1997-11-19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 1997
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY
ROBERT KARPELES
ROBERT MC NALLY
PAUL HAYES
BRIAN CUSTER
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
-CHRIS ROUND
STENOGRAPHER
-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1997 SEQR TYPE II WR-1A CEA DEBORAH M.
SKINNER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WESTERN SIDE OF CLEVERDALE,
OPPOSITE LAKESIDE CHAPEL APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3
FT. BY 13 FT. 9 IN. ADDITION TO KITCHEN. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF
FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16. TAX MAP NO. 14-1-
7.2 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES SECTION 179-16
JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTI NG APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-1997 Deborah M. Skinner, Meeting Date: November 19,
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
1997 “ Cleverdale Applicant proposes
Relief Required:
construction of a 3 ft. by 13 ft. 9 inch addition to the kitchen. Applicant
requests relief from side setback requirements of 179-16 (WR-1A) The required setback is 20 feet
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
the proposed setback is 17 feet.
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to
2. Feasible alternatives:
construct an addition at a desired location. Feasible alternatives include
3. Is this relief substantial relative to
no construction or construction at an alternative location.
the ordinance?:4. Effects on
The requested three feet of relief is interpreted as insubstantial.
the neighborhood or community:5. Is
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated.
this difficulty self-created?Parcel History
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments:
None applicable Minimal impacts are
SEQR Status:
anticipated as a result of this proposal. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Matthews, is there anything you want to add?
MR. MATTHEWS-No. John Matthews, agent for Deborah Skinner. Do you have a plan of the
kitchen?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. MATTHEWS-What she wants to do is add this space to that corner of the house to allow the
cabinets and appliances to fit the way they’re shown on the drawing.
MR. THOMAS-Which part of the kitchen is the addition in? Where the commercial range is? No,
I don’t think so. Is that the side it’s on?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, I didn’t know which way it was going to go.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, to the left hand side of the drawing.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. MATTHEWS-On top is shows that 36 inches.
MR. THOMAS-All right, so it’s just that 36 inch.
MR. MATTHEWS-That strip right there.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. MATTHEWS-One hundred and ten and five eighths is the measurement to the existing.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. KARPELES-Where is this? I don’t know.
MR. THOMAS-Right here.
MR. KARPELES-This 36? There’s no kitchen there now in the house?
MR. MATTHEWS-There is, right in this same section.
MR. KARPELES-Is this the way it looks right now, except for the 36 inches?
MR. MATTHEWS-Sort of.
MR. KARPELES-Sort of. What does that mean?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, the cabinets aren’t the same. The layout isn’t exactly the same.
MR. KARPELES-We don’t have any print of the way the kitchen is now. So we don’t know what
we’re approving, relative to what’s there now, right?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, isn’t this, what’s here now is what we have, right?
MR. KARPELES-No, that’s what’s going to be there.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, what is here now, what you see is the new proposed design, and if you
want to think about what was there now, just move this wall in 36 inches and that’s basically
what’s there now.
MR. KARPELES-That’s what we asked, and you said sort of.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, sorry.
MR. KARPELES-So, in other words, there’s no room enough to move around in this divider that’s
in the center of the room, in the center of the kitchen?
MR. MATTHEWS-When they add the divider in the center, there would not be enough room the
way it is now.
MR. KARPELES-So the divider isn’t there now?
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct.
MR. KARPELES-Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-I think she has a small table there or something, but not a cabinet filing type of
thing.
MR. MC NALLY-On the drawing there’s a Lot 25. I take it that’s a previous lot?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. Years ago, the lots up there on Cleverdale, they were all parallelograms,
and some time during the time period, there was a sale or there was a transaction which made this
lot bigger.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. THOMAS-What’s the Floor Area Ratio on this? Because I know it wasn’t here.
MR. MATTHEWS-There was not a copy of that with the application, but I did submit it via fax
when they faxed it to me the other day. Well, what number are you looking for?
MR. THOMAS-I’m looking for a percentage.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, 22% is what is required.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. MATTHEWS-And there’s an allowable size of 3459 square feet, is what calculates out to be
the buildable size. What’s there now is 3170.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, that’s all the floor area of the first floor, second floor?
MR. MATTHEWS-First floor and second floor.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you’re adding about 40 feet?
MR. MATTHEWS-Thirty-two feet, when you subtract the exterior walls, 32 feet.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you’re well under the 22%.
MR. MATTHEWS-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s all we’re looking for.
MR. MATTHEWS-It’s still under the 22%. There’s room to play there of 100 and some feet.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. Are there any more questions for Mr. Matthews? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone
wishing to speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll pick on Bonnie tonight. What do you think, Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t have a problem with this really. I’ve appraised the property twice and
it’s a nonconforming property to begin with, and the impact is going to be so minimal in
comparison to the building that is already there that, as I said, I don’t have a problem with it, and
also, what’s been done has been done very tastefully, with the terracing that’s new down to the lake
and so forth, in an effort to stop erosion and so forth. So I would probably be inclined to vote yes
for this.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. KARPELES-Yes. I think that the change is pretty insignificant. I don’t have any objection to
it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-The relief is very minimal and the benefit to the applicant’s pretty obvious. I’m in
favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I’m pretty much in agreement with everyone else.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. MC NALLY-When I was at the site, it didn’t seem as if an additional feet’s going to impact
on the neighborhood or the area in any significant way. Everyone else noted that what they’ve
asked for is minimal, and I agree. There doesn’t seem to be any feasible alternative, given the
existing (lost words). I would be in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I feel the way the rest of the Board members feel. I don’t think this is a
real intrusion into the 20 foot setback. There’s parts of the building that are closer by 15 feet.
There were no objections from any of the neighbors. So I would have no problems voting yes on
this one. Would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1997 DEBORAH M. SKINNER
,
Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie Hayes:
The construction of a 3 ft. by 13 ft. 9 in. addition to the existing kitchen. The applicant is seeking
relief from the requirements of 179-16, which will be a net relief of three feet from the side
setbacks of 20. Allowing this variance will benefit the applicant by permitting her to construct the
addition. There really are no feasible alternatives, due to the location of the current kitchen. Relief
is considered insubstantial to the Ordinance. Effects on the community are minimal at best, and
the difficulty, although it could be interpreted as self created because of the desire to build where
they need to, I believe that is also minimal, and therefore I move that we approve.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer,
Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-There you go. It was a lot easier than the last one, wasn’t it.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-1997 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A CEA SAM
LIGHTBODY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 13 TUSCARORA DRIVE, OFF
CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. APPLICANT REQUIRES
RELIEF FROM MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
179-16 AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE STRUCTURE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-79. CROSS REF. SPR 52-97 TAX MAPNO. 11-
1-1.15 LOT SIZE: 0.052 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79
WILLIAM MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-1997, Sam Lightbody, Meeting Date: November 19,
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
1997 “ 13 Tuscarora Drive-Takundewide
Applicant proposes construction of a second story addition to a pre-existing non-conforming
Relief Required:
structure. The applicant requests relief from Section 179-16 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) restrictions and Section 179-79 Non-Conforming Structures. The proposed project is in
excess of the 22 percent FAR limit and in excess of the 50 percent expansion limit of non-
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
conforming structures.
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
The applicant would be allowed to construct additional
2. Feasible alternatives:3. Is
living space. Feasible alternatives are limited to no construction.
this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?
The relief may be interpreted as substantial,
4 Effects on the neighborhood or community:
although there are mitigating circumstances.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
Minimal effects are anticipated on the neighborhood. The
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
difficulty may be attributed to the small lot size.
etc.):Staff comments:
None applicable. Area Variances have been issued for similar proposals
in the Takundewide Association. Negative impacts are not anticipated as a result of this proposal.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Mr. Mason, would you explain to the Board, I know why, but could you explain
to the Board why they’re such small lots in there.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. MASON-The property was split up in 1985 into a Homeowners Association. The owners of
the property at the time, or the corporation at the time decided to dissolve the corporation and split
it and each of them took parcels and it was our intention at the time or our feeling at the time that
the best way to go with it was to just surround each cottage with approximately 10 feet and leave
the rest as common property, form a homeowners association that would care for that property and
keep it in tiptop shape, and that way it would remain as kind of a community with a community
look to it, uniform look, rather than a different look that it would have, each homeowner really
started working on their own property individually. Did that answer it?
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Like I said, I knew what it, because I’ve had other variances in there and I
know why, plus I know John. Are there any other questions for Mr. Mason?
MR. CUSTER-Bill, I’m very familiar with the project, as you well know. If you do this addition,
is it typical of the other ones you’ve done?
MR. MASON-It’s actually smaller. The other ones, we tore the roof right off and raised, put a
dormer on both sides and raised the height of the building by four feet. With this one, all we’re
proposing to do is we’re leaving the roof in place. We’re raising one side to create a small dormer.
