2006-07-19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 19, 2006
INDEX
Area Variance No. 39-2006 Jason & Kathryn Brown 1.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-4
Area Variance No. 40-2006 Alice Genthner 8.
Tax Map No. 289.13-1-22
Area Variance No. 42-2006 Ferraro Entertainment, Inc. 14.
Tax Map No. 296.9-1-1
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 19, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
ROY URRICO
CHARLES MC NULTY
RICHARD GARRAND
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II JASON & KATHRYN BROWN
OWNER(S): JASON & KATHRYN BROWN; CONNIE FARRINGTON; PEGGY NOBLES
ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 44 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT HAS
DEMOLISHED AND COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OF A 240 SQ. FT.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND FOR EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 12, 2006
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES, LG CEA LOT SIZE: 0.60 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 240.5-1-4 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-010
JASON & KATHRYN BROWN, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-They have quite a lengthy submittal, which I will go through most of
here, so it’s on the record. “We request 37’ of shoreline setback relief. This is for the
WR-1A zone per Section 179-4-030. This variance is requested for the Bathhouse and
its attached deck. Specifically, we are in the midst of a property improvement/update
project, which includes the following:” It’s a very lengthy list here, which I don’t think I’m
going to go through immediately, because it details this in the narrative that follows with
it. “Details: We purchased the property in 2004 from Mrs. Kathryn Brown’s
grandmother, Isabelle Harris. At that time there were 5 structures on the property. They
were the Houseboat, the Cottage, the Bathhouse, the Paint House and the shed. The
following paragraphs and photographs provide a description and timeline for
modifications for each building and other relevant items. Although the variance request
is specific to the Bathhouse, Mr. and Mrs. Brown feel that it is important to understand
the recent history for the whole property and thank the Board for their time and patience.
“The Paint House” The “Paint House” (a shed) with the approximate dimensions of 6’ x
10’ was located 6’ from the shore. This building was used to store a variety of materials
including paint of varied age and base, lawn chemical”, etc., I’m not going to read
through this whole thing. This structure had fallen into disrepair “mostly due to rot from
having soil resting against its wooden sides and a leaky roof caused by damage
sustained by a few falling limbs. Mr. Brown emptied the building, disposed of its
contents and removed the shed. The footprint and was filled with native topsoil, graded
and grassed to match the surrounding area and minimize water shed to the lake. “The
House Boat” The Houseboat is a structure that is 64’ x 19’. It is located about 12 feet off
shore in the middle of the property’s lake frontage. It is what remains of a barge that was
built some time approximately 1903 and used during the logging trade in the early
1900’s. Sometime in the 1930’s, the barge found itself moored at its present location.
As best we can tell it was placed on piers in the 1940’s. This is the way it was when
Russell and Isabelle Harris purchased the property about 1953. From the time of the
original piering to present, it has been re-piered a number of times due to settling and
decay. Russell’s last re-piering was in the mid 1980’s. During the following 20+/- years
the houseboat had settled so much that in the spring time highs, thunderstorms or
particularly large wakes, water would flow over the walkway and into the living quarters.
The upper deck of the Houseboat was half open and half screened in. The screened-in
portion of the deck was constructed with 4x4 posts and 2x4 stringers, with a homemade
2x4 truss work that supported an aluminum roof. When the Browns become proprietors,
the Houseboat was listing toward the lake on the north end by more than a foot over its
width. The screened-in top section was leaning even farther as the posts were rotted at
the bottom and the joints were loose and sloppy from rot and wind fatigue. The Browns
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
had been regular visitors to the property and had noted that the listing was beginning to
accelerate. Rather than allow the houseboat to further deteriorate, the Browns removed
the screened-in section. Mr. Jason Brown performed pier repair and replacement. The
houseboat is now raised, level and stable for permanent repair can be undertaken. The
overall dimension of the Houseboat was modified from 19’ x 64’ to 19’ x 62 ½’ during this
time as well. A full kitchen had occupied the southernmost room in the Houseboat until
2004. Mr. Jason Brown removed it due to chronic difficulties with wastewater removal.
There are no plans to restore any facilities requiring water to the Houseboat.” The
Cottage I’m going to skip because that really is not anything we’re looking at tonight, the
Shed. The Bathhouse, specifically, is what we’re concerned with this evening. “The
Bathhouse” This structure was placed approximately 19 feet from shore directly behind
the paint house. Its primary function was that of a second bathroom for the camp. It also
served as a bunkhouse for guests that didn’t mind the lumpy couch. This building had an
approximate footprint of 12’ x 16’. It consisted of two rooms. The first was the changing
area. There was a couch, some dressers, a sink, a long countertop and a closet. The
second room was the bathroom with a shower stall and the toilet. Over the years the
bathhouse had suffered a similar fate as the paint house. It too had significant rot along
the lower section of walls and tree limb damage on its roof. The bathhouse also had a
large population of wood eating insects and was in dire need of updating. Mr. Brown had
noticed that the toilet/shower had difficulty draining. Investigation revealed that the
building had settled and the pitch of the drain lines was now inverted. While looking into
the matter, he located and uncovered the waste water system for the bathhouse. It
consisted of a 42” steel septic tank that discharged the effluent to a homemade drywell
less than a foot away. All of the system was approximately 35’ – 40’ feet from the
shoreline. The steel septic tank looked as if it had rotted through long ago which
questioned the integrity of the system. Further use of the bathroom in the bathhouse
was terminated. The structure was lifted by about 2 feet to allow for further repair-related
inspection. The inspection made it clear that the roadside (back) wall, the south (left if
looking from the road) side wall, the roof and the deck would need replacement either
from rot, water damage, or insects. The decision was made to repair the structure and
the save the north (cottage) side and the lakeside walls and replace everything else.
That decision included changing the roof from flat to gable, stretching the footprint on the
roadside by about 4 feet, remove and replace the septic, etc…..In September of 2005,
footings had been poured, new posts and carrying beams and deck had been installed
and the two remaining original walls were in place, fastened to the deck, and well
braced. When Mr. Brown returned a week later, the power was out as the result of a
powerful wind storm the day and night before. The two original walls that had been in
place were smashed and twisted on the ground. From then on the bathhouse would be
a complete replacement. Through the remainder of the autumn Mr. Brown worked on
building the bathhouse. Many choices were made to maintain the integrity and character
of the site. For example, the color and pitch of the roof match the Cottage and many
nearby houses and the style and color of the siding matches that of the original structure.
The deck provides the means for secondary access/egress as well as providing an
elevated surveillance post for monitoring water-based activities. The Bathhouse was in
the midst of being sided when a “Stop Work” order was issued. This occurred on
12/7/2006. Mr. Brown had found out about it the following day via a phone call from Mrs.
Brown’s aunt, Ms. Peggy Harris Nobles. No work has been performed on the building
since. On Thursday 12/08/2006 Mr. Brown placed phone calls to both Mr. David Hatin,
who had issued the Stop Work order and to Mr. Craig Brown to acknowledge receipt of
the order and ask about the appropriate course of action. Mr. Jason Brown was
informed by both men that a survey of the property would have to be performed prior to
proceeding. Mrs. Kathryn Brown contacted the firm of Van Dusen & Steves to perform
st
the required survey, which was completed on January 31, 2006 and updated on March
27, 2006 due to minor inaccuracies caused by snow cover. Mr. Jason Brown met with
th
Mr. Craig Brown on Monday, February 27 to discuss required variances. Mr. and Mrs.
Brown then contracted JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC to design a wastewater
system appropriate for the property’s size and reasonable use. This process remains in
progress and a preliminary design drawing has been included. Throughout the process
Mr. Jason Brown has placed periodic phone calls and emails to Mr. Craig Brown to
inform him of the progress for these matters. More photographs of the old bathhouse, in
various stages of re-construction, are at the end of this narrative.” I’m going to stop there
and I’m going to go back, if we need to come back to this later on.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2006, Jason & Kathryn Brown, Meeting Date:
July 19, 2006 “Project Location: 44 Russell Harris Road Description of Proposed
Project: The applicants have demolished an existing 192 sq. ft. accessory structure
(bathhouse) and have partially rebuilt same increasing the area (48 sq. ft.) to 240 sq. ft.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 37-feet of shoreline setback relief from the minimum 50-feet
requirement of the WR-1A zone, per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 17-2006: Pending, construction of a 240 sq. ft. accessory structure, hard surfacing
within 50-feet of the shoreline and expansion of a nonconforming structure.
Staff comments:
On the site development data page, the existing and proposed shoreline setback for the
bathhouse is identified as 13-feet. However, the existing conditions site plan shows a
previously existing setback of 19-feet. The addition of the 42 sq. ft. porch to the front of
the bathhouse extends 6-feet further into the preexisting 19-foot shoreline setback,
resulting in a 13-foot shoreline setback.
The site development data page identifies the existing height as 18-feet and proposed
16-feet. Is the existing 18-feet measurement taken from the previous bathhouse (or from
another structure on the property)? The proposed elevation drawings submitted do not
show a vertical dimension, but it scales at approximately 16-feet. However, comparing
these drawings to the pictures of the previous bathhouse it appears that the new
bathhouse is higher, not 2-feet shorter.
The applicants request 74% of shoreline setback relief, which may be considered
substantial.
Site plan review is required for hard surfacing within 50-feet of the shoreline.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
July 12, 2006 Project Name: Brown, Jason & Kathryn Owner(s): Jason & Kathryn
Brown; Connie Farrington; Peggy Nobles ID Number: QBY-06-AV-39 County
Project#: July06-27 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant has demolished and commenced reconstruction of a 240 sq. ft.
accessory structure. Relief requested from shoreline setback requirements and for
expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 44 Russell Harris Road Tax
Map Number(s): 240.5-1-4 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant has demolished
an existing accessory structure and commenced construction of a new larger accessory
structure. The accessory structure is to be a bathhouse and is to be located 13 ft from
the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The information submitted shows some of the
buildings that have either been removed (paint house) or repaired (boat house), and
reconstructed (bath house). The applicant has indicated the purpose of the bathhouse
structure is to allow for additional bedroom and bathroom space. The information also
indicates new septic system has been installed to address the questionable septic
system on the site. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the
information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County
Planning Board 7/17/06.
