2006-08-16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2006
INDEX
Notice of Appeal No. 4-2006 Mitchell Cohen 1.
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-2
Area Variance No. 42-2006 Ferraro Entertainment 1.
Tax Map No.296.9-1-1
Area Variance No. 47-2006 Scott M. Rowland 2.
Tax Map No. 308.12-2-31; 308.12-2-30
Notice of Appeal No. 5-2006 William F. Dator, Contract Vendee 7.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-31.2
Area Variance No. 44-2006 J & J Realty LP (John Behrens) 22.
Tax Map No. 239.18-1-35
Area Variance No. 52-2006 Angio Dynamics, Inc. 31.
Tax Map No. 297.8-1-10
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 8/16/06)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
RICHARD GARRAND
ALLAN BRYANT
ROY URRICO
CHARLES MC NULTY
MEMBERS ABSENT
JOYCE HUNT
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. ABBATE-And before we start, ladies and gentlemen, I do have a couple of
administrative details I’d like to take care of. For those folks who are here for Angio
Dynamics, I received a fax this afternoon from counsel for Angio Dynamics and he has
requested the Chairman, and brought to my attention the fact that he unfortunately is
unable to schedule to appear on time as the first case this evening. So consequently I
will move Angio Dynamics to last case this evening.
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-2006 SEQRA TYPE: NONE MITCHELL COHEN
AGENT(S): STEPHANIE BITTER, ESQ. OWNER(S): MITCHELL COHEN ZONING:
HC-INT. LOCATION: 1161 STATE ROUTE 9 APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION OF JUNE 26, 2006. IN ADDITION A
NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 8, 2006 REGARDING OPERATION
OF A PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY IN THE HC-INTENSIVE ZONE WITHOUT SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL. CROSS REF: MANY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
N/A LOT SIZE: 0.60 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-2 SECTION: 179-9-020
The second thing that I would like to bring to your attention, we have listed on our
agenda an Appeal, a Notice of Appeal No. 4-2006, Mitchell Cohen, and again, at the
eleventh hour this afternoon, 4:30 plus, a fax was received requesting withdrawal, and in
that particular case, there is no action on our part and Notice of Appeal No. 4-2006 has
been withdrawn.
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
MR. ABBATE-Finally, I have a request from the Planning Board of the Town of
Queensbury, a motion requesting that they be Lead Agency for Special Use Permit No.
35-2006, and that is Ferraro Entertainment, and I have no problems with that. So I’m
going to move a motion to request that we grant the Planning Board this request as Lead
Agency for Special Use Permit No. 35-2006.
MOTION TO REQUEST THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTS THE REQUEST
OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 35-
, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by
2006
Richard Garrand:
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt
MR. ABBATE-The vote is five yes and one abstention. It’s moved to honor the request,
the motion to request that the Planning Board be Lead Agency for Special Use Permit
35-2006, Ferraro Entertainment.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II SCOTT M. ROWLAND OWNER(S):
DANIEL HUNT ZONING: MR-5 LOCATION: 61 WISCONSIN AVENUE APPLICANT
PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN 2 PARCELS. RELIEF FROM THE
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT (LOT A) OF THE MR-5 ZONE IS
REQUESTED. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-445 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A
LOT SIZE: 0.21; 0.10 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-2-31 LOT A; 12-2-30 LOT B
SECTION: 179-4-030
SCOTT ROWLAND, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2006, Scott M. Rowland, Meeting Date: August
16, 2006 “Project Location: 61 Wisconsin Avenue Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two contiguous lots. Lot 2 is 9,000 sq.
ft. and has a lot width of 90-feet, while lot 1 is 4,000 sq. ft. with a lot width of 40-feet. The
proposal would create two lots at 6,500 sq. ft. each with lot widths of 65-feet each.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 15-feet of relief (for lot 2) from the minimum lot width requirement of
80-feet for the MR-5 zone, per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2006-445: Pending, 1,144 sq. ft. mobile home (lot 1).
BP 2006-446: Issued 7/14/06, for a 1,144 sq. ft. mobile home (lot 2).
Staff Comments:
The existing lot 1 is a legal, non-conforming parcel, with 4,000 sq. ft. lot size and 40-feet
of lot width, where the minimum lot size required is 5,000 sq. ft. and the minimum lot
width is 80-feet, in the MR-zone. The existing lot 2 is a conforming 9,000 sq. ft. with a lot
width of 90-feet. The proposal would create two lots at 6,500 sq. ft. each with lot widths
of 65-feet each. The increase to lot 1 causes a decrease in lot 2, which drops the lot
width for lot 2 below the minimum required. No new lots will be created by this proposal.
Each of the resulting lots would exceed the minimum lot size of the MR-5 zone;
therefore, it does not appear that the character of the neighborhood would be
compromised. The amount of relief requested is less than 20%, which is not considered
substantial.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see we have someone sitting at the table. I’m assuming you’re
Mr. Rowland?
MR. ROWLAND-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-And would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and tell us
who you are and where you reside, please.
MR. ROWLAND-Yes. My name is Scott Rowland. I live at 68 Wisconsin Avenue.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, Mr. Rowland, do you have counsel or are you doing this by
yourself?
MR. ROWLAND-Yes, I’m doing it by myself.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Basically what we do, you heard what our responsibilities are, and
since you have not retained counsel, feel free that any time during this hearing if you
have a question or something you don’t understand, feel free to ask us what it is, or if
during the course of this hearing, there is something you feel that will strengthen your
case, if you will, don’t hesitate. Just let us know, okay. Now, before I begin, for the
record, I wish to advise you, and if you don’t understand this, let me know, that the
burden of proof, that’s the duty to prove a disputed assertion, rests squarely on the
shoulders of the applicant, not this Board. Do you understand that?
MR. ROWLAND-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Please proceed.
MR. ROWLAND-It’s pretty cut and dried what I want to try to do here. I mean, it’s
nothing out of the normal, I don’t think. I’m just trying to make one lot equal to the other
sized lot so I can put two homes on it. They’re for my relatives. So, you know, I’m not a
contractor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, well, then what I’m going to do, I’m going to proceed, and then I’m
going to ask the Board members if they have any questions for you. Do any Board
members have any questions for Mr. Rowland?
MR. URRICO-I do. The two proposed driveways are side by side. Is there actually
going to be a common driveway?
MR. ROWLAND-No. They’re going to be separated. That may change but I’m not
positive. The one I’ve already got up, I don’t know if anybody went over and looked at it
or not, that driveway will be where it’s at now. I’m considering moving the driveway to
the other side of the lot or putting them side by side. I’m not positive yet.
MR. URRICO-So this is not a set plan, then?
MR. ROWLAND-Not 100%, but it’s close, other than the driveway. That’s about the only
thing I can really change on it is the driveway, and that wouldn’t affect anything off of the
road or any drainage problems or anything like that. I mean, it’s either going to be right
next to one driveway on the other side or next to the driveway on this side. So it’s going
to be close to somebody’s driveway, whether it be one or the other.
MR. URRICO-On the other side is a dirt drive?
MR. ROWLAND-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff. You’re requesting relief for Lot Number Two,
but in reality Lot Number One also doesn’t have the, and I know it was already
substandard and did not have the correct lot width, but doesn’t that also require relief?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-So both lots require relief?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, because that’s not the way it’s stated in the.
MR. BROWN-Staff notes?
MR. BRYANT-The applicant requests 15 feet of relief for Lot Two, from the minimum lot
width.
MR. BROWN-It should say both lots.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. For the record, then, the Zoning Administrator has requested the
record be corrected that this request should be for both lots. Okay. Any other members
of the Board have any questions for Mr. Rowland?
MR. GARRAND-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Quickly, are there going to be
porches or anything on the sides of these residences or are the entrances going to be
front and back?
MR. ROWLAND-The entrance is in the front, and there’s one on the side, but there’s
going to be a stairway coming down off there. There won’t be any porch on it, just on the
front.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. So that doesn’t fall into the minimum setbacks where the side
entrance is going to go, like a porch or anything there?
MR. ROWLAND-It’s not attached to the home.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t think he understands. You should explain.
MR. GARRAND-Well, I was wondering if there was going to be any type of structure built
on the side of the home that’s going to infringe on the setback.
MR. ROWLAND-Just a set of stairs.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MR. ROWLAND-I mean, it’s just very, I don’t think it takes up two feet. It wouldn’t be a
permanent structure. It would be, I guess, a set of stairs, if that’s what you’re asking me,
yes.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members have any questions of Mr. Rowland? If
not, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 47-2006, and would
those wishing to be heard please raise your hand and I’ll recognize you and ask you to
come to the table. Yes, ma’am, would you be kind enough to come to the table, please,
speak into the microphone. Well, you have a choice, if you’re comfortable with staying
there, that’s okay with me.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
HELEN WORTH
MRS. WORTH-I’m Helen Worth, and I live at 59 Wisconsin Avenue.
DONNA HERMANCE
MRS. HERMANCE-I’m Donna Hermance. I’m Helen’s daughter.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You understand your role. You can tell us how you feel and each
will have five minutes concerning Area Variance No. 47-2006.
MRS. WORTH-To begin with, I’ve lived there for 45 years, and I feel that there isn’t
enough room there for those two buildings, and really what I’m concerned about is the 10
feet that are supposed to be between my line and theirs. Because I don’t want anybody
living that close to me.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I believe you have something you wanted to say, ma’am.
MRS. HERMANCE-We’re not sure of all the laws, you know, for the regulations and
ordinances and all that. So just what is the, from her line, how many feet does he have
to have for a structure, in between?
MR. ABBATE-That’s an excellent question, and I’m going to refer that to the Zoning
Administrator.
MR. BROWN-If you’d like, I’d be happy to show her a copy of the map. I don’t know if
you guys have seen the map that’s part of the application. I have one right here.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. ABBATE-Craig, if you want to let the ladies have mine, that’s perfectly okay.
MR. BROWN-This is Wisconsin. This is your property here, and there’s the building.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let the record show that the Zoning Administrator, in conference
with both ladies, the public, has described, I hope to their satisfaction, the answer to your
question?
MRS. HERMANCE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. So you’re satisfy that you have received an appropriate
answer? Okay. That’s fine.
MRS. HERMANCE-As far as that goes, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to tell us?
MRS. HERMANCE-I haven’t spoken to this man, but from what my mother says, tells me
that this man has suggested putting up a fence and so I’m concerned about that, you
know. She does not need her home blocked in, you know, and I don’t think that’s good
either.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Anything else you ladies would like to tell us?
MRS. HERMANCE-Also he spoke about stairway on there. Of course, like he said, it’s
10 foot from the line. There’s no concern with that now. So I do understand that. That
was a question for me, too. Is there anything else?
MRS. WORTH-No.
MRS. HERMANCE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-You sure?
MRS. HERMANCE-As far as we can understand now, yes.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I’m glad you’re satisfied. Thank you so much for your input. We
appreciate that. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address
Area Variance No. 47-2006? Would you be kind enough to raise your hand, please. I
see no other hands. Would you be kind enough to come back to the table, please, and
did you hear the comments? Would you like to address those comments?
MR. ROWLAND-Yes, I would.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MR. ROWLAND-As far as the fence goes, I told her if she doesn’t want it up, I don’t have
to put it up. It’s just something I was putting up as a barrier between the two yards. If it’s
going to be a problem, it won’t get put up.
MR. ABBATE-All right. So for the record you’re telling us that you’re going to honor the
request of your neighbors and not put up a fence?
MR. ROWLAND-Whatever she would like me to do, I will do for her. I mean, I’m not a
hard guy to get along with. I explained that to her before. I said if she has any questions
whatsoever, she can come and see me. She can set up an appointment with Craig and
we can meet together. It’s not a problem. Like I said, this is for my family. I’m building
this home for my family. So it’s not a major catastrophe that a fence doesn’t get put up.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do you feel that you’ve addressed the concerns of both those
neighbors?
MR. ROWLAND-I believe so. I think I have.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Fine. Then do you have anything else you want to offer at this
time before I proceed?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. ROWLAND-Just that it’s going to improve the neighborhood. I mean, you’re talking
two brand new homes. It’s not going to have vinyl skirting. It’s going to have cement
block skirting. They’re actually going to, the home that I put in is an affordable home. It
has R-38 in the roof. It has pole height ceilings, R-19 in the walls, R-19 in the floor, you
know, I mean, it’s a very nice home. It heats very cheaply. It runs very cheaply. It’s an
affordable home, which is what that neighborhood should have is affordable homes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Then I’m going to proceed, and before I ask any members
to offer their comments, I’d like to inform the public that the comments that are going to
be offered by members of this Board are directed to the Chairman only, 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. 47-2006, but
before you do, may I please, again, respectfully remind the members that precedence
mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence in 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 make decisions on reliable evidence
contained in the record of Board deliberations. Do I have a volunteer, initially, to make
comments?
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m in favor of the project. It’s logical to make
both lots about the same size. It also it actually, it’s the same nature of the character of
the neighborhood. So it’s really not taking anything away from the neighborhood. So I’m
in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, I’d be in agreement with my fellow Board member. I don’t see how
the applicant could achieve this by any other means feasible. It will not, in any way that I
can see, change the character of the neighborhood. I would also be in support of this
project.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically echo what’s been said. It struck me that this certainly
wouldn’t change the character of the neighborhood. It seems to be fitting with what’s
there. There seems to be a logical reason for doing it. So I think the benefit to the
applicant is clear. I don’t see any detriment to the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Well, I’d like to agree with my fellow Board members, but I have a problem
with the applicant still being undecided about the driveway. I think if the driveway is
where it’s going to be, that’s fine, but if you’re moving it to the outside, that sort of pushes
the houses closer together and creates an alley affect, and I’m not sure I can go along
with it, under those circumstances. So unless we have an absolutely positive plan, I’m
not going to go along, I’m not going to be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Urrico, I appreciate that. Mr.
Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As depicted on the plan, I think it’s a great idea, and as mentioned
by the applicant, too, I think it’s important for us to remember that affordable housing is
available in Town still. So I think that, even though you’re going to be a little narrow, this
still meets the minimum lot size. So I’d be all for it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I concur with the majority of the Board members. I think it’s an
admirable approach. I like the idea that you’re willing to work within the spirit of
cooperation with your neighbors, which I think that certainly is something to be said for,
and I think if I were in your position, quite frankly, I would probably request the same
thing. So, based upon that, I’m going to support the application. I’m going to move on
now and I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 47-2006.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion. Again, I want to respectfully remind the
members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
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. Do we
have a volunteer to moving a motion for Area Variance No. 47-2006?
,
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2006 SCOTT M. ROWLAND
Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan
Bryant:
61 & 65 Wisconsin Avenue. The applicant is requesting a lot line adjustment
between two contiguous lots. Lot Two currently is 9,000 square feet and has a lot
width of 90 feet. Lot One is 4,000 square feet and has a lot width of 40 feet. The
proposal would create two lots, each 6,500 square feet, and with 65 feet of lot
frontage. Specifically, the applicant needs 15 feet of relief from the minimum lot
width requirement for both lots, Lot One and Lot Two, in the MR-5 zone, and in
considering this request, one factor is whether an undesirable change will be
produced in the character of the neighborhood, and I think we’ve agreed,
essentially, that there will not be an undesirable impact on the character of the
neighborhood, that the proposal is in keeping with what currently exists in that
neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved
by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue, I guess there is a
possibility that the applicant could stay with what he’s got at the moment, which
would create some problems about positioning one of the homes, I suspect. So
that may or may not really be practical, but the proposal is reasonable, with few
alternatives. The request is not substantial. We’re only asking, or allowing relief of
15 feet out of the 80 that’s required. The proposed variance is not going to have
an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood, and if the applicant is going to use both lots for house lots, I think
we can say that the difficulty is not self-created. It’s a current condition that
exists that needs adjustment. So, on those basis, I move that we approve Area
Variance No. 47-2006.
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Urrico
ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 47-2006 is five yes, one no. Area
Variance No. 47-2006 is approved. Thank you very much.
