondence.
MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. Okay. I think I’ll leave the public hearing open. That would
be a wise move, I think. Because I don’t think we’re going to vote on this tonight.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Okay. It’s up to you.
MR. THOMAS-Because I can close it, really, at any time. Okay. Have you got anything else
you’d like to add, Jack?
MR. LEBOWITZ-I don’t think I can add anymore at this point.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. O’Connor?
MR. O’CONNOR-No, thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Round, we’re all set? Well, lets talk about this and we’ll see where it
goes from there. Lew, what do you think about this?
MR. STONE-Well, it seems to me that basically what we are being asked to do is decide whether
the, Chris, Community Development Director, whatever, the decision that has been, his decision
that the Ferraro property must seek a variance for a portion of the track not currently being used
for the principal business conducted on site, namely a go cart track. The decision was that a small
portion, as show in aqua or blue on the drawing submitted by the applicant, must seek an Area
Variance. At the same time, a counter appeal, asking that this decision be repealed, if you will,
and that the whole site within the 75 foot Travel Overlay must seek a variance, and that seems, to
me, what I’m hearing. Correct me if I’m wrong.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. If I could add to that, I think Mr. Lebowitz’s client is also saying that
that portion of the track that doesn’t meet the side setback also needs a variance.
MR. STONE-Okay. Yes. In the heat of battle here we have forgotten that, except in Mr.
O’Connor’s presentation. I certainly believe that the Zoning Board of Appeals must decide that
whether or not the new, whether or not any variance must be granted for this property, and in
considering the fact that the arguments, as far as I’m concerned, that would be made either for the
small portion or the large portion, are somewhat equivalent, I would, I’m inclined to uphold Mr.
Round’s decision that only a small portion of the lot requires a variance.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think I agree with Lew, for the most part. It seems to me that both appeals
have their effect in the burden of proof that’s going to be needed for the variance that’s left, or if
there would be one left. With Mr. Lebowitz’s appeal, there would be a great deal to establish or to
grant area variances as it stands, and with Mr. O’Connor’s appeal, there would be nothing, and it
seems, on balance, in reality, I would agree with Mr. Round’s determination as well, and I think
that the thing that needs to be proven or unproven, has to do with the small area that is not
currently in the track, and I think that’s what we’re here to really decide anyway. So I would deny
both appeals and agree with Mr. Round’s ruling, in both circumstances.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I look at it from the perspective that the appeal by Ermiger should be denied. I
agree that the Ferraro go cart land is a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and from the materials
I’ve looked at, the changes that are proposed are not changing the use, are not substantially
changing the footprint of this particular parcel, except with respect to that little blue portion on the
map. So I don’t really see it as being anything other than a renovation or a maintenance or repair
of any existing structure, one that’s entitled to be along the side lot line, and one that’s entitled to
within the 75 foot corridor, to the extent that it already is, and I don’t see a need, actually, to have
to decide the second appeal, because if we determine that there’s no need for a variance, except as
to that aqua portion, there’s no need for a variance along the side line, I understood Mr. O’Connor
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
to say that he would be withdrawing his other appeal. Am I wrong in that? And that we would
then be considering simply the use, the Area Variance, as to the portion marked in blue?
MR. O’CONNOR-Can I respectfully put it on hold and have you make your determination on the
variance application?
MR. THOMAS-Don’t the appeals have to be settled first?
MR. FRIEDLAND-I’m sorry, I’m not sure what you’re saying.
MR. O’CONNOR-I’d like to reserve, if we’re going to go to a court process, the right to object to
the requirement of the variance for even that small portion.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Right, and you’ve done that in your appeal. Are you withdrawing the appeal?
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s the question.
MR. STONE-Well, you certainly have the right to go to court, if we do not, whatever, if we don’t
grant the variance, you have the right to go to court.
MR. O’CONNOR-I understood Mr. McNally’s question.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m just saying for the sake of expedience, that it would move that issue, and
would allow you to appeal at a later point.
MR. O’CONNOR-I could give you an answer in about two minutes with a conference with my
client. That’s not a decision I want to make without conferring with them. I would like to have
that opportunity, when I hear the rest of the questions, if there are questions, and then I can report
to you. It’s not a determination, I, as their lawyer, should make on my own.
MR. THOMAS-Why don’t we just go through and see what the other Board members think.
MR. MC NALLY-But that was my sense of where we should go with it, and to be honest, I think
Mr. O’Connor’s point that there is no standing, is well taken, for a mere competitor. I don’t think
that they’re an aggrieved party under existing zoning law anyway. So, either ground, I don’t think
the appeal should be granted from the Ermiger’s perspective, and that’s what I would do.
MR. THOMAS-What about on the Ferraro objective, their appeal?