MR. ABBATE-Would you be kind enough, sir, to state your full name and your place of
residence and then we’ll start.
MR. BROWN-My name is Jason Brown. I live at 46 Park Road, Adam, Connecticut.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and, Mr. Brown, I see that you don’t have counsel with you this
evening.
MR. BROWN-No counsel.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So then I’ll explain basically the procedures. What I’m going to ask
you to do is to informally explain to this Board what your position is and why you feel we
should approve your request, and if at any time during these proceedings you don’t
understand something, stop us, we’ll explain it to you, and if at any time during the
proceedings you feel you may have left something out that might reinforce your case,
stop us and we’ll be more than happy to hear from you. Do you understand that?
MR. BROWN-I understand.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then go ahead and proceed.
MR. BROWN-For the Board, this is, the project started out as a toilet replacement and
ended up as a structure replacement. As the narrative describes, as I proceeded into the
project, it was evident that the project was larger than I had originally assumed. The
floor was rotted. The walls were rotted, insects in the roof, the water damage. My intent
was to replace the building with a similar structure, update the building with a similar
structure, and save what I could. As you can see I think on the last page of the narrative,
the pictures have the two remaining walls, up on the new deck, the new platform, and I
was planning on connecting them together and replacing the rest of it. Wind prevented
that, and it ended up being a replacement.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. At this point, do you have anything else to add?
MR. BROWN-Not at this point.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. I have two questions for you. Do you have permits for the
boathouse and the bathhouse? I can’t seem to find this in any of the data, building
permits for the boathouse and houseboat?
MR. BROWN-For the houseboat?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-For removal of the, what portion of it?
MR. ABBATE-No, do you have permits to have these built in the first place? I can’t find
them in the record. I don’t see a permit for the boathouse. I don’t see a permit for the
bathhouse.
MR. BROWN-The houseboats been there for.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what he’s asking for is did you ever obtain any kind of
building permits for your modifications?
MR. BROWN-No permits. Both those structures have been there for years, and years
and years, prior to my purchasing of the property. I do not have any permits for any of
that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That was the only question I had. So, Staff, do me a favor and
check that out when you have an opportunity, please.
MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry?
MR. ABBATE-See whether or not there were permits for those two structures in the first
place.
MRS. BARDEN-No, I checked the parcel number and I came up with no permits for that
property.
MR. ABBATE-There are no permits for that? Okay. That was my only question. Now,
are you Mrs. Brown?
MRS. BROWN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Wonderful. Would you do me a favor, please and state your full name,
please, and tell us where you reside.
MRS. BROWN-Kathryn Brown, 46 Park Road, Adam, Connecticut.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Having said that, we know, now, for the record, there are no
permits. Do any of the Board members have any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Brown?
MR. URRICO-I do.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
MR. URRICO-In the narrative that was just read in, under Bathhouse, it was stated that
the Stop Work order was issued on 12/7/2006?
MR. BROWN-That was 2005. I apologize.
MR. URRICO-And then the subsequent date, 12/8/2005.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions from members of the Board? Yes, please.
MR. GARRAND-You stated that neighbors are in support of this project. Are any of the
neighbors here?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I have Mike Shearer and Robert Spath and Heidi Callio.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’ll get to that when we do the public hearing. Any other
questions?
MR. GARRAND-No, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members have any questions concerning this
particular case?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Has this always been a family property, then?
MR. BROWN-It’s been in our family for, my wife’s family, since 1952.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So I would assume it just kind of fell into disrepair, as far as the
rotting of the sills on the building?
MR. BROWN-Yes. When my wife’s grandparents owned it, until the times of their death,
and grandpa died when he was 99, and the last 10 years of his life or so there was, well,
when you’re 90 it’s tough to take care of a camp and Kathy’s grandmother was as old.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions from members of the Board? There are no
questions from other members of the Board at this particular time. Okay. What we’re
going to do then is this. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No.
39-2006. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address Area
Variance No. 39-2006? Would you come to the table please, state your name and your
place of residence, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ROBERT SPATH
MR. SPATH-My name is Robert Spath. I reside at 58 Russell Harris Road in
Queensbury. I’d like to speak in support of the completion of the project, and also, I don’t
know if can do this, but I’d like to speak for my brother as well, who is away at work.
He’s in approval of the project as well.
MR. ABBATE-That’s it?
MR. SPATH-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. SPATH-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other members of the public?
HEIDI CALLIO
MS. CALLIO-My name is Heidi Callio. I live at 182 Town Glade, Maryland. My brother
and I co-own the came right next door to the Browns, and my grandfather built our cabin
in 1937, and so I’ve been there my whole life and have seen Mr. Brown’s efforts, which
it’s removed a tremendous amount of waste, some of which I believe was hazardous,
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
which I think was detrimental to the whole shoreline, and their efforts are something that
my brother and I both support. So we wanted to speak here and tell you so.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anything else?
MS. CALLIO-No.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MS. CALLIO-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other members of the public who wish to address Area
Variance No. 39-2006?
PAUL H. NAYLOR
MR. NAYLOR-Paul H. Naylor, Queensbury. I’ve been a friend of the family for many,
many years, and the kids are doing a great job up there. Glad to see it. It’s been a nice
place up there for a long, long time.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, sir.
MICHAEL SHEARER
MR. SHEARER-Michael Shearer, 52 Russell Harris Road, one door down from them.
We fully support this project.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir.
PEGGY HARRIS NOBLES
MRS. HARRIS-NOBLES-Peggy Harris Nobles, 1748 Ridge Road, Queensbury, and I’m
the daughter of H. Russell Harris and Isabelle Harris who purchased the original property
in 1952, and through the years, and as you may know or not know, that dad was very
involved in Queensbury politics, as Superintendent of Highways and Supervisor for
many years. The property, when we purchased it, and the houseboat, from Beecher
Clothier, who was an attorney in Warren County at that time, and mom and dad
improved the property, and of course at that time there wasn’t as many restrictions or
zoning laws and so on as there is now in the Town, because I’m still kind of involved in
many things here in the Town. They improved it, and then as dad and mom got older,
and the longevity of their lives, thank God, was 99 when dad deceased and mom 97a
couple of years ago, and I oversaw the property until Jason and Kathy were old enough
and became involved in the property and helped me. They have made many
improvements, as far as ecological, and many things to the property concerning Lake
George, because I’ve always been involved in the Lake George Association and things
involving lake property and the lake, and many things that didn’t concern dad and mom
at that time, they saw and saw the future concerning Lake George and Queensbury. I
support them fully on this project and they have improved, according to the lake, and
fought for the Town, and I think that it is a very good thing that they’re doing for Lake
George, and I hope the Zoning Board sees that. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other folks in the audience who
would like to address Area Variance No. 39-2006? Okay. I see no other hands. I’m
going to continue. Before I ask the members to offer their comments, I’d like to inform
the public that the comments that the Board members are going to make are going to be
directed to me as Chairman only, and comments expressed by the Board members to
the Chairman will not be open to debate. I’m going to ask members to please offer their
comments on Area Variance No. 39-2006.
MR. GARRAND-I had the opportunity, one of the residents up on Cleverdale gave me a
boat tour of the shoreline, and I had the opportunity to see it both from the shore and
from the land. I think what you’ve done down there is commendable, as far as getting rid
of the old structures. Hopefully it can alleviate some of the stormwater problems that I’m
sure Mr. Naylor’s well aware of, and he’d been dealing with for years. Reducing the hard
surfacing out there is definitely something that’s needed out there to at least alleviate
some of the stormwater problems for the Spaths up the road and everybody else on that
road. Generally I’m in support of this project. I don’t think it’s an out of the question thing
to do. You did not create the issue. It was created when your bathhouse was basically
destroyed by weather and wear and tear. So I’d be in support of this project.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I’m in agreement with Rich. I think it’s a good solution to
their problem.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m going to take the other tact, I think. I understand the
improvements that have been made to the property and the fact that the adjacent
neighbors appreciate that, and I can fully understand that. On the other hand, this is
essentially new construction at this point, and to allow new construction this close to the
shoreline I think requires substantial justification and I haven’t heard that kind of
substantial justification that says it’s essentially to place a structure in this location. It
strikes me that there’s places, other places on the property that something like this could
be built that would be at least more conforming, if not fully conforming. So I’m going to
be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to have to somewhat agree with Mr. McNulty’s comments.
I think that we need to be a little bit more conservative here. It boggles my mind, if you’ve
been involved with the community and the Town government, that you didn’t go out and
get a building permit to make the improvements on site here as have been started. I
would also echo some of the other sentiments. I think it is a positive in the fact that you
are improving things out there, but I think that, due to the fact that you are located only
13 feet from the lake, and you have expanded with that deck going out even closer to the
lake, that’s usually a pretty hard sell for our Board if people come in and do things
without asking permission first, but I think that in the interest of proper review of this, we
could send it to the Planning Board just for their comments on this at this time. I think
that it would be premature for us to say yes to putting a bathroom in down there also that
close to the lake, even though the old structures have been removed and the new ones
proposed would be a plus, but it’s going to be up to the Planning Board if they allow you
to do that. We don’t really have the purview to grant you permission for that. So I think
that, you know, in general, I think what you’re trying to do here is improve what you have
there, which is good, and I think that with the Planning Board’s blessings, we would
probably go for this, but I don’t think I’d be prepared to grant permission at this point.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with Mr. McNulty and Mr. Underwood as well. I
think we need some clearer justification for granting this variance. While I think the
project is very commendable as well, and I think the test that we need to satisfy hasn’t
been pushed in either direction for me, whether it balances the benefit to the applicant
versus the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I haven’t been
able to determine that yet, and I’d like some more information. I think going the route of
the Planning Board is the right way to go.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. Urrico, thank you very much. I agree wholeheartedly.