So it’ll be much more of a cape cod type. We’re really just burying two bedrooms and a bathroom
upstairs in this little dormer that we’re creating. From one side it will be no visual impact at all,
because you won’t even see it, and from the other sides it will be a smaller dormer than you see on
any of the other additions.
MR. CUSTER-The covenants up there, you can’t expand it outside of the footprint?
MR. MASON-Because of the 10 foot, right, and the homeowners association has been very clear
with the members that they’re not going to allow them to expand out into those 10 feet.
MR. THOMAS-How high is the existing building?
MR. MASON-It’s about 18, 19 feet.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the addition’s going to go on the side the scaffolding’s sitting on right
now?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that would be the north side.
MR. MASON-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Well, I was a little confused. When I read it, I thought it meant that it
was a two bedroom house with one bath, and we were then going to have two baths, but still only
two bedrooms, and when I looked at something else, I thought I saw that it was going to have four
bedrooms and two baths. I mean, what’s it having?
MR. MASON-All right, and we’re going to have a den, because one of the bedrooms downstairs,
there’s two bedrooms downstairs and a three quarter bath. One of the bedrooms will become a
den, and the other bedroom will be kind of a dining room, an area where the stairway is going to
be. So they’ll lose both bedrooms on the first floor, but they’ll gain two bedrooms upstairs, plus a
full bathroom upstairs, and then they’ll have this den and the diningroom/stairway area.
MRS. LAPHAM-Right, and the den could double as a bedroom if they had to?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for Mr. Mason? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. THOMAS-Lets talk about it. Robert, what do you think?
MR. KARPELES-I have no objection to it. We’ve approved larger expansions on other homes up
there, and this is no different as far as I’m concerned. It’s fine.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think it’s important for the Board to try and be consistent, and I wasn’t here
for the other decisions, but Mr. Karpeles says that you did approve more significant relief. So I
would agree. I’m in favor. It think it’s less than before, and the improvements look nice from the
ones that I saw.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and before you go on, I just have one more question for Mr. Mason that
popped up. What’s the Floor Area Ratio going to be?
MR. MASON-I didn’t include it?
MR. THOMAS-I didn’t see it in the application anywhere.
MR. MASON-It currently is 34%. Existing is 34%, and the proposed is an additional 544 square
feet, or 24% of the parcel.
MR. THOMAS-So we’re talking 58%.
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Because we have to know. We have to have a number for relief.
MR. KARPELES-We need the same thing on the percent expansion.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s in excess of the 50% expansion, 179-79. We don’t, you know, it’s in
excess of that. We really don’t care how many percent.
MR. CUSTER-It’s a 50% increase. Anything greater than 17% increase would be 50%.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. CUSTER-So do we have to grant him the whole 24, or just 17?
MR. THOMAS-No, 22 from 58. So it would be 36, 36% from the Floor Area Ratio requirement.
MR. CUSTER-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-And because it’s more than the 50% expansion, it’s Section 179-79 of the
Ordinance, that nonconforming uses cannot be expanded more than 50%. Okay.
MR. CUSTER-Got it.
MR. THOMAS-Brian, do you want to talk about it? We’re talking about this one now.
MR. CUSTER-No. As I said before, knowing the Takundewide project pretty intimately for a
number of years now, they’ve never done anything up there that hasn’t been done first rate, and I
see no reason why this wouldn’t continue in that vein. So I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-There are no feasible alternatives. It will be done in an appropriate manner.
It’s necessary to construct additional living space. It would be a great benefit to the applicant, and
while the relief may be substantial, given the circumstances of the lot size and the other aspects of
this homeowners association, I don’t see any alternative. I’d be in favor of it, but I still can’t
figure out these numbers. Brian and I were just going over the appropriate Floor Area Ratio
increase.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. MASON-I include the outside dimensions of the stud walls is a 24 by 32 foot structure. It’s
768 square feet.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s the existing.
MR. MASON-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-And you’re asking to add 544.
MR. MASON-A second floor. It’s not the full second floor. It’s only 544 square feet. Does that
make sense?
MR. CUSTER-Yes. That’s what I was getting. That’s the amount of relief that he, he’s above the
50%.
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t have a problem with this one. I tend to agree with what all the other
Board members have said, and Takundewide is unique, and so there isn’t anything else that can be
done.
MR. THOMAS-I feel the way the other Board members do. We’ve done three other projects that I
can think of in Takundewide, and there’s been no objections from any of the neighbors on this
project. I was up there today. I looked from behind this building to see if the neighbor behind
would be effected in any way, and I couldn’t see where any of their view toward the lake would be
effected at all, and with the shrubbery that’s around it on the north side of the building, they don’t
have a view anyway. So their only veiw is to the south of this building, which will not be effected.
So I can’t see any problem putting this variance through. Having said that, I would ask for a
motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-1997 SAM LIGHTBODY
,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
13 Tuscarora Drive, in Takundewide. The applicant proposes construction of a second story
addition to a pre-existing nonconforming structure. The applicant requests relief from Section
179-16, the floor area ratio. The current floor area ratio for the property is 34%. The applicant
proposes adding 24% for a total of 58%, which requires 36% relief from the statutory floor area
ratio. Additionally, the application exceeds the 50% expansion limit on nonconforming structures.
The current structure is 768 square feet. The applicant proposes adding 544 square feet, for a total
of 1,312 square feet. So the applicant needs 160 square feet of relief from the expansion limit.
The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be allowed to construct additional living space.
There’s limited alternatives, based on the unique nature of the lot size and the neighborhood.
While the relief is substantial to the neighborhood, I think that the impact is minimal on the
neighborhood, and also that there has been similar expansions approved by this Board. So, I
recommend that we approve the variance.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally,
Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. MASON-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1997 SEQR TYPE II RR-3A CHARLES R. BARBER
CAROLINE H. BARBER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 51 HALL ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE. THE
APPLICANT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION 179-15. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-27.225 LOT SIZE: 4.31 ACRES SECTION 179-
15
CHARLES & CAROLINE BARBER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-1997, Charles R. Barber Caroline H. Barber, Meeting
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
Date: November 19, 1997 “ 51 Hall Road
Relief Required:
Applicant proposes construction of a detached two car garage. The applicant
requests relief from the side setback requirements of 179-15. The required setback is 30 feet, the
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
proposed setbacks are 15 & 21 feet.
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
The applicant would be allowed to
2. Feasible alternatives:
construct a garage at a desired location on the property. Alternative
3. Is this relief substantial
locations for the proposed garage may be available on the site.
relative to the ordinance?
Relief is measured as approximately 50 percent of required ordinance
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
and may be interpreted as insubstantial.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
Minimal effects are anticipated on the neighborhood. The
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
etc.):Staff comments:
None applicable. The applicant may have alternative locations available
SEQR
for the proposed action. Minimal effects are anticipated as a result of the proposed action.
Status:
Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Barber, anything you want to add, say?
MRS. BARBER-Well, we actually feel that there isn’t any other feasible place for the garage. If
any of you have been up to the house, you could see that the road, where the driveway’s placed
now is the safest place. Any other road cut would be, we feel, very dangerous. To put the garage
on the other side of the house, there’s, because of the topography of the land, it slopes way, way
down. So we’d need a lot of fill actually, and in order to get the driveway cut where it is, we’d
have to bring the driveway across the front of the yard, which isn’t feasible or able to do because
septic system is all in the front of the yard. So we feel it’s the safest and the best place for it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Before the house was built, did you have to bring in fill, where the
house is situated now?
MR. BARBER-No.
MR. THOMAS-It was like that?
MR. BARBER-Yes, basically.
MR. THOMAS-Was the fill brought in before you owned the property?
MR. BARBER-No. There was no fill brought in, no.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. When you built the house, did you anticipate on putting a garage in at
some point?
MR. BARBER-Yes, at some point, yes.
MR. THOMAS-This house is, what, three years old?
MRS. BARBER-Two years old.
MR. THOMAS-Two years old. So the zoning hasn’t changed. Did you take that into
consideration when you built it?
MR. BARBER-No, if I moved down toward Hall Road, toward Tee Hill Road, it’s a major drop
off. It’s all swampy down that way, and the other side is my grandfather’s land. There’s nothing
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
there but another drop off and behind our house is a major incline. We positioned the house the
best way we saw for the location of the area.
MRS. BARBER-Plus after living there two years, we know how dangerous the road is.
MR. BARBER-It’s a very sharp corner there. The other way you couldn’t have a driveway. They
wouldn’t allow the driveway there anyway.
MRS. BARBER-Plus they fly.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. No, that is a dangerous road. Not only does it “S”, it also rises.
MRS. BARBER-Right.
MR. THOMAS-So I know it can be dangerous. Are there any more questions for the Barbers?
MR. KARELES-Why couldn’t you move the garage, attach it to the house? Wouldn’t that bring
it farther away from the property line?
MR. BARBER-Attach it to the house?
MR. KARPELES-Yes.