MR. MC NALLY-Well, I would have to spend a lot more time in thought with the Zoning
Ordinance to try to think through the various definitions of structure and building, and I might also
ask Jeff to spend some time to do that, and to give us some opinions and look at some cases. It’s a
much more difficult question, and it involves a lot more interpretation than the first one. That’s
why I’d like to sidestep it, to be honest with you, if it can be avoided. Now if it can’t be avoided,
we’ve got to do it, then we’ll take our time, because I think I’d like to think about it more. I would
table that one.
MR. STONE-That’s a good point.
MR. THOMAS-Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, we spent a lot of time on this in 1996, I think even more time than we’re
spending now, and I would go, I would move toward supporting Chris’ decision, which he based on
the work that we did in 1996.
MR. THOMAS-That’s the way I feel, being one of the two Board members that were there for that
1996 decision, that I would uphold Mr. Round’s decision that any work within the Travel, any
changes within the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, on the track itself, would need a variance, and
going back to the 1996 decision, there are references to all different sections of the building code,
or of the zoning code to back up that decision, and it was never appealed by anyone, and as far as
I’m concerned, Chris made the right decision, and I think that I would back him up with a
resolution from 1996.
MR. STONE-Yes, but the way we’re talking, we have to separate these two appeals. Because if
we deny the first appeal, Mr. O’Connor is still, unless he withdraws it, is still arguing that they
don’t have to get a variance, except for that small portion, and your presentation, Mr. Chairman,
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
you seem to indicate any change in the existing track, within the 75 foot, requires consideration by
the Board.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, absolutely.
MR. STONE-So, I think we have to separate these two appeals.
MR. THOMAS-What would you think, Jeff? I would say go back and separate them out again.
MR. FRIEDLAND-That’s up to you. I think it’s, to some extent, it’s a matter of form over
substance. You need to.
MR. O’CONNOR-I will separate them for you. I withdraw my appeal.
MR. STONE-You withdraw your appeal.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. FRIEDLAND-That makes it easy.
MR. THOMAS-That makes it real easy. Would you like to state a reason, or do you want to just
make that statement?
MR. O’CONNOR-I’ve listened to the Board’s thinking. I don’t necessarily agree with at least the
thinking that has been expressed with relationship to my appeal. I do believe that I would still have
the right to raise the objections that I have set forth, if I were taking an Article 78 on a denial. So I
withdraw it on that basis.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Lebowitz, would you like to withdraw yours, or would you like to let
it stand and go for a vote before the Board?
MR. LEBOWITZ-I guess I’ll just let it go for a vote. I don’t see any, I don’t know, if that serves
some purpose, that it would be helpful to the Board, but I’m not really sure what it is.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well what I’m hearing is that we’re going to back Mr. Round in his decision,
that the only portion that will require a variance is the part that’s being changed within the Travel
Corridor Overlay Zone, which is within 75 feet of the property line. There will have to be a side
line, according to the map, a side line variance.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Thomas, though, but you’re saying Mr. Round’s decision was only
the area within the setback requirements that are outside of the existing fencing.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Right.
MR. O’CONNOR-And that does require an Area Variance for a portion of that that was shown in
aqua or blue, within the Travel Corridor, and it requires a, the portion that’s over on the side of the
property, it requires a side line setback for that arch piece, and a setback requirement within the 75
feet.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-We reserve the right to question that other section, too, though, do we not?
MR. THOMAS-What, the existing part?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-No, because they’re not changing the existing part.
MR. STONE-They’re putting a new track in there.
MR. THOMAS-Well, they’re putting a new track, but it’s outside the Travel Corridor Overlay
Zone.
MR. STONE-Inside the Travel Corridor, I’m sorry, where the kiddie track is now.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. Yes, we know that.
MR. STONE-But that’s not what Mr. O’Connor is saying.
MR. HAYES-That’s Mr. Ermiger’s appeal.
MR. STONE-He’s trying to restrict it to the blue section.
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s what Mr. Round gave his opinion of.
MR. STONE-I understand. That’s his opinion, and we are probably going to say that he’s only
considering the blue, but we have the right to consider the whole thing, as the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Do we not?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, within the 75 foot setback, the kiddie track exists, and that already has black
top on it. We’re just going to be incorporating.
MR. STONE-Excuse me. I thought you were saying, and I’m not one way or the other. I thought
you were saying that you were concerned that if that is reconfigured in there within the 75 foot,
that we were going to have to address it. If that’s not your determination, fine.
MR. HAYES-We’re either affirming or denying Chris’ determination.
MR. STONE-No, I understand that part.
MR. MC NALLY-I was at it (lost words) the building footprint within the fence is an existing use.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ROUND-Just to note that we did not, and it was an error, an oversight on my part that we did
not identify that there was side setback relief required for the application. I don’t think that was
reflected on your variance application.
MR. O’CONNOR-I thought it was on the application.
MR. ROUND-Is it?
MR. STONE-I have no problem with that, because we’ve got to consider the one part, that’s
enough, as far as I’m concerned.
MR. O’CONNOR-On the second page, it says zero for a portion, balance at 20.