MR. BROWN-Is it all right for me to make one clarification for Mr. Underwood?
MR. ABBATE-Well, I haven’t commented yet, but let me, all right, I’ll tell you what. I’m
trying to decide whether I’d be influenced by what you had to say. Let me make my
statement first, and then by all means, if you’d like. You can’t debate Mr. Underwood,
but you certainly may ask questions. Let me give you my comment. I believe what you
folks are trying to do is absolutely positive. There’s no question about that at all, and the
public comments that were made this evening somewhat confirm what I believe. I have
several problems. Here are my problems. Number One, this is what’s called a
nonconforming structure. Number Two, it’s in a Critical Environmental Area. Number
Three, it has to go to site plan review. Now, having said that, before you talk to Mr.
Underwood, let me say this to you. I suspect that this evening you may not have
sufficient support for your appeal. What I’m going to recommend is this. I’m going to
recommend that before we make any decision on this Board, particularly in view of the
fact that there’s not, doesn’t appear to be support, that we send this to the Planning
Board first, and adjourn this to the Planning Board and have them do a site plan review,
have them do a critical environmental assessment, and then submit their
recommendations back to this Board, and at that time you can come back before us
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
again and we’ll hear the case. All right, now, I’m not influenced by what you had to say,
so that’s going to be my position. So if you have something to say, please say it.
MR. BROWN-With regard to the change in the setback from 19 feet to 13 feet, that’s
solely because of the deck which is non-permeable, accessory structure to the
replacement bathhouse. So in effect with the removal of the paint house and the
replacement of the bathhouse, there’s a relief of setback, hard surface area, from the
lake. I don’t know if that helps at all, and we’re due to go to the Planning Board next
week. So we’ll be going there anyway, and we have received a permit for our septic. So
the Town has already accepted that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now you heard what the Zoning Board of Appeals members had to
say and you heard, basically, what I had to say. Now, I’m going to make that
recommendation that we do that. However, I’ll give you some options. You can table
your request to the next available date, if you will, and the decision that you make is
entirely up to you. Whatever you decision you make is made, I can assure you, without
prejudice and what have you, but it’s going to be my recommendation now to adjourn this
to the Planning Board, and ask the Planning Board to do the site plan review and to do
the Critical Environmental Area and then make, based upon the results of those reviews,
make appropriate recommendations to this Board, and I can assure you that I will get it
on the agenda ASAP, once I get their recommendations.
MR. BROWN-So my choices again are, table it, or?
MR. ABBATE-I would like you to say, basically in your own words something like this.
Mr. Chairman, while I’m not entirely pleased with your position, I will concur with it.
MR. BROWN- Mr. Chairman, while I’m not entirely pleased with your position, I will
concur with it.
MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you, Mr. Brown.
MR. BROWN-You’re very welcome.
MR. ABBATE-In that case, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I’m going to request a
tabling of Area Variance No. 39-2006.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2006 JASON & KATHRYN BROWN,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Underwood:
44 Russell Harris Road. Tabled to the latest September meeting. Remanded to the
Planning Board for a site plan review as a critical environmental assessment, and then
request that the Planning Board submit their recommendations to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote is five yes, one no, to table Area Variance No. 39-2006. Area
Variance No. 39-2006 is tabled to the latest September 2006 hearing date, pending a
review of the Planning Board and their recommendations to us. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs.
Brown, for your patience.
MR. BROWN-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II ALICE GENTHNER AGENT(S):
BILL HERLIHY, MICHAEL O’CONNOR OWNER(S): ALICE GENTHNER ZONING:
WR-1A LOCATION: 35 BIRCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO
THE EXISTING 1,327 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLNG AND A 253 SQ. FT.
SECOND STORY ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE:
0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-22 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-010
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2006, Alice Genthner, Meeting Date: July 19,
2006 “Project Location: 35 Birch Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes a 253 sq. ft. second-story addition to an existing 1,486 sq. ft. single-family
dwelling.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 10.9-feet of side yard setback relief (south side), where 15-feet is
the minimum and 18-feet of shoreline setback relief where 50-feet is the minimum; both
per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 34-2006: Pending for this project, expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA.
BP 2006-415: Demo
BP 2006-214: Issued 4/28/06, 554 sq. ft. residential alteration due to storm damage.
BP 2004-180: Issued 6/9/04, septic alteration.
Staff comments:
The existing footprint of the house will not change, in other words, the existing and
proposed setbacks are the same. The relief sought is from the side yard and the
shoreline to the proposed new construction only.
Staff has submitted revised application pages (site development data page and FAR
worksheet). The area of the building footprint given is 638 sq. ft., but the survey shows
the footprint at 25.5 x 31.27, totaling 797 sq. ft. This changes the permeability
calculation and the FAR calculation. Additionally, the existing and proposed height is
given as 21-feet, but the elevation drawings show an existing height of 23.33-feet. The
applicant should verify the numbers provided by staff or justify the ones given in the
application.
The applicant requests 36% of shoreline setback relief and 73% of side setback relief,
both could be considered substantial, however, both setbacks were existing prior to
demolition.
Site plan review is required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA.”
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, would you be kind enough, please, to identify yourself.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of
Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicant, Alice Genthner who is sitting in the
front row in the red shirt. With me is Bill Herlihy, who’s the builder. Basically this is a
structure that we think was built probably 1901 on Glen Lake. It’s one of the smaller
cottages that are on the lake. The Genthners have owned the property since 1948.
They’ve been there 58 years, and basically if you take a look at the pictures that I’ve
given to you or are in the process of being passed out, you will see that they took great
care for the property. It was a very neat, small bungalow cottage. Unfortunately, in
February of this year, a large pine tree came down and smashed the upper portion of the
most westerly end of the camp, if you will. They proceeded to get a building permit to re-
build it, and they were trying to re-build it as is, and found out that probably they could
not do that because some of the structures, the floor joists, were two by fours, and they
wouldn’t meet Code. So they then were told, no, they couldn’t do that. So when they
looked at it and said that we can’t do that, we might as well try and make it useable. The
ceilings in the portion that were demolished were about six feet in height. The ceilings in
the other portion that wasn’t demolished on the second floor were six foot eight. They
decided to try to match those ceilings and basically came up with the plan that you have
before you. There’s no expansion from the footprint. I tried to get a hold of Susan today,
and, Susan and I always trade phone calls four or five times before we talk, and I didn’t
speak to her. As to Staff comments, if you look at the site development sheet, her first
point that the survey shows 797 and we showed only 638 for a building footprint, the
difference is, down below we put the porch, the enclosed porch that you see in those
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
photographs of 152 feet. So you would add those two, and you come very close to this
797 that Susan scaled. So our site data is correct as to site development, and we were
wrong as to height. We showed 21 foot existing and 21 foot proposed. The existing is
23.4, and we propose 23.4. I’m not sure how that differential got made. The site data as
to permeability and as to Floor Area Ratio is correct, because we had the right figures as
far as living space. Living space included the building covered porch. If you’ve been up
to the site, I think you’ve seen it. I understand that part of it has been cleaned up. Some
of that wing, if you will, on the west side, has been taken away. We’re talking 253 square
feet. We did a map, and I think you have it in your package, which basically the only
area that you’re talking about expansion is the second floor, and what is happening is
that they’re building over where the covered porch was, and they’re building over what
was a shed roof in the back, and the number of bedrooms remain the same. If you’ll note
on your Staff notes, in 2004, the Genthners, without any plans of alteration or doing
anything, installed a brand new septic system for a three bedroom home. As I
understand it, there were no variances necessary for that septic system when it was
installed. That is in place. If you were to look at the house from the lake, the easterly
end is the same height of what we’re proposing to build the westerly end. In fact, before,
all you had was a covered porch set back, and then you had another, you had the same
house. You’re really not changing a great deal. On the west end of the property, which
is where we’re asking for relief at 4.1 foot from the boundary line, that structure was
there. We’re not increasing that, and I do believe that the neighbors that adjoin are here
tonight and will speak as to whether or not they have a problem. This is still going to be
a seasonal home. It’s not being built as a year round home, in the sense, I think by Code
it has to be insulated now days and what not, but it’s still not going to have all the
accoutrements that you have for a year round home. The main portion of the house is
still going to be what it was there, since 1901. So we’re not talking about a great impact
upon any adjoining properties. We’re not talking about changing the character of the
neighborhood. We’re not talking about anything that is environmentally detrimental to
the neighborhood or to the community, and in truth, this was not self-created, in the
sense that the trees knocking down a good portion of the building caused them to try to
reconstruct what they had before and to make it Code compliant, it didn’t make a lot of
sense to build something, you couldn’t build the six foot ceilings. So something had to
be done. It’s not an overly ambitious project. It’s not a McDonalds as some people like
to call some of the places that are being built on the lake. It will fit into the neighborhood,
and as I said will have no impact on the character of the neighborhood.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, a question. I didn’t catch it. Did you resolve this problem with
the height of 21 feet versus 23.33?
MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask that you amend the application to reflect 23.3.
MR. ABBATE-23.3, okay. The application is amended to 23.3, height.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m sorry, 23 feet 4 inches.
MR. ABBATE-Modification, 23 feet 4 inches as requested by Counsel, thank you, sir.
MR. O'CONNOR-And that’s still compliant with the required 28 foot height that doesn’t
require a variance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Gentlemen and ladies of the Board, do you have any questions for
the appellant? Any questions at all?
MRS. HUNT-The questions were answered, thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I just wonder why you took down all those beautiful trees. I miss
looking at them when I paddle by your house.
MR. O'CONNOR-You mean the one that fell, or the other ones that are about to fall?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, the ones on the foreshore, they were pretty. It seems odd that
you would take them down after all those years.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Can I move on? Yes, Rick, please.
MR. GARRAND-On the existing floor plan, there are stairs going down from that decking
that leads into the house. I don’t see the stairs on the existing floor plan. According to
this drawing that was just given to me.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
BILL HERLIHY
MR. HERLIHY-Bill Herlihy. That was just to show the square foot difference between
what was existing and what was proposed. It wasn’t to show the stairway which is
existing there now at that point.