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-2006 SEQRA TYPE: N/A WILLIAM F. DATOR,
CONTRACT VENDEE AGENT(S): JOHN H. RICHARDS, ESQ. OWNER(S): JAN’S
SIX, LLC ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 2583 EAST SHORE DRIVE APPELLANT IS
APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION IN A LETTER
DATED JUNE 15, 2006 IN REGARDS TO EXPANSION TO THE STORAGE USE ON
THE PROPERTY. PROPOSED USE WOULD BE FOR ENCLOSED BOAT AND RV
(AND OTHER VEHICLE) STORAGE. THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES IS NOT AN
ALLOWED USE AND THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL STORAGE USE OR
THE EXPANSION OF A PRE-EXISTING, NON-CONFORMING USE WILL REQUIRE A
USE VARIANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 13.48 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-31.2 SECTION: 179-13-010
JOHN H. RICHARDS & MICHAEL MC LAUGHLIN, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 5-2006, William F. Dator, Contract Vendee,
Meeting Date: August 16, 2006 “Project Location: 2583 East Shore Drive Description
of Proposed Project: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to a
July 10, 2006 decision made by the Zoning Administrator regarding the expansion of a
pre-existing, non-conforming storage use.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
Staff comments:
The information supplied in support of this appeal is limited to the Appeal Application, a
June 15, 2006 letter from John Richards to Craig Brown and a July 10 letter from Craig
Brown to John Richards. No maps, photos, deeds, affidavits or other plans or supporting
materials have been submitted.
Per the appellants June 15, 2006 letter requesting a determination from the Zoning
Administrator, the proposed usage of the subject property is offered to be storage for
boats, RV’s and other vehicles. It is the argument of the appellant that the pre-existing
boat storage and the previous construction company usage of the property which
included storage of business vehicles and equipment, now allows them to operate a
public storage facility at a higher intensity than the previous use.
It is the position of the Zoning Administrator that the addition of vehicle storage and RV
storage together with, most likely, an increase in the number of boats stored on the
property constitutes an expansion of a non-conforming use and that such an expansion
of a non-conforming storage use requires a Use Variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals per §179-13-010, D.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to read those two letters in so the public has knowledge of
what’s included in them. This letter was dated June 15, 2006 from John Richards,
Attorney and Counselor at Law, “Dear Craig: I represent Mr. William F. Dator, the
contract vendee of the above parcel owned by Jan’s Six, LLC. The property is located in
an WR-1A zone and is presently improved by the Scott McLaughlin Equipment Sales
building. I am writing now to request your opinion, and, if necessary, that of the Zoning
Board of Appeals with respect to Mr. Dator’s proposed use for the premises. Mr. Dator
intends to use the premises for enclosed boat and RV (and other vehicle) storage. To
this end he plans to replace the present building with approximately 100 storage units.
These units would comply will all applicable setback and area requirements. For many
years the property has been used for both inside and outside boat and equipment sales
and storage, and there are boats presently stored there. We believe that the storage use
proposed constitutes a continuation of this existing nonconforming use and is therefore
allowable under Ordinance Section 179-13-010. Would you please let me know if the
proposed use is permissible without a variance as the continuation of a pre-existing,
non-conforming use. If you would prefer that the Zoning Board make this decision,
would you please place this matter on the agenda for the July Board meeting. Thank
you very much for your help. Very truly yours, John H. Richards” And Mr. Brown’s
I am writing to you
return letter in response to that was as follows: “Dear Mr. Richards:
in response to your June 15, 2006 letter of inquiry relative to the above referenced
property.
The property in question lies within a Waterfront Residential, WR-1A zoning
district within the Town of Queensbury. A marina, which can include boat storage, is
listed as an allowable use within the WR zone. Vehicle storage and the storage of other
items is not listed as an allowable use in the WR zone.As I understand your proposal,
Mr. Dator wishes to develop a storage facility for the storage of boats, recreational
vehicles and other vehicles and that such a project will entail the construction of building
suited with approximately 100 storage units.Upon review of the current Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance I find that your proposed use, as described in your June
15, 2006 letter, may require a Use Variance. From the information submitted, it appears
as though the proposal includes an expansion to the storage use on the property. While
there may be some substance to a continuation argument with regards to boats, the
storage of vehicles is not an allowed use and the introduction of an additional storage
use or the expansion of a pre-existing, non-conforming use will require a Use Variance.
Should you have any further questions or comments, or if you have any additional
information that may have bearing on this determination, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Sincerely, Craig Brown”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Would the appellant for Appeal No. 5-2006 please
approach the table, speak into the microphone, and state your name and place of
residence, please.
MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, I’ve got some photos here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You can pass them around so we can take a peek at them.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, if you want to, pass them around. Feel free. We’re somewhat
flexible.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. RICHARDS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Richards. I’m the attorney
for William & Linda Dator, both Dators, in connection with this Appeal.
MR. ABBATE-Before we start, Counselor, let me bring this to your attention. For the
record, again, I wish to advise you that, and I’m sure you’re well aware of this, that
burden of proof, the duty to prove the disputed assertion, rests squarely on the shoulders
of the appellant and not this Board. You understand that?
MR. RICHARDS-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-You’ve got it. Would you proceed, please.
MR. RICHARDS-Certainly.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. RICHARDS-And actually appeal seems a little harsh. We’ve been touching base
with Craig for the last couple of months and getting some feedback from him and wanted
to also run this by the Board. Obviously we don’t agree completely with Craig’s position
or we wouldn’t be here, but it’s been a constructive approach, I think. Bill Dator is sitting
next to me on my left, his wife Linda is in the audience. They have contracted to buy this
property, the McLaughlin parcel. They live right next door to it on the north side. They
have a summer home, seasonal home on the north side, and they would like to purchase
this, and, as we’ve said, use it for enclosed boat and vehicle storage. Craig had, I think,
said that there could be an argument for continuing it as just boat storage, and it may
even just come under the marina category anyway. Frankly we think it does, if we did
just boats, but the crux of this concern seems to be on whether we can use it for any
other vehicles besides a boat, and that’s really why we’re here. We believe it is a
continuing use, and we believe, rather than a change of the use, what we’re doing is
cleaning up what’s there and re-focusing it, and really that’s really the issue here is
what’s the character of what’s there and how do our plans relate to that. What’s there, I
tried to show, I couldn’t, you’ve probably all driven by it and are familiar with it. We also
had a couple of aerial shots, one of which is a black and white, unfortunately, but I’ve
been passing that around, as well as the top photo on that setting of photos and I can’t
tell from here who’s got it, but in any event, there it is, right next to Craig, on the top
photo there, it’s a little hard to see, but if you’ve been by it, you’ll notice that most of the
vehicles on the outside have been removed. They were taken away, I believe, last
summer, in connection with offering this property for sale, but they could, in my
understanding of the Ordinance, just as quickly be put back, if the McLaughlin family
chose to do so, and for many years, again, based on what I’ve been told, it was used for
that truck and sales and equipment storage, and as you can see particularly from the
black and white photo, all kinds of various vehicles stored there. Some functioning,
some not functioning, some boats, some construction materials, trucks and vehicles,
trailers of all kinds. They’ve rented parts of the inside and outside for boat storage,
continuing throughout this period. That’s the character of it. Storage, rental, all kinds of
vehicles, not just boats. Well, we want to keep that character, the principle behind it, but
we want to make it into a really attractive and upgrade of what’s there, and to do that,
what Mr. Dator plans, he’s done a lot of research, he’s had that site tested, both for
environmental purposes, you may know there was construction debris dumped there and
covered over, not surreptitiously. Everyone knows it’s there, and it’s all been tested.
He’s had the wetlands delineated. He’s really done his homework, and then he’s gone
into and studied how do these covered, enclosed storage units work, and it’s a fairly new
concept in boat storage, but it’s a very clean concept. It’s a very environmentally friendly
concept. You don’t see the boats. It’s, the old sea of blue tarps throughout the nine
months of non boat use is gone. They’re all inside. They’ve worked hard to come up
with a proposal that will be attractive to the neighborhood. As you can see from the
handouts, these preliminary sketches are of kind of an Adirondack theme. It’ll blend in
as much as possible. It’ll be a much better upgrade than what’s there, but the same
character. It’ll be inside and attractive, rather than outside and in disarray. That’s really
it. That’s what we plan to do. It’ll be about 100 units. This is a 13 acre parcel in total.
Plenty of room. What we’re doing is completely within the applicable setbacks. We think
it’s a great project. We’re excited about it. We think it’s clearly in the same vein of
what’s been there in the past, and we’d ask the Board to exercise its judgment in
addressing this and let us know if they agree with us.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and that’s your opening statement so far to this point?
MR. RICHARDS-That is.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Zoning Administrator, would you like to respond?
MR. BROWN-Yes, just for a quick second I guess. I guess just to focus again on why
the appellant is here. I’ve made a decision. They’ve disagreed with it, and I know that I
don’t need to remind you guys what you’re doing here, but it’s to decide whether I made
the correct decision, not to decide whether what they’ve offered is an allowable use. I’ve
already decided that. You need to decide if my decision was correct based on the Code.
So I guess just to focus on that a little bit, and a little bit of discussion about what types of
storage occurred on the property previously. A lot of the information you’ve seen tonight,
probably most of it, is not something that I was privy to prior to making my determination.
We did meet. We had some, I guess, concept level discussions, had some preliminary
architectural drawings maybe, really no historical evidence that from this date to this date
we stored this many boats on the property, here’s the contracts we’ve had with people to
store boats. So there’s really no documentary evidence that really establishes any
background for a storage use on the property. Other equipment, other vehicles stored
there, it’s my understanding, and again, no other evidence has been presented, that all
that equipment was to do with the McLaughlin equipment sales or rental or construction
company. It was company equipment, not that it was there and being stored as a rental
location for somebody else to store their equipment there, so, again, none of that
information has been presented or proof to that effect. So that’s why the decision was
rendered.
MR. ABBATE-Let me interrupt you for a second. Do you have access, have you been
provided all the information that has been provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals?
MR. BROWN-Like I said, I think all the photos and the, I’m not sure, I only saw one of the
Board’s that went around, the photos are new to me. We didn’t view those when we had
our conversations.
MR. ABBATE-Would you like time to review those before we proceed?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. At this point, is there anything else you’d like to say? You’ll have
another opportunity?
MR. BROWN-Not right now, thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, can I just say one thing?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. RICHARDS-We do have a member of the McLaughlin family, Michael McLaughlin,
who can also speak to that issue as well, who’s hear tonight. So we’d like the
opportunity to have him speak before we’re done with our presentation.
MR. ABBATE-Do you wish him to speak as part of your party or as part of the public?
MR. RICHARDS-I think as part of our party.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. RICHARDS-Because he can further clarify.
MR. ABBATE-Where is this gentleman? Would you be kind enough to come up here,
please, and speak into the microphone and tell us who you are and what your
relationship is to this particular case, please.
MICHAEL MC LAUGHLIN
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Yes, my name is Michael McLaughlin, lifelong resident of the Town
of Queensbury. My family purchased this property in 1950, my dad. I’d like to give you
just a short history of the various uses that the property’s been put towards. It is true that
we have done a lot of storage of boats and/or vehicular storage on a very liaise faire
basis. I’m not going to deny that. We don’t have a hard paper trail. A lot of these were
cash deals. We did have some checks issued from different boat storage people that
made use of the property, but we do have a historical continued use of storage boats,
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
which really became at its heaviest from the mid 70’s and continued right up until we
shut the construction business down. At that point my sister’s and I took over the
storage responsibilities and we’ve had a continued use of storage of boats since then. It
hasn’t been the largest, but it has been consistent, and I maintain that, you know, we’ve
used the property. We have rented space out for different job trailers for contractors in
the area who wanted a place to stage their equipment. As recently as last year when
they did the overlay on Pilot Knob Road we allowed for a nominal fee again, nominal fee,
on a handshake basis, we allowed the construction company that had contracted that
work for the overlay of the entire Pilot Knob Road to stage at that area and store
materials. We’ve allowed a number of contractors over the years to store equipment
there on a part-time basis. We have, you know, went to great lengths to clean up the
leftovers from trucking equipment sales. There were a lot of pieces of equipment there.
A few of them, I would say probably 20% of them, are running pieces of equipment that
were for sale, and we went to a lot of personal expense to clean this up, not realizing, of
course, that we were jeopardizing our status as a nonconforming use or possibly
jeopardizing it. Our last vehicles were moved out by trucking equipment and sales by
last May, May of 2005. Again, I’m not going to dispute the fact that we don’t have a hard
paper trail, but anyone that knows us in the area knows that we are people of integrity.
I’m not going to sit up here and lie in front of the Town Zoning Board of Appeals. I mean,
there’s no point in that. Like I say, we cleaned the property up. Mr. Dator approached us
via a realtor. I feel that, you know, the boat storage, yes, it’s above and beyond what we
wanted to do, but really our existing building is an eyesore, and it really does detract
from the character of the neighborhood. I think a well run, well maintained facility, and I
know that this is a man of means who likes to do things the right way. I think it would
really enhance the property, and to be perfectly honest with you, I don’t think there’s a lot
of interest to buy a piece of property and develop it as a subdivision when it’s built on an
old construction debris dump. We’re kind of between a rock and a hard place, and it is
our belief and our shared belief between my sisters and I, that this property always has
been used for commercial purposes, ever since my father bought it, and that it is
currently being used for commercial purposes and should continue to be allowed to be
used for commercial purposes. We’re being taxed as a commercial entity. I believe it is
code category class 433 Motor Vehicle Repair Shop, and we have had that status for
some time. We have paid our taxes. We’re not delinquent, and we’ve never challenged
that rating that we’ve had. As far as, you know, what the final determination of this Board
will be, that’s certainly out of my control, but I really believe that the property is just going
to get more and more run down over the years, as it goes on, and the existing building, I
believe, should be put to good use.
MR. ABBATE-Prior to this hearing, have you shared this information with the Zoning
Administrator?
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Well, I spoke with Mr. Brown twice, once with John Owen, who was
considering buying the property a few years back, that was prior to the clean up, and I
spoke to him again afterwards, and the subject of storing vehicles there was never
brought up because that was never a wish of Jan Six. We did discuss the idea of
extending the storage of the boats, and I just, you know, we’re zoned Waterfront
Residential, which really, you know, I understand the reasoning behind it, but in reality
the rear of the property that borders Lake George is all wetlands. Also Mr. Brown’s letter
states that we are, an approved use would be as a marina, and again, we have to go
through the wetlands to get to the lake. So we really have no recourse to develop the
property in any kind of a marina capacity, other than boat storage, and I think Mr. Dator
would, I really believe that this would enhance it, and really the person that would
probably be impacted the most by it is me. I live directly across the street from it. So I
know there’s going to be some reservations from the local people, but I think it’s
consistent with the area. There are six marinas within five miles. Boat storage space
has become a real issue in the area, especially with, I believe Fischer’s Marina is
planning on shutting down. There’s a need for this type of facility on the east side, and I
believe it would serve a lot of people that really have no other recourse. They can’t
afford docks, and have no way of getting to the lake, so to speak, other than to store their
boat in their own yard, so it’s our opinion that this is really going to provide a service.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do you have anything else to add at this time? You’ll have another
opportunity later in the hearing.
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-No, sir. Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Anything else you want to add at this time,
Counselor?
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. RICHARDS-No, Mr. Chairman. I just thought it was a good point he brought up
about the tax assessment, too.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine, then I’m going to continue. At this point I’m going to ask
Board members if they have any questions concerning the Appeal No. 5-2006, Mr.
Dator?
MR. URRICO-I have a question about semantics and some legalese. I’m not really sure
what we’re appealing. Because the initial letter to Craig Brown from Mr. Richards asks
for his opinion, and in response, Mr. Brown says that this may require a Use Variance.
Are we responding to a specific ruling?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I guess, if that question’s for me, I think one of the last sentences in
that same letter that says the expansion will require a Use Variance. There’s a definitive
answer in there. It’s maybe not as clear as it could have been in the letter, but my
position is that it does require a Use Variance.
MR. URRICO-But did they actually apply for anything?
MR. BROWN-No, not yet.
MR. URRICO-So what are we responding to, just as a question.
MR. BROWN-Well, I can give you my side of it. I rendered a decision. They don’t agree
with the decision, and they’re coming to this Board to see if my decision was correct.
MR. ABBATE-We are going to determine, hopefully by the end of this evening, whether
the decision of the Zoning Administrator is consistent with the local ordinances.
MR. URRICO-Decision and the answer of his question.
MR. ABBATE-Correct, Roy.
MR. RICHARDS-We don’t think that storing boats, doing what we plan to do, boats and
RV’s, that kind of thing, enclosed storage, requires a Use Variance, and Craig has taken
a position it does, and that’s why we’re before the Board.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Roy, are you okay at this point?
MR. URRICO-There’s been no formal application, yet, that’s been ruled upon.
MR. ABBATE-There has been an application submitted by the Attorney to.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s not an application, but it’s a decision made by the Zoning
Administrator. The Zoning Administrator decided that this requires a Use Variance.