MR. BARBER-The way the house is constructed, it’s a log home, and just the way the corner of
the house is built there, I couldn’t see attaching it there, myself.
MRS. BARBER-With all the windows.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the Barbers? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance proposal? In favor of? Anyone wishing to
speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, I have one letter. To Members of the Queensbury Zoning Board, from
Charles R. Barber, M.D., RE: Area Variance “I, Charles M. Barber, M.D., residing at 64 Barber
Road, Queensbury, NY, do not have any problem whatsoever with the application of my grandson,
Charles R. Barber, and Caroline H. Barber for an Area Variance for their garage on property
located at 54 Hall Road on land that adjoins my property. Charles R. Barber, M.D.”
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and your grandfather owns the land that you talked about, that you’re
asking for the variance from that line?
MR. BARBER-Yes, he owns land around our house. Basically, yes.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any more questions for the applicants? If not, lets talk about it.
Jamie, what do you think?
MR. HAYES-I think it’s minimal relief. I think it’s a nice house. I mean, I agree with the
applicants totally, that it appears by far the most logical place to put a garage. I think it would be
compliment and continuous with the neighborhood, and although he’s an in-law, the most impacted
neighbor has spoken positively, so I don’t have any problem with it. I think it’s okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I pretty much agree with Jamie. The feasible thing, as Bob said, is m maybe to
move it up, but then you’ve got a log house, and opening up a wall in a log house is a lot different
than standard stick construction, plus the windows and stuff there. So taking all that into
consideration and not hearing any complaints, only favorable encouragement from the abutting
land owner, I’m in favor of it.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree. It would be nice to see it appropriately distanced from the side line, but
given the existing structure, I don’t think it’s feasible in any other location, and if you look at the
property on the other side of their line, it is a downgrade, and it does seem to be wet, and I doubt if
anything would ever be built on that sloping land, so even if the property was sold to a third party,
it’s not likely that an adjoining property owner would put anything up close to the line, that would
clutter it up, given the size of the lot, I don’t have a problem with it. As I understand it, this is 840
square feet?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And how high is it going to be?
MR. BARBER-Probably 20 feet to the ridge, that’s keeping the same pitch as the ridge of the
house.
MR. MC NALLY-There’s no intent to use this for living area?
MR. BARBER-No. Just storage space.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-No, I don’t either, and when I was up there looking at the house today, I presume
you’re right. First of all, I think a driveway going across the front of the house would be ugly, and
secondly, the cars were just whipping by. I could hardly get in there to look at it, so if they feel
that that is the safest place to get in and out of their property, I think they would know. So I have
no problem with it either.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. HAYES-I have one question. Who’s dog was it that almost bit off the front of my car? He
was bigger than my car.
MR. BARBER-Black lab?
MR. THOMAS-What is on that end of the house, the west end?
MRS. BARBER-Where the garage is? That’s a family. In the back’s a family room. In the
front’s a living room.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Robert, what do you think?
MR. KARPELES-Well, I don’t really think it’s minimum relief, but I agree that I don’t think
anybody’s ever going to build adjacent to that lot behind. It would kind of screw it up. I think
probably better planning should have been made when the house was built in the first place, but
that’s water over the dam. So I guess I’d go along with it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. Because of the topography of the
land, drops off on both sides, rises up in the back and because of the way the driveway is put in,
really has to be put in, that this is the only feasible location for this garage. It’s under the 900
square feet, per the zoning requirement. Side line setbacks, like the other members have said, the
property to the west is owned by the applicant’s grandfather, and it doesn’t look like anybody
would be building over there within any distance of that line where they would be impeded by the
garage. So I would be in favor of it. Having said that, I will ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1997 CHARLES R. BARBER
CAROLINE H. BARBER
, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Bonnie Lapham:
51 Hall Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a detached two car garage of 840 square
feet. They request relief from the side setback requirements of Section 179-15 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which requires usually a 30 foot setback. The applicant proposes and I move that we
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
approve setbacks of 21 feet at the front corner of the garage closest to the side line, and Hall Road,
moving backwards to the rear corner on that same line a distance of 15 feet to the line. So the
amount of variance would be nine to fifteen feet along that side of the garage. The benefit to the
applicant would be that they would be allowed to construct a garage in the desired location on the
property. While there may be alternative locations for the garage, given the topography and the
fact that the land slopes off and is a down grade on either side of the home, there are limited
locations, alternatives you want to propose, if any. In addition, it’s not feasible or likely that
anyone is going to construct a building on the opposite side of their side line, due to the fact that it
is also a down slope and it appears quite wet. Third, the property next door is owned by the
relative of Charles and Caroline Barber, and he has not objected, nor has anyone else objected, to
construction of the garage in the proposed location. In fact, they’ve said that they approve a
structure at that location. The relief may be interpreted as insubstantial, but even if it is
substantial, I think given the other factors, this element should not weigh against the particular
project. There will be minimal effects anticipated in the neighborhood, and while the difficulty can
be interpreted as self-created, and perhaps the plan looked better when the house was initially built,
it does not appear as if there’s going to be any difficulty. I would move the approval. This
structure is to be used for storage of automobiles, and the property would not be living space.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally,
Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MRS. BARBER-Thank you.
MR. BARBER-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1997 SEQR TYPE II HC-1A BROWN’S WELCOME INN
MOTEL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 932 LAKE GEORGE ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING PORCH TO AN OFFICE AND THE
ADDITION OF A CANOPY. THE APPLICANT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-23 AND SECTION 179-28. WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 11/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 70-2-10 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES
SECTION 179-23, 179-28
WILLIAM MINARCHI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-1997, Brown’s Welcome Inn Motel, Meeting Date:
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
November 19, 1997 “ 932 Route 9
Relief Required:
Applicant proposes construction of an office area and entrance canopy. The
applicant requests relief from the setback requirements of §179-23 (HC-1A) and §179-28 (Travel
Corridor Overlay). Section 179-23 requires a 50 ft. setback from the road and Section 179-28
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267
requires a 75 ft. setback.
of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be allowed to construct an addition
consisting of office space and a canopy. The canopy would provide weather protection for
2. Feasible alternatives:3. Is
customers. Feasible alternatives are limited to no construction.
this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:4.
The relief may be interpreted as substantial.
Effects on the neighborhood or community:
The effects on the neighborhood are interpreted as
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
minimal. The difficulty is attributed to the location of the
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
existing structures on the property.
Staff comments:
None applicable. The impact on the neighborhood is interpreted as minimal.
The front yard setback of 50 feet and the travel corridor overlay setback of 75 feet was established
SEQR Status:
to allow for traffic infrastructure improvements. Type II”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12 day of
November 1997, the above application for an Area Variance to convert existing porch into office
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
and add canopy was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No
County Impact” Terry Ross, Vice Chairman.
MR. THOMAS-How come we didn’t get a copy of Warren County in the packets?
MR. ROUND-I don’t know.
MR. THOMAS-All right. We’ll leave it there. Mr. Minarchi.