MR. GARRAND-Is that going to be there when you’re all done?
MR. HERLIHY-Yes, the stairway is necessary to get down to the first level of the camp,
yes, which is existing now.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-One of the photos kind of shows you a land bridge behind the camp,
and I think that’s a stairway down from the land bridge down to, not actually the lake
level. The ground level at that area of the lake is quite elevated from the lake, but it gets
down to the camp level. Let’s put it that way.
MR. URRICO-The additional 150 feet or so of the screened porch area, you had 638
square feet, that’s the screened porch area?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, the 638 was the house itself, the house proper, and then in
addition to that, for site development data, we included 152 feet for the screened in
porch.
MR. URRICO-Now that screened in porch, was that there prior to the?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that’s in the photo.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s in the picture.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board? No questions? Okay,
then what I’m going to do, I’m going to open the public hearing for Area Variance No. 40-
2006. I’m going to ask those in the public wishing to be heard if they would be kind
enough to approach the table, raise your hand and I’ll recognize you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
HERBERT LEVIN
MR. LEVIN-My full name is Herbert Levin. I reside at 29 Hidden Hills Drive in
Queensbury. My summer residence is 37 Birch Road. I own the adjoining property on
the southwest side. I also own the lot that is roadside behind Alice’s house. I’d like to
address Mr. Underwood’s point about the trees. Many of the trees that were taken down
were taken down in 2004. Alice’s septic system had some problems, and rather than try
and patch it together, she built it to Code and is pushing the effluent up the hill. The
leach field necessitated removing a lot of the trees. The trees that were left, now it’s my
opinion, were vulnerable to the wind, and that’s, in my opinion, one of the reasons why
that tree snapped. It was about two foot in diameter pine. She made the decision to
take some more down that looked like that they were also vulnerable to the wind. She
did, in her dense, leave those four huge pines on the shoreline. They lean a little bit
towards the water. So the odds are if they go, it’s going to go in the water, not damaging
any other property, and one of the trees, I’m donating towards the removal because it
looked like it was going to hit my property. I have no problem with her plans. I have
seen the design. On that side of my house, I have no second story windows. So it
doesn’t hurt my view, and quite frankly everything else that’s been done has been top
notch. I think the, in my opinion again, the addition that was destroyed to the original
property did not architecturally lend itself to the original building that was there. So I
think, although Alice had nothing to do with the tree snapping, and smashing it, I think it
was a sign from God that we need to correct an architectural flaw, and by raising the
roofline, I think it would consolidate the property, and the design of it.
MR. ABBATE-Do you have anything else?
MR. LEVIN-No.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much, sir.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
MR. LEVIN-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area
Variance No. 40-2006? I don’t see any other hands being raised.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one letter.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-A letter received on July 17. It’s addressed to Craig Brown. “Dear
Mr. Brown and Zoning Board Members: Mrs. Alice Genthner, my lifelong neighbor at
Glen Lake, has applied for a variance to repair and reconstruct parts of her camp at 35
Birch Road, which was damaged in a storm. I understand that the zoning board is
supposed to solicit the comments of neighbors. Although I have not received a formal
solicitation, I want to take this opportunity to wholeheartedly support Mrs. Genthner’s
request. At my request, she has explained in careful detail what she proposes to have
done, and it sounds eminently reasonable and environmentally sound. As my family has
owned the camp near hers since 1929, I am especially concerned about the impact of
construction and renovation on the quality of the lake and the appearance of the
shoreline. Mrs. Genthner’s proposals seem to protect both, at least as much as many of
the more recent constructions that have received the Board’s approval. Given that the
Board and my family both seek to protect the quality of life at Glen Lake, I have little
doubt that you will approve her request for a variance. Sincerely, Dr. William J. Chase”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counselor, do you have anything to add before we proceed?
Okay. Good. Before I ask members to offer their comments, again, I’d like to inform the
public that the comments offered by members of the ZBA are directed to the Chairman,
and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman will not be open to
debate. So I’m going to ask members at the present time to please be kind enough to
offer their comments on the information and evidence contained in the record concerning
Area Variance No. 40-2006. Before I do, may I respectfully remind the members that
precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on
the record to support our conclusions. And the evidence relied upon should be
specifically stated. This is necessary for an intelligent Judicial review. Additionally, any
position you may take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and
not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project, and due process guarantees
that government ensure a fair and open process, and Board members must make
decisions on reliable evidence contained in the record of Board deliberations.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m more than happy to grant your request that you’re asking for her
this evening. I think that it was a shame to have your camp get smashed down like it did,
but that was quite the storm from hell last winter when it did come through there. I would
also compliment you on the fact that you have previously upgraded your septic system.
So I don’t think by changing and adding that bedroom upstairs there is going to make
that much of a difference. All the camps along that shoreline there seem to be
substantially set back from the water compared to many areas of the lake. They’re
reasonable distances. Although it’s within the 50 foot setback from the lake, it’s 38 feet
back, I believe, is where the front of that camp is. I don’t think that any of those camps
have ever had a real impact on the water quality of the lake as they exist, and I think as a
seasonal dwelling the minor request of adding that bedroom up there is going to be a
positive for you and it’s going to be a positive for the lake, too.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-In assessing whether this benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment
to the community, we’re asked to satisfy certain criteria, and I think certainly the benefit
that needs to be addressed cannot be treated any other way than the applicant has
decided to go. I’m convinced that you have a benefit that cannot be achieved by any
other means. I don’t see any undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to
nearby properties based on what we’ve seen. The request, while substantial, it should
be pointed out is basically the same house that was there before with some
improvements, and request versus adverse physical or environmental affects, we see no
adverse environmental effects. We’ve heard that the applicant has already installed a
septic system prior to this that will improve the area anyway, and certainly in most cases
when an applicant comes before us, the difficulty is self-created, but I think it’s safe to
assume that this one wasn’t self-created. So therefore I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. McNulty, please.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I can basically agree with Mr. Urrico. I think he’s pretty well
covered it. It strikes me that if this were new construction and a new structure, I’d have a
problem with it, but in this case, it’s on top of an existing structure. There’s reason for
doing it, and it’s not going to increase any of the requested relief from what currently
exists. So it strikes me as being a reasonable request, and I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-I tend to agree with Mr. Underwood that the difficulty here was not self-
created. It was an act of God that took down the side of the house, and I think that what
you’re doing is definitely an improvement upon the appearance of what’s there now and
what was there previously. I’ve been down there on several occasions, and it was, you
know, some parts of that house were rotting around the base of that house. I think I’m
totally in agreement with Mr. Underwood, and I support this project.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. While the
request is substantial for a variance, it’s an existing condition, and I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I, too, concur with my fellow Board members. I
think there can be no doubt that you didn’t demand or control the tree falling on your
house causing that kind of damage, and I think what you are attempting to do is going to
improve the property. However, there’s a little caveat here. This, of course, has to go to
site plan review because it’s in a Critical Environmental Area. You folks are aware of
that, and I’m going to request that whoever makes the motion, apparently it looks like you
folks have support for approval, contingent that upon, subject to a positive site plan
review, particularly since it’s in a Critical Environmental, and if it’s positive, I don’t have
any problems with that at all.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have a comment on that. As you said, the statute requires this to go
to site plan review. So we can’t proceed without site plan review and approval of site
plan review. I think your condition is redundant, unnecessary and simply confuses the
issue that you, I really don’t think it adds anything to the record. You’re basically saying
you think we should comply with statute. We have to comply with statute. We’re not
going to get a building permit until we do.
MR. ABBATE-The only problem I have here, and it looks like there’s going to be
approval of the request, there’s not any doubt about that at all, but I see no harm,
statutorily, stating that, sure we’re going to approve it, subject to a positive site plan
review.
MR. URRICO-There’s a difference between subject and contingent, though. Subject is
worded you’re agreeing with the statute. Contingent says we’re asking for that to be met,
which has got to happen.
MR. ABBATE-I’m asking for that to be met. Sure. Okay. Anybody else wish to comment
on that? Okay. Having said that, then I’m going to close the public hearing for Area
Variance No. 40-2006.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully remind the members that we have the task of
balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact
that State statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in
deciding whether to grant an area variance. Please introduce your motion with clarity. In
the event a member does not understand the motion as stated, please advise me and I
will request that the motion be repeated a second time. The motion itself is not
subjected to debate. Any member not favoring the motion may exercise the right to vote
no or introduce their own motion. In the event the member moving the motion believes
the appeal is substantial, please make clear your judgment for that basis, as well as any
impact there may or may not be on the environment and/or the community. Those
members in opposition to the motion, if any, please offer a reasonable explanation for
your position. Having said that, do I hear a volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No.
40-2006?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2006 ALICE GENTHNER,
Introduced by Roy Urrico, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
35 Birch Road. The applicant is proposing a 253 square foot second story addition to an
existing 1,486 square foot single family dwelling. In doing so, the applicant is requesting
10.9 feet side yard relief, that’s on the south side, where 15 feet is the minimum, and 18
feet of shoreline setback relief where 50 feet is the minimum, both per 179-4-030 for the
WR-1A zone. The applicant, in making this application, has satisfied the criteria that
we’re asked to have an applicant comply with, or at least the balance of which needs to
satisfy whether this application is a detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
community versus the benefit to the applicant. The benefit of this applicant cannot be
achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. There is no undesirable change
in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. I’d like to point out that the
nearest neighbor who might be affected by the 4.1 feet of setback does not seem to be
bothered by that proximity to his property. The request, while substantial, is basically
filling a footprint that existed prior to the damage to this house. The request won’t have
any adverse physical or environmental effects on the surrounding area, and this alleged
difficulty is not self-created. I move that we approve this Area Variance. This applicant
is contingent upon a positive site plan review which is required for expansion of a
nonconforming structure in a CEA.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 40-2006 is six yes, zero no. Area
Variance No. 40-2006 is approved.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. Also, Jim, maybe you’re not aware, all those houses set
back from the lake because there used to be a walking path between Summer Thomas
and Sullivan’s and people used to sit on their front porch and watch people walk back
and forth.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve seen the old postcards showing that.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2006 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED FERRARO
ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ.; NORTHFIELD DESIGN &
ARCHITECTS; JARRETT-MARTIN ENG. OWNER(S): ANTHONY & MARY SUE
FERRARO ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1035 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 20,858 SQ. FT. MINIATURE GOLF COURSE
FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK TO EXISTING AMUSEMENT USE. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
AND FROM THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: JULY 12, 2006 LOT SIZE: 3.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-1
SECTION 179-4-060; 179-4-040
JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KEITH FERRARO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2006, Ferraro Entertainment, Inc., Meeting Date:
July 19, 2006 “Project Location: 1035 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project:
The applicants propose construction of a 20,858 sq. ft. miniature golf course and
associated site work.