MR. ABBATE-Right, and based upon the information the Zoning Administrator received
from the appellant, he has made a decision, and we’re here this evening to determine
whether or not the decision by the Zoning Administrator, based on the information
submitted in the letter from the appellant, is correct.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. RICHARDS-And I do want to stress, Michael McLaughlin wasn’t with us when I met
with him and we didn’t have some of these photos, so there’s some things tonight that he
didn’t know when he made the decision.
MR. URRICO-And Craig didn’t see the plans until tonight.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s why I said, if you’ll notice earlier, I was very concerned that the
Zoning Administrator be on par with everybody else. He should have had access to all
the information prior to this hearing, because I would have demanded that the appellant
have access to all the information from the Zoning Administrator. It’s a double edged
sword, but I suspect and I think, unless the Zoning Administrator tells me differently, I
think he may be at a disadvantage.
MR. BROWN-No, I’m not sure that I’m at a disadvantage. I think what’s happened is a
decision has been rendered. If new, different information has been presented, will that
initiate a new determination whereby the time clock starts again? I’ve rendered a
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
decision based on the information that I was presented and that’s where we are, and the
snapshot in time is the date of that letter from Mr. Richards, and then the date of my
response. Anything after that is new, and it’s their offer of supporting information, but it
really doesn’t play into the determination, which was rendered without that information.
MR. ABBATE-That’s what I was leading into. A determination has already been made.
Is it possible, suggested that perhaps this new information may perhaps change your
mind? We won’t know that until the end of the hearing this evening.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re only going to make a decision based upon what’s been
submitted prior to the meeting.
MR. BROWN-I think Mr. Urrico asked a legalese kind of question. What are you limited
to consider when making the determination? The same information that I had when I
made the determination.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I agree.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s reasonable.
MR. RICHARDS-Well, then why would you have input from the public?
MR. ABBATE-Well, we’re not finished. We still have more ways to go yet. Okay. Do we
have any other members of the Board who’d like to ask any questions?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MR. BRYANT-The white thing in this picture, the white building that’s depicted as the
house or office, I guess somebody lived there at some point?
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-There’s a one family house on the property, and there’s about a
3,000 square foot building that’s used for boat storage and equipment storage, has a
sign on the front McLaughlin Truck Sales, or whatever.
MR. BRYANT-And these boat condominiums, you’re going to tear down those buildings
basically.
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-That’s correct. Not the house. The house would stay.
MR. BRYANT-The house is going to stay?
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Is somebody going to live there?
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Yes, we’d either, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I just have one question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. GARRAND-What exactly is an RV dump station?
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-It’s the same thing you see at the Lake George RV Park when you
drive, you drive along 149, and there’s an RV dump station right on 149 on the corner of
the Lake George RV Park. It’s a place to dump the septic.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. So we’re going to have sewage disposal next to the wetlands?
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-No, because there’s 13 acres. It’s just like if we build houses there I
would have to put a septic system in the house. The house that’s there has a septic
system. So what you’re talking about is a septic system to take 20 or 30 gallons of septic
from an RV if the person that’s there want to do it. At the campground, like the Lake
George RV Park, they would probably just dump it there.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. GARRAND-Right. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-One more question, Mr. Chairman. How many vehicles are stored now? I
mean, there are construction vehicles, boats, how many vehicles are stored there now,
on the property?
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-There’s vehicles in and out. Right now I think there’s three boats
stored there inside the building, and there’s one boat stored outside. I think the pictures
indicate that.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. The building looks pretty small. So you’ve got five boats and a
couple of construction vehicles and now we’re going to100 boats?
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Well, if you look at the aerial photograph, there’s a lot of vehicles
stored there, maybe 20 or 30.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. Okay.
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-And they’re all outside. This is inside storage. It’s not like the
Harris Bay Marina.
MR. BRYANT-It’s an improvement from what you’ve got there now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I have two questions, one for the Zoning Administrator and one for
the appellant. Mr. Zoning Administrator, please explain to me your definition of vehicle
storage.
MR. BROWN-I hesitate because I think the question kind of explains, vehicle storage is a
place where you store vehicles. It’s a pretty broad definition. There’s, I don’t think our
Code addresses specific, you have to store 20 vehicles to be a vehicle storage facility. If
you store two vehicles, it’s a vehicle storage facility. So what’s vehicle storage? A place
to store vehicles. I’m sorry if that’s not a big explanation.
MR. ABBATE-As long as you’re comfortable with that. Counselor, factually, what is your
argument that the Zoning Administrator erred in his determination, factually?
MR. RICHARDS-Factually, we’ve said that there’s vehicles in addition to boats, there’s
been other vehicles there, and there will continue to be. It’s the same basic use. There
may be more at one point than there were in the past. There may have been more in the
past than there will be in the future, but it’s the same basic use, as I say, re-focused and
cleaned up and continued on in a much more attractive way.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I’m going to open the public hearing for Appeal No. 5-2006.
MR. RICHARDS-May I just have a chance, after the public hearing, to address the
Board?
MR. ABBATE-Of course you will. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Appeal No.
5-2006, and to meet the obligation of Public Officers Law Sec: 3 for a fair and open
process, the public hearing is now open for Appeal No. 5-2006, and again, if anyone in
the audience who would like to respond to this, if you’d be kind enough to raise your
hand, I will recognize you and ask you to come forward. Do we have anyone in the
audience. Yes, sir, please. Would you mind coming to the table.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
HAL HALLIDAY
MR. HALLIDAY-My name is Hal Halliday, and I live on the property, I believe, to the
south, directly next to this property, I believe it’s on the south side. My wife and I, Lynn
Halliday, have lived on this property for 33 years this year. We’re year round residents.
It is our only residence. I shouldn’t say, we just bought another house on 149, but we do
live on this property year round. I would like to say that I’ve been around for the history
of this property. I’ve been around with Scotty having it, Bridget having it, and then
turning it over to the children, which is now Jan Six. I’d like to start off by complimenting
the children for cleaning up the surface of the property. They’ve done a really good job.
It was a mess. They called it a construction company and a truck sales. It was by far
just a construction company and truck sales. It was the local landfill for years. Anybody
that lives in the area as long as I have knows it. We know what’s there. I can prove what
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
was there, and I don’t want it disturbed. These very nice people came to us a few days
ago and showed us these plans for the first time. That was the first time we saw
anything to do with this. They made a comment tonight, they’re going to re-focus the
cleaning. They have to re-focus a lot of the cleaning to make me comfortable with doing
anything on that property. They say they’ve done studies to see if it’s safe. They’ve
showed me the studies. They’ve dug down 10 to 12 feet to show that it’s safe. I want to
see 30, 40, 50 feet to show that it’s safe. They think it’s a good project. I want to know
who it’s a good project for. It’s not a good project for my wife and my family who are
going to live next door with any amount of lights to light up this project for 24 hour
access, any time day or night for people to come in and take their boats, their RV’s, their
construction equipment, whatever they want to have in these garages out day and night.
I don’t want a Wal-Mart parking lot next to us. We can now sit in our yard and enjoy the
stars. It’s dark up there. It’s been dark up there for a long time, and I’ll be conservative
and say that this property has been closed for at least five or six years. Maybe it’s a lot
longer, but I’ll be conservative. This business has had no power, no electric power in it
for quite a while. I don’t think a business can be counted as a business if it doesn’t have
electric power, and I believe there’s some kind of ruling that if it’s been empty for so long
that it reverts back to residential. I was told that when I was in my property. I have been
before the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply for a garage on my property next door, and I
was very upset when I left here and was told that I could not build a 1200 square foot
garage on my property next to this property because it wasn’t in the zoning. I could only
build a 900 square foot garage, and I left here really upset, but I got over it. I did read the
rules and the rules did say 900 square feet. So I didn’t build the garage. Some day
maybe I’ll build a 900 square foot garage in compliance with this. I’ve owned a business
up here for 28 years. I considered going in to the property next door. I’ve had
discussions with Mr. Brown and I know what the zoning is next door and I couldn’t do
what I wanted to do there, so I didn’t do it, because it wasn’t allowed. All I’m asking you
to do, your job, is if it’s not allowed, don’t allow it. You told us that it has to be in the best
interest, and according to the rules. This is not in the best interest and it’s not according
to the rules. The people that presently own the property created their own hardship,
whether it be the previous owners who converted it and passed it on to the children or
the present owners, this hardship was not created before them. They created their own
hardship. Someone allowed stuff to be dumped there and now it can’t be used for
residential. They don’t want it used for residential. This would be a much better idea.
For them it would be to sell this property, not for the neighbors surrounding it. We have a
great neighborhood up there and we’d like to keep it that way. I’m concerned about
traffic, especially on the blind corner. I’m concerned about lighting, how much more light
we’re going to have in a neighborhood that is totally dark. We don’t even have a street
light on that street right now. From the Cleverdale corners to Pilot Knob Road, there’s no
lights. It’s absolutely gorgeous at night. It really is. It’s going to be a drastic change to
have anything put on that property. When they tried to store six boats there, the first
place I went was Mr. Brown’s office. When they put six boats on the property, because it
was not a boat storage place. When Jeanne Hoffman wanted to rent the place, it was
not a boat storage place. When other marinas tried to get into the place, they were told
it’s not a boat storage place, and believe me, I had my head to the ground listening to all
the heartbeats of everybody that wanted to go in there because we didn’t want a drastic
change to the neighborhood, and we found out about this a couple of days ago. There is
no hardship, and I’ll say that again, because there isn’t. There’s no hardship. Twenty-
four hour access scares me. I did a little bit of figures, and I’m not an engineer, but I’m
going to come close. One hundred units, 14 by 20 feet, 280 square foot each, 28,000
square foot for this building, without the office, the bathrooms or anything else. It’ll be
larger than the North Queensbury Firehouse on the footprint. I can’t imagine it there. A
dump station? It’ll definitely change the character of the neighborhood. There is not a
doubt in my mind, and you have to sit here and think if you lived in the neighborhood
what you would say. Somebody said that before. It’s going to be a big impact on this
little area. Years ago, one of our other neighbors came in here and asked to put an ice
cream stand in the area, and it was really hard to come in because I really liked the guy.
I really wanted an ice cream store just down the block and it was a residential area and
you told him no, and he went home and he was a little upset, but he got over it because
that was the zoning. All we’re asking you to do is the same thing. Just consider the
neighborhood, say all the things that our Chairman said tonight, all the things you have
to weigh, and just do your job. That’s all I’m asking you to do. Okay. Thank you very
much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for your input. Do we have anyone else in the
audience who would like to comment?
PAUL LEVACK
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. LEVACK-My name’s Paul Levack, a lifelong resident here. I totally disagree with
the last speaker. We lived up in Cleverdale for two years, year round, back in the early
60’s, and the McLaughlin family, back then, was pretty ancient. They go back before the
Turn of the Century. They have contributed tremendously to the growth and the quality
of the Town of Queensbury. Promise not to tell your father, but Scotty was not a spit and
polish guy. This place didn’t look the best, you know, back when he had trucks and a lot
of different things there, but I can tell you without any reservation that your predecessors
of 40 years ago, if this project were put before them right now, with what’s proposed to
clean up the neighborhood, they’d be joyous, believe me. I think that, you know, you
have to have progress as you well know, and you people consider that all the time, but I
think it would be shock if Mr. Dator, and I don’t know Mr. Dator, if his proposal isn’t
seriously considered, it definitely is going to enhance that neighborhood, definitely,
without any question.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
JAMES SCHOONOVER
MR. SCHOONOVER-James Schoonover. I have built my house in 1960. I have lived
there ever since. I live kitty corner across from where this monstrosity is going to be put
in. I worked for Scotty. I built the building that that thing is in. I laid the blocks for it. I
know what is there, and I’ll tell you, that property is not as clean as everybody says it is. I
am opposed to this. I cannot believe that we would allow something like this in this area.
When the boats pull out of there and try going up the hill from this blind corner, we’re
going to have more accidents than you can shake a stick at, because boats are not going
to come out of there ripping and tearing up the road. It’s a hazardous situation. All I say
is, it’s a nonconforming use of that property, and I definitely would not want to see that in
that area. I live right next door to Michael, by the way.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, sir.
ISABELLE & FRANK MUNOFF
MRS. MUNOFF-Hi. I’m Isabelle Munoff.
MR. MUNOFF-I’m Frank, we’re a team. We live directly, I would say three houses down
towards the Cleverdale Store on the other side of the property that’s in question here,
and before I talk about our objections to this stuff, I’m really concerned about 2583 East
Shore Drive. Could somebody tell me where that is? That’s what the applicant put on
the, and I did write a letter asking you to table this meeting because I think it should have
a legal address. I have no idea. If you look at the application here that we were given,
we put this aside when it came in the mail last week because we didn’t think it concerned
us, and we thought it was a mistake, and the Town of Queensbury’s been great. I called,
and they said, no, this is on Route 9L, and I said, well, why does the location say 2583
East Shore Drive and they were so nice to me at the Town of Queensbury. They said we
don’t know where that is.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I think perhaps we can answer your question. Mr. Zoning
Administrator, do you want to address that, please?
MR. BROWN-Yes. From what I understand, that’s the, East Shore Drive, Ridge Road,
9L, I think they’re all interchangeable when it comes to describing that road, and that
address was what was provided on the applicant’s application. We always give them the
benefit of the doubt that they know what their address is, and we use that in the
advertisement. Along in the advertisement was also the Tax ID Number, property owner,
there are other indicators as to what the property was, where it was and who owned it,
and I spoke to both Mr. and Mrs. Munoff yesterday on the phone.
MR. URRICO-Can I ask a follow up question to that?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. URRICO-If that address doesn’t exist, how do we send out notifications within 500
feet?
MR. MUNOFF-Thank you.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. BRYANT-On the application there’s a Tax Map Number. By the Tax Map Number,
they can tell what that property is better than the address. So obviously that’s how they
identified everybody.
MR. ABBATE-Right, and the Tax Map Number was definitely included in the
announcement, that’s for sure.
MRS. MUNOFF-Yes, and I don’t want to make a small point be a big issue, but it is of
consequence when we’re looking at this whole overall picture, okay. We did get the
notification because of the Tax ID map number matched and kicked out our address as
one to be notified, but East Shore, it’s Route 9L or Ridge Road. That’s where we get our
mail. East Shore Drive, I believe if you go into the Lake George area of Route 9L, that
may be the interchange, you know, change over of that address, but I guess that being
put on the application, to me, kind of sets the stage for maybe, you know, this is really
hard sitting here because we have some neighbors that are really good neighbors. I
have nothing but good things to say about the McLaughlins. We’ve lived there for 20
years. They’re wonderful people. I admire them for wanting to clean up this property
and put it to some better use, but we have some objections to the proposed project
overall. So it’s really hard to sit here and criticize because I just want to focus on the
project not on the people, because the people are wonderful, and I wish them the best
with everything that they’re trying to do, but it does set the stage for a little bit of
deception, I think, the East Shore Drive piece, because I’ve heard what’s been said by
the attorneys and the people making the application and what they want to do, and
there’s really a lot of spin involved in it all. I think that you have to kind of go up there
and kind of see, and I think some of these other people that spoke let you know that
basically in the 20 years that I’ve been there, you know, maybe it was a viable business
at one point in time, it was a trucking and excavating business. They did blacktopping
and things like that. If there were some boats stored there it was because a friend of a
friend of a friend needed a place to store their boat and there was a piece of property
where they could blue tarp something and put it and it would be safe for the winter.
That’s the extent of the quote unquote boat storage. I don’t really think it was in a formal
sense. I just think that to expand it to what’s being proposed, I think it’s deceptive for
them to say that this is just a continuation of the use, because it really isn’t, and I
understand they want to improve it, and I give the Dator’s a lot of credit because they’re
really kind of wanting to, you know, in their minds improving this whole piece of property,
but the size of the project, being as huge as it is, it really is a very different use of that
piece of property, and I think what many of the people have said, and I’ll say again, is the
traffic congestion, the 24 hour access, the wetlands being in jeopardy there. I think that
this RV kind of clean out stuff, I don’t know, I live there. I don’t want to have to deal with
that in the future, you know. I think that, historically, applicants for variances on this, you
know, in that stretch of area, they’ve always been denied. We’re the people that wanted
the ice cream parlor. We live next to a country store, and in our minds, so we live right
next door to commercial property, what’s the big deal to put in an ice cream parlor that
would be nice. Our neighbor said no way. Yes, we went away upset, but we accepted it
because again, those are the rules.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m sorry to have to interrupt you, but your time is up. Thank you so
much for your input.
MRS. MUNOFF-Okay. In any event, no offense towards the McLaughlins or the Dator’s,
but the project is way too big and a lot more clean up and research has to be done
before anything can be put there.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the audience.
MR. MUNOFF-I really haven’t talked.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you have five minutes.