MR. MINARCHI-Thank you very much. Mr. Minarchi, yes. Let me hopefully try to enlighten,
and Bob and Bob were over, and I tried to explain to you what brought all this about. If you turn
to Page One, in reference to the layout, you will see that the sign is seven and a half feet back from
the property line, the front of the sign, and where that sign is, there’s also in front of it a stone
planter, if you’re not familiar with it, and a telephone pole. The curb existing right now is nine
feet, and you could see that, in fact, Bob on the end with the white shirt asked me the question, was
there a curb opening or is there a curb opening right now where the snow was, and I said, yes. As
you could see right here, we have these openings right now. So from the north or the south, people
are able to get in with not too much of a problem, except from the south right now the problem is
that they go from two lanes into one lane, and everybody jockeys for position number one, and if
you put your signal light on before Sweet Road, you now have another problem because if
somebody’s at Sweet Road, sees the signal light on and pulls out, now you have a bad situation,
and so if you put your signal light on after you pass Sweet Road, and you’re doing 40 miles an
hour, now it become very difficult to pull in. So most people pull in from the south, if they’re
being crowded, into the northern part of the driveway, which is about 100 feet, and then they come
back to the office. That’s the situation now. I was informed by the Department of Transportation,
Page Two, if you turn to Page Two, and he said to me, this young man said to me, we’re going to
have to change all your driveway entrances. We’re going to eliminate the one in the center, and
we’re going to put a 50 foot on one end and 50 foot on the other. Well, the 50 foot you see on the
north end is practically right on the property line where that planting is, and the other one is
practically where it is now, the entrance on the south side. Now, I have another problem. Because
now what it means, anyone coming from the north will never be able to get in or see us, because
the sign that I went for two years ago, this Board, not this particular Board, it was based and
approved on a stop light going in at Sweet Road. That light never went in. My sign is so small
that people can’t even see it. So they may have reservations at the motel. I’ve had people go right
by me, and call me from a mile up the road and say, where are you. That’s the size of my sign. If
this curb situation develops, which I think it’s going to, because see all the money is connected with
the million dollar development. It’s connected with Exit 19. Exit 19 is going to be started this
coming spring. I know it is. I’ve seen the plans. I’ve seen what they’re going to be doing on
Route 9, with the sidewalk five foot wide. The existing poles are going to stay exactly where they
are. The sidewalk will be on the inside of the pole. Now there’s ample room because they own
seven and a half feet, and so they’ll have more than enough room, but the thing is, it’s going to
create a tremendous impact on my business if I do not somehow have some type of exposure or
flow of traffic, like a half a moon, coming in under the canopy, going out either way. Right now,
because of the size of that sign, you can’t see me. Apple Annie’s sign completely blocks
everything. When that sign is on and it’s red, we try to go subtle with the blue and the white
background. We try to make it as pleasant to the eye as possible. It didn’t work, and so now I’m
at a point here, if they do what they’re going to do, and what they say they’re going to do, and I
called Stafford’s office. I’ve called different, I’ve talked to Mr. Champagne to find out, where are
my rights? I’ve been there 11 years. I’ve improved the property. Everything I’ve ever earned plus
has gone into that place. Now all at once the Department of Transportation, because the money is
coming from the Disability Act, Federal, and they’re saying, from that ramp on the sidewalk to the
other side, we’ve got to have 100 foot run, and that run has to be maintained. So now this is where
they put me. They put me with an opening here, and one here, and here’s the motel. For people to
get out, they’d have to go north. They’re not going to be able to go south, because of where the
curb opening is. So there is a big problem that I’m facing here. I’m thinking about the welfare of
my people who come in each year. I have a lot of repeat business, and I sort of worry, because I
hate to see accidents, and it’s totally uncalled for. This is putting a tremendous financial burden on
me, whether I build it or don’t. I still own a lot of money. I bought this place in ’87. People, I
don’t know if you know what prices of property were in ’87, well, I took a beating of at least 40%
drop on what my value of that property is. I can’t even sell it. The people across the street tried to
sell theirs, and they can’t, and I know the Harris’ and I know what they want, and they can’t sell it.
So this particular problem that I’m facing, putting an office on the existing porch that’s there, there
is an existing wood porch. There was a cover over that porch. I stupidly took it down 11 years
ago. If I had let it stay up, I could have enclosed it and that would have been it, but I’d like to put
an office in the front. That office would become a temporary office for the months of June, July
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
and August. Those are the primary months now. As I was telling Bob, no more than five months
ago, we were running 50% occupancy for the month of May and the months of September and
October. It was a completely different business. Now we’re not doing that any longer. If we run
10 to 20%, we’re very fortunate. It’s because of the change, and the change of traffic patterns,
what’s happened, but if I’m not able to do this, it’ll get worse, and I know it. I’ve seen what
happened in the last 11 years. I keep records, and I’m very meticulous in everything I try to do,
and so this is the only option I could come up with. This even was proposed to me by the
Department of Transportation. He apologized. He said, there’s nothing I can do. He’s got a boss.
I guess I, as property owner, who pays his taxes regularly, have no rights when it comes to the
State of New York and its departments. They have the right to close me down, change my way of
business. Now I’m being forced, really, to spend more money for an office, a canopy. That sign, I
have to move that sign again. This is the fourth time in eleven years. I have to move that sign.
Because that sign is going to be right in the way of the traffic pattern, if I leave it where it is. He
said, we’ll take down the stone planter for you. You can leave the wood one there, but can you see
the mess that would make? Can’t do that. So my dilemma is, I need a variance, so I can go ahead
and proceed. Now at my age, I didn’t want to do this. I thought my retirement was going to be
different, but it isn’t. So that’s where I am, gentlemen.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. MINARCHI-Any questions? I’d be more than happy to answer them.
MR. HAYES-I have a question for Staff, if you could clarify some of the things that he’s referring
to, as far as the DOT. I mean, as far as that plan.
MR. ROUND-I’m not familiar with any active plans for this corridor.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. ROUND-Exit 19, there is construction that’s going to start taking place next year, and it’s
going to be a two year, almost a two year project. There has been a study, and there’s, for an
access road at the million dollar mile, but nothing’s been finalized on any of that information.
MR. KARPELES-I’m missing the point here. Just exactly what do you hope to accomplish by
putting the office out in front and putting the canopy over there? Are you trying to make it more
visible as a motel?
MR. MINARCHI-Yes, Bob. It has to be more visible, because I was told by not only former
members of this Board, that coming down from the north, it looks like storage buildings. You
can’t see.
MR. KARPELES-Are you going to put a sign or anything on the canopy or on the office?
MR. MINARCHI-On the canopy the only signs you’ll have is vacancy. That’s it. The sign still
has to be maintained, and that’ll be right in front of the canopy, with a planter to protect the sign.
There are going to be sidewalks and curbs, and that also protects it. There will be no traffic that
will go between the sign and the sidewalk because there won’t be that much room, and the
Department of Transportation person said to me, Bill, he says, we’ll put curbs right around it, so
nobody can cut through. I said, okay, but he, in essence, told me what you see. He said, this is the
only alternative you have, and I spent a lot of time with this young man, but his boss told him he
cannot in any way support me at a hearing like this, and he told me, because it is the policy of the
Department of Transportation not to get involved in any localities’ zoning problems.
MR. THOMAS-The proposed setback for the canopy, is it, I’m going through here trying to figure
it out, and I think it’s 14 feet, 6 inches from the property line.
MR. MINARCHI-It’s about that, yes, from the property line itself.
MR. THOMAS-To the canopy is 14 feet 6 inches.
MR. MINARCHI-Right, and then you have, yes, the sign is six foot. So the sign will be away
from the sidewalk, by a minimum of the seven feet, the eight feet from the sidewalk itself, because
the sidewalk’s going to be five foot in.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. MINARCHI-This is so, like I said, that if anyone pulls in, they can go, it’s like a half circle,
half moon where they can drive right underneath and then proceed north or if they’re coming from
the north, drive underneath and then go outside. They will have the option.
MR. THOMAS-But they’ll have to drive under the canopy.
MR. MINARCHI-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-They can’t drive in front of the canopy because the sign will be there, the
sidewalk.
MR. MINARCHI-Plus the planter and the sidewalk and the whole bit. Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. So the sign has actually got to be moved back six feet.
MR. MINARCHI-The sign will be in the exact location as was approved by this Board, and I think
it’s seven feet from the property line.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, I’ve got that on the drawing here.
MR. MINARCHI-Right.
MR. THOMAS-I can’t remember what we gave you for that. It was a couple of years ago.
MR. MINARCHI-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-I can’t remember what we gave you.
MR. MINARCHI-You gave me 32 square feet of sign, set back seven feet from the property line.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. MINARCHI-A height of ten foot six inch.
MRS. LAPHAM-At the risk of sounding really idiotic, when I went to look at the property, no one
was around, and so I was trying to orient myself. Where the office is now, and that covered porch.
MR. MINARCHI-Yes, that’s sitting all the way back?
MRS. LAPHAM-Right.
MR. MINARCHI-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Is that where we’re talking about?
MR. MINARCHI-No, ma’am. We’re talking about in front of the wood porch, in front of room
one. I wish I was there at that time. I wasn’t. I did meet two of the gentlemen that did come over.
I would have been happy to explain it to you.
MRS. LAPHAM-It would have made it easier.
MR. MINARCHI-Yes, definitely, I agree.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I think I know where you mean now.
MR. MINARCHI-Where it sits now, with what they’re going to be doing on this road, with the
curbs, you’ll never see me. You don’t see me now, and I have racked my brain to see or to think
about, what could I do to enhance my visibility? I can’t, and I used to teach this in architectural
courses. Visualization, and I can’t see how I could do it.
MR. THOMAS-What’s the construction of the canopy going to be?
MR. MINARCHI-Wood.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. THOMAS-Wood construction?
MR. MINARCHI-It’ll be all truss systems. It’ll be, I already talked to Curtis Lumber in getting
prices and the type of truss system that would be set up for that particular span.
MR. THOMAS-And you said the only sign on there would be a vacancy, no vacancy?
MR. MINARCHI-It would be just vacancy, and the no vacancy, possibly the no, but we have it
right on the sign also.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Would that be a lighted sign or just a painted sign?
MR. MINARCHI-There would be a lighted sign, red neon.
MR. THOMAS-Do we need a variance for that sign, or is that just directional? No, it wouldn’t be
directional.
MR. ROUND-I’m not sure where the placement of that would be on the canopy. It’s 15 feet from
the property line. I don’t have a sign application in front of me, so I don’t, I couldn’t.
MR. MINARCHI-The sign application is 15 foot from the property line.
MR. ROUND-Right. I realize the setback, but what I’m saying is I don’t know what the sign is,
where it’s located.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that’s something else we’ll have to worry about later if we have to worry
about it at all.
MR. MINARCHI-Right.