Relief Required:
The applicants request:
Relief of 50-feet from the minimum 75-feet setback requirement of the travel corridor
overlay zone, per §179-4-070.
Relief of 25-feet, from the minimum 50-feet front setback requirement of the HC-Mod
zone, per §179-4-030.
Relief from the minimum parking requirement for an amusement center (1 per 200 sq. ft.
of gross floor area), per §179-4-040. Applicant requests relief of 134 spaces, staff
calculates 154. The applicant should justify their calculations.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SUP 35-2006: Pending, for this project.
SP 35-98: Approved 6/23/98, 7/28/98, and 6/22/99.
AV 53-98: Approved 8/19/98.
AV 26-98: Approved 6/17/98.
SP 14-93: Approved 4/22/93.
BP 98-602: Issued 9/30/99, 540 sq. ft. go-cart repair shed.
BP 98-601: Issued 9/30/99, 2,080 sq. ft. go-cart storage building.
BP 98-600: Issued 9/30/99, commercial additions.
BP 93-562: Issued 9/28/93, Building addition.
Staff comments:
The applicants request front setback relief and relief from the setback requirements of
the travel corridor overlay zone for the construction and installation of a proposed
miniature golf facility, to be located 25-feet from the front property line.
Both of these requests could be considered substantial, specifically, 50% of relief from
the front setback requirement, and 67% of relief from the setback requirement of the
travel corridor overlay zone. However, there is limited available space on site for the
miniature golf course due to the other existing facilities on-site. A feasible alternative
may be to reduce the size of the proposed facility and, with that, increasing the setbacks.
Additional relief is requested from the parking requirement for an amusement center.
The number used to calculate the parking requirement is 14,400 sq. ft. this is 70% of the
total 20,858 sq. ft. facility (used for permeability calculation), the entire total should be
used to calculate the parking requirement. Using the 20,858 sq. ft., staff calculated a
required 292 parking spaces required for the entire site. This calculation is a modest one
because the site density data provided on the site plan only gives the areas of the paved
surfaces of the go-cart track and the kiddie track. The parking calculation should include
the entire areas of the existing roller skating facility, go-cart track, kiddie track, and the
miniature golf course. The applicant should supply these numbers to accurately identify
the parking requirement for the entire site and, from that, the relief required.
The applicant’s justification for the parking variance is that the individual uses are
seasonal and not all popular during the same season.
The requested 53% of relief (using 292 spaces) could be considered substantial. A
feasible alternative may be for the applicant to explore a shared parking arrangement as
specified in §179-4-040 B(3).
This is a SEQR unlisted action that also requires site plan review. The Board could
request a coordinated SEQR and defer this application to the Planning Board for review
and advisory recommendation.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
July 12, 2006 Project Name: Ferraro Entertainment, Inc. Owner(s): Anthony and Mary
Sue Ferraro ID Number: QBY-06-AV-42 County Project#: Jul06-30 Current Zoning:
HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction
of 20,858 sq. ft. miniature golf course facility and associated site work to existing
amusement use. Relief requested from Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirements
and from the minimum parking requirements. Site Location: 1035 State Route 9 Tax
Map Number(s): 296.9-1-1 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the
construction of a 20,858 sq. ft. miniature golf course facility and associated site work to
existing amusement use. The miniature golf course is to be located 25 ft. from the front
property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. In addition the existing proposed uses
required 272 parking spaces where the applicant will provided 138 spaces. The
applicant has indicated the uses on the property operate at different times where no
additional parking spaces are needed. The plans show the layout of the recreational
uses, parking and site access. The applicant has indicated that the curb cuts will be
reduced from two to one, parking is to occur at the rear of the property and along the new
access road. The applicant has indicated that they are removing the waterslides that
had occurred at the rear of the property to place parking at the rear and the miniature
golf course at the front of the building. Staff recognizes the desire for business
expansion. Staff recommends discussion to address impacts on the Route 9 travel
corridor. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve The Warren County
Planning Board recognizes the desire for business expansion and recommends
Approval.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 7/17/06.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before you proceed, I’m going to recuse myself from this
case.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. McNulty. Thank you very much. As you see, gentlemen, that
there are a total of five Board members left. I’ll give you the option. We can continue
with the hearing this evening, if you wish, and/or, if you prefer a full Board, I can
reschedule you. It’s up to you. Your decision.
MR. MILLER-Do you have a quorum?
MR. ABBATE-We have a quorum.
MR. MILLER-Okay. I think we’ll proceed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Great. Now I see two gentlemen at the table. Would you
both be kind enough to speak into the microphone, state your full name, and your place
of residence, please.
MR. MILLER-Okay. I’m Jim Miller from Northfield Design architects in Lake George.
We’re waiting on Jon Lapper from Bartlett, Pontiff. Hopefully he’ll join us shortly.
MR. FERRARO-My name is Keith Ferraro. I reside at 46 McEchron Lane in
Queensbury. I’m from the Fun Spot.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Now you don’t have counsel. It’s up to you. We can
proceed without counsel if you wish, but the decision is yours. Don’t misunderstand
what I’m saying. If you folks are willing to continue, that’s perfectly okay with me, but I
wanted, for the record, to show that you would continue without counsel.
MR. MILLER-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. If that’s the case, you know the routine. You present your case to
us and explain to us why you feel this should be approved. Go ahead.
MR. MILLER-Okay. Let me give you a general overview of what we’re trying to do.
Currently now we have an indoor arena. It’s a skating facility and laser tag. There’s a go
kart facility and a waterslide in the back of the property. We’re proposing to take down
the waterslide and add mini golf. It’s kind of a trade. Currently, there’s indoor and
outdoor activities. History has proven that they don’t happen simultaneously. Either
people are outside doing things or if it’s raining they’re inside. In the wintertime there’s
no outdoor activities. What we’re proposing to do is to take the current parking lot that’s
in the front and presents itself to the corridor of Route 9 and move that to the back, and
put our seasonal use mini golf in its place towards the street. We feel this is a pretty
good solution, in terms of the mini-golf is not a very high impact use. What we’re finding,
it’s mostly landscaping, flat surfaces that are the putting greens and there are a few
structures involved, windmills and that sort of thing, but those structures will be not within
that 75 foot corridor. We are allowed, by the current Ordinance, to put a parking lot in
that space, and we can put lighting around that parking lot. It’s our position that this low
impact mini-golf use is a lot better deal for the corridor than a parking lot. We’re also
proposing that this golf course will be heavily landscaped, and we’ve brought some
photographs of other projects done by the course designer, and it kind of gives the flavor
of what the project will be, and also in front of that we’re going to landscape along the
street side. Currently there’s landscaping in front of the go kart facility, and we’re going
to carry that theme across. It’s our position right now it’s fairly nice to look at. It’s nicely
green spaced and it keeps down the noise and all those good things. I’d just like to
reiterate that we’re not going to build any structures above the plane of the ground within
that 75 foot. The basic premise of the 75 foot corridor is to provide for future expansion
of Route 9 to more lanes. We’d like to think that it’s easy to take out, if that ever
happened, it would be easy for us to remove this golf course facility to comply with that.
The second part of this deals with the parking. Currently, for the indoor facility, and for
the outdoor activities of the go kart and the waterslide, there’s really 96 spaces, parking
spaces in use. We’re making an exchange of the waterslide with the mini golf, and we’re
proposing quite a few more spaces. Our calculations for parking are based on the two
projects, the activities not happening at the same time, which is, you know, history has
proven that that’s the way it goes. The facility has been in use for how many years?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
MR. FERRARO-The waterslide facility has been in use for18 years.
MR. MILLER-So, the other thing is that the Ordinance talks about indoor space, I
believe, and what we’re proposing is outdoor space. So our calculations reflect the
actual areas people are walking and don’t reflect the green space or landscaping,
because we didn’t think we’d have to provide parking for somebody sitting in the bushes I
guess. So I guess the bottom line in this is the existing parking works for the intensity of
the use. We don’t think the intensity will be any more, but we’re adding 26 to 30 more
spaces. I guess the closing argument would be, if one reviews the planning guidelines
for development in the Route 9 corridor, I think we do a great job of meeting the intent of
those planning guidelines. One other thing I’d like to speak to is we currently have two
curb cuts. We’re proposing one, and we’ve run this by DOT, and we have a preliminary
letter of approval, based on what we’ve shown them so far. We’ve also gone before
Warren County, and they applauded the project, for the very same reasons that I’m
presenting tonight, the green space, the single curb cut, and the seasonal use up front.
So, you know, if you can picture it, half of the season, there’s nothing going on up there,
and it’s just green space presenting itself to the corridor. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. You bet, and since counsel isn’t here, and you heard what
I said earlier, if you have any questions during the proceedings, don’t hesitate to ask us
what it’s all about. We’ll give you some flexibility.