MR. STONE-So, in other words, the modified track, that is in the kiddie area, which is within 75
feet, is on the table for the variance. That’s what I thought that you were saying.
MR. THOMAS-But there’s already blacktop there, existing
MR. STONE-I understand that, and if that’s what you’re saying, I wouldn’t argue that point, but I
thought I heard you say you were concerned by it.
MR. THOMAS-No.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Because there’s blacktop already, in that kiddie track area, where this new track is
going to go, what’s the difference, I mean, it’s there. The blacktop exists in that kiddie track area,
where this new track is going to be. Wherever they’re changing the course of the track, within the
75 foot, that’s where I’m concerned, and that’s what Chris is saying, too.
MR. STONE-Again, I’m not sure what you’re saying, Chris. If you’re saying, if they’re putting
down new blacktop within 75 feet.
MR. THOMAS-Where there isn’t blacktop now.
MR. STONE-Where there isn’t blacktop now. So there may be, if you look at that particular, I
don’t have the drawings adequately enough in mind, whether there’s going to be additional
blacktop over and above what’s in the kiddie area.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s beyond Chris’ opinion. Chris’ opinion was that it was inside the fence,
it was used for this use, so therefore we are, he used the fence as the demarcation of the
grandfathering.
MR. STONE-Chris, is that what you did?
MR. ROUND-I’m sorry, what was the question?
MR. O’CONNOR-You used the fence as the demarcation?
MR. ROUND-Yes, I did indicate that area within the fence.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s what you meant when you said, is my determination that the
renovations/improvements that occur within the area historically occupied by the recreational use
do not require relief from the setback requirements? The second to last paragraph of your letter of
nd
May 22?
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. STONE-I just wanted to make sure we weren’t giving away the right to say something by
affirming. If that’s what the decision is, then we affirm or deny, obviously.
MR. THOMAS-Did I get everybody?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, I did. Does everybody feel comfortable, if a motion is made tonight, or do
you want to chew on it for a while. Everybody has said that they’re going to back Chris.
MR. STONE-Well, I have no problem denying Appeal No. 3-98 tonight. I certainly don’t want to
hear the variance tonight. I would like to start fresh and do some research on our own, between
now and the next meeting.
MR. MC NALLY-The variance is just an expansion of a nonconforming use, in a very small
portion. The only setback we are concerned about, then, would be the 75 foot Travel Corridor
Overlay Zone.
MR. STONE-And the zero side line.
MR. MC NALLY-And it really goes very little into that area.
MR. STONE-Yes, but we’d have to hear it. I mean, we’ve heard a lot of arguments tonight, some
on point and some not on point.
MR. O’CONNOR-Presentation would not be very great on that. I’ve got a couple of showings
that we have no other practical relief, or we have no other alternative location, and I can show you
configurations that we’ve tried to set up, to have a decent track on there, because of not only the
pre-existing track, but the pre-existing building, the parking configuration. The parking
configuration is a big part of this thing. This is a seasonal type business. We could switch this
over, so that it would fit within a 75 foot, and possibly be further away from the side line. I’m not
sure if it’s a full 20 feet from the side line, but then we would end up with parking out on the road,
parking which we would utilize in the winter time, and the people would have to walk around what
would then be the go cart track to get back to the building in the winter time. I also can show you
some safety considerations, and I can show you very quickly. This set up is a lot better than what
the present set up is because, particularly the kiddie cart. Right now, they pay for it at the building
and the kids run down through the parking lot to get to the kiddie cart thing. This is going to be set
up entirely different. This is a modernization. It’s an upgrade of what is presently there. There
are a lot of benefits. There’s even a noise benefit. A lot of those issues are site plan issues, but
we’re talking about I don’t know how many square feet, probably 75 square feet of encroachment
into the Travel Corridor and the side line, and we’ve got the owner of the side line says that we can
actually go on his property and grade it.
MR. STONE-My reluctance only is, of listening to Bob, you wanted to research, I thought.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. MC NALLY-That other issue, you know, when you talked about, is it a building or is it a
structure? Do you have to have any setback for a go cart track within the 75 feet, I think is a
complicated issue, but the variance application is a separate issue.
MR. STONE-Okay. If Mr. O’Connor and the applicant is willing to accept the fact that the
structure that we’re talking about requires variance.
MR. O’CONNOR-I have, by withdrawal of my appeal.
MR. STONE-Okay.
KEN ERMIGER
MR. ERMIGER-Do I understand that if I wanted to change inside the track, I don’t need a
variance, because it won’t make it different, as long as it’s inside the fenced area? I mean I can
add to it, make it bigger or change it?
MR. O’CONNOR-I will have to go to site plan.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. ERMIGER-But I don’t need to come before the variance board?
MR. ROUND-There’s not an application in front of us.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. Can I suggest, that’s completely hypothetical, and if there’s an
application in front of you, you can decide that. At this point, you don’t have an application for
Mr. Ermiger, and there’s nothing to decide.