MR. THOMAS-What about the existing office? What’s going to happen to that?
MR. MINARCHI-That will remain the same. That’s our office where we, the computer and the
whole bit and we take our reservations. This office in the front, I was hoping, I was going to hire
someone to sit there and they would be answering the phone. There will be a phone there for safety
purposes, but it will, like I said, it’s just strictly for the month of June, July and August.
MRS. LAPHAM-For people to check in more easily.
MR. MINARCHI-That’s it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the office you have now, is that handicap accessible?
MR. MINARCHI-Right now, no, it is not.
MR. THOMAS-No, it’s not, but this one will be?
MR. MINARCHI-Yes. This will be, because I have found out we do get a lot of people on an age,
and they have a problem with walking, and the step is very detrimental.
MR. THOMAS-Do you need, by Federal law, to have a handicap access to the existing office?
MR. MINARCHI-No, sir, not by Federal law. It’s strictly a personal thing with me, because I’m
one of those handicaps.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to
speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? If not, we’re going to discuss this
one. Jamie, we’ll start with you this time.
MR. HAYES-Well, I mean, I think the applicant has made a good case, and I’m very torn.
Basically I do agree that he’s been presented with a problem, and I’m not sure that he would spend
his money if he didn’t have to. So, I mean, I feel there’s an honest effort here, but it’s a
tremendous amount of relief, in terms of the Ordinance, and that’s always troubling. We are
charged with granting minimum relief in circumstances when we can, and I think the office and the
overhang of the canopy, is probably a stretch, in my opinion. As it stands now, I’d probably be
against it.
MR. KARPELES-Could we clarify what the relief is? I’m confused.
MR. THOMAS-From Section 179-23, the relief required is 35 feet, 6 inches. From Section 179-
28 it’s 60 feet, 6 inches.
MR. MC NALLY-When you take into account the six foot sign is going to be placed in front of
that, does that change the amount of relief requested?
MR. THOMAS-No, not for this application.
MR. HAYES-It’s supposed to be from the building to the road, right?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s the closest part of the building. We’re not going to worry about the sign
right now.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m just thinking in terms of the amount of relief requested.
MR. THOMAS-No. The sign doesn’t come into play, in this particular application. It may come
into play in another application, but the applicant already has a variance for the sign from two
years ago, for, like he said, a 32 square foot sign, 7 feet back from the property line, and that’s
where he proposes putting it. So, we don’t have to worry about that.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Brian?
MR. CUSTER-Well, again, I did not stop and actually speak to the applicant, but I was going to.
I went up and visualized the drawing provided (lost word) what was trying to be done there, and
now hearing from you I appreciate that. It really clarifies a lot, in my mind. I, too, am in Jamie’s
camp, in that I believe that the canopy portion really starts infringing on the setback requirements
of both sections of the code, but I also understand the applicant’s problem trying to draw
customers in. I would tend to agree with him that from the outside appearance as you first look
there, it’s hard to determine exactly that it is a motel at times, and I’m kind of in between here. I’m
leaning to granting the office, the temporary office or the seasonal portion of that as an office, and
only an office, not to be built into existing hotel space, if he was willing to amend his application as
such, but I do have a problem with the pool canopy.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I, too, sympathize with Mr. Minarchi, but as I look at the Travel Corridor
Overlay Ordinance, we have to consider the Town has elected to put this in a 75 foot setback area
to the road, and it did that because there was a perceived need for improved local roads, and they
wanted to maintain the roads to allow widening of the roadways in the future. The existing
structure, as I understand it, is something like 32 feet to the edge of the road, which is well within
that 75 foot buffer zone already. The relief requested by Mr. Minarchi is extreme. He’s asking us
to allow a structure 14 feet from the edge of the road, or the property line, and well, far beyond the
75 feet that would normally be allowed. I think that there’s a balance here. Mr. Minarchi has told
us that there is a safety issue that he’s concerned about. I go by this road several times every day
of the week. I come in and out of Sweet and Montray several times a day. I know what the traffic
is like on that road, but I don’t see that if they put in a sidewalk, how it’s really going to effect
egress or ingress from your property. I see it not so much in terms of a safety issue, but a
convenience issue for your customers, in that they would be allowed to come in and out and (lost
words). I don’t think that two road cuts 50 feet wide is going to increase any danger to your clients
at all.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. MINARCHI-Are you looking at page number two, where it says proposed curb openings,
Route 9 North?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m taking your application to mean that this proposed construction is going to
require two openings of approximately 50 feet each?
MR. MINARCHI-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And I’m aware that your existing openings are fairly decent size already. There
is an easy way around the property already, and on balance, I think that the interest of the
applicant is not as substantial as what the effect on the community and the area is going to be, and
I’m not in favor of this variance. I’m sorry.
MR. MINARCHI-So, are you against the canopy or the office?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m against the idea of any structure so close to the road, not so much what it is
or how it was built or what it’s going to look like, as much as it’s within that 75 foot. You’ve got
a nonconforming use already. It’s 32 foot from the road.
MR. MINARCHI-It’s over 50 foot, sir. If you add up these dimensions right now, it’s over 50,
from the property line, but I do understand what you’re saying.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s not the way I see it. I’m looking at this, sir.
MR. MINARCHI-I’m wrong. It’s 40 feet.
MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got an eight foot deck at the end of that structure?
MR. MINARCHI-Yes, right.
MR. MC NALLY-And then 31 feet six inches from the edge of the deck to the road. That’s what
the diagram shows.
MR. MINARCHI-Okay. Then I have an error. What page is that on?
MR. THOMAS-Page One.
MR. MINARCHI-Okay, yes, 31, 6, plus the 8, is 39 to the property line.
MR. MC NALLY-And then it says eight foot on this diagram to the existing structure.
MR. MINARCHI-Yes, it is. You’re right.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s not so much what it is, sir, it’s more where it is. It’s how close it is to the
road. That’s my point.
MR. MINARCHI-See, but my problem, Bob, I don’t have a choice. Now, if you can tell me how I
can rectify this problem I’m going to be facing, and we have two and a half to three months to
make enough money to pay the bills. That’s it. If you don’t make it in that time, you’re going to
fold up your tent, and you’re gone. Now, if I do not have exposure on this road, when they put
these cuts in, and for feasibility purposes, who’s going to see me? I don’t have the exposure. You
said you come up that road, and I’ve had local people come in to make a reservation, and they said,
we never knew you were there. I go down to Passano’s to buy my paints. Tom there says, we go
by your place every day. I never knew it was there. Nobody knows we’re there. Why?
MR. MC NALLY-I can’t explain why, but it seems to me that if you wanted to advertise your
property with a bright neon sign, that would be a different question, but you don’t, I don’t see this
as a problem. I don’t see the construction of a canopy as being a solution to any problem of the
traffic flow or the business coming in to your hotel. I’m sorry, that’s just the way I see it.
MR. MINARCHI-The canopy was strictly for the welfare of the clients. That’s it. That’s all that
it’s for.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. MC NALLY-And the idea being that you would be closer to the road, so that you could put a
sign on it.
MR. MINARCHI-And the office is there only because it’s closer to the road, they would see it and
be able to drive right to it. Right now, my office is hidden. I had a sign that was over 50 square
feet, and it was right on the existing planter. Charlie that I bought this place from was notified by
the Town 11 years ago, he had to cut that sign down, because all signs were going to be put back.
That was the Sign Ordinance at that time. I don’t know if you remember all of that. Charlie was
81 years old. He flaked out, got a hold of Ted Turner, cut the sign down and put it in the back.
Now that left me in a hell of a problem, because now I was not grandfathered, was I? And so since
the 11 years, I’ve been moving that sign, and I’ve moved it three times, and this will probably be
the fourth, but the sign kept getting smaller, because the Town said, we can’t have you put up a big
sign so close to the road. So, I went with that because they were going to put a light at Sweet
Road. Now, the Department of Transportation says, we’re going to take away your curbs, or your
openings, and we’re going to block you out, and I’m saying, wait a minute, now. I pay over
$6,000 a year in taxes on this piece of property. I have no rights? I want an office for exposure.
The canopy was there for the customer. I will not encroach on any one. There’s no encroachment
on anyone. Whether it was Apple Annie next door to me or Remington now, or the Bakery, or my
neighbor Pete, nobody. I’m not encroaching on a sole. All I’m doing is trying to survive in a very,
very competitive business. That’s it. That’s all I’m trying to do, and it means that I would have to
put my money, not what I’ve earned in this business, because this business didn’t get me the
money, my money. My retirement funds. My pension funds, into that office, to survive, so I can
continue paying my bills. I’m not asking for anything. I’m not asking to increase my business.
I’m not asking to increase occupancy space. All I want to do is survive. That’s it. I wish I could
sell it. I’d sell it tomorrow, but I can’t. So when you say, you know, you guys can sit there and
you can make decisions, and I know you do, but you’re making a decision that effects what’s going
to happen down here. Like I said, I’m not encroaching on any one. In fact, the flow of traffic
would be much easier to see me, much easier to come in and say how much for a room, much
easier to say, a car’s coming north or south and say, gee, there’s a motel, let me check it out.