MR. MUNOFF-Thank you. One issue I wanted to address was the Dators said that they
live next door. I didn’t know that. I thought that place was rented. The home that they
own next door is a rental piece of property, and if not, maybe they could tell me
differently. They say that they live next door. I know they own the house next door, and
they rent that property. I know that they rent that property. They will be absentee
landlords because I believe their house of residence is in New Jersey. That concerns
me, that they’re going to be pumping sewage, and the owner, they say it’s going to be a
condo type thing, but the person that is putting this in motion is in New Jersey. That
concerns me. As far as that property being clean, that’s a spin. That’s a spin, and if you
took a closer look at it, you would see that. The other thing that really, really does
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
concern me is the 24 hour access. That’s what I want, my dogs barking and Jimmy
Schoonover saying, Frank, put your dog back in because they’re barking because
tractors are going in there pulling out boats. I mean, I cannot believe that the Board
would even consider this if you saw the quality of our neighborhood, okay, and the last
thing that I did want to address is the gentleman that was up here, I wanted to know if
he’s a neighbor or just a friend of the McLaughlins. Could I ask that question?
MR. ABBATE-You’re making your statement. They can address your concerns later.
MR. MUNOFF-Okay. All right, and I’d just urge the Board not to accept this, to reject this
application. I’ve never seen boat storage there, and I know that Mike said that they’ve
stored boats. I think the onus should be on them to show records that this has been
done in the past. Handshake agreements are not legal documents, and I wish the
McLaughlins well, but I don’t wish them well with this project, because I’m telling you
something, if this goes through, I’m selling. I’m out of there. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for your input. Do we have anybody else in the
audience who’d like to participate?
MARK LEVACK
MR. LEVACK-Good evening. My name’s Mark Levack. I’m the broker/owner of Levack
Real Estate and the person empowered to sell this property for Jan Six. My mother-in-
law is one of the members of Jan Six, and that’s how I came upon this listing. Whenever
I take on a listing that is a commercial property, whether it’s pre-existing nonconforming
or whether it’s a pre-existing conforming but in a different zone, or whether it’s a
commercially zoned property, there’s always issues at play, and I know this site has its
challenges. I can speak to the environmental issue. I was the one that coordinated the
hiring of QEA. QEA is GE’s engineer overseeing the river dredge project. They’re very
qualified engineers, and they’ve done an extensive geometric grid of the subsurface
conditions, and they’ve evaluated it, and we can make those reports available to
anybody that wants to see them, and the overall out come is that the materials that are
there are benign trash. Having said that, it has a stigma of being a dump, and we have
found it to be extremely, extremely difficult to sell this property residentially. So therefore
what to do with it. I think that it’s a commercial property. It always has been a
commercial property. I don’t believe that this project inherently is detrimental to the
character of the neighborhood. If you start from the Cleverdale Country Store, you have
a commercial operation. You have Sunsoval Construction. You have Castaway’s
Marina. You have a firehouse. We can provide you with a map, a tax map that shows all
the commercial uses within this district. So I don’t believe it’s a far reach to say that this
location is in a mixed use commercial location. I believe that the McLaughlin’s have
done a good job in cleaning it up and I believe that they have entitled the buyer to
transition this piece to what is potentially the best use and the best suited use for this
property. I think the that project is something that we can be proud of, and I think
whatever issues involve site plan can be mitigated to the best degree of all involved, but
any time I come up here and speak, people would say, well, he’s just a realtor trying to
make a sale. This is my family’s property and we want to be proud of the next user that
takes it over, and I think that, again, any site plan issues can be mitigated. I believe it is
a conforming site, and I hope the Board rules as such.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you so very much.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North
Queensbury. I would recommend that you uphold the Zoning Administrator’s
determination that this project would need a Use Variance, for all the reasons stated
here tonight. There’s no question that the nonconforming use has fallen and has been
abandoned, once the power was connected, and that’s a matter of record, there’s no way
you can run any kind of a maintenance shop, storage facility. You have to have power.
So, for those reasons, I would recommend that you uphold the Zoning Administrator’s
determination. In addition to a Use Variance, I believe that they may need a Special Use
Permit. If, in fact, this facility was being used as a boat storage area, the facility should
have been registered with the DEC as of January 1, 1982. That was a requirement of
the law, and since then, they should be permitted, as a Class A Marina, under the Park
Commission Regulations, which lead to our regulations under 179-10-060 regarding
specific standards for Special Use Permits, marinas, in that they store boats, that is an
activity that constitutes a marina. So, I think there’s a long way to go. I would seriously
question the work that was done in the clean up of a site. Any site that has been a, call it
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
a junkyard, call it a maintenance facility, a boat storage facility for the period of time that
this has been, with nothing but earth has got to be saturated with something or some
kind of contaminant, and that goes deep, as it continually rains and rains on that site, that
stuff percolates deep. I think it’s probably a filled in wetland, and if it is, the difficulty of
siting foundations on these unstable soils is another problem that’s going to have to be
overcome. So I think they have a long way to go, but the start would be to evaluate
whether or not they have to obtain a Use Variance and then a Special Use Permit.
Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the audience who
would like to address this Appeal? I see no other hands in the audience.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have three letters.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Secretary. Would you be kind enough to read into the record
correspondence, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have three letters that were submitted. One was from the
Munoff’s, and I think they basically have covered that, essentially. So I won’t re-read that
one. The second one was received on August 15, 2006. It says, “Dear Mr. Underwood:
We are in favor of the above application. The McLaughlin storage and equipment repair
yard has been an eyesore for many years. In our opinion enclosed boat and RV storage
garages will improve the neighborhood and provide a needed facility to the area. A
building with an Adirondack theme façade is preferred over a field of blue tarps covering
boats and equipment. Very truly yours, Richard DeSilva”, and that’s at 139 Seelye
Road, and the other one was also, this was received by Town of Queensbury, by
telephone conversation, and this was, again, Mr. and Mrs Munoff I guess had called the
office and this, again, was appealing the address as being inappropriate as advertised.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I neglected, I have a letter in favor that I was going to submit for
the record.
MR. ABBATE-If you’d come up here with the letter, we’ll accept it. Before we do that,
would you please identify yourself.
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Yes, once again, Michael McLaughlin, and if I may, I’d like to rebut
a couple of comments that were made.
MR. ABBATE-There will be no rebuttal.
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-If you wish to submit that to us, tell us what it is, for the record.
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Yes, I would. It is a letter from John Mason of Sunsoval, Inc. He is
an immediate neighbor. He operates a business directly across the street from the
property, and he writes, August 15, 2006, To Whom It May Concern: Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, etc., etc. “To Whom It May Concern: I have
reviewed the application submitted by William Dator relating to a boat storage facility at
2585 Route 9L, Queensbury, New York. I have no objection to the proposal. Sincerely,
John A. Mason President Sunsoval, Inc.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you be kind enough to give it to our secretary Sue, please,
and she will enter it into the record.
MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Since there are no other hands that wish to be
recognized, the public hearing for Appeal No. 5-2006 is closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, would you and your party like to address any of the issues that
were made, before we continue?
MR. RICHARDS-Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman, and as you said, I don’t want to get into a
long rebuttal here, because I think that really what was brought up are mainly legal
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
questions and that’s what I wanted to address. One brief thing I think Mr. Dator can just
confirm, he does live there. That is his house.
WILLIAM DATOR
MR. DATOR-Just to confirm, Frank did the painting for our house, but we use that house,
eight months out of the year. During the summer, we do have six friends that we rent it
to, but basically, the rest of the year, we do live there.
MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, what was raised in those individuals that spoke against
what we’re trying to do here, things I’ve heard, 95 to 99% of it were site plan type issues
which they, should we go forward with this, in all likelihood would have every opportunity
to bring up before the appropriate Board. As a matter of fact, I think if our position is
correct, we don’t have to come before this Board again at all, and if we chose to just
store boats there, we wouldn’t have to come before this Board at all. At a minimum, we’d
be a marina and would apply to the Planning Board for a Special Use Permit and, Craig,
you can correct me if I’m wrong on that, but I think that’s the case, or we would come
back and I think have a very compelling case that it’s a continuing use. So either way, I
don’t think we’d come before this Board if we just do boats, and that goes back to what I
said at the beginning, that the crux of this is can we store RV’s and other type vehicles,
leisure vehicles, enclosed, and still be consistent with the use that’s there now. Our
position of course is yes, it is. Now, I heard some of the Board members say, during our
initial presentation, that they were not sure as to whether they could take into account
testimony tonight, either for or against, in making their decision on Craig’s interpretation.
I’m not sure I agree with that, but if that is the case, obviously we’ve put a lot of
information before this Board and before Craig tonight. If that’s the case, then I think we
ought to table this for a month and Craig can issue another letter that we appeal from,
because I think we really want this to come before the Board. Whether it changes his
decision or ultimately this Board’s decision, I think procedurally we have to be able to
know that you made it with all the facts, and if it’s because you feel you’re restricted in
what facts you can consider, I’d like to avoid that and make sure it’s done with everything
on the table.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, you know very well that legally we must accept evidence that
is presented during a hearing. There’s no question about that.
MR. RICHARDS-That’s my understanding. That’s why I was a little confused.
MR. ABBATE-We have no grounds in which to deny anything. Perhaps the Board
members may want to consider your request on tabling. I don’t know yet, but we’ll get to
that.
MR. RICHARDS-I’d only request it if you can’t consider what we’ve presented tonight.
MR. ABBATE-Well, we’ll get to that. Okay. Do you have anything else at this time?
MR. RICHARDS-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. The public hearing is now closed for Appeal No. 5-2006. I’m going
to ask Board members to offer their comments, but I want Board members to listen very
carefully. This is the only thing we can consider this evening. Quote, it is the position of
the Zoning Administrator that the addition of a vehicle storage and recreational storage
together with most likely an increase in the number of boats stored on the property
constitutes an expansion of a nonconforming use and that such an expansion of a
nonconforming storage use requires a Use Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
per Section 179-13-010.D. Having said that now, I would like to ask Board members for
their comments, and if anyone wishes to go first, that’s fine.
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’d be willing to go first.
MR. ABBATE-Would you please.
MR. GARRAND-Everything I’ve heard tonight basically tells me that this is an expansion
of a nonconforming use, and I would be inclined to support the Zoning Administrator’s
decision on this one.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’ve gone to Mr. Garrand. How about Mr. Bryant, please.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with what Counsel has just said and
basically the majority of the comments, albeit they might be valid. They really don’t
relate to the issue. The issue is whether or not it’s an expansion of a nonconforming
use, and to go from 20 boats currently all over the yard to 100 is an expansion, and
frankly I think, to go from residential to a condominium storage area is a nonconforming
use. So I’m going to be in favor of the Administrator.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I think I basically agree with the comments that have been made so far.
There’s several things here. The decision of whether something is a continuing use is
not whether it was used commercially before and whether it’s going to be used
commercially in the future. It’s what kind of commercial use. I looked quickly in the
Code while we were listening to public comments here and there is a clear definition in
the Code for recreational vehicles. So that leads me to believe that the Town has at
least attempted to distinguish between construction equipment and recreational vehicles.
So I think that’s a difference. I think also we really haven’t seen any concrete proof that
there was a boat rental operation here that continued continuously through to current
date. Admittedly there are boats on the property now, but we haven’t seen anything that
really indicates there’s a boat rental, and I think the other point that was brought up is I’m
not sure whether we’re talking about a continuation of a boat rental business or whether
we’re talking about construction of a condominium, which will happen to store boats or
may store boats or recreational vehicles or anything else that somebody might want to
put in. So it strikes me that there is not a continuation of a previously established use,
and in that case, I, too, would support the Zoning Administrator.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree with my fellow Board members. I think that
it’s been established that there has been some previous usage on this site for both
construction vehicle repair, storage, sales, whatever it happens to be, but I don’t think it
ever was established that this was a glorified or substantial marina, other than having a
few boats on site, and I think the present usage of the site, it has been discontinued for
quite some period of time since it actually was a commercial venture on that site.
There’s no power currently to that site, and I think that the Zoning Administrator has been
basically up front. I mean, this was a fishing trip to see what was going to happen, you
know, what the wishes were. You asked an opinion and the Zoning Administrator gave
his opinion based upon what he saw there. I think that, if you’re going to submit plans
like this, you know, on the evening that we’re here this evening, that would be premature
on your part to do that also. It’s not fair, without any kind of site plan review, although
you’re welcome to submit those plans in the future, that would be perfectly fine, but I
think it would need an Area Variance. This is a Waterfront Residential area. I think it’s
been explained it is a very difficult site, as you mentioned, and there are lots of
outstanding issues that will come to bear upon, you know, what the eventual disposition
of that property is, but I think tonight we can basically agree with the Zoning
Administrator that storage of vehicles on that property would not be something that was
permitted at this time. So you would have to seek a variance for that.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. My concern earlier tonight was in the sequence of events. The letter
th
that Mr. Brown responded to is dated June 15 and that letter referred to the
replacement of the present building with approximately, with another building with
approximately 100 storage units, and Mr. Brown responded basically to that letter and
ruled that it constituted an expansion of use and therefore would require a Use Variance,
and I wanted to make sure that that’s what we were talking about, and nothing that was
said tonight has changed his basic ruling which was an expansion of the present use,
and I would be in favor of the Zoning Administrator’s ruling.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I would have to say that the Zoning
Administrator is quite correct in that the addition of vehicle storage and RV storage will,
in all probability, not only increase the number of boats stored on the property, but I think
he’s absolutely correct when he says that I also constitutes an expansion of a
nonconforming use, and then he follows that up by saying, as a result of the expansion of
this nonconforming storage use, it requires a Use Variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. I have to agree with him. At this point, it would appear that the next step is to
rule for a motion, and is there a motion for Notice of Appeal No. 5-2006? Now the only
thing we consider, gentlemen, is this, is there a motion to, one, support the appellant’s
change to the Zoning Administrator’s decision, or, two, uphold the Zoning Administrator’s
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
decision. In either case, please be precise. That’s the only things we’re considering
right now in the motion. A, support the appellant’s challenge to the Zoning
Administrator’s decision, or, B, to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision. Is there a
motion?
MOTION REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-2006 WILLIAM F. DATOR, THAT
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SUPPORT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S
DECISION REGARDING THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR DECISION ON THE
EXPANSION OF A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING STORAGE USE, Introduced by
Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
2583 East Shore Drive. That this would constitute the necessary Use Variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt
MR. ABBATE-The vote is six to zero to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. RICHARDS-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II J & J REALTY LP (JOHN
BEHRENS) AGENT(S): BRUCE CARR, ESQ. OWNER(S): J & J REALTY LTD
PARTNERSHIP ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: DARK BAY LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES 1,860 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WHICH DOES NOT FRONT
ON A PUBLIC ROAD. RELIEF FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE
FOR A PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
REQUIREMENT OF THE WR-3A ZONE REQUESTED. CROSS REF. BP 2006-248
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 9, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY:
YES LOT SIZE: 0.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-35 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-
4-090
BRUCE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2006, J & J Realty (John Behrens), Meeting
Date: August 16, 2006 “Project Location: Dark Bay Lane Description of Proposed
Project: The applicant proposes to construct a 1,850 sq. ft. single-family dwelling (33-
feet high) on a vacant .78-acre lot which does not front on a public road.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 40-feet of relief from the required minimum 40-feet of road
frontage for a principal building, per §179-4-090.
Additionally, 5-feet of relief is requested from the maximum height requirement of 28-feet
for the WR-3A zone, per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2006-248: Pending, for a 1,850 sq. ft. single-family dwelling.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes accessing a future house site from a private drive (20-ft. wide
ROW) off of Dark Bay Lane. Although the request is substantial (100% of relief
requested), feasible alternatives seem to be limited.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
The height dimension of the front (lake) elevation should be given on the elevation
drawing (sheet 1). It scales at 32.5-feet, but this needs to be verified to accurately
identify the relief required.
The 5-feet of height relief requested could be considered moderate at 18%.
Consideration should be given to any potential visual impacts from the lake or
impediments to the views of the neighboring properties.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
August 9, 2006 Project Name: J & J Realty (John Behrens) Owner(s): J & J Realty
LTD Partnership ID Number: QBY-06-AV-44 County Project#: Aug06-27 Current
Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing
a 1,860 sq. ft. single-family dwelling which does not front on a public road. Relief from
the required minimum road frontage for a principal building and relief from the maximum
height requirement is requested. Site Location: Dark Bay Lane Tax Map Number(s):
239.18-1-35 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a single
family home on a 33,954 sq. ft lot. The lot does not have frontage on a public road as
required and the height of the home is to be 33 ft. where 28 ft. is the maximum allowed.