MR. THOMAS-I’ve got an application, but it shows that a, well, I have an application, but Mr.
Ermiger doesn’t own the property. This is for Mr. Ferraro. I’m getting people mixed up here.
MR. STONE-It’s a hypothetical objection.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, hypothetically.
MR. ROUND-One thing. In regard to the variance application, that was not advertised for side
setback relief, and that you would not be able to act on that aspect of the project tonight.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. ROUND-It was identified as part of the application, but the Code reference wasn’t included.
So it was inadequately advertised.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, even the drawing submitted with the application, you know, it
shows a chain link fence around where the kiddie track is, but it doesn’t show the actual kiddie
track on there.
MR. STONE-That’s right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-Where do you mean, Chris?
MR. THOMAS-Within that chain link fence, where the kiddie track is now, up front?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t show the actual track itself.
MR. O’CONNOR-None of the existing track is shown on here at all.
MR. THOMAS-See, I would like to see the existing track superimposed somehow over the
proposed track, with some kind of drawing.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think Chris’ ruling is that everything within the fenced area is permitted and
grandfathered.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but your new track, with the part in the blue here is outside the fenced area.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, and that’s why we’ve got an Area Variance application for that piece.
MR. THOMAS-Right, for that.
MR. STONE-But Chris is saying, Mr. Round, is that it wasn’t advertised for side setback.
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, that’s a separate issue, I guess, but, that’s whether or not you can make a
determination on the variance. Our problem is trying to get back into site plan tracking that we’ve
missed.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. If a motion is made, does everybody think they can vote on it tonight? I’ll
start with Bob, because he seems to have the most reservation.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think I do. I can vote on the appeal, Ermiger appeal.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. You can vote on that?
MR. MC NALLY-I’ve satisfied myself that I know which way to vote.
MR. THOMAS-Jamie, could you vote on it?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Lew?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-What I’m going to do is make a motion, using the old motion from June 12, 1996
and just make a few substitutions in there, and after I read the motion, we can talk about it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Did everybody get a copy of this?
MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Thomas, isn’t your motion either yes or no to uphold his appeal?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what I’m going to do, to uphold Mr. Round’s decision.
MR. O’CONNOR-Then why don’t we just refer to his letter and either agree to it or disagree, and
you certainly have the right to disagree in part, but I understood, when you went through the
questioning, that everybody was agreeing in total, and I think you’re going to get us all clouded
into issues that we don’t need to be into if we get into the 1996.
MR. THOMAS-Well, what I’m going to take out of the 1996 is references to the Zoning Law.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t know if they’re still applicable.
MR. THOMAS-I think they are.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t know if they’re applicable by number, let alone, you know, without our
actually looking at the actual substance.
MR. THOMAS-I went through these, and I think they’re all applicable to this one. Well, 179-
67A(3). We talked about that one. Accessory structures.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t know how you’re going to do it. So I just made that suggestion. I
withdraw my comment.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I’m going to make references to the definitions, and definition to the Travel
Corridor Overlay Zone. Let me throw this out, and we’ll see what happens.
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MOTION IN REGARD TO NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-98 KENNETH ERMIGER,
WHICH WAS COMBINED WITH NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-98 FERRARO
ENTERTAINMENT, WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN, THAT THE ISSUES PRESENTED
TONIGHT ARE NOT AS SIMPLE AS TO GIVE A DEFINITION OF BUILDINGS OR
STRUCTURES. IN THAT AFTER REFERENCING SECTIONS 179-23D(3)(b)(4) AND
179-23D(2)(a), AND WITH REFERENCES TO SECTIONS 179-12B(1) AND B(2),
SECTION 179-12C(4), SECTION 179-67A(3), AND ALSO REFERENCE TO OUR
DEFINITION UNDER ARTICLE II, 179-7, FOR ACCESSORY USE STRUCTURES
AND AMUSEMENT CENTER, I FIND THAT OUR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S
INTERPRETATION WITH REGARD TO PROPOSED FACILITY AT SKATELAND
OR THE GO CART TRACK AT THE SKATE LAND FACILITY BEING PLANNED BY
FERRARO ENTETAINMENT IS CORRECT. THAT THE GO CART DEVICES AND
ACCESSORY USE STRUCTURES DO HAVE TO MEET THE FRONT AND SIDE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED IN SECTION 179-23, AND ALSO THE
TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY GUIDELINES AS OUTLINED BY SECTION 179-28,
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ANYTHING THAT IS GRANDFATHERED
, Introduced by
Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. O’CONNOR-Can I ask this, except as to how they are now, or except to the area presently
within the fence of the present track, and pursuant to Section 179-79, that area is grandfathered
from compliance with the Travel Corridor setback and the side line setback. Because what is
proposed here is a continuance and maintenance and in reasonable repair of a nonconforming
structure.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anything, but, anything within the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone that’s
being changed.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think we’re grandfathered, Mr. Thomas, if we’re within the fence. That’s the
ruling that Mr. Round gave us.