That’s it, and in this business here, if you know anything about this business, all we have to offer is
a clean room, a nice room, and being nice to the people. That’s it, but they have to know where
you’re at, and I spent $8,000 a year in advertising. I’m AAA, I’m Mobile, and I advertise in
Warren County, advertise in the State, because I want to stay in business. So when you say, you
know, I know that, I’m not encroaching on anyone.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re encroaching on the right-of-way. You’re encroaching on the 75 foot
setback. It’s not got anything to do with your side neighbors, your rear neighbors, sir. My point is
that, sir. That’s all my point is. I don’t think that 14 feet, when you balance your interests against
the community’s, yours comes out ahead.
MR. MINARCHI-Okay then if you were to say, if I was to say, I can put the office up on the
existing porch that’s there, I still would have to move my sign. I’m still going to have to put a
planter around that sign. I won’t have a canopy.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, I don’t see it that way. I’m not in favor of it.
MR. MINARCHI-See, that’s what I’m saying. So what you’re saying is, stay where you are, lose
your business, have the people to hold the mortgage foreclose on you.
MR. MC NALLY-Sir, I don’t think you’ve presented any evidence that you’re going to lose your
business if you don’t have a canopy, sir, and I don’t know if it’s quite as simplistic and you’re
making it out. We have a difference of opinion. That’s all we have. I understand your points,
though.
MR. MINARCHI-Well, I’ll tell you, in this township, in this Warren County, the taxes are based
upon two things, the assessed valuation, and in the business, what the business’ capacity to earn.
It’s in the books. So as my gross income plummet, so will the taxes on this piece of property, but
it doesn’t relieve me, in any way, from the person who owns, who holds the mortgage. I’m tied in
to a mortgage. I have no way out, and if my business continues to go as it has been going, there’s
no way I’m going to pay this. I’ve got a big problem. That’s it, and if you think this isn’t going to
happen, it will, because once they put those curbs in, again, this is our money. The Disability Act
is funding all this project, but they have the audacity and the power to come in and say, this is what
we’re going to do. You like it or you don’t like it. Too bad. So now you’re saying to me, I can’t
give you any relief, because it’s going to infringe upon a rule, 75 foot. Do I have the right to build
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
on that porch that’s there, that’s been there? Can I enclose the porch? Can I put a roof over that
porch? There was one once there. Can I do that?
MR. HAYES-That’s another issue.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m discussing your application as it is now.
MR. MINARCHI-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-And that’s the point.
MR. MINARCHI-So, in other words what you’re saying to me, maybe if I get rid of the canopy,
and I can do this.
MR. THOMAS-I think we’re going to move on here. This has been going on too long. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I think I’m going to just abstain on this one because the more I think about it, the
more confused I’m getting because I really didn’t understand quite where the new office was going
to be to begin with. I thought I understood it for a moment during this discussion, but I still don’t.
I just cannot visualize where it’s going to be and how it’s going to fit in relation to the zoning
regulations.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I understand Mr. Minarchi’s problem. I’ve been going through the criteria
for an Area Variance here. Number One, whether benefit can be achieved by other means feasible
to the applicant. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he could, instead of putting it on the existing motel
that’s in the center of the property, go to the north end to put that eight foot extension on. Maybe
he could do that. An undesirable change in the neighborhood or nearby properties? No, I don’t
think so. I don’t think there’d be any big change by just putting the eight foot office on. The
canopy, that’s another story. I can’t agree with that, the 18 foot canopy. Is the request
substantial? Yes, it really is substantial. We’re talking probably two thirds to three quarters of
what the zoning requirement is. Whether the request will have an adverse effect on the physical or
environmental? Not really. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? No. Yes, and no, and I’m
leaning more toward no, due to the fact that that stop light that was supposed to go in at the corner
of Sweet Road, the only thing that I understand that was holding that up was just signing the
papers. Everything else was in place, ready to go, in fact, the bulldozers were ready to move, and
all of a sudden, somebody backed out, and that thing went right down hill, and that was it. So, like
I said, it was 99% ready to go. That right there, that stoplight right there would have helped Mr.
Minarchi with his problem. As it’s going to be, with the DOT cuts and the driveway, because
people going through that light in that intersection would have been slowing down. They would
have had more of a chance to see a sign that sits there. So the office, you know I have no real
problem with an eight foot office coming in there, but I do have a big problem with that canopy on
there. So that’s all I’ve got to say about it. So, if anyone would like to make a motion one way or
another. What did Warren County have?
MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think I had anything for Warren County. Wait a minute, No County
Impact.
MR. THOMAS-No County Impact. So we don’t need a super majority. We just need a majority.
MR. MINARCHI-Mr. Thomas?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. MINARCHI-I could understand the encroachment on the property line with the canopy.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. MINARCHI-I could understand that. That’s very logical. If the eight foot office was to be
put in, that would still direct the traffic in the half moon, that I have in mine, because of the curb
cuts. That would be acceptable with me, except that the customer will be losing. I would still have
the ramp because I would still have that handicap accessibility.
MR. THOMAS-That’s right.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. MINARCHI-I would still have the canopy, or not the canopy, but the planter around the sign
that will be where the sidewalk, because once that sidewalk’s installed, they would put a curb right
around the sign that I also would want a planter around it to protect it from vehicles.
MR. THOMAS-Right. Well, the thing we have in an Area Variance is it’s called a balancing test.
The Board of Appeals shall balance benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community. The only thing that I understand that you want that canopy for is for
the convenience of your customers, and that’s it.
MR. MINARCHI-Now if I can’t have that, Mr. Thomas, but I can have that office, that still gives
me the exposure I’m going to need on that road. Because right now, I have no exposure to say I’m
a motel, come on in and ask.
MR. THOMAS-Let me go over to Staff and ask them a question. Directional signs, four square
feet, no higher than six feet?
MR. ROUND-You’ve got it.
MR. THOMAS-How far from the property line?
MR. ROUND-I don’t know, offhand.
MR. MINARCHI-They can be right on the property line.
MR. ROUND-I think they can be right on the property line.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. So you’re talking about directing traffic in, that you could actually put a
directional sign that says, enter or exit.
MR. MINARCHI-I have two of them right now, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. So, you know, as far as directing traffic into the business, those directional
signs do help somewhat.
MR. MINARCHI-Yes, they do.
MR. THOMAS-I know for a fact they aren’t the solution that you’re looking for, but the canopy to
me is really too much of an encroachment, and I can’t see where it, I can see where it’s going to be
a detriment to the community, rather than a, I would see more of a detriment to the community than
a benefit to you, because it’s strictly your benefit, to your benefit, but I can see that canopy
sticking out, and I can see a whole bunch of people on that road coming down for canopies, within
14 and a half feet of the property line, and I have no idea what’s going to happen to Route 9. You
say they’re going to be putting curbs and sidewalks down through there, but I don’t know what
they’re going to be doing in ten years. Who knows what they’re going to do in ten years? Nobody
knows.
MR. MINARCHI-Twelve years ago, they did what they did today.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but now they’re changing it. So what are they going to do 12 years from
now?
MR. MINARCHI-No, they’re not changing it. They’re not changing it. They’re not making the
road wider. The road isn’t going to be wider. They’re adding sidewalks.
MR. THOMAS-You don’t know what they’re going to do 12 years from now. They may make it
into a four lane highway and want to go through there.
MR. MINARCHI-That’s true.
MR. THOMAS-And if they make it into a four lane highway, that canopy’s going to be right there.
MR. MINARCHI-But then they would have to take the canopy down, like they’re going to be
taking the old planter out.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. THOMAS-Yes, the old planter out, but why have them take a canopy down if it’s not there to
take down?
MR. MINARCHI-I agree.
MR. THOMAS-So that’s what I’m saying, that I would agree with the eight foot, where the
existing porch is for the office, but no canopy.
MR. KARPELES-How does anybody else feel about that?
MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Bob? I forgot about you, didn’t I.
MR. KARPELES-I agree with Jamie and Bob. I think it’s just too much relief, and I’m not
convinced that that’s the answer to the problem. I mean, you seem to think you have a problem
with visibility. I’m not really convinced you do have a problem with visibility. I can see your sign.
I can see your motel.
MR. MINARCHI-If you’re looking for it, Bob, yes, I agree with you 100%, but I’ve had
customers that have been there 10 years ago, and still miss me. These are the people that come
back, and they do miss me. I had people make reservations, and it’s .6 miles from the stop light at
the intersection of 254 and Route 9. I tell them that. Okay, heading north on Route 9, you’ll see
Gambles, you’ll see Ponderosa, you’ll see Gambles Bakery, you’ll see Sweet Road, and then you’ll
see the Brown’s Welcome Inn, and they’ll pass it. I mean, I can’t be any more explicit in direction.