The information submitted includes house elevations, house, septic and access. The
information also included stormwater and erosion control measures. The applicant has
indicated the location of the lot and the topography have required the variances
requested. 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 8/15/06.
MR. ABBATE-I see you gentlemen have arrived at the table. Would you be kind enough
to, I assume Counsel and appellant, would you please identify yourself for the Board.
JOHN BEHRENS
MR. BEHRENS-John Behrens.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. CARR-Good evening. Bruce Carr, I’m the attorney for the applicant, here to
address what I hope to be very simple issues.
MR. ABBATE-Well, before you start your dissertation, here, Counselor, again, I’m going
to advise you that the burden of proof, the duty to prove a disputed assertion, rests
squarely on your shoulders of the applicant and not this Board. Any problems with that?
MR. CARR-No problem.
MR. ABBATE-Please proceed.
MR. CARR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dark Bay, as you may or may not know, is a
private right of way. It’s not a Town road. This is a subdivision from the 60’s and 70’s
that has never been on a Town road. So any construction in this subdivision will
automatically need relief from the 40 foot Town road frontage section of the Zoning
Code. There are many houses already built there. In fact what we’re proposing is
actually taking two of the subdivision lots and combining it into one. So again, lessening
the density in the whole area because we’re taking lots, I believe it’s six and seven, just
to create one lot. I’m sorry, five and six to create one lot. The other request that we’re
here for is the minimum height, and it’s only needed on the front side of the building, and
that’s due to the topography of the land. The other three sides of the building, the
topography is such that the maximum height, I think, of the building is 24 feet. It just is at
the front it kind of falls off there, as you can see from the drawings, and that is why we
are here asking for relief from the maximum height. Craig and the Staff may be correct.
It’s 32 and a half feet. My scale might not be as good when I asked for 35, but the point
is just that we need a small relief from the front elevation so that we can build this
building. As for the concern about the potential visual impacts of the neighbors, the 24
feet in the rear is going to be as high as the building gets. So it’s not going to, because
of the topography dropping off, the visual impact from neighbors is not going to be
affected. We aren’t going up higher than the topography. It’s just that the topography is
dropping away from us at that one side of the building, and as for the visual impacts from
the lake, again, this a modest house. I mean, the floor area on the first floor is only 1200
square feet, and then the second floor is the additional 500 feet, to make a total of 1800
square feet, which is just a moderate house. We aren’t building a castle here. We aren’t
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
trying to do anything that would overburden the land. If you look at the site plan of the
land, you can see that, again, the front of the house is toward the lake there, and we
have put the septic in the back. So you can say, well, why don’t you move the house
back onto a flat area. I don’t think we want to move the septic to the front of the building.
Our setbacks from the lake are fine, but certainly the further I believe that you can keep a
septic away from the lake the better you are. So this just seems like the more
appropriate place, location for the property, and I think the variances we’re asking for,
one is absolutely necessary for any lot in that subdivision, and the second is just minimal
and it’s due to an abnormal topography.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Obviously you’ll have a chance to further strengthen your case if
you wish later on in the evening. At this point here, have you concluded so far?
MR. CARR-Thank you. Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. Do any members of the Board have any questions for Area
Variance No. 44-2006?
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I’ve got one. Are we still guessing at the height relief
that’s needed based on scaling the drawing?
MR. CARR-I think we could live with 32 and a half.
MR. BEHRENS-It’s very close. It’s 32 and a half or 33. It’s within six inches.
MR. MC NULTY-It strikes me this is a potential for an, oops.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Zoning Administrator can you help us out?
MR. BROWN-Sure. I think if you can get the applicants to land on a number, make it
part of the resolution, we’ll inspect it when it’s done.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I like that term. Would you land on a number, please.
MR. CARR-How about 33. That way, if we come in shorter, we’re great. If we come in
an inch high, then we’re in trouble.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. For the record it’s 33?
MR. CARR-Thirty-three.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. For the record it’s 33. All right. Great.
MR. MC NULTY-And if you come back later, we’re going to say take a chainsaw to it.
MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the Board have any questions?
MR. URRICO-Is there any possibility the height can be shaved down?
MR. BEHRENS-That ridge is the 33, that one point. If you go down a couple of feet on
each side, you’re way down again, then you’re down to the 28 feet.
MR. URRICO-You say it’s a minor thing, but we have denied applications that are higher
than that.
MR. CARR-Well, I understand that, but I think, you know, if you take in the overall look of
the building and the fact that if you go to three sides of it we’re only at 24 feet, you know,
it, again, is just because of the land topography, you know, going down as opposed to us
wanting to go up on a building.
MR. URRICO-You’re saying it can’t be done?
MR. CARR-I don’t think so. No.
MR. URRICO-You’re not willing to compromise at all?
MR. CARR-That would be a simpler answer, just a no.
MR. ABBATE-It can’t be, you mean structurally it can’t be done, practically?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. CARR-Well, I don’t think so, because if you lower down to the 28 feet on the front,
that puts it down to 19 feet on all the other sides, and I don’t think that makes for a
practical application of a building.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MR. CARR-I mean, I think you’ve got your 10 feet minimum for each floor. So we
couldn’t build that second floor if we lowered the whole building.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Bryant, please?
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking at the elevations, you’ve got three
floors. You’ve got a 10 foot ceiling height, eight foot eight, eight foot nine. Can’t do
anything to shave anything off those ceiling heights? I mean, logical if we.
MR. BEHRENS-You say you have 10 feet?
MR. BRYANT-You have a 10 foot ceiling height, and then your balcony. You’ve got eight
foot eight in the second floor, and then the lower level you’ve got eight foot nine and a
half. Somebody asked a question, one of the Board members, I think it was Mr. Urrico,
and, you know, we don’t want you to change the pitch of the roof, but in reality 10 foot is
a little bit high. What are we doing here?
MR. CARR-I think interior, I mean, we’ve only got the.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know you’re looking at the wall on the top floor and in reality, you
want to make every square foot of that floor totally usable, okay, and the reality is, is that
always the case and is that always necessary?
MR. CARR-Well, I mean, you’re only talking about an 1800 square foot house.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but we’re talking about a 20% increase in the height over the
allowed, you know, requirement, five feet. It’s actually more than 20%.
MR. CARR-Roughly, but I think you’ve got to take into account the Area Variance is for
the hardship based on the topography of the land. It’s not that we’re building a house
that we want to go higher. It’s just, like I said, that bottom floor is just, you know.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the argument could also be made, and I don’t want to make an
argument, the argument could also be made that you picked probably the largest
increase in decline in level property as opposed to, for example, in the northeast corner it
doesn’t quite, you know, decline at that same rate. I mean, that’s not the only place you
could build a house on the property.
MR. CARR-No, but I think the point is that, you know, we’re again trying to keep the
septic away from the lake. Number Two, you know, we’re, I’m not saying we’re
compromising, but the two lots are split right down the middle. Without the split, there
could be a house built right where this one is located.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t have a scale, but looking at the site plan here, the survey, if this
moves back to a level of, for example, 120 feet, you’ve only got a two foot variance. Do
you follow what I’m saying? It’s not quite as drastic as it is right where it is. That’s just
an observation. You’ve got eight foot difference from the front to the back in elevation.
MR. CARR-Right. You’re going from 112 to 120 there.
MR. BRYANT-But if you move back down to the 120 foot elevation, you’ve only got two
feet in the same distance. So that’s my point. I mean, that’s not the only place to build a
house on the property. That’s my only question. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have any other Board members that
have any questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD-What was your intention as far as the, on the lake, as far as the side
that’s going to be most affected, if it’s going to have the full 33 foot height will be the
lakeside. Are you going to cut all the trees on that side or leave substantial vegetation?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. BEHRENS-The trees are up. They’re existing. They’re staying. What’s ever there
is staying. The dead branches we already, we headed the trees, but all the dead
branches we just cut off, but it’s all treed. In fact my home, my own home, is right in front
of it, between the lake and this house is my own home.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other questions from members of the Board? If
not, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 44-2006, and those
wishing to be heard, if you’ll raise your hand, I will acknowledge you and ask you to
come to the table, speak into the microphone and state your name and place of
residence, please. Do we have anyone in the audience who would like to address Area
Variance No. 44-2006?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. Did I
hear mention of the fact that this applicant owns two lots?
MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s combining two lots.
MR. SALVADOR-He’s combining two lots. Have they been consolidated?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no idea.
MR. SALVADOR-We’ll ask him.
MR. SALVADOR-That would be essential that they be consolidated first, because if you
don’t, you could wind up with another building in there.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good question. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the
audience who’d like to be heard?
RON DURANTE
MR. DURANTE-My name is Ron Durante. My sisters and I own the house directly
across from this, downhill, and I have no objection to the height that he’s proposing. The
house that he built for himself a number of years ago is in very good character and
keeping with the terrain, and I’m confident in his ability to work, that he’s done what he
could to work the house into the ground as it is very steep on the whole site. It’s very
rolling for a small area.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for your insight. Do we have anyone else who’d like
to be heard? I see no other hands. Counselor, would you and your client come forward,
please. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 44-2006.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And, Counselor, if you would like to comment further, go right ahead
before we proceed.
MR. CARR-It has been consolidated for tax purposes.
MR. ABBATE-That was a good question. So, for the record, it has been consolidated for
tax purposes.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Is there anything else you’d like to offer?
MR. CARR-Well, I think, you know, a lot of effort has gone in to locate the property, as
the gentleman who spoke in support of our application stated, you know, the whole
topography of both of these lots is rolling. At some point, you know, wherever you place
the home, you may run into height problems, and again because of a sloping away from
the house. We’re trying to keep the house modest. We’ve looked at all the options, and
again, trying to keep it as friendly to the lake as possible by keep the septic as far away
from the lake as possible, I just think this is going to be the best location. As Mr.
Behrens has said, it’s not even for the benefit of getting a better view of the lake because
his house is actually in between this house and the lake, and there’s plenty of vegetation
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
that’s going to remain there, trees and such. So, again, our position is that while it may
be a 20% variance from the zoning, it’s not a typical site location in which we are asking
for 20 all the way around the building. It’s literally just on one face of the building, and
again, just due to the topography of the land.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, again, I’m going to ask members to offer their comments, and
again, the comments to the Chairman are not open to debate. Do we have any
members of the Board who would like to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 44-
2006? Do we have a volunteer?
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The request for the road frontage is a
reasonable request under the circumstances. As you know, there are five criteria on
which we base our decisions. One of them is whether or not there are feasible
alternatives, and I think you have a multitude of feasible alternatives. Whether it’s
relocating the house, whether it’s a redesign of the house for a two level house as
opposed to a three story house, you’ve got two lots to work with. It’s not like you’re in a
small box where you can’t maneuver the house. You’ve got plenty of room to maneuver
the house. Plenty of options as far as a redesign of the house. So as far as the height
relief, I’d be totally opposed to that aspect of the application. The other portion is
reasonable and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I essentially agree with Mr. Bryant. I don’t have a problem with the front
road, the 40 foot relief from the road frontage, but when we look at the five criteria for
accepting an Area Variance, the overall criteria is granting minimum variance necessary,
minimum, and five feet is not minimum. I know that you may think it is, but it’s not.
When we consider the benefit can be achieved by the applicant via other means that are
feasible, there are other feasible means. We’ve pointed them out to you. As far as an
undesirable change in the neighborhood, the neighborhood doesn’t only extend from the
land. It extends from the sea, people looking in on the shoreline, and it also refers to
changing the accepted height that the houses, the residences can build at. Twenty-eight
feet is the accepted, and the variance needed is over 28 feet, but we start granting
variances for above that, then that becomes the norm, and the change in the
neighborhood then becomes obvious. There’s a change in the height requirements, or
what’s accepted, but in any regard, even if there was not a change in the neighborhood
character, I would think the request is moderate, and I think the relief is self-created. So
I’d be against that portion of the variance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m in agreement with what’s been said so far. Again, the
variance for the frontage on a Town road, that’s almost a given if we’re on the lake, and
certainly for this development. I’ve got no problem with that at all. Given that this is new
construction, I think there’s an opportunity to build a compliant house, and so far I
haven’t seen evidence that it’s not possible to build a compliant house in this location.
So that sets me on the negative side. I’m also still concerned about the height
measurement. As you’ll recall, we’ve still got an appeal floating around in the courts for
a boathouse that was built, scaled from the drawing, and it was a major oops, and I think
we’ve got the potential here, too. We’ve got a whole nice set of drawings but no height
shown, and I think we need to have the engineer write down a solid figure for us, but in
any event, I would like to see that solid figure be compliant with the height. So I’m also
going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m basically in agreement with what’s been said, but I will offer
some suggestions. The 40 feet of relief from the road frontage I don’t think I have a
problem with that whatsoever. I would think that, more than likely, that the front part of
your building there where your pitch of your roof is quite steep up there could be
modified. It may end up with a, you know, three foot knee wall above that wall and then
maybe an eight twelve pitch roof, which would lower you down about a foot and a half,
you know, and make it more palatable to me. It’s somewhat understandable, with the
steep topography that you have on site there, and I understand what you’re doing, and in
this instance here, I’m not as upset as my fellow Board members, because I think that,
you know, you are set back substantially from the water and, you know, you do have
vegetation around the site that’s going to mitigate that somewhat, but I think you still
could modify that roof design a little bit up there. I know that in the back of your house
you’re only at 24 feet, and you want to keep a reasonable ceiling height so you’re not
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
bumping your head when you walk into a corner, but I think you could do a little bit of
tweaking on that and come back to us.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, and Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-I’m in agreement with my fellow Board members as far as 40 feet of
road frontage. I think that’s necessary given the private right of way going down there.
I’m also in agreement with respect to the height of the building. When you’re building a
house, something can always be done to make it more compliant. The topography may
be a limiting factor, but by the same token, any builder could make this a more compliant
structure. Part of what we’re looking at is undesirable change in the neighborhood or
whether the request is substantial. Well, you start getting into houses over 30 plus feet
tall and it can be considered substantial when it has an environmental impact, visually,
from the lake, or from one of the neighbors, as far as limiting views from the neighbors. I
believe that’s when we could get into considering the request substantial. So I would be
in favor of the 40 feet, but at this point not in favor of the five feet of relief.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I, too, will echo the comments of my fellow
Board members, Counselor. However, all is not lost. I will offer you an alternative. I will
offer you the opportunity perhaps, if you wish, and the decision is strictly yours, to table,
perhaps, your request, and perhaps modify your plans based upon what you’ve heard
this evening, and you will be furnished a copy of the minutes of this meeting, if you wish.
So if you wish to say, for the record, Mr. Chairman, I would like to table my application, I
will honor that, but the decision is yours. Right now you have no support.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would make the suggestion that we vote on the part that we all
agree with, because they may modify their plan and not need to come back to us, and
then they could proceed and build it.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, good point. Let’s make it, in order to be fair, let’s make it quite clear
what our concerns are, so let me start with Mr. McNulty. Mr. McNulty, what, specifically,
are your concerns?
MR. MC NULTY-I think, as we’ve stated, my concerns are the height. I would like to see
that reduced and I would like to see a firm engineer’s figure on the height.
MR. ABBATE-Fair enough. Mr. Bryant, please?
MR. BRYANT-I agree with what Mr. Underwood said. I think we ought to vote on the 40
foot, the road frontage issue, because we all agree on that, and just ignore the height
issue, and not approve that. That can’t be done?
MR. ABBATE-No. We either go with it all or nothing at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think that his suggestion is appropriate because it would allow
them, if they change their plan, they may not need to come back to us.
MR. MC NULTY-Right, but if they don’t change their plan, they’re going to have to apply
again for another separate Area Variance.
MR. ABBATE-Right, and so I say it’s inappropriate, but that’s your position. That’s okay.
I gave him the options, and you stated your concern for the options.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’m willing to vote on the part that we all agree on.
MR. GARRAND-I’m also willing to vote on the part.
MR. URRICO-What was the question? The question seems to have changed.
MR. ABBATE-Well, basically I asked Board members, in order to be fair to the applicant,
to advise the applicant of their concerns, so that if the applicant wishes to table the
application, he will walk away with something solid in his hands, so that when he comes
back, he can address the specific concerns of our members.
MR. URRICO-Okay. My concern is with the height variance. That’s my sole concern.
I’m not concerned about the other part of the variance request, which is the 40 feet of
road frontage relief from that.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. ABBATE-Sure, by all means.
MR. BRYANT-If the applicant requests to drop the portion relative to the height, and only
go for the road frontage, would that be acceptable?
MR. ABBATE-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-I want to give him every opportunity.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Mr. Bryant is suggesting, and you don’t have to accept this,
perhaps a feasible alternative may be to drop that height, and that would clear up some
of the issues. The only issue then remaining would be the remaining issue, but that’s up
to you.