MR. STONE-Yes. This is what he’s talking about, historically occupied by the reg do not require
relief, which is the fence, historically occupied is equal to the fence.
MR. THOMAS-Is that what you meant when you wrote that part in there, within the fence?
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t say, within the fence, specifically.
MR. ROUND-What I indicated was within the fenced area.
MR. MC NALLY-What you say, Chris, I think is the renovations and improvements that occur
within the area historically occupied, and then in your sentence, next to last sentence, you say, that
portion of the proposed track that is located outside the fence requires the granting of an Area
Variance.
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-So you’re referring to historically occupied as being within the fence, I think.
MR. ROUND-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. O’CONNOR-No, but what he was saying is that based upon your earlier resolution that you
made in 1996, the area outside the fenced area requires an Area Variance. The area within the
fence does not require Area Variances.
MR. THOMAS-As long as there is a track in that part.
MR. O’CONNOR-No, I don’t think so.
MR. STONE-That’s what I was trying to get clear before.
MR. O’CONNOR-And I would argue that we’re entitled to the full four corners of that area that’s
fenced in.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-Is it solid black top within that fence?
MR. O’CONNOR-No, it is not.
MR. THOMAS-That’s why I said, okay, it’s just an oval track.
MR. O’CONNOR-No, it’s an odd shaped track. It’s a squiggly type track, but that entire area is
utilized. What’s the gravel case, Syracuse Sand and Stone. You’re entitled to use your full
property for the non existing use and operation, once you make the dedication of the property for it,
and obviously, this thing fenced in is entirely dedicated to a go cart track, and we’re not expanding
on that.
MR. STONE-That’s what I was trying to say, I thought you felt you could do some rulings on
inside the fence, if there was no asphalt, and I was concerned.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but you would say, Jeff, that this Syracuse Salt, or Syracuse Sand and
Gravel.
MR. FRIEDLAND-I wouldn’t say that case would necessarily directly apply to this situation.
Gravel cases tend to be, mining cases tend to be sort of unique.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but everything within that fence was dedicated to that go cart track.
MR. FRIEDLAND-That’s what Chris’ determination was.
MR. ROUND-Within that area, it was very difficult to draw a distinction between, you could on
the basis of what’s paved or not, I chose not to make that distinction.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but if it’s within the fence, it’s considered part of the go cart track, and
anything within that fence would be grandfathered.
MR. MC NALLY-See, and the cart itself, even though the path is not entirely all paved, it damn
well nearly is almost all paved, and what little space isn’t paved is dedicated to the use of the go
cart. It’s the go cart facility. It’s not as if there’s a lot of empty space.
MR. O’CONNOR-And there’s no other use of it.
MR. MC NALLY-Right.
MR. STONE-Yes. You couldn’t put something there, just in case cars, I know that cars can’t get
out of control, supposedly.
MR. THOMAS-But anything outside the fence.
MR. STONE-Outside, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Outside the fence is subject to variance.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-Both front and side, but what I’ve said in the resolution, that the track is an
accessory structure, subject to the setbacks, anything that isn’t grandfathered.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-Which comes under 179-79.
MR. HAYES-So we’re directly affirming both his determinations, in a sense?
MR. STONE-Yes. We’re affirming the memo of, as interpreted, as explained in the memo of 5/22.
That’s what we’re doing.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’re just affirming that Chris, that that’s the way it’s going to be.
MR. STONE-That’s the way it’s going to be.
MR. THOMAS-Chris Round was right in his determination.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-I could withdraw the motion that I made and just say, I make a motion that Chris
Round was right.
MR. O’CONNOR-No. I like your motion, Mr. Thomas. I like your motion, if you add on there,
except for the area grandfathered, because I think actually you lay it, you then give a reason.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s why I used that.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t mind it, but I think you were 99% there, except not acknowledging the
grandfathered rights. I could read your resolution without that exception as saying, everything
within the 75 feet had to be used.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Mr. Chairman, if I could make a suggestion, I would suggest that you make a
motion to deny the appeal. I think that’s what the sentiment seems to be, because, and you explain
why. I would not just say, deny the appeal, period. I would explain why in your motion.
MR. ROUND-I’d prefer you elaborate on the basis of your decision.
MR. FRIEDLAND-It’s up to you, but that would be my recommendation.
MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s why I gave all those references to the zoning sections.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Right.
MR. THOMAS-And like that, because all that applies.
MR. STONE-Yes, but Mike is only saying that he would like you to (lost words).
MR. THOMAS-And that I would also add to the motion, with the exception of anything that is
grandfathered.
MR. FRIEDLAND-That’s fine. I’m just saying, don’t just deny or grant the appeal.
MR. THOMAS-No. I’ve already made the motion, that included all these sections of the
Ordinance.
MR. ROUND-And we’ll have you review the resolution before it’s.
MR. FRIEDLAND-One other thing. One of the sections that you cited doesn’t seem to exist.