MR. FERRARO-My name’s Keith Ferraro. I’m President of the Fun Spot, here
representing my parents, Mary Sue and Anthony. Basically just a few more points that I
wanted to add to Jim’s list. The company, there’s some pictures over there. All of you
received copies of those pictures. I brought them in in case there were any of the public
that were here that would be here that wouldn’t have privy to those, but it’s a very high
end type of concept, a project. The Wisconsin Company, who is going to do this for us,
just recently did the whole inside of the Tupper Lake Museum. So that’s the caliber of
work that they do. Like Jim had also said, the parking uses that we have now, we have
seasonal uses and they’ve been in existence, co-existence, for 18 years with the
waterslides, and we’ve had no issues with parking, and from now we’re proposing to add
parking and add another summertime activity so we don’t anticipate any uses or any
need for additional parking since we’ve added 44 spaces, basically. Because on the as
built drawing right now we have a stone section, and only half of those parking spaces,
there’s 14 there, which I can point out on the diagram, that aren’t utilized because people
don’t see them because it’s stone. If they have stripes, they know where to park, but if
you don’t have stripes, they just can’t figure that out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for Susan. When we review these amusement
type activities, when they want to add one, is there any limit to the number of different
things they can have or, I mean, there’s no? I mean, I don’t see any on any of the other
facilities up the road or anything like that. They have multiple on their sites also.
MRS. BARDEN-No limit as long as you have the parking, the permeability for all uses.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If you’re going to compare the parking that they’re proposing here
on this site, I know that’s not really our, I mean, it is our purview this evening to go
through that process. When you compare that to the site up the road where the other
miniature golf course is, I mean, I don’t know how those numbers compare
comparatively. I mean, it looks approximately about the same number of parking spots
as what exists on that site, too.
MR. FERRARO-The initial Pirates Cove application for 18 holes included 55 parking
spaces. Lumberjack Pass includes 46 parking spaces, and going from our 96 to 140
spaces, we’re proposing to add 44 parking spaces to our parcel, as it is.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members have any questions concerning Area
Variance No. 42-2006?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have a question. When you go back by the waterslide, it looks like
you can go into the park behind that other building. Is that ever used?
MR. FERRARO-Behind Wilson’s?
MRS. HUNT-Right.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
MR. FERRARO-There is basically some tractor trailers that go through there for their
facility and some test driving of their vehicles and stuff like that, and that’s basically all
that’s utilized back there, at least at this time.
MRS. HUNT-You never have people park there for your facility?
MR. FERRARO-No, they park down our stone lot.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. URRICO-The skating portion of the facilty, is that open 12 months a year?
MR. FERRARO-Yes, it is.
MR. URRICO-And the go karts?
MR. FERRARO-April to October, late October.
MR. URRICO-And what do you propose the mini golf to be open to?
MR. FERRARO-We would assume the mini golf would run a season similar to the go
karts.
MR. URRICO-So there’s going to be a period of time when they’re all open, and the Fall
is generally the busy part of your skating season?
MR. FERRARO-No. The wintertime is the busy part of our skating season.
MR. URRICO-What about school buses and school kids coming in?
MR. FERRARO-The inside of the skating facility is rarely utilized during the summer
because everybody wants to be outdoors, and the only time it gets business is when you
get a rainy day, and then when the rain occurs, of course, then the outside activities don’t
function.
MR. URRICO-But you have it open during the summer, so you must do enough business
to keep it open.
MR. FERRARO-Well, it’s hard for me to predict which days it’s going to rain, to be
honest. So we do keep it open every day. We do do birthday parties as well.
MR. URRICO-And people are dropping off kids and picking them up and?
MR. FERRARO-Yes, but if we have five parties a week in the summertime that would be
a lot.
MR. URRICO-Okay. It was mentioned in Staff notes about any reciprocal agreements
you might have with parking, overflow parking, with the sports Yamaha place next door.
MR. FERRARO-There are no agreements that we have at this time, sir.
MR. URRICO-But the parking could spill over into their lot.
MR. FERRARO-We could working something out like that, but we’re proposing an
additional 44 spaces and we thought that would be more than sufficient to carry.
MR. URRICO-Well, I’m just thinking people that pull up, there are telephone poles in the
middle separating your parking lot from theirs, and they may not immediately see the
parking in the back. So they’re immediate reaction might be to park in the other lot and
that might create a problem, unless there’s an agreement of some sort where that might
actually alleviate a problem.
MR. FERRARO-There’s been some reciprocal parking, I guess you would call it, in the
past, but Mr. Wilson and myself have never had any issues with that in either direction.
MR. URRICO-My last question is.
MR. MILLER-Can I speak to that, too? The new parking scheme is a paved lot, and it’s
very defined where it is. There’s curb around part of it. It’s paved now, and it will be
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
striped. There’s two areas, one in the front and one in the back, that allows
communication between the two lots for tractor trailers and whatever. So there’s the
possibility that if there’s a delivery on Ferraro’s property they can go through with a
tractor trailer, and that was something that the Planning Board asked for. Historically,
remember back when it was a cinema next door, there was a use of both lots, I think. In
the evening when there were three movies going on, some of that traffic spilled onto
Keith’s property, and vice versa during the day, but this is going to be defined.
MR. URRICO-I think when that happened, I don’t know if there was a go kart course
there at the time. Was it there at the same time as the cinema being open?
MR. FERRARO-Yes. The go karts have been there since 1978, in one form or another.
They’ve been, two different tracks, but.
MR. URRICO-Okay. The other question I have for you is you say that if the, if Route 9
was ever expanded, and it’s likely that it will be at some point, that you would just cut
back on the mini golf course. If you can comply at a later date, why can’t you comply
now? Why can’t you cut it back now so that it fits without spilling over into that zone?
MR. FERRARO-I think what Jim was speaking to is the fact that there will be no building
structures out there that would have to be removed. The course itself, by design,
restrictions that the company says for a course of this magnitude to be successful, you
have to have between 20 and 25,000 square feet of space for them to utilize to theme is
properly. You’re not going to be moving it back very far. We’re 20,858 square feet now.
To move that number back any significance along Route 9, you’re only talking about a
couple of feet.
MR. URRICO-I see five holes I see.
MR. MILLER-Another point to be made, in going back to the parallel between a parking
lot and what we’re trying to do within that space is if we were to do a parking lot there,
and it had to be removed, it would be the same damage, let’s say. To tear up a parking
lot is very much the same as what we’d have to do to tear up this, but we can put a
parking lot there now, and not look to the future of whether we have to tear it out. So
that’s what we’re arguing that this is basically the same intensity.
MR. URRICO-You’re asking for 50 feet of relief from the minimum 75 foot setback
because the mini golf is extending into that area.
MR. FERRARO-Right.
MR. URRICO-And my question is, if at a later date, you’re asked to pull that back, you’re
saying that you can comply. Why can’t you do that now?
MR. FERRARO-I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think the Ordinance talks about
structures and that was the starting point with the Planning Board. Is this a structure or
is this a parking lot, closer to a parking lot in its nature, and I keep going back to that, and
that’s really our argument, that what we’re putting there is not really a structure. It’s a
low intensity use. It’s almost 50% landscaping. The rest of it is a flat putting surface. It’s
closer to being a parking lot. So when we go to the point of, okay, if you have to take it
out, I go back to the parallel that it’s very close to what it would mean to take out a
parking lot, and we’re allowed to do the parking lot. So I guess that’s the point I’m trying
to make.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other members of the Board have any questions concerning
42-2006?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I just had a couple of comments to make.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have been present at a couple of Town Board meetings and I
know that the subject has come up about things being located too close to, you know
within the Travel Corridor Overlay, and I think it was more in reference to up the road
from you, the new RV sales place where they’re parking those big behemoth things right
out next to the road, and they are a distraction for people going in and coming out and
not being able to see around and things like that. I would have to agree with you
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
somewhat that a golf facilty is not going to be like a huge structure sticking up in the air,
as opposed to there’s not going to be any giants or anything like, odd ball things like you
see in some of the parks, but my concern would be the same as Roy’s. If you have an
ability to put in a really nice course, if you’re going to sink all this money into it it would
seem a shame to me to approve it and then have, you know, down the road have to have
you rip the thing out again, if DOT decides they want to add four lanes out there, which
may be a distinct possibility. I mean, who knows what’s going to happen on the corridor
in the future there. Did you give any thought to moving the go kart track to the back,
because I know that’s always been a sticking point with some of the neighbors. I know it
would be a big money undertaking for you to do that, but after going to all the trouble to
put it in, but.
MR. MILLER-The go kart track was done in ’98 I believe and you’re correct. It was a big
adventure, cost wise. I think to move that to the back at this point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would just be prohibitive cost wise?
MR. MILLER-Yes. I would like to reinforce the idea, though, that our intent is to minimize
the curb cuts, to present more green space to that corridor and get the parking in the
back and I think that goes along with the design guidelines for the corridor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just wondering if, when Planning Board review takes place, I
mean, they’re probably going to wonder, if you’re going to put most of the parking in
back, if your entrance should be in the back to get into the skate facility, so you don’t
have to walk all the way up past all the cars that are coming in and out of there and
things like that. I’m just wondering, you know, ergonomically, if that’s going to make
sense to do something.
MR. FERRARO-The entrance to the skating facility is towards the front currently, and
there’s going to be a corner there where the go kart track entrance, the skating rink
entrance, and the golf entrance will all be off the central concourse. If we find that the
back spaces are being utilized more than we think, there is the possibility to open
another entrance into the skating facility from the back, but we don’t really see that
happening at this point.
MR. GARRAND-I have one question for the applicant and one for the Chairman. My
question here is on Drawing S-1, what I’m looking at, it appears to be parking space right
near the entrance and exit right along the Travel Corridor. Does that present a hazard
having traffic coming off of Route 9 and coming right into where people are parking?
MR. MILLER-There’s a staging space of about one and a half cars there. We can, if it
were a bigger facility with more traffic, I could kind of see your point, but I think to
sacrifice another eight spaces in front, just to have a longer staging area, I don’t think it’s
warranted.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. My concern is people pulling in right near the entrance/exit and
then going to back out, as somebody’s pulling in, because along the Route 9 corridor you
have people always rushing to get in between cars to pull into a parking lot. So you’ve
got people coming in at quite a high rate of speed, entering the entrances to parking lots.