MR. CARR-Mr. Chairman, I do understand the concerns of the Board. Our position is
that we’re here asking for two variances. So I think they can be separated, and I would
ask the Board to consider granting us the one variance that seems to be of no concern to
the Board, and that’s the 40 foot, and that we would be allowed to table the height
variance in order to re-evaluate it. I mean, we may come back and say we’ll withdraw
that application, that portion, but there’s actually two variances at play here. So I do
think they can be separated, and legally voted on.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t agree, but that’s up to the Board.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, Staff was shaking his head no.
MR. ABBATE-Why are you shaking your head?
MR. BROWN-I think it’s inappropriate to separate the two requests.
MR. ABBATE-You’re supporting me.
MR. BROWN-Well, mark it down, this is the one time. They’re both in one application.
So I think you want to keep them together.
MR. ABBATE-I agree.
MR. BROWN-I think the appropriate thing is if they want to go forward, table it, modify
the height and do that.
MR. ABBATE-I agree wholeheartedly, and I’m going to state for the record I think it’s
inappropriate. There is one application before us this evening, Counselor, no matter how
you cut the water, and it’s 44-2006. If you wish to have two variances, you should have
come up with two separate variance requests. As far as I’m concerned, they’re
conclusive.
MR. CARR-Well, that’s your position. That’s fine. Can I ask Staff a question?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. CARR-Would the resolution, and let me just give a hypothetical, be that the height
variance is denied, but that the road frontage variance is approved, and then this
application would be over? It’s not that you have to approve both.
MR. BROWN-I think they could do that. They could approve the frontage and deny the
height, and then you’d have to come back with a compliant 28 foot structure or another
variance.
MR. ABBATE-Have it phrased, since you phrased it that way, I would have no objections
with that, if you phrased it that way.
MR. BROWN-And I think if that’s the direction the Board’s going to go, it may be even
cleaner just to have the applicant withdraw his request for height relief.
MR. CARR-We would be very open to pursuing along those terms, as opposed to tabling
the whole thing, and if we need to, we’ll re-apply for just a height variance.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Stated that way, I would have no problems with it. So you’re
requesting this evening that we address the one issue for a vote for approval and then
the other issue, in terms of height, you’ll have to come back for. We will disapprove that.
MR. CARR-I’m assuming your resolution will disapprove our request, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, we’ll include that in our motion. We would have no choice.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. That I don’t have a problem with. Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-No, I’d go with that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and the rest of the Board members have no problems? Then I have
no problems with it, re-stated that way.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question about the validity of having two positions in one motion.
I would prefer that the applicant withdraw that portion, okay. You make a motion either
to approve the application or deny it. To approve part of the application and deny the
other portion of it kind of defeats the purpose, I think, of the whole process.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’d be inclined to simply form a motion that would approve the
road frontage, period, but I’ll agree it would be a lot cleaner for people looking back at
this five years from now, if the applicant were to withdraw the request for the height
variance at this time, with no prejudice.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I think so, too. I think that’s appropriate. Yes, because we’re not
going to be here forever, the other folks coming after us. Would you be willing to do
that?
MR. CARR-We’re willing to withdraw without prejudice the height variance request.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. For the record, Counselor is willing to withdraw, for the record.
MR. CARR-The height variance request without prejudice and with reservation of rights
to re-apply.
MR. ABBATE-That’s perfectly okay. I have no objections concerning that. So our only
concern then this evening is frontage.
MR. CARR-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-And, gentlemen of the Board I’m willing to entertain a motion for the
frontage in view of the fact that the attorney for the appellant has made a statement he’s
willing to withdraw the height. Do we have a motion?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll make a motion.
MR. ABBATE-Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2006 J & J REALTY LP (JOHN
BEHRENS), Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Garrand:
Dark Bay Lane. The applicant is proposing construction of a 1,850 square foot single
family dwelling on a vacant .7 acre lot which does not front on a public road. He’s
requesting 40 feet of relief from the required minimum 40 feet of road frontage for a
principal building and he’s also withdrawing his five feet of relief for the maximum height
requirement of 28 feet. This Board has, on numerous occasions, approved this same
request. That relates back to the fact that it’s a pre-existing subdivision. Again, this is
going to be the combining of Lots Five and Six on site there, and we feel that this 20 foot
right of way that would be created would be appropriate, given the fact that all the other
nearby dwellings also use this same means of ingress and egress on their properties.
As far as the five statutes, there doesn’t seem to be any other way to feasibly meet this
request. It would not be feasible to do it in any other manner. The alleged hardship is a
result of the smaller sized lots being created on this very steep terrain here on site, and
this would be deemed appropriate, and it’s not felt there would be any neighborhood
detriment if it’s approved.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt
MR. ABBATE-The vote is six yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 44-2006, as stated in the
motion, is approved.
MR. CARR-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2006 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC.
AGENT(S): TOM NACE (NACE ENGINEERING); J. LAPPER, ESQ. (BPSR)
OWNER(S): ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC. ZONING: LI LOCATION: 603 QUEENSBURY
AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF EXISTING MANUFACTURING
FACILITY. RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR LIGHT
MANUFACTURING IS REQUESTED. ZBA MAY CONSENT TO PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR SEQR LEAD AGENCY STATUS. CROSS REF: SP 20-06; SP 19-
2002; SP 25-92 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 9, 2006 LOT SIZE: 12.97
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-10 SECTION 179-4-040
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2006, Angio Dynamics, Inc., Meeting Date:
August 16, 2006 “Project Location: 603 Queensbury Avenue Description of Proposed
Project: The applicant proposes a 35,660 warehouse building and associated site work,
including an additional 140 parking spaces.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the maximum allowable parking spaces in excess of
20% for light manufacturing (1 per 2 employees on the maximum working shift), per
§179-4-040. Specifically, 357 parking spaces where 180 is the maximum (plus 20% is
216). Thus, relief requested is for 141 additional spaces.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SPR for this project is pending.
SP 20-06: Approved 5/22/06, a 1,825 sq. ft. conversion of light manufacturing work
(assembly) area into office space.
SP 19-02 Mod.: Approved 7/19/05, a 2,240 sq. ft. conversion of unfinished storage
space into office space.
SP 19-02: Approved 5/21/02, a 24,867 sq. ft. addition to an existing medical device
manufacturing plant.
Staff comments:
The parking calculation for the use is provided on the site development data page and
the submitted site plan. 180 parking spaces are required for the use, the Code allows for
additional parking spaces not to exceed 20% of what is required. The applicant
proposes 357 total spaces, which is an additional 141 spaces over the 20% maximum of
216 spaces. The relief requested is 65%, which could be considered substantial.
The applicant’s justification for the additional parking is due to the fact that the shifts
overlap necessitating one space per employee, rather than one space per two
employees as permitted by Code.
Because this project has been identified as a SEQR Unlisted Action, and site plan review
by the Planning Board is required, the Board could consider consenting to a coordinated
SEQR review with the Planning Board acting as lead agency.”
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
August 9, 2006 Project Name: Angio Dynamics, Inc. Owner(s): Angio Dynamics, Inc.
ID Number: QBY-06-AV-52 County ID#: Aug06-24 Current Zoning: LI Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing expansion of existing
manufacturing facility. Relief from the maximum parking requirement for light
manufacturing is requested. Site Location: 603 Queensbury Avenue Tax Map
Number(s): 297.8-1-10 Staff Notes: Area Variance: the applicant proposes the
construction of a 33,500 sq. ft. warehouse and other associated site work. The applicant
proposes 357 parking spaces where only 180 spaces are required. The applicant has
indicated the operations and flextime workforce requires each employee have a parking
place. In addition, the applicant has indicated the site will continue to maintain a
compliant percentage of the green spaces even with the additional parking. 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 8/15/06.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to assume that the attorneys and the appellants are at
the table. Would you folks be kind enough to identify yourself and your relationship to
the appeal, please.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Attorney Jon Lapper with project engineer
Tom Nace and Randy Bodkin on behalf of the applicant from Angio Dynamics. If we
could start with the procedural issue, the Board is probably aware that the Planning
Board had this on their agenda last night for a resolution to consider whether they would
seek Lead Agency Status, and after a discussion between me and the Chairman, they
decided not to pursue that, and they did not seek Lead Agency Status. If I could just talk
about that for a minute. A coordinated review would be required if this was a Type I
action, in terms of a Type I action, building over 100 feet tall would be one aspect,
parking for over 1,000 cars. There’s certain thresholds for Type I, and this doesn’t get
anywhere near the Type I threshold. So it’s not, coordinated review is not required, and
each of the agencies that have to review it are required to do their own SEQRA review.
Certainly a coordinated review is optional, and I could envision many projects where
coordinated review is important, if there were environmental aspects that you felt it would
be better for the Planning Board to look at. For example, if there were wetland impacts
and you wanted to have the Planning Board, which has a lot of wetland expertise or
experience, review that so that you wouldn’t have to make a determination about
whether or not there is or isn’t a wetland impact that’s significant, but in this particular
case, without getting too far into our arguments, this is very specific to the needs of this
particular business to add a second shift and to hire more employees which is certainly a
benefit to them, but also a benefit to the community. These are the kind of well paying
manufacturing and support jobs that you want in the industrial zone. In this particular
location, under the Code, they could add buildings. So the area that’s going to be
occupied by parking spaces if this is approved could be occupied by a new building,
which would also be impervious, would not require a variance. It’s just something unique
about the Queensbury Code that more parking requires a variance, but more building
does not. In either case, we’re not talking about a green space variance, so that they
have sufficient green space to support the construction, be it parking or building, without
seeking that kind of a variance. Where a green space variance is certainly a more
significant variance because you’re taking away, you’re making it more impermeable,
taking away permeable site. In this case, under the new DEC regulations for treating
stormwater, it’s expensive to build parking lots because you have to treat the water that
comes off the parking lot. You have to treat the stormwater on site. So it’s not a case
where they’re trying to just build extra parking spaces because they like to look at
blacktop. They have a legitimate need for it. So in terms of the SEQRA issue, we’re
asking you to make the SEQRA determination here because there’s not a big
environmental impact of just making something impervious that you could do anyway
with building, and in terms of their schedule, because they would like to get this thing
constructed, and the Planning Board right now, we’re going to go for Planning Board
renew anyway for site plan. It’s not that they’re not going to look at it, but because the
Planning Board has limited their agenda to six items per meeting and they’re pretty
backed up, it’s just a time issue that what we’re concerned about is that if we have to go
there first for a coordinated review and then come back to the Zoning Board, of course,
for the parking variance, and then go back to the Planning Board for site plan, it’s just
going to take many months, and as history has shown over the course of this year that
the projects that do require coordinated review do take many months. So that’s why
we’re asking you to do the SEQRA review on the parking variance.
MR. ABBATE-And if we do the SEQRA review this evening, Counselor, it’s going to be
the Long Form.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. LAPPER-What did we submit?
MR. NACE-We submitted Short.
MR. LAPPER-We submitted Short because that was all that was required.
MR. ABBATE-Craig, should we require the Long Form? My question is this, since
there’s a possibility we may not refer this to the Planning Board for Lead Agency
SEQRA, and we desire and it’s our authority to do this, to do our own SEQRA, is there
any problem with us requesting to do the Long Form?
MR. BROWN-That’s an option that you have.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, and, you know, Counselor, I’m willing to compromise. I’m not willing
to do a Short Form and say everything is hunky dory. I’m willing to honor, unless the
Board members tell me differently, your request not to go to the Planning Board for, but if
we do, we have an obligation, I do believe, to do a Long Form, rather than a Short Form.
MR. LAPPER-We did submit a Long Form to the Planning Board for the site plan, but not
to the Zoning Board because it wasn’t required for a simple Area Variance. So we do
have a copy of the Long Form here. We don’t have six copies, but we have a copy.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll be happy to accept that, give it to our Secretary, please.
MR. ABBATE-Now of course much of this will depend upon what the Board says. I don’t
make that kind of a decision, but I’m willing to compromise and do a Long Form. Okay.
Anything else you wish to say at this time?
MR. LAPPER-Not on the procedural issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question? At the current time on site, are you having
problems because of this? I assume it’s a continuous process that that’s why you have
the overlap?
MR. BODKIN-Yes. I mean, as our workforce grows, we’ve saturated first shift and we
need to expand our second shift capabilities, and due to the process, a handoff from one
shift to the next, we need parking for both shifts on site at a given point in time, and we’re
continuously growing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The number that you came up with, is that a number that’s firm in
your mind, or is that like a number that is just picked out of the blue?
MR. BODKIN-No, that’s based on calculations of how our growth is projecting, roughly at
20% a year, and you factor things back a little bit, but this is a firm number that we’re
going with.
MR. ABBATE-I saw a figure, I hope it’s correct. I hope I’m recalling it correctly, that you
have had an increase of 38% in your overall growth since last year. Is that correct?
MR. BODKIN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Congratulations.
MR. BODKIN-I mean, that’s part of the problem. We came here back in 2002, with a 20
year plan which showed expanding our manufacturing area by an additional, I think at
that point it was almost 60,000 square feet, a two story office structure. It was all part of
the 20 year plan, and unfortunately we’ve exceeded expectations with a 28% growth per
year, as opposed to the 20% growth, because that original planned growth, planned
approval from 2002 that we completed in 2003 was supposed to last for an additional
five years.
MR. ABBATE-Well, the 38% is better than 20.
MR. BODKIN-That’s a good problem to have.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, I assume you must have some heavy industry number that, I
mean, this is light industrial area. Do we have like if it’s a bigger major plant like a heavy
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
industry plant, does that have different parking requirements? I don’t know what the
Code book says.
MR. BROWN-We have a multitude of different uses that are regulated and there’s
parking requirements offered for all those uses. So there’s likely a specific use, if you
could come up with one, that we can tell you what the parking requirement is. Just a
process thing, I think that’s where we started here, is what you were provided with was
Part I, which is the applicant’s half of the Long Form. Part II is the list of questions and
the pages that the reviewing agency completes when they’re doing SEQRA, and I,
unfortunately, don’t have one of those for you to fill out. I don’t know if you guys have a
blank one for them to use, but there’s responses from them and there’ll be responses
from you that are required, if you get to doing a Long Form. I don’t know if you’ve
decided that yet, but if you get there, I don’t think you have the form that you need.
MR. ABBATE-I know it’s not included in your initial package.
MR. BROWN-No, no. You have the Short Form, which is totally acceptable. You can
certainly use a Short Form to do SEQRA if you want to, but you’re correct.
MR. ABBATE-Right. All right, either way we’re going to end up with a SEQRA this
evening. It all depends what pleases the Board, and if they decide to go with the Long
Form, then we’ll just go from there. In the meantime, we can proceed. Go ahead.
MR. LAPPER-If we’re going to proceed, I essentially summed up our arguments for the
variance, that we’re not encroaching on green space, that it’s really needed. I’m going to
have Randy put on the record, in terms of the uses now and just expanding on what Jim
asked about why they really need it and those numbers are real, and he’s got a very
simple PowerPoint presentation that just shows about their use. So in terms of the
benefit to them, the benefit to the community of adding quality jobs, it’s in a Light
Industrial area, so it’s an appropriate use. Parking lots are something that you’d expect
to see in the Airport Industrial Park. Certainly there’s a lot of uses there. They could
have outdoor storage and, you know, they’re certainly less attractive than this use, but in
general it’s an area where you’re going to have employees coming to park to
manufacture things. So it’s typical for the character of the neighborhood. Also in terms
of the impact on the environment, it’s been designed, and Tom will go through the site
plan very briefly, just in terms of the stormwater facilities, and just show you that it’s been
properly designed, and we think that this is unique because it has to do with their two
shifts and just the way this particular facility operates. So at this point I’d just like to hand
it over to Tom, quickly, to walk you through the site plan and then Randy will do his
presentation.
MR. NACE-Okay. Real quick with the site plan, what’s being proposed now, this is the
existing facility, and their outbuilding that’s connected. What’s planned now is a new
warehouse building that will free up some manufacturing space in the existing
warehouse building, plus provide some office space within the warehouse building. With
that, there’s an expansion of the truck circulation route and the parking area which will
entail, this is the existing truck entrance off of Hicks Road, and a new truck entrance will
be constructed directly into the back of the new warehouse. The back of the existing
warehouse that’s truck access now will become parking as well as a couple of additional
areas you see highlighted here in a little darker shading will be added to the parking
available. Real quick, we are doing stormwater management for all of the new
impervious surfaces. The existing pond that’s here that serves this parking area plus
some of the building runoff is being expanded greatly and upgraded. Also there’s a new
large pond being constructed in the very back of the site which will account for all of the
runoff from the warehouse building and from all of the existing and new pavement area
in the back. There are a wetlands, some figures of wet area on the very back of the site.