MR. THOMAS-Which one’s that?
MR. FRIEDLAND-The very first one, 179-23 (3)(b)(4). I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
So I would either clarify that or take it out.
MR. STONE-That was an amusement center. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. MC NALLY-That’s amusement center.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. FRIEDLAND-179-23(3)?
MR. STONE-Under Type II, Amusement Center.
MR. HAYES-Page 17980.
MR. THOMAS-179-23(3).
Mr. STONE-b4.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Okay. There should be 179-23D(3)(b)(4). You had the wrong location there.
The one you quoted isn’t there, doesn’t exist.
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. 179-23D(3)(b)(4).
MR. MC NALLY-Do you have in the motion also the reference to 179-79, Nonconforming uses,
pre-existing?
MR. STONE-I thought you did.
MR. THOMAS-I don’t see it.
MR. O’CONNOR-Could I ask for a finding that what we propose as a reconstruction of the track
with resurfacing, a new surface, re-grading, is, in fact, reasonable repair?
MR. THOMAS-Of the existing track.
MR. O’CONNOR-The reconfiguration of the go cart track with a new surface, new grading, is, in
fact, a reasonable repair, because of the nature of the structure that we’re talking about.
MRS. LAPHAM-Except the part outside the fence.
MR. THOMAS-With the exception outside the fence.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. That’s a separate issue.
MR. THOMAS-Mr. Ermiger?
MR. ERMIGER-That’s not a repair. It’s a brand new track.
MR. THOMAS-But they’re going over the top of where it is now.
MR. ERMIGER-No. They’re going over the whole thing. It’s being made wider, and a lot bigger.
MR. THOMAS-Anything beyond the 75 feet, that’s by site plan review, because we don’t.
MR. ERMIGER-No, no. I mean, like say it’s six feet wide now. It’s going to be 12 or 13 feet
when they do it, so they’re not paving over.
MR. THOMAS-If it’s beyond the 75 feet, that’s not our concern. That’s the Planning Board’s
concern, but if it’s within that 75 feet, that’s our concern.
MR. STONE-And that’s going to be new.
MR. THOMAS-And anything new.
MR. ERMIGER-But everything is grandfathered inside the fence?
Mr. THOMAS-Anything inside the fence is grandfathered.
MR. ERMIGER-That’s the law?
MR. THOMAS-That’s the law.
MR. STONE-Except as far as site plan review.
MR. THOMAS-Except for the site plan review.
MR. ERMIGER-That’s not what your law states, though.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, it does, because of 179-79. It says for the grandfathering.
MR. ERMIGER-It says anything that’s made larger or changed needs to have a variance.
MR. THOMAS-But if he meets the setbacks, he doesn’t have to have a variance. He has to go
before Planning Board review.
MR. ERMIGER-But on the side there’s like a 25 foot setback.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. There’s a 20 foot setback.
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. ERMIGER-Right.
MR. THOMAS-But he already has a track that goes right up to the line.
MR. ERMIGER-It’s changing already.
MR. THOMAS-As long as that goes beyond the 75 feet, that doesn’t.
MR. ERMIGER-But I’m talking about the 20 feet. When you put the new structure in for me
everything changed. Now it’s going back the other way?
MR. O’CONNOR-You did not have a pre-existing track.
MR. THOMAS-No. Your track wasn’t pre-existing. Yours was new.
MR. ERMIGER-No, I know, but if you build a new track, and change it, then you have to abide
by the new rules.
MR. THOMAS-He’s taking the same.
MR. ERMIGER-No, it’s not the same.
MR. STONE-179-79E says an existing structure which violates only the area requirements of this
Chapter may be enlarged or extended as long as such enlargement or extension does not violate the
area requirements of this Chapter. In other words, he can’t be in greater violation than he is now,
but he can enlarge it within his area, with the exception of the one that we’re obviously going to
talk about next time, but he can change the track, within the area in which he sits now.
MR. THOMAS-By site plan review.
MR. STONE-By site plan review.
MR. THOMAS-Which has nothing to do with us.
MR. STONE-That’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-The only thing we’re concerned is anything within the 75 foot setback, but
anything beyond that.
MR. O’CONNOR-Anything within the 75 foot setback or the side yard that is not setback.
MR. THOMAS-That is not setback.
MR. O’CONNOR-Or that is not grandfathered.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. ERMIGER-But the side yard right now is grandfathered in?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-Except for that new section within 75 feet. In other words, it violates two things.
It’s within 75 feet, and it’s closer to the side than it’s supposed to be, that little extra section that is
now grass, outside the fence, but it needs a variance from two setbacks. Am I correct, Mike?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, based on everybody’s interpretation, or Chris’ interpretation.
MR. STONE-We’ve affirmed.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have affirmed the determination.
MR. STONE-Just make sure that it says 5/22 memo in there, because I never really heard that
originally.