I just hate to set something up, a situation up where we’re trying to stuff parking in here
and we’re creating accidents for people in this parking lot.
MR. MILLER-I think if both Boards were to recommend that, we certainly could take out a
few parking spaces there. To be honest with you, we’re kind of caught between two
things, trying to show more parking to come up to a determined count, and then also the
issue that you presented.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, that, for me, is a safety issue. I also had a question for Mr.
Chairman. I’m not familiar with the driveway separation requirement. I was wondering if
you could clarify that for me.
MR. ABBATE-Separation requirements, Staff, why don’t you do it, so that there’s more
objectivity, rather than me doing it.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Garrand, what are you referring to?
MR. GARRAND-It says, moreover, due to the close proximity of the neighboring
driveway to the north, the applicant is also requesting a waiver from the driveway
separation requirement.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s 110.
MRS. BARDEN-There are commercial driveway spacing standards on collector and
arterial roads, and I will direct you to that.
MR. ABBATE-I think it’s 110 feet, Susan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s over 100 feet I know.
MR. FERRARO-At this point we’re not 100 feet anyway.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Get it on the record. Say it again, would you, please.
MR. FERRARO-I said at this point we’re not 100 feet anyway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what that addresses, too, is facilities with high turnovers.
Next door doesn’t have much turnover anymore, compared with the old days.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s under Access Management, 179-19-010, Commercial Driveway
Standards.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members have any questions before we proceed?
MR. FERRARO-Just one other point. I’d just like to re-mention that we have run this by
DOT and they’ve given us preliminary approval. The engineer’s comment paraphrased
was that there’s so many curb cuts along there anyway it’s not going to make a
difference, meaning that it’s a mess already.
MR. ABBATE-You don’t want me to address that. Believe me, okay, it would be a long
dissertation. Anything else before we continue?
MR. FERRARO-Yes, just a couple of brief comments. I think this project goes along with
what the Town is looking to do with the Route 9 corridor, trying to get rid of some parking
and some blacktop up near the road. We’re going to decrease some curb cuts. We’re
going to really enhance it with a lot of landscaping, and be very aesthetic, as far as the
Town is concerned, and also one other item, I don’t know how relevant it is to this, but
they’re talking about widening the road. Just recently in April the Wood Carte was
approved for a building structure only 19 and a half behind where we’re looking at putting
golf holes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right? No other questions, gentlemen, ladies? All right. Then
I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 42-2006, and those in the
public who wish to address this issue, would you be kind enough to raise your hand
please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KEITH CRIST
MR. CRIST-Good evening, Board. I’m Keith Crist, and actually would reside on the
commercial property just to the south of Ferraro’s. Our family business is A-2000
Automotive Center, and we would like to use our family to give the Ferraro family full
support any which way we can, and if parking spaces actually become an issue, I’ve got,
behind my facility I have about 12 or 14 spots that I never even use at all, if that was ever
an issue or help to them, I’d be more than willing to help in any way we can on that, and I
think if we look at the Ferraro family, they’ve been in this area for many, many years. I
think they’ve done a phenomenal job on their facility. If you look at it, it’s one of the
nicest kept manicured lawns. It beats my lawn hands down. I’ve done a lot of
landscaping on my facilty trying to make it look nicer. I think we have to understand that
this area is no longer an industrial area. We don’t have a lot of mill jobs anymore. We’re
a tourist destination and in order to be a tourist destination, people come from out of the
city from downstate, to come up and see green trees, lawns, stuff they can’t see at
home, and if you can get rid of a sea of blacktop such as they have in the front of their
building and facility now, and landscape that nicely the way they’re going to do it, I’ve
seen the pictures of the other projects that they’ve looked at, or what this would look like,
and also they’ve taken into consideration my impact, visually, which I really appreciate
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
that, too. They’re going to put the lower holes to the front of their course, for their
handicap section. So that really won’t interfere with the people traveling north on the
corridor past me, that it won’t block my facility. So they’ve taken into consideration our
family’s interests as well, and I appreciate that. Like I say, anything we can do to help
their family we’d be more than willing to do. Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir.
LINDA MC NULTY
MRS. MC NULTY-I’m Linda McNulty, Twicwood Lane, Queensbury. I’m against this
project. We have had nothing but grief from the Fun Spot, between the go karts and the
noise from the roller skating rink. We have complained, I can’t tell you how many times
about that. They have not been a good neighbor. It has changed the characteristic of
the neighborhood. I cannot see them needing less parking space. The situation,
apparently they’re taking out the waterslide because it’s not producing the kind of traffic
that they’re looking for. So they’re bringing in something that’s going to produce higher
traffic. They do need an abundance of parking space. I wish they had had this project in
place of the go karts, or prior to the go karts, instead. I would have been a lot happier
seeing that in the front than the go karts and their noise. We’ve made several attempts,
either by e-mail or by phoning them, because the music that is coming out of the roller
skating rink is so severe, the deep base penetrates our home. We can’t sit in our family
room and enjoy the television at a normal sound. It has to be cranked up. I realize that
doesn’t have anything to do with the application before you right now, but as I said, they
are not good neighbors. I’m really surprised that the Warren County Planning Board
okayed this idea because I really see Route 9 going to four lanes. There’s no way that it
can’t happen within the next 10 to 15 years, if not sooner. The traffic along Route 9 is
too intense. There are too many rear ending accidents, so there is a great need for
either turning lanes into these commercial properties, or something to compensate for
the hazard. You’re going to be getting far more traffic with a situation with the miniature
golf and I think it’s just going to add to the hazard of Route 9. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Do we have any other folks in the
audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 42-2006?
BERNARD RAYHILL
MR. RAYHILL-My name is Bernard Rayhill. I live at 37 Wincrest Drive. I agree
completely with Mrs. McNulty. I think this project, in terms of what exists at the present
time, is difficult, and I’ve walked up Oakwood Drive towards Mrs. McNulty’s property,
which is not too far from mine, listening to noise which was very dissonant, to my mind,
and finding out afterwards that it was coming from that property there. Now I realize that
we’re talking about a golf course right now. We’re also talking about parking spaces.
Now, when Jim Martin was Chairman of the Planning Department here, he put in a K-
Mart for Mike Brandt with a lot of parking spaces, most of those parking spaces aren’t
even used, and in addition to which, when Mr. Passarelli put in his little strip mall,
opposite Cumberland Farms, there were too many parking spaces, as far as I can see,
and those parking spaces aren’t used either. We’re talking about a situation where, for
instance, in the 1960’s when there was a developer in New York City was putting in
parking garages all over New York City, I was studying planning and zoning in New York
City. Nothing was done for children or families, in terms of public recreation, parks,
swimming pools, at that point in time. They were fussing over businessmen and
providing opportunities for business, rather than the welfare of the community. We still
don’t have the welfare of the community taken care of. Now 18 years ago Mr. Ferraro
said he was talking about his waterslide world. How would waterslide world have
functioned if there had been a Round Pond in Queensbury? If Guido Passarelli and
Steve Borgos, who was the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury at that time hadn’t
gotten together and said, we don’t want a Round Pond for the children of Queensbury.
We want privatization of everything. So everything that you do, in terms of analyzing
things, is skewed by the fact that there are a great number of people in the world who
want to privatize everything and don’t want to provide public resources for children and
for families. You might say, well, this man is off the wall. I’m not off the wall. I’m a
political scientist. I only speak the truth. I’m also an ethicist. So this has happened in
the past, and this is your community, it’s my community, it’s our community. We’re all in
this together. So when you make your judgments about planning and zoning in the
future, I hope that you will think about the size of the parking spaces, whether they’re
really needed, and in this particular situation, I think when we have a golf course, how
many golf courses are there in Queensbury, eight or nine? Those are for adults, and
how many public parks do we have with large swimming pools in Queensbury? How
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
many parks with freshwater swimming do we have in Queensbury? There is a
freshwater park in Whitehall on Lake George. There is a freshwater park on Lake
George. There is one in Fort Ann. There’s one in Bolton. There’s one in Hague, but
Queensbury doesn’t have a freshwater park for the children of Queensbury, but we have
all these golf courses. Where are our priorities? These are very important questions in
terms of this project and every other project that’s going to come down the road,
gentlemen, and you should think seriously. I have a lot of concerns about parking
spaces in this project, and everything about the project. I just retired and I looked at the
Route 9 corridor, and I said to myself, what are boats doing on Route 9? We have boats
practically on Route 9 facing us as we come off Mrs. McNulty’s property. Practically
facing us. What did the Zoning Board, what did the Planning Board do during that period
of time? Did we say, okay, it’s only 15 feet from the road, put it in there? This is no
disrespect, gentlemen. I’m an ethicist and a political scientist. I’m only talking about
what the truth is and how you should think when you do planning and zoning. Thank you
very much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the audience who
would like to address Area Variance No. 42-2006? If not, would those folks representing
please come back to the table. Okay. We’re going to continue here.
MR. FERRARO-Could I make a couple of more comments, please?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. FERRARO-Also, as far as expanding the Route 9 corridor, there’s 17 feet beyond
our property that we don’t own that they would utilize first for expansion of lanes, and
then we’ve got another 25 feet just on our side of the road. So we already have, even
left, 42 feet for road expansion for the future before they even get to what we’re talking
about. Also, as far as the waterslides are concerned, we have The Great Escape
corporation up the road from us, with the advent of Splashwater Kingdom and now the
Lodge. It’s a big corporate giant which does water parks much better than we ever
could, and we can’t compete with them. The waterslides are 18 years old now they’re
antiquated. They do need some maintenance, and it doesn’t make sense for us to spend
money to keep them up to the standards that they need to be, so that we can continue to
use those.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. No other public comments are offered this evening. So I’m going to
proceed, and before I ask members for their comments, again, I’d like to inform the
public that the comments offered by members of the ZBA are directed to the Chairman
and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman will not be open to
debate. Now I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance
No. 42-2006, and I’m going to respectfully remind the members that precedence
mandates that we concern ourselves only with the evidence which appears on the record
to support our conclusions. And the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated.