When I come down from the north, and I look, just to see, and I don’t see any identification. My
eyes drift right to Remington’s sign. Now if I specifically look, yes, I could see that sign. If I’m
coming up from the south, and I look, I could see the sign, but it’s not adequate, and I know it
isn’t. That’s what I’ve been facing, but now with these curb cuts, this is really going to do a job on
me. You’re right about the light. That would have solved a lot of problems, especially in
jockeying for position number one.
MR. CUSTER-Bob, are you against the eight foot extension?
MR. KARPELES-Yes, and I disagree with Staff as far as there being no feasible alternatives to the
canopy. I don’t see why a canopy couldn’t be built over where the existing office is, and you can
drive right around and around the other side.
MR. MINARCHI-You can’t, because you would have to have supporting units, okay, piers, and
that would be right in the parking of the other units that are there. The diagonal parking, and
where you would have to build those, I know what you’re talking about, and I looked into that, too.
The span would be too great for the height of the bearing joists that would have to be built. I
already talked to Curtis Lumber about that. The span is too great at that particular point, with the
snow loads and wind loads that we have in this particular area, and that’s using a very good pitch
of a five on twelve.
MR. MC NALLY-It seems that (lost words) feasible alternatives, too, The issue is more Mr.
Minarchi’s ability to advertise. The ability to have a sign. The ability to have a sign that’s
reflective, that’s bright, that’s neon, and that’s what the problem is, and I suspect, I’m pretty sure
that there are other alternatives, whether it’s moving the sign or whether it’s adding signs or
changing the color of your buildings, to make these customers perceive that building better, than
having something 14 feet from the road.
MR. MINARCHI-I wish it was that easy, and I know what you’re saying is the truth, but it’s not
that easy to change the vinyl siding. I could only think of, I know that I’m going to have to move
that sign again, because when those curb cuts go in, that sign is going to be right in the way of
traffic. I know this. I can see it, and we already talked about traffic flow with the Department of
Transportation people, and they recommended that I do this, exactly what I’m proposing right here.
Now, even if the relief of eight foot, and I don’t understand why not, Bob. I’m not encroaching on
anybody. The porch is there. It would give me a temporary office, an exposure. The sign would
be moved over in front of that office, exactly where it is, through the property line. There would be
nothing changed here, other than the people would drive in front of the office and that’s it, and the
sign will be right there, exactly where it is now, except it would be moved over, and it would bisect
the front of the building.
MR. HAYES-I guess, Mr. Minarchi, I’d like to make a motion, and I need to know whether, can he
amend his application?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. THOMAS-Well, we can condition it that he doesn’t put the canopy on it, but give him the
office, with the setbacks from the property line, with the condition that the canopy not be built, and
then we’ll vote on that, and then Mr. Minarchi can make his choice whether he wants to do that or
not.
MR. MC NALLY-Does that mean we have to support that? I don’t know if I can support that.
MR. KARPELES-What good is the office alone going to do you? Do you think that’s going to
increase your visibility, too?
MR. MINARCHI-It will increase the visibility, Bob, because of the glass of the office, the
entrance, the planter that I have there and the direction of the trees coming in, the cedars, to show
the flow of traffic.
MR. MC NALLY-Can’t you convert the existing structure and put windows in the existing
building, and then take your existing office in the back and convert that to a motel unit?
MR. MINARCHI-No. The existing office that’s there now is part of the house, okay. So I
wouldn’t have, it’s very small, and I wouldn’t have a bathroom in it or a shower, or anything. To
convert that, I would have to gutter it all out and start from scratch, and take away from the house.
It’s not a feasible thing. It would, the cost would be astronomical in doing that, and taking Room
One, if I was to take, I thought about that. Now, if I take that, it would cut my gross income by a
minimum of $4500 a year.
MR. HAYES-But that’s a business decision, though, too.
MR. MINARCHI-Well, it’s a business decision, but what it also means, I’m in a worse situation
than I’m in now.
MR. HAYES-Absolutely.
MR. MINARCHI-It wouldn’t be beneficial.
MR. HAYES-When you say that your mortgage, I’m not sure that’s even germane, but that list is
kind of long and distinguished, and I’m not sure that’s germane to whether we have to, with the
balancing test by Town law.
MR. MINARCHI-I’m presenting, Paul, a hardship that I’m facing. I’m trying to give you an
overall picture of where I’m sitting. That’s all. It would relieve my problem with the eight foot,
and utilizing that existing porch, that would help.
MR. THOMAS-To me, that eight foot porch exists. It’s there. I have no problem converting that
porch which used to have a roof over it, into an office, but skip the canopy. I don’t know how the
other Board members feel about that. So, if somebody would make a motion one way or another,
with the canopy, without the canopy, a motion to deny.
MR. HAYES-I guess I could make a motion, or try to make one. The one question I have is some
of the drawings show the front corner of the office to be 31.6 feet from the boundary line, and some
show 32.6. So I guess, should I use the 31.6 and that would be?
MR. ROUND-Use 32 feet, and then that will be okay. We’re within six inches. We’re not going
to take task.
MR. THOMAS-I won’t argue with that, use 32 feet.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1997 BROWN’S WELCOME INN
MOTEL
, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
932 Route 9. The applicant proposes construction of an office area, and an entrance canopy, but
this motion is in reference to the office area only, specifically. To do so, the applicant would
request relief from the setback requirements of Section 179-23, and 179-28, the Travel Corridor
Overlay. Specifically, the applicant requests relief in the amount of 18 feet from Section 179-23,
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
and 43 feet from Section 179-28, the Travel Corridor Overlay, which requires a 75 foot setback.
The benefit to the applicant would be to allow him to construct the office addition only, specifically
excluding the canopy. The feasible alternatives are limited due to the nature of the property, and to
the problems created by the additional, or a change to the curbing of the property as the applicant
has set forth. I believe that the relief is substantial, but I believe that it will not impact the
neighborhood negatively, and in that way I would move for that modified approval. The proposed
work to be done by New York State Department of Transportation as presented by the applicant,
for the curb openings and sidewalks. They were going to limit his curb cut to two 50 foot openings,
with a 100 foot opening, or a 100 foot curb in the center, and the sidewalks that were going to be
back seven feet from the face of the curb.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
MR. THOMAS-The only thing I’d like to say in there is the proposed work to be done by New
York State Department of Transportation as presented by the applicant, for the curb openings and
sidewalks.
MR. HAYES-Done.
MR. THOMAS-So that it’s on the record that Mr. Minarchi had mentioned that, that he has seen
plans for, in the beginning, in the front of his business, and that’s what they were going to do.
They were going to limit his curb cut to two 50 foot openings, with a 100 foot opening, or a 100
foot curb in the center, and the sidewalks that were going to be back seven feet from the face of the
curb. Okay. Does everyone understand the motion? Okay. The motion is just for the office and
not the canopy. I’ll ask for a second.
MR. CUSTER-Second.
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Karpeles
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-That’s only three. I’ve got to have four. Is anyone going to change their vote?
Anyone going to change their vote? If not, I’ll have to table this until Mr. Stone re-appears, at next
month’s meeting, hopefully, because I can’t get a four vote majority to approve, unless someone
would like to make a motion to disapprove.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, that would also give me an opportunity to figure out where it is.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t want to waste the Board’s time. I’d be more than happy to make that
motion. I mean, if it’s going to be denied.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it probably will be. So the only thing we can do is table this application
until we can get a full Board here to vote on it, meaning Mr. Stone, and it probably won’t be until
th
the first meeting in December, which will be right around December 17.
MR. ROUND-It’s the Wednesday prior to that.
th
MR. THOMAS-So it’ll be the 10.
th
MR. ROUND-It’s the 10.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1997 BROWN’S WELCOME INN
MOTEL
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham:
Until a further Board member can familiarize himself with the application and read the notes and
come in and vote one way or the other.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally,
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-So, you’re still alive.
MR. MINARCHI-Thank you very much for your time. I won’t be here in December.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Will someone be here to represent you?
MR. MINARCHI-No. There’s only my wife and I, and that’s it. All our children live away.
MR. THOMAS-Would you like me to delay this?
MR. MINARCHI-We’re going to be spending Christmas with one of our children in Maryland.
MR. THOMAS-Would you like me to carry this over into January, the first meeting in January?
MR. MINARCHI-In January, that will be fine.
MR. THOMAS-So, that way everybody can look at it, think about it a little more, maybe
somebody will change their vote, and hopefully, Mr. Stone will be back and Mr. Karpeles will be
gone.
MR. MINARCHI-Yes. I would be happy to explain what the situation is, to anyone, and if I have
to wait until the curbs go in, they’re going in, and they’re not starting this year. He said to me, he
said they’re not going in this year. He said, if we start, it’ll be off season. It will be in the fall, to
start putting those sidewalks in.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. The thing of it is that Mr. Karpeles is resigning at the end of December.
He’s finished out his five year term and he has elected not to ask to be re-appointed. So we’re
going to have a new member, and hopefully Mr. Stone will be back by then.
MR. MINARCHI-Okay, great.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, and it will give me an opportunity to come up.
MR. MINARCHI-When would you like to come up?
MRS. LAPHAM-Actually, I don’t know. If we’re going to do this in January, I think I would
probably come up a day or so before the meeting.
MR. MINARCHI-Okay, because it will be cold in January.
MRS. LAPHAM-It’s cold now. That doesn’t make any difference.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1997 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A ANITA MALI
STEVEN CERRONE OWNERS: DON & RUTH PARSONS 686 GLEN STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL USE ON A PRE-
EXISTING LOT IN A PC-1A ZONE. THE APPLICANT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM
THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 179-22 AND THE
PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-66. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
11/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 104-1-24 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-22
JOE MALI, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-1997, Anita Mali/Steven Cerrone, Meeting Date:
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
November 19, 1997 “ 686 Glen Street
Applicant proposes establishment of a commercial use on a pre-existing non-conforming lot in the
Relief Required:
PC-1A zone. The applicant is requesting relief from the minimum lot area
2
requirements of Section 179-22. The existing lot measures approximately 6130 ft, 1 acre is
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
required. The applicant is also requesting relief from the parking requirements of Section 179-66,
Criteria for considering an Area Variance
seven (7) parking area are required, 5 are proposed.
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
The applicant would be
2. Feasible
allowed to establish a commercial/professional office on a pre-existing lot.
alternatives:3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Feasible alternatives are limited.
ordinance?:
The relief from the minimum lot area requirements may be interpreted as substantial.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal impacts on the neighborhood are
5. Is this difficulty self-created?Parcel History (construction/site
anticipated. No.
plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments:
None applicable. A variance is required to establish an
allowed use on this pre-existing non-conforming because the previous use was residential.
SEQR Status:
Minimal impacts on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this proposal.
Unlisted”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12 day of
November 1997, the above application for an Area Variance to establish commercial use on a pre-
existing less than one acre lot in the PC-1 Acre zone and provide five parking spaces rather than
seven, was reviewed and the following action was taken, recommendation to, No County Impact.”
Terry Ross, Vice Chairperson.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Mali, is there anything else you’d like to add, say, comment?
MR. MALI-No. I think they took into consideration the area of the land that exists right now, but
a good substantial portion of it was taken by the right-of-way for the sewers and the easement
right-of-way. It’s a small building. It’s 1,000 square foot. We’re looking to use it strictly for
office use. I don’t think it can be used for anything other than that, and you can’t change the
footprint of the property, and I think if we were to add, with the right-of-way here, we would have
been able to get the seven parking spaces in place and not need a relief on that area, but that’s
where it is right now. It’s been vacant for two or three years. It’s been a hardship for the owner
right now to try to rent this property on a residential basis because of the situation and the way it’s
set up.
MR. THOMAS-I have one question right now. It’s Question Number Three, are there feasible
alternatives. You stated that a substantial amount of property, 73.75, what’s that, 73.75 what?
Square feet?
MR. MALI-I would assume it was. That was put down, that was given to me by Van Dusen and
Steves, that number, and I went along with that number. That’s the number they gave me.
MR. THOMAS-Is it a strip of land?
MR. MALI-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-73.75 square, you know, feet wide?
MR. MALI-Yes. The whole side, the east side of the property has got an easement on it, and the
corner has been taken off the Glen Street side. So it cannot be built on.
MR. THOMAS-Our map doesn’t show anything like that, I don’t think. Yes, it does, too. Okay,
so that sewer easement, chunked that corner out.
MR. MALI-Yes. See, we would have been able to to get two more parking spaces right along the
side there, if there wasn’t an easement, which would have given us seven parking spaces, without
any complications or problems at all.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. You said that you were going to use these for offices?
MR. MALI-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-What kind of offices?
MR. MALI-We’re buying this as an investment property, and strictly it’s going to be set up as an
office.
MR. THOMAS-Like maybe real estate or?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. MALI-Real estate, insurance, small accounting office.
MR. KARPELES-You don’t have anybody lined up now?
MR. MALI-No.
MR. KARPELES-You’re going to modify the building, the inside of this?
MR. MALI-No. My building doesn’t need much modification at all. It’s just the area in the back
for the parking spaces, putting in the handicap ramp and doing the necessary things to make the
property more conform with the area, and just make it a viable piece, make it functional again.
MRS. LAPHAM-You have a purchase offer on this contigent on securing this variance?
MR. MALI-Yes, we do.
MRS. LAPHAM-So if you don’t secure the variance, then you won’t buy the property?
MR. MALI-That’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-What about the shed in the back there, is that going to stay?
MR. MALI-That will be removed. That’s all parking space. The entrance way will be right there
where the shed is.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. KARPELES-Well, maybe mine’s for Staff. What determines how many parking spaces he
needs?
MR. ROUND-Number of uses and the square footage of the particular type of use.
MR. MALI-It’s a 150 square foot.
MR. KARPELES-Well, hasn’t there been some discussion about maybe we’ve been having too
many, requiring too many?
MR. ROUND-Right. That why if you so choose you could grant less. The Ordinance still reads
the way it does, but for the particular type of use they’re proposing, I think five is probably
sufficient, depending on the number of employees and whether they’re going to actually, it’s a
single office in the building.
MR. MALI-The last parking space is a handicapped parking space, which I think is one and a half
times the normal size.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for Mr. Mali? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for Mr. Mali? If not, lets talk about it. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I really don’t see too much difficulty with the applicant’s request. The building is
already existing on the nonconforming lot. As the applicant stated, it’s been vacant for a number
of years, and (lost words) Glens Falls National Bank buying it, and I don’t see anybody stepping
forward and doing that, and the parking issue, I don’t think it really matters, either. As Mr.
Karpeles said, we’re already talking in this Town maybe we’re granting too many parking spaces
according to the ordinance. I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. MC NALLY-I find that, knowing this property, it’s truly in a commercial zone, and if it was
a residential structure, it certainly doesn’t belong in that class any longer. The property is unique
in that it’s such a small lot that it’s difficult to see any other use that it could be put to except
commercial. The number of parking spaces doesn’t bother me. I think the relief is substantial, but
I think on balance, I don’t think any impact on the neighborhood is going to be standing in the way
of any changes. So I would be in favor of it. When it gets converted to commercial, is that any of
uses allowed in 179-22?
MR. HAYES-I don’t think so. They have the parking requirements that are specific to uses, right?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, for specific uses, there’s specific parking.
MR. MC NALLY-So can we limit something like this to be used by the owner as an office
building?
MR. THOMAS-For a professional office, I don’t know how many spaces per square foot, but a
restaurant is more dense than whatever the, if they want to throw a restaurant in there, they’d have
to come back for another variance, for parking, but, you know, as long as they say it’s going to be
a professional office or an office building, and they can meet the criteria, which is one space per
150 square feet.
MR. ROUND-Right. Yes. I think in drafting your motion that if you did, any use that would be
more intensive for parking requirements, that would be the best way to phrase that, and then that
would trigger additional review or re-visit the variance.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I think I would be inclined to vote for this because I think it’s a definite hardship
on the owner. It has been used as a residence. This is certainly not the highest and best use of a
property that’s in the middle of a commercial zone. I don’t see the, I don’t see it being used for
residential purposes. It has been vacant for the past three or four years, and it’s been on the
market for eons longer than that, and no one has been interested in using it as a residence. The last
time I remember it even being used as a residence is when I was a child in high school.
MR. THOMAS-Bob?
MR. KARPELES-Well, I agree with everybody else. I can’t visualize that that’s going to remain
as a residential area, or residential use, and I can’t see what else the property could ever be used
for, and the house is just going to deteriorate. So I would go along with it. I don’t see any problem
with it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I agree with Bob. I think we were considering the impact on a neighborhood of a
property that’s not being used for anything, and it’s going to deteriorate, that sometimes cleaning
up a problem to give up a small variance is probably a benefit to the neighborhood as well and to
the applicant. So, in this case, I think that’s the case, then I would be in favor.
MR. THOMAS-I’m inclined to agree with the other Board members, that this is definitely not
residential in the area. It’s completely surrounded by commercial. The only thing that they could
use this building for is some sort of professional or office building, or else tear it down and try and
sell it as a vacant lot, and I don’t believe that a .14 acre lot would be snatched up real quick by
anybody except, you kow, the bank doesn’t appear to want it for anything, and the business in
back, the flowership doesn’t appear to want it for anything because they have all that they want.
So really the only thing that this could be used for is some kind of commercial enterprise in and
along the use of an office building. So, I would be inclined to go along with this. Would anyone
like to present a motion?
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE PROPERTY
BROUGHT ABOUT BY THIS PROJECT
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles:
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles,
Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1997 ANITA MALI STEVEN