MR. THOMAS-You know, anything with the exception of anything that’s grandfathered, within
the grandfathered, anything that is grandfathered, which is anything within the fence.
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-And you agree that what is within the fence is simple areas within the
grandfathering right to reasonable repair?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, reasonable repair.
MR. STONE-179-79E.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-That’s what 179-79E is.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I think what Jeff was saying and what I was saying, though, for the
purpose of your record, you’re good to enunciate that, because then we can point that out as saying
that was the basis of your decision, not simply you’ve got a naked decision there that says, we
affirm. Can I go off the record?
MR. FRIEDLAND-I don’t think so.
MR. O’CONNOR-I won’t then. There is somebody in this County, I won’t even say that.
MR. STONE-There’s somebody in this County?
MR. O’CONNOR-Don’t go there.
MR. STONE-I wonder who. Well, I think we have a motion that we can stand behind without a
problem. Don’t you?
MR. THOMAS-Would anyone like to see the motion before it’s seconded or voted on, just in case
there’s any problem?
MR. O’CONNOR-I would prefer to go forward, if I could, because I’d like to get, we’d now have
to re-advertise, get back into the cycle, and then get into the Planning Board business next month,
hopefully.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does everyone feel comfortable with the motion that I made, with the
additions to it?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, I do.
MR. MC NALLY-I think so.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. STONE-Basically, it’s a little convoluted, but I certainly.
MR. THOMAS-It’s a little convoluted, but this is very difficult.
MR. STONE-No, I know, and I have no problem with it. It’s just that, you’re right, seeing it is
helpful, but, no, I don’t think that we have left a loophole there. I don’t see the two counsels here
smiling with glee one way or the other. So we must have covered the situation, and our counsel is
smiling. So we must have.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, he’s getting paid to be here.
MR. O’CONNOR-Hopefully the rest of us are, too.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Everybody feels comfortable with the motion that I’ve made. I’ll ask
for a second.
MR. STONE-I’ll second it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any question on the motion? Does everyone understand the
motion?
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. STONE-Well, just a quick paraphrase. We are affirming Mr. Round’s determination on the
basis that it, this area, we still have to hear a variance for that little section, both side and front,
nd
and that within the fence, as denoted in his memo of the 22, historically occupied by, that that is
grandfathered, and we will not be discussing that when the variance comes up. I mean, that’s
basically what we’re saying.
MR. THOMAS-Absolutely.
MR. FRIEDLAND-That and all the other reasons.
MR. STONE-And all the other reasons, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. The motion’s been made and seconded. Now, are there any other
questions on the motion? If not, go ahead and vote, Maria.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-So we have upheld the Zoning Administrator’s determination concerning this piece
of property, and an Area Variance will be required.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. We have an application pending.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-And I understand all it has to be is just re-advertised?
MR. ROUND-Yes. I think it was identified correctly, but you didn’t identify the Code reference
on the cover page. So we didn’t pick up on it.
MR. O’CONNOR-Can we do that right now? Are you satisfied just re-advertising it?
MR. ROUND-Yes. I’ve got enough information.
MR. O’CONNOR-All right. Do you have an idea when you, are you going to make us go back to
the County? The County recommended approval.
MR. FRIEDLAND-It depends upon what was sent to the County?
MR. ROUND-The variance application itself was.
MR. FRIEDLAND-And there was nothing that said just the front setback variance?
MR. ROUND-No, it didn’t. I’ll have to review that.
MR. FRIEDLAND-You just have to look at it to see exactly what was sent.
MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of that.
MR. STONE-Jeff, we’d like you to hear this, too. In some discussion with the Staff, and a couple
of us, I was wondering if we could, as a Board, declare a moratorium on granting variances on
Main Street, until such time as the full traffic study that’s being done by Warren County group
reaches a decision, in terms of what we’re going to do with that particular thing? Because right
now we’re making a picket fence, and it seems to me, just arbitrarily, we can say, can we say, we
are not going to grant any variances on Main Street?
MR. FRIEDLAND-I don’t think you can do that. I think only the Town Board can do that.
They’d have to adopt a local law, probably, to do that.
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. STONE-Well, why can’t we just say we won’t grant any, and don’t bother to come to us,
because you’ll get turned down?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Because you have to consider each variance on its merits. Because you may
not really like them at all, but if it meets the requirements , I think you’re asking for trouble.
MR. THOMAS-So what you’re saying is, if the Town Board passes a resolution stating that we
won’t?
MR. FRIEDLAND-It would probably have to be a local law.
MR. THOMAS-If they pass a local law saying that?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes.
MR. STONE-They could do a moratorium.
MR. THOMAS-Would it hold up?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. A temporary would hold up.
MRS. LAPHAM-They did that once before.
MR. HAYES-Health and public safety issue, maybe, with the road, if the Town declared this a?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. I mean, they would need to have some information before it to support
that.
MR. ROUND-I think it’s a little premature right now. They don’t know where it’s going to go.