Those will be honored completely and we’re going to stay, in fact we’re building a
retaining wall across the back here so that we can stay away from disturbing any of
those areas.
MR. BODKIN-If Craig will bring up the PowerPoint, I’ll just go through things kind of
quickly. We’ll start off with an aerial view of the facility. This was taken last winter. It
just kind of shows a general layout of our facility and so on. The proposed expansion
area will be in this corner here, coming out, for the new facility. It started out here, the
goal of this whole project was to look at the company’s overall requirements and put
together a plan that kind of met our needs going forward, and why now. I mean, as I
alluded to earlier, the facility expansion that we completed in 2003 was based on a 20%
growth per year going out five years. We should be good to 2007. Fortunately for our
stockholders, we exceeded those expectations. We average about a 28% growth, and
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
then in the paper this weekend you saw, so we keep growing. So we conducted a Phase
I, conducted an engineering assessment of, through all departments, what do you guys
need to make your departments the best, the brightest, and promote the growth. So we
did a survey, using another engineering firm, which identified the needs, which was
additional manufacturing area, both in a controlled environment, clean room, per say,
and then in a secondary, as kind of a not as clean kind of a dirty manufacturing, if you
will excursion and molding and stuff like that, as well as warehouse and distribution area,
and it also identified a long term need for more engineering/administrative area. I hope I
don’t confuse people. My thing kind of shows this phase of the project then a potential
that hopefully if we continue to grow we may be there and we’d come back and discuss
that one at a later point. So Phase I engineering assessment. Phase II was he facility
design, the warehouse construction, and then Phase III was the potential for another
office expansion. Looking at employment projections, current as of two weeks ago, we
toppled I think 305 total employees at Angio. Two hundred and thirty are on site, and
we’ve got approximately 58 sales reps in the field, and we distribute worldwide. So we
have, we’ve got people in Europe and all over. Projections, looking out at 2012, again,
numbers from the engineering study that we did, polling all departments, how they saw
their areas growing, and some of them are going to look crazy. I factored them back a
little bit, but roughly 363 employees with approximately 80 outside. So that’s 363 New
York State here local jobs, etc., and that’s just the graphic projection of those groups,
what it looks like going out. Parking requirements, first shift parking requirements
roughly 210, and as we expand and grow the second shift, currently we have about 27
people on second shift, and again, we continue to grow. So this gives us the ability
primarily a second shift and the manufacturing environment with some warehouse
support, a little bit of engineering and tech support, get this 153 number, or kind of what
was in the drawings. Guest parking, handicap parking. So that’s kind of where we’re
headed.
MR. BRYANT-Could I ask a question?
MR. BODKIN-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Could you back up there. On that slide you say that you’re proposing 380
spots, and yet.
MR. NACE-Three sixty is what we’re actually proposing.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, 357.
MR. NACE-Right, 357.
MR. BODKIN-357, 360.
MR. BRYANT-357 is the number, right?
MR. NACE-That is correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. BODKIN-Proposed objective, again, from the assessment, the current warehouse is
15,000 square feet, and this phase we’re going to grow that and manufacturing will stay
the same. Offices grow a little bit because I’ve got two floors within this warehouse, so I
have office space upstairs and downstairs, and then as we go out further in the second
phase of the project, warehouse space will grow a little bit by retaining some of the
existing warehouse space as warehouse space, and then taking the remainder of it and
converting that into manufacturing space as well as a two story office structure if we get
there. So it’s just kind of showing how we’re going to go. I kind of use the same
PowerPoint to address multiples of groups. So some views, so you kind of get an idea of
what our manufacturing looks like, is showing shots across the manufacturing floor. This
is roughly a 12,000 square foot clean, controlled environment, and the reason we’re
talking is because our warehouse is becoming quite full. We’ve been very creative in the
best utilization of rack space, etc., etc., and we’re tight. Another view of the packaging
area product comes from the clean area out into the boxing area through a multiple of
ports, windows and conveyance systems. The proposal that we’re making with the
warehouse expansion, this budget impact is roughly $5.1 mil. It’s construction, you
know, everything’s, utilities. We’re bringing in new water line mains. We’re bringing in
additional power. Unfortunately, the power that we have there today isn’t sufficient for
our growth, because we’ve exceeded our growth. So it’s a new power with Niagara
Mohawk, a new transformer, etc. Phase III, hopefully by the end of our second quarter
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
numbers will look favorable that it makes sense to proceed with the Phase III, but who
knows right now, and if so then we’d be putting that together and coming back at you
guys again, in eight months or less, to look at that, but a little premature yet. So I don’t
want to go too deep into that one, and then Phase III, if we do that, we’re roughly talking
$9.1, $9.2 million dollar expansion. So it’s kind of a similar site plan. The new road
coming in here actually is much safer than this current road. I don’t know if anybody’s
ever tried to pull out of our driveway here today with the trees in here, it becomes very,
it’s a little touchy. So this will make that a little bit better. The warehouse traffic into the
new warehouse, additional parking, etc., around, and then this shows the potential for
this other office expansion, and at that time we’ll discuss parking requirements for that,
but right now. Floor plan for the first floor of the warehouse showing additional office
space and then open warehouse rack storage and distribution area, and then there’s a
second floor. Again, additional offices and open bullpen area for additional growth, and
then a proposed floor plans of first, second floor of this office structure when and if we
get there, and there’s some renderings there. I have some additional ones here on the
floor. Trying to have a facility design that works for the area, that’s not loud, a little tech-
ish, but fits the environment. We take a lot of pride in our site, our grounds, and spend a
lot of dollars keeping it looking nice, and it’s our intention to have that going forward.
Kind of a site of where the expansion is going. This is the north end of the property
looking back. If you can back up one, Craig, there’s roughly 20 to 25 cars at any one
time parked out in the dirt area today, not on blacktop, because we’d be exceeding, you
know, some of our current parking a little bit, and at the end of it, when we have our
shifts in the Production parking lot we’ve got like seven extra spaces at this point. So we
keep growing and growing. We don’t mind parking on dirt, but. So I guess that’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I’m going to proceed. I’m going to ask if any members of the
Board have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 52-2006.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand what you’re saying about the
shifts overlapping and so forth and so on, but it’s based on the assumption that 100% of
your employees drive, that nobody takes the day off, that nobody carpools, and I
understand that. So, whether the shifts overlap or not, then your current situation, you
must have a variance to allow 100% parking for all your employees. Right?
MR. LAPPER-Are people parking on dirt areas? What are they doing now?
MR. BODKIN-In the original plan, those dirt areas were unpaved parking areas, back in
2003.
MR. LAPPER-So you’re tight now in terms of what’s paved?
MR. BODKIN-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So the point I’m trying to make is that if you have 180 employees now,
then you must have a variance at some point to have 180 parking spaces.
MR. NACE-I wasn’t part of it, but I would imagine that the previous site plan would have
been under the previous Zoning Code, and I don’t remember or don’t know what the
stipulations of the previous Zoning Code were for this type of use, parking.
MR. BODKIN-We did have a lengthy discussion, because at the time we did the 2003
expansion, we were exceeding the rules at that time as well, and there may actually be a
variance on that. It was with the Planning Board.
MR. BROWN-Yes, and I think Mr. Nace may have been the closest there. There was
probably, prior to the 2002 warehouse addition, there may have been a pre-existing
condition on the site where there was too much parking, and that was a result of a
previous or maybe, now this wasn’t the original use of the property, right?
MR. BODKIN-No. That was PBS Lumber.
MR. BROWN-Or the previous site plan, and original conditions of a former owner. So I
don’t know if it was a variance granted for parking before, but I think a good portion of it
was pre-existing.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. BODKIN-To answer the question on the carpooling, I’ve done surveys several
times, and to date there’s two distinct groups that carpool. We’ve tried to do some things
with offering some incentives with preferred parking locations for those who carpool, you
know, with some signage internally. With the flexible schedule, we have some people
who start at six, some start at seven. They come from all areas of the Town, and let’s
face it, there’s no public transportation that hits that area at those times of the morning,
and flexible work schedule.
MR. URRICO-What are your work shifts?
MR. BODKIN-Being flexible, it varies a little bit, but a normal day for the production
people starts at six in the morning, and work nine hour days. So we’d let them out, they
work a four hour day on Fridays, and then second shift comes in at 3:30, works until like
one o’clock in the morning, Monday through Thursday. Fridays they come back in
roughly 11 and work four hours. So some of the things you’ve got to do today to
compete with for the workforce.
MR. URRICO-So the overlap is, what, between one and four, basically?
MR. BODKIN-The overlap is right at that 3:30. They come in, so they’re at the five
minutes or twenty five after three, and the second, the first shift is leaving at 3:30. So
there’s a transfer of where we are in this production order. These are the things that are
going on, keep the machine running, and so on.
MR. URRICO-And your sales people, do you bring them in from time to time? Are they
there on site at any one particular time?
MR. BODKIN-They come in generally about twice a year. We try to keep them in small
groups that we can manage. Sometimes the marketing sales group is a little
unmanageable. So 25 to 30 of them may come in at a time for training sessions and get
them acclimated to the production environment, etc., and then the number of guests
throughout the day and so on.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other members of the Board have any further questions?
MR. URRICO-To me there seems to be a lot of, a sea of black here. Is there any way to
mitigate that black? I mean, from the conceptual designs I see some trees sparingly put
in between some of the spaces, but mostly it’s just a big parking lot, which I guess is
what it’s intended to be, but is there any possibility of putting in some walking paths or
things that would break up that sea?
MR. LAPPER-Before I hand this over to Tom to talk about landscape plan, I guess I’d
just like to say, Roy, that Randy indicated they certainly spend a lot of money on
landscaping maintenance to keep the site neat and clean. It was built as a lumberyard,
and in that zone, what is typical in that zone is this outdoor storage, mini warehouse.
This is really one of, certainly one of the nicer facilities. It’s next to the airport, which is a
sea of blacktop by definition, and, you know, when you’re talking about helping
manufacturing, it’s good to have a sea of blacktop if they’re filled with cars.
MR. URRICO-I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-But that doesn’t mean that there can’t be some augmentation of
landscaping. So let’s let Tom address that.
MR. NACE-Sure. Real quick. We do have I think 46, almost 47% green space on the
entire site, and if you’ve been out there, obviously you’ll notice, if you notice the band
adjacent to both County Line Road and Hicks Road is a fairly wide green strip that, as
they’ve said, is very well maintained and landscaped at this time. Most of our new
pavement that we’re putting in is back in the back end of the site. This area is certainly
buffered by, from any view anywhere, by the trees that are in here, plus it’s significantly
downhill from County Line Road, and the rest of it’s directly behind the warehouse, and
partially buffered by the existing trees that will remain along Hicks Road. We have
attempted to make that a little better by putting a series of street trees along the back
here that will help the view from Hicks Road. So, you know, the main part of the
additional sea of black, if you will, is back in an area here where we think it’s fairly
insignificant.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions from members of the Board? Okay. If there
are no other questions from members of the Board, then what I’m going to do is open up
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
the public hearing for Area Variance No. 52-2006, and do we have anyone in the public,
sitting here this evening, who would like to comment? I see no hands raised.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one letter.
MR. ABBATE-And, Mr. Secretary, if we have correspondence, would you be kind
enough to read it into the record, please.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have one letter. It was received on August 15. It’s to Mr.
Charles Abbate, RE: The Angio Dynamics Facility Expansion Plan, “EDC Warren
County and its board of directors fully support the plan by Angio Dynamics to expand its
facility, providing the necessary manufacturing, development and distribution
infrastructure to continue the company’s rapid growth. Warren County has long been
associated with medical device manufacturing. In 1991, Angio Dynamics established its
corporate headquarters in Queensbury to take advantage of the available medical
industry synergies and experience. The company now employs over 300 people, is an
exemplary corporate citizen and has been a major contributor to economic development
in the County. The planned expansion of Angio Dynamics’ existing facility is vital to the
company’s continued success as well as the overall economic development of the
region. Current projections suggest over 100 new jobs will be created by the company
within the next seven years. In addition to contributing to local economies, this type of
growth will help solidify Angio Dynamics as an essential and dynamic presence in the
healthcare industry. The benefits of the proposed facility expansion to both Angio
Dynamics and the County cannot be understated. We urge the Zoning Board of Appeals
to support this important initiative and embrace our combined efforts to grow this industry
within the region. Your time and consideration is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,
Leonard Fosbrook President, EDC Warren County”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I’m going to ask members to offer their
comments, and, again, the comments that are going to be offered by the members are
going to be directed to the Chairman only, and as a result, the comments offered to the
Chairman are not going to be open to debate. So, having said that, and I’ve earlier
requested respectfully that the members remember, recall that precedence mandates we
concern ourselves with the evidence contained on the record. Having said that, do I
have a volunteer who would like to comment, initially, on Area Variance No. 52-2006?
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I could go first, not that I’m a member of the Board, but I
think, after looking at the presentation, it came to light a little bit more for me, again, it’s a
process question, a SEQRA question.
MR. ABBATE-Sure.
MR. BROWN-What we’re talking about here is here’s the phase we think we’re going to
do this year, we want to do this year. Here’s the phase we may do next year, and as
you’re well aware, the main goal of SEQRA is to take an overall comprehensive look at
the project and what the potential impacts are for the whole project, rather than do small
little reviews each time there’s an addition or a new phase to the project. One phase is
100 square feet. The next phase it’s 200 square feet. Pretty soon you’ve got a 5,000
square foot building. If you had looked at the impacts of a 5,000 square foot building up
front, maybe you look at it differently, SEQRA wise, than you do each 100 or 200 square
foot segment of the project. So with the current 36,000 ish square foot building, and the
proposed, what’s shown on there, it looks like more office space than manufacturing,
again, there’s more to the project than what’s being sought right now. My guess is
there’s going to be more parking associated in the future. There may be more relief,
more site plans in the future, and probably very few people’s three favorite letters when it
comes to SEQRA, are EIS. That may be something that is an appropriate thing to do
here. There are future phases of this project that are envisioned, and they’ve been
presented to you by the applicant. Again, the goal of SEQRA is to do one
comprehensive review of the project, and not new reviews every year when you get to
that new phase. So I just wanted to put that out there. You may get a comment from the
applicant that may affect, you know, where this goes tonight. I just needed to say that.
MR. ABBATE-As a matter of fact, I think we discussed that this morning.
MR. BROWN-We did.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. UNDERWOOD-My question, though, would be this. What we’re being asked to
approve this evening has to do with parking spaces.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And we’ve dealt with parking spaces on numerous occasions
before.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that in the instance of creating parking, you know, using, as
the worst case scenario, you do something like you did over at K-Mart, you know, where
you produce acres and acres of needless parking that will never be used by anyone in
the future. In this instance here, we’re looking at an additional 140 parking spaces.
MR. BROWN-In this phase.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In this phase here. As you suggested, if we’re only going to look at
it in a segmented manner like you also just made the suggestion to us, too, certainly it’s
not going to be a potentially huge impact, as far as the fact that, you know, the new
stormwater regulations pretty much are succinct. They have to not allow anything to go
off site.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But is it appropriate for us to look at it with, you know, blinders on,
or should we look at it in a broader perspective? I think that’s what you’re suggesting to
us, in that instance.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But is this going to hold up the future operations here if they go to a
six or a year long review until the process is complete? I don’t know what effect it’s
going to have on them as a business either. I think in our instance here there’s going to
be a thorough review at the Planning Board of the warehouse facility as proposed here,
you know, as well as the parking if we approve it, and I’m just wondering, you know,
where do we draw the line?
MR. BROWN-I don’t disagree with anything that you’ve said. I just think that if we know
there are going to be future phases, and the proper way, I guess, to do SEQRA, there
are alternative ways, you can do individual reviews, but if know there are future plans,
the goal of SEQRA, the reason to have SEQRA review, is look at the whole project. Will
this small addition, relatively small addition, based on the whole project, create adverse
impacts? Maybe not, but when you do two or three of those together, now you’ve got
one bigger project. What are the impacts of that? And you won’t ever have a chance to
look at that if you do them one phase at a time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-When you went to the Planning Board last evening, was there some
question in the minds of the Planning Board? Is that why they didn’t want it?