This is necessary for an intelligent Judicial review. Additionally, any position you may
take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on
subjective preferences or not liking a project, and due process guarantees that we
ensure a fair and open process, and Board members must make decisions on reliable
evidence contained in the record of Board deliberations.
MR. URRICO-Chuck, can I ask a couple of more questions?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. URRICO-I just need a couple of more questions answered. The underlay for the
mini golf course is concrete, basically? I mean, I’m looking at these photographs that
you generously passed around, and I see concrete and then I see basically what’s
Astroturf on top of the concrete as well?
MR. FERRARO-Astroturf on concrete, yes.
MR. URRICO-So basically you have pads of greenery with concrete around it?
MR. FERRARO-Correct.
MR. URRICO-And on those holes that are closest to Route 9, is there any idea what the
height is going to be of the various holes? I see what looks to be bridges in here, at least
two bridges.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
MR. FERRARO-Basically everything in front of the 75 foot setback line that we’re
proposing will be virtually on grade. It’ll be very flat. It’s the ADA section of the course
which we’re putting in. So that will be flat so that the ADA people can use those as well
as not obstruct the view with any structures. All the structures of any height would be
behind that 75 foot line.
MR. URRICO-Well, what are the bridges going over it?
MR. FERRARO-They’d be going over could be a stream or something along those lines.
MR. URRICO-Are they going to be of some height to get over the stream?
MR. FERRARO-Most of the bridges will not. There’s a suspension bridge which will be
up in the air.
MR. URRICO-Which one is the suspension bridge? I see basically two possibly bridges.
MR. MILLER-That’s the suspension bridge right there.
MR. URRICO-Okay, that one there. What about these here?
MR. FERRARO-Those are just footpaths over the top.
MR. URRICO-So they’re not bridges. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILLER-Currently the stormwater management on site is pretty rudimentary. We
had to do some stormwater for the go kart track, but other than that, it’s pretty much non-
existent currently. Under this proposal, we have a brand new stormwater management
system for the whole site, and that incorporates the parking areas, the mini golf course
area. So all the water’s being taken care of in this proposal. I didn’t touch on that earlier.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I just had one more comment. If the Planning Board plays hard ball
with you and they tell you, you know, it’s an either/or situation, you get the race car track
or the miniature golf course, which would be your prerogative at that point? I mean, I
don’t know if it’s going to go that way.
MR. FERRARO-I don’t think they can do that, but you know, and your comment earlier to
me, the car track to the back, I mean, there’s a campground facility back there and I’m
sure that they wouldn’t want it any closer to them either, and we’ve talked about noise.
We had tried to be good neighbors. I mean, we bought the quietest mufflers available.
We did agree to limit our hours to midnight so we don’t do any after prom parties
anymore, even though we thought those were good things for the community, but I
haven’t heard any comments about music in over a year, and also as far as, we’re talking
about miniature golf course here today, realistically. I asked the Town, all the
Departments of the Town, to see if they’ve ever heard any complaints about any of the
miniature golf courses in Town, and they’ve had none. So we’re not adding a noisy
activity. We’ve done everything we can, physically, to mitigate some of the concerns
they’ve had in the past, and I didn’t really know there were still concerns on the table until
tonight.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to continue. I’m going to ask Board members to present
their positions on this, and may I start with Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I can’t, in good conscience, say yes to this project at this point I have
some serious reservations about each of the applicant’s requests. The 50 feet from the
minimum 75 foot setback requirement, the 25 feet from the minimum 50 foot front
setback requirement and the minimum parking requirement as well. In addition, Mr.
Garrand raised a great point about parking spaces being so close to Route 9, and having
that one entrance there certainly creates some hazards, so that I’m not willing to allow it
to be approved. I think in looking at the test, I see benefits that the applicant could
reasonably achieve without asking for this variance. I think the mini golf course could
possibly be pulled back. There are other options that they have. That’s my main
concern. As far as the undesirable change in the neighborhood character, I think it will
be a change in the character. I’m not convinced that replacing blacktop with concrete
covered by Astroturf and some trees makes a big difference. I guess it’s appealing. I
don’t see very many people complaining about mini golf courses, but on the other hand
when we think about what’s there, it is a change. I’m not sure if it’s going to be a positive
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
change. I think the request is substantial. I’m not sure about the adverse physical or
environmental effects with runoff and things, and I think the difficulty is self-created. So I
cannot go ahead with this.
MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. I do think it’s a substantial
request and I think it will affect the character of the neighborhood, and I’m worried about
the safety of the one entrance with the parking right off the road there. So I would be
against it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as the parking requests, I would have to agree with Mr.
Rayhill’s comments. I think that we’ve gone way overboard in many areas of the Town in
creating too much parking for facilities, and when I look at this, compared to the one just
up the road at Pirates Cove there, too, I would think that your parking requirements
would be adequate. I would rather see less parking than more parking. I think that’s the
direction we should go with these. I don’t think we need to create acres and acres of
parking for every place, and as has been suggested in Staff notes, I think some kind of
an arrangement to use the parking, I mean, certainly next door’s operation hours are
during the daytime. You’re not open, a lot of times, at night and in the evening when you
guys get a lot of people there, you know, for the skate facility. As far as what you’re
trying to achieve here, you know, in general I think it’s a great idea, but I’m unsure as to
the effects on the Travel Corridor Overlay. Having been to Town Board meetings
recently, and there were concerns that were brought up by other people about other
places on Route 9, and I don’t know whether they’re going to take a more harden stance
on places that intrude out into the TCO out there. So I would think that probably the best
thing for us to do here would be to send this to the Planning Board, because they’re
ultimately going to make the decision for you, however you present it to them at that
time. I can’t imagine that golfing is going to be something that’s going to make a huge
impact on that neighborhood up there as far as noise or things like that either, but I think
that, you know, the concerns of the Board members about the nearness to the road, and
the ingress and egress, too, you know, with that being just a single point there, too. It’s
something to be concerned with. Planning Board is going to thoroughly review this and
they’re ultimately going to give you the decision, and our point at this time is not going to
be pertinent to that, I don’t believe. So I think that it would be better for us to not do
anything here and send this to Planning Board first.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-Basically looking at this, I see alternatives, possibly reducing the size of
the miniature golf course. There’s possibly undesirable changes, as far as people
parking in other lots, not wanting to drive around the back and park in your lot. As far as
this issue being substantial, I can’t really say with any certainty whether this is a
substantial request. As a percentage it is. Overall, I don’t think it’s a substantial request.
Adverse physical or environmental effects, like I said before, I do have a problem with
traffic coming and going in one spot. Parking lots are basically people walking to and
from their cars to another point. There’s a lot of areas where people are going to have to
walk with strollers and everything else. I’d hate to make any kind of decision at this
point that would put people at risk on the traffic corridor, and the difficulty is, to an extent,
self-created. So at this point I’d be opposed to it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Before I present my position, I’m going to
request, after I present my position, that the secretary do the Long Form on the SEQRA,
because this is an Unlisted action. My position, I concur with my fellow Board members.
I think it’s a worthwhile project. However, I am unclear at this point. I don’t believe I
have sufficient information to make an intelligent decision, and I’m going to move, after
the Long Form has been read, that I’m going to adjourn this thing to the Planning Board
and request a SEQRA and have them be the prime mover for the SEQRA and also
request a site plan review, and upon completion of the site plan review and the SEQRA
return with recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals so that this Board can have
a grasp on what any ramifications, positive or adverse, that may occur. So I agree with
my Board members, I think it was Roy who brought it out, I don’t believe, at this point, we
have sufficient information to make an intelligent decision. So I’m going to request that,
at this point, so we can continue our hearing, that the secretary read the Long Form,
please.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we just make them Lead Agency on SEQRA, then we
don’t have to do anything.
MR. ABBATE-Sure, okay. Then what I will do, yes, we can do it that way, and I can do
that right now if you wish. However, before I do that, I’m willing to listen to any
comments that you folks have to say.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you give them some options.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I will. I can give you some options. Number One, I think you
understand now, if we were to continue the hearing this evening, you certainly would not
have support for your request. Or, Number Two, you could say well, Mr. Chairman, I
don’t particularly care for what you’re saying, and I would prefer to continue the hearing.
Certainly I’ll be happy to do that, but I suspect you know what the results are going to be.
So, I would suggest that you say to me, you know, Mr. Chairman, while I may not agree
with what you and the other Board members have said as far as moving this to the
Planning Board for a SEQRA review and a site plan review and waiting for the results. I
will, however, yield to that position. If you agree, I would prefer you say that so we have
it on the record.
MR. MILLER-I’d like to re-phrase that. I kind of agree with you wholeheartedly, and I
think it’s a great recommendation, and I would gladly accept that you push it up to the
Planning Board.
MR. ABBATE-Sure, wonderful, and I’m going to honor your request.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2006 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard
Garrand:
1035 State Route 9. That this Area Variance be moved to the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board for SEQRA, and have them be Lead Agency. Also requesting that they
do a site plan review and that they make and forward recommendations to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. ABBATE-And hopefully we’ll be able to hear this prior to September.
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote is five yes and zero no moving Area Variance No. 42-2006 to the
Town of Queensbury Planning Board to do a SEQRA as the Lead Agency on the
SEQRA, and also do a site plan review and then present their recommendations to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, at which time, once we receive those recommendations, then
Area Variance No. 42-2006 hopefully will be tabled no later than September of this year.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. FERRARO-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. We have no other action this evening, no other
comments from Board members. Is there any other business to come before this Board?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Meeting minutes?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Thank you.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 19, 2006: NONE
April 26, 2006: NONE
May 17, 2006: NONE
May 24, 2006: NONE
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/06)
TH
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS FOR APRIL 19, APRIL
THTHTH
26, MAY 17, AND MAY 24 , 2006, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its
adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, for those meetings that I was present for. I believe I missed two of
them.
MRS. HUNT-Yes, for the meetings I was present for.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, for the meetings I attended.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-That’s it. This Board is adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
27