Once there’s a proposal out there, then I think that’s the time to say, okay, we’re not going to do
anything until improvements are made, because (lost words), or you have a design, and say, here’s
the design.
MR. THOMAS-So, you know, if you want to rip off a letter.
MR. STONE-I’ll try and write a letter, because I think we’re making a picket fence there.
MR. THOMAS-And like I did with this one here, and bring it up, draft it, we’ll look at it at the
next meeting, see if there’s any changes you want to be making to it, and then we’ll fire it off to the
Town Board. They can consider it or they can toss it.
MR. STONE-Yes, because we get hit with all of these little things.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. What you’re looking at now is a letter I drafted, or have been drafting for a
while, considering the setback variances coming to us on as builts. Do you guys want a copy of
this?
MR. ROUND-Sure.
MR. THOMAS-As the members of the Board know, that we’ve been hearing a lot of variances for
buildings that have been erected and then they’re coming to us for setback variances. We had one
last week. We had one for up on Glen Lake, for Vittengl. We’ve had them, I’ve seen an increase
since I’ve been on the Board, Cronin Road. We could sit here and go through probably eight or ten
of them, I could probably go through a dozen of them.
MR. STONE-Yes, there’s been a lot. Let me ask you a question, Chris, though. Your last
sentence, first paragraph. Do you mean a side setback variance for greater than we had already
given? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s why I put this thing in as a draft. You tell me, you know, should we
make some changes to it?
MR. STONE-I just don’t remember that particular one.
MR. THOMAS-We gave them a variance, on the Vittengl property, we gave him a seven foot
setback. He came back and wanted a four foot.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. STONE-Four foot. Okay, but we have to say, I mean, a side setback different from that sort,
than that granted. In other words, a second variance, is all I’m getting at.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s all. It represents two different numbers.
MR. THOMAS-How about a second variance was sought?
MR. STONE-Yes, a second less restrictive variance, or something, was sought after.
MR. THOMAS-More restrictive.
MR. STONE-A variance would be less restrictive.
MR. THOMAS-Well, I’ll just say a second variance, a second variance was sought for a dwelling
that already had a.
MR. ROUND-I think it’s a good point, and if the Town Board’s receptive to that. Ted Turner, if
you approach Ted, I’m sure he.
MR. THOMAS-I’ve already shot the bull with Ted about it once.
MR. STONE-He and Richard Merrill.
MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s why I brought it here. I don’t know. Is there any other changes that
anyone would like to make to this, because I’d like to get this out ASAP, due to the fact that it’s
got to get on some agenda.
MR. STONE-We need a required as built survey of footings, and that would take care of so many
problems.
MR. THOMAS-It sure would.
MR. STONE-Because right now you’ve got the original survey, and you’ve got the final survey.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, right, and that final survey is what really throws them in.
MR. STONE-Right, yes.
MR. THOMAS-If the footings, once they’re in, it’s easy to change those. You just rip them up,
but once the foundation’s in, then it gets a little tougher, like that one up on Glen Lake we had.
Lew was here. Bonnie was here. I was here. Jamie may have been here. It was up on Fitzgerald
Road, where the guy, the doctor there.
MRS. LAPHAM-Kristensen.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, up there. He ripped the camp down, put the new one up, and then they
figured they had to do something with the foundation, the foundation came close.
MRS. LAPHAM-That was Kristensen.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. So, like I say, we’ve run into a lot of these.
MR. STONE-I think they should, and I’m sure the surveyors would give them a cut rate to do three
instead of two.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. Does anybody have any objections to me signing this with the change
that we just said, a second variance was, and fire it off to the Town Board?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
MR. STONE-Not at all. Well, why don’t you say that the rest of us agree, though.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, that’s what I said.
MR. STONE-Do you, I’m sorry.
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/24/98)
MR. THOMAS-After discussion among the ZBA members, it was.
MR. STONE-Okay. We want to do a survey of footings, because, guys, we’re getting houses that
are, need variances after the fact, and we really want to tear one down , and we haven’t found one
yet. If you’ve got one, we’d love one.
MR. O’CONNOR-Don’t they require a survey on new construction?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, they do.
MR. STONE-At the beginning and end.
MR. HAYES-Right, that’s an as built.
MR. THOMAS-Right. That’s an as built.
MR. STONE-As built, not at the footings or the foundation.
MR. THOMAS-In fact, we had Supervisor Champagne in here last week, for his daughter. It was
him that did the layout, too.
MR. STONE-And I had some gutless partners here who wouldn’t make.
MR. HAYES-You didn’t hear about Lew’s rubber stamp speech?
MR. STONE-I made a great rubber stamp speech, and these guys didn’t buy it at all. By the way,
guys, we would not have granted that variance because there was room to move it. You guys all
said you’d grant it. He never would have had to ask for it, because there was plenty of room on the
lot, to put it where it belonged.
MR. THOMAS-I’ll make a motion we adjourn.
On motion, meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
60