MR. LAPPER-No. When I had the discussion back and forth with the Chairman, and
explained the nature of the parking variance that we were seeking, he felt that it wasn’t
necessary for this. It wasn’t that big, that it didn’t reach any thresholds and it wasn’t
necessary in this instance to do a coordinated review, that the Zoning Board could do a
review, but I really want to comment, on the record, on Craig’s comments, because I
certainly concur with him about SEQRA and segmentation, and how important an issue it
is, but it’s sort of the opposite that the reason Randy provided this material is to say,
look, these are all our plans. We may not get there, but it’s not segmentation if we’re
showing you the whole thing, we’re disclosing, this would still not seek a green space
variance. What Tom has designed, if we do the future parking lot and the future office
building, it still fits on this site. So in terms of segmentation, we’re saying, hey, does that
max out the site? Probably, but it’s all there. I mean, does this create traffic issues? No,
and this area is a real quiet area. There’s very little traffic on those roads. The site can
handle it. So in terms of segmentation, we’re disclosing to you and we’re showing what
could happen. That might happen, they may be off by three years. They may never get
there. I don’t know, but that’s what they would hope to get to, and there’s no one that
gets impacted. There’s no neighbors.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. BROWN-I think that it is segmented if you don’t, I’m sure they’ve told you about it, if
you don’t do SEQRA review on the parts that they’ve told you, you’re segmenting your
SEQRA review. You’re going to come back next year and do SEQRA review on the next
phase. If you do the SEQRA review on the future phases now, that’s fine. Then it’s not
segmented, but if you don’t, I think that’s a pitfall of doing your own individual Unlisted
SEQRA review, you don’t look at the whole picture, you look at this phase.
MR. ABBATE-Well, regardless of what we do this evening, does this still not have to go
to the Planning Board for site plan review?
MR. BROWN-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Correct, so that’s what I’m saying.
MR. MC NULTY-Nevertheless, you know, we can do our SEQRA review on the parking
they’re proposing now, or we can do a SEQRA review on the total potential parking, and
for instance, one of the things I was going to bring up, and they caught part of what I was
going to complain about. Their original write up on impact said there’s no alternative.
Well, there is an alternative. There is carpooling. Now, it may not be practical now, with
the staff that they’ve got now, but if they’re going to end up doubling their staff at some
point, then the potential for carpooling may be greater because you’ve got more people
involved. Maybe that should be looked at. Also mass transit. Public transportation
doesn’t come to our site. Well, maybe it could be arranged to come to your site if
enough of the staff were coming from certain areas. So there’s some things that could
be looked at which aren’t practical to look at when we’re talking about 137 or whatever
increase in parking spaces, but if we’re talking about 200 or 400 or 600 increase, then
maybe there’s a chance for an evaluation to take care of that, and I don’t think we
necessarily have to listen to the Planning Board saying that they didn’t want a
coordinated review. I understand the applicant is in a hurry to get things going, and
that’s a consideration, but we don’t necessarily have to accept that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Obviously, in 2002, though, the cat was so called out of the bag
because they had already, you guys had already made your projections, even back then
I would assume. Isn’t that what you just told us?
MR. BODKIN-Back in 2002 there was a 20 year plan that kind of laid the groundwork that
we were growing, and if everything went as according to plan, this is where we might be.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Has that received any kind of review by the community?
MR. BROWN-No, that 2002 site plan review didn’t envision either one of the two phases
that have been shown to you tonight.
MR. LAPPER-There’s nothing, in an industrial zone, I mean, the idea of having parking
spaces is not, this isn’t like if you were next to a residential zone or something. This is
what you want. I mean, these are good paying jobs that keep people in the community
so that we’re not, you know, like Utica or Amsterdam or something where people are
leaving, and this is exactly where they should be, and in an industrial zone, you could
have all sorts of outdoor storage, you know, this looks more like a corporate office than
manufacturing, and the question where Chuck is going with this, it’s a question of what’s
the impact on the community, and when you’re expecting to see manufacturing facilities
and parking, they’ve got the landscaping on the outside. As Tom said, the parking is on
the inside. If they do the next phase and they do the building, that’s a very attractive,
what we are showing you is a very attractive office building, nicer than anything in that
zone, but there is no negative impact on the neighborhood for having more jobs and
more cars in an industrial zone. That’s what you want. You want jobs.
MR. UNDERWOOD-When we created the light industrial zone out here along
Queensbury Avenue, wasn’t that the intent of that, to create opportunities for these
businesses to expand?
MR. BROWN-No question. There’s no argument that this is the appropriate place. It’s
zoned for this. That’s what you want to do in every business is to grow, and my only
argument, and the decision’s not mine ultimately, but my only argument is, just make
sure when you review it, you review it the best way, that’s all.
MR. ABBATE-But there is a realistic approach to this whole thing, too, and I understand
what everybody has been saying. Let’s look at the positive aspects of this thing. Angio
Dynamics is expanding. They’ve increased 38%. They’re going to generate, if I’m not
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
mistaken, 100 or plus new jobs for this area. What they have done so far, from what I
can see, that the area that they’re using right now is really a landmark. They really have
taken a tremendous amount of pride in establishing what appears to be a very pleasant
looking organization. That’s the realistic approach. Now, do we say, well, wait a minute
now, maybe we should go beyond what they’re requesting this evening and perhaps hold
up this expansion and invariably it would have an adverse effect, not only on the
economic aspect of this whole project, but it may have an adverse effect on other areas
as well. That’s the realistic approach. What you’re saying, Craig, I understand. It’s a
concern, but let’s make it a logical and reasonable and realistic concern. Do we tie these
folks up for another six months to a year?
MR. BROWN-If it’s the right way to review it you do.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Let me throw the counter at you, not necessarily that I’m pushing
it from my point of view, but I think it needs to be brought out. This happens very often
when an industry wants to do something. We’re going to do something, we’ll give your
town a fire truck, or we’ll give you a ladder truck, or we’ll give you a $100,000 for
something, or we’ll give you jobs, if you’ll only ignore the environment, or if you won’t
worry about eating up your green space. That’s the flip side of this.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but I don’t think that’s an issue.
MR. MC NULTY-It is an issue. They’re saying we’re going to give you a lot of jobs,
which is good, and I’d much rather have their kind of jobs than I would the minimum
wage jobs we get out of tourism, but at the same time, the argument there is we’re giving
you a lot of money. So sell us something that you wouldn’t give somebody else.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t think that’s their argument at all.
MR. URRICO-I don’t see them asking for that kind of, what I see is a manufacturer that
has exceeded beyond their projections.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely.
MR. URRICO-And needs some help, at a time when jobs are important to people in this
area. I think we have to accommodate, not accommodate, but compromise and work
with these companies. We have very few light industrial zones in this Town. So we have
to work to, in some manner, so that we can help them, but also maintain the integrity of
the Zoning Code. I think that’s what we’re trying to do here.
MR. ABBATE-And I would agree with you, Roy. I think it was well stated. There’s no
question about it, and, and that’s what I said, what I meant by a realistic approach,
gentlemen. Sure, should we be concerned with everything that’s been said? Of course
we should be concerned, but let’s take what’s going on at the present time.
MR. URRICO-But I think Craig’s point is well taken as well, in that, you know, who’s
going to take responsibility for looking at the project as a whole, so that everybody gets
what’s in their best interests.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that that could be accomplished, though, by including that as
an addendum to whatever we decide here this evening. I think that we could say that,
you know, we would expect, given the projections, that this site would be expanded, but
that the expansion would be in conformity with what’s build out on that site. I think that’s
reasonable to assume, and you don’t have to say, we want to build a million square foot
facility on this lot.
MR. ABBATE-That’s an excellent approach, Jim.
MR. LAPPER-And it addresses Craig’s issue as well.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that then, at that point in time, that could go for site plan
review for future expansions.
MR. ABBATE-Sure, absolutely, I agree, Jim. Everything that’s been said is important,
what Mr. McNulty has said and what Craig has said, no question about it is important, but
let’s take the realistic approach, and I think the realistic approach is what Roy has said
and what you have stated. That, to me, is the realistic approach. I mean, it’s a Light
Industrial area. Why stymie growth? Why stymie 100 plus new jobs? Why stymie the
economic adverse impact it may possibly have on the area to say no?
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, and I think that we can still temper that with the proper
environmental standards that are appropriate.
MR. ABBATE-Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And stormwater runoff from a parking lot doesn’t happen anymore
with the new regulations. I mean, that’s not something that we deal with at this day and
age, and I think that on this site here, they’ve already substantiated that they’re going to
have adequate and site plan review is also going to review that.
MR. ABBATE-And I’ll say, I’m going to be very honest, this is one of the nicest projects,
quite frankly, that I have seen, and your presentation, and you folks have probably been
one of the few organizations that have come before this Board, have been completely
honest with us in your projections. Should we punish you for that? I say no.
MR. BODKIN-Too honest, if anything.
MR. ABBATE-Well, should we punish you for that? Okay. Now you already had a 38%
increase in growth sales for the last year. Am I correct? Or 36, 38%, in the Town of
Queensbury, New York. So, anyway.
MR. MC NULTY-I think you’re on the right track, but go at it the right way. There’s
nothing that prevents you even stating that you’re considering the extra expansion that
may come along when you go through the Environmental Assessment Form, but do it
that way. Don’t do it because they’ve got a lot of money they’re giving you, which is what
you guys are saying. You’re saying, let’s push this through because we don’t want to
stall the job.
MR. ABBATE-No, no. Here’s what we’re saying, guys. Here’s what I’m saying. I’m
proud of Angio Dynamics and their success and what they’ve done in a positive manner
for the Town of Queensbury. That’s what I’m saying.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we go through the EAF form that they’ve filled out.
Because that talks to what the effects are going to be here.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Before you start on that, though, if you go through the, which
one are you talking about, the Short Form or the Long Form?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve got the Long one here.
MR. ABBATE-We’re going to do the Long one.
MR. MC NULTY-You’ve only got half the Long Form here. You can’t finish that job
tonight. You don’t have your half of the Long Form. If you want to finish it tonight, you’re
going to have to go with the Short Form.
MR. ABBATE-Wait a minute. We do not have to do a Long Form, we can do a Short
Form.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Let’s do the Short Form.
MR. ABBATE-Legally, we can do the Short Form, and if we’re going to have this
argument, I’m going to suggest we do a Short Form and not a Long Form, because I see
no reason to have to take this project and move it to another date. It’s ridiculous.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we do the Short Form.
MR. ABBATE-Fine, let’s do the Short Form.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, there’s applicable information that can come off of here
that we can use.
MR. ABBATE-Sure.
MR. NACE-If I could add to your concern about, or not add to it, but help your concern
about the environmental effects of the future, we have taken into account that future
possibility in looking at the overall green space available. We’ll still stay within the Code
on green space if we do that future parking lot in the future building. The stormwater
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
system has been designed for that future parking lot, assuming that that’ll be paved in
the future, to take that into account. So we have, you know, looked at the environmental
effects of the future build out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that what you’ve got on your Long Form, then? Because it talks
to building size?
MR. NACE-No, the actual sizes are for what is proposed here tonight, but we have
looked, we’ve designed it so that it will fit within the Town Codes and within the
stormwater codes for the future expansion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can’t we also include that in our resolution, that it should conform
and site plan review should clarify this situation?
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I spoke to someone about that just this
morning, that we should address, in our motion this evening to the Planning Board what
we feel, what our concerns are and what the Planning Board should address as far as
the ZBA is concerned. Yes, Jim, you’re absolutely correct, and we can do that. Sure.
All right. Let’s continue on. Thank you, gentlemen, that was interesting. Okay. Now,
let’s see, everybody’s had something to say, I do believe. So let’s just move on to.
MR. MC NULTY-Do you want to do that, or do you want to do your Short Form before
you poll the Board?
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to do the Short Form next. My next move is the Short Form,
and, Jim, would you be kind enough, or I can do it. Never mind. I can save you to do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It doesn’t matter. If there’s something on there, I can pull it off of
here, if you want to know some numbers.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me just, let me say this, then. There is a Short Environmental
Assessment Form that has been provided to us by Angio Dynamics indicating that there
are no negative, significant negative impacts caused by this project, and unless there’s a
challenge from members of the Board, I accept that basis in anticipation of no negative
responses.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you like a little background data to back it up?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. The total acreage of the project area is 12.97 acres.
Presently, there is 2.6 acres of forested. After completion of this portion, there will be 1.4
acres forested. As far as the soil drainage, 85% percent of the site is moderately well
drained, 15% of the site is poorly drained. There’s no bedrock outcroppings on site.
Eighty percent of the slopes are zero to ten percent. Ten to fifteen percent are at twenty
percent. There’s no historical places on site. There’s no natural landmarks. Depth to
the water table is zero to five feet, I would assume because you’ve got wetlands on site.
Is it located over a primary or sole source aquifer? No. Hunting and fishing? No.
Unique land forms? No. Is the project site used by the community or neighborhood as
open space for recreation? No. Does the present site include scenic views? No.
Streams within the area, there are none. Lakes, wetlands and ponds, they’ve got none,
but I think there’s some minor ones there. Site plan review will probably substantiate
those. Is the site served by public utilities? Yes. Has the site ever been used for the
disposal of hazardous waste? No, obviously not. All right. You can finish up, then, go
ahead.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MOTION THAT A SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL FORM HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND BASED
ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US BY OUR SECRETARY, I MOVE THAT THE
, Introduced by Charles
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM BE APPROVED
Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
MR. ABBATE-In a four yes to two no vote, the Short Environmental Assessment Form is
approved.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I think that we can also include the fact that we would
assume, at some future point in time, that is when this comes up with the Planning
Board, that the Planning Board must assume lead role status as far as the complete EIS
for future expansion on site, appropriate for what’s on site.
MR. LAPPER-Well, SEQRA review, but not necessarily an EIS.
MR. BROWN-You can’t do that. You can’t require that the Planning Board be Lead
Agency.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, aren’t they going to have to if they’re going to do site plan
review?
MR. LAPPER-No, they’re doing an independent review, just like you are.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. They’ll do their own SEQRA.
MR. ABBATE-Right, we’ll just include that, Jim, in their site plan review, because it’s
going to have to go to the Planning Board anyway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, site plan review should substantiate whether what we’re doing
here this evening is inappropriate.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Your approval is still subject to their approval on site plan review.
MR. ABBATE-Sure. So I think that’s important, folks, that we include that in the motion
what Mr. Underwood just mentioned. So I’m going to request a motion for Area
Variance No. 52-2006. Do we have a motion? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2006 ANGIO DYNAMICS,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard
Garrand:
603 Queensbury Avenue. They’re proposing a 35,660 square foot warehouse building
and associated site work, including an additional 140 parking spaces. The applicant is
requesting relief from the maximum allowable parking spaces in excess of 20% for light
manufacturing, and that’s one per two employees on the maximum working shift.
Specifically they’re asking for 357 parking spaces where 180 is the maximum, and that’s
the plus 20%, which would be 216. Thus the relief requested is for 141 additional
spaces. There were considerable concerns expressed that possibly other alternative
means might be available for bringing employees to this worksite, but the manufacturing
process, as was described to us, is a continuous process and so it’s necessary that the
next shift be on site when they hand over operation to the next employee. At the present
time, they’re adding more on the second shift, and it appears that the parking lots will not
be appropriate for the number of vehicles necessary for people to move to and from work
from all areas of Town in the greater community here. Although we could consider much
less parking spaces on site, consideration should be given to the fact that green space is
being modified. They’re losing some green space, but they’re still within the, substantial
green space is still going to be left over after this construction occurs. We have noted
concerns also at this time that future expansion on site, that is more buildings and more
future parking, should be addressed by the Planning Board in their review. It was
suggested by Staff that we’re segmenting what we’re doing here, but we do not feel, as a
Board, I mean, we’re acknowledging that it possibly is segmentation but this is only as
far future expansion concerns, and I think that what we’re looking at here tonight is the
140 parking spaces that are going to be created in excess of what is allowed at the
present time. So under the five, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means. It
does not appear at the present time that there is adequate means necessary for moving
people on to the site and off the site from their shift work as they work at the building.
The undesirable change in the neighborhood or properties, we have to recognize it’s a
light industrial area. That’s what it was created for, and even though we’re creating
excessive parking here, in this instance here, it seems to be unique to this operation.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/06)
We don’t seem to have the same request coming in from other operations in the
community. The request would be considered substantial because it’s way over the top.
Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, we don’t seem
to feel that there will be because of the stormwater regulations in effect at the present
time. I would imagine that if at some future time people aren’t traveling in their vehicles
there that some modifications could be made to the parking. Maybe you’ll take it out in
the future or use it for other purposes, buildings, and is the difficulty self-created? I
would have to say, yes, it probably is self-created, but it was well explained as to why it
was necessary.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 52-2006 is four yes, two no. Area
Variance No. 52-2006 is approved, with the comments contained within the motion to
approve.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, members of the Board. This hearing
is closed.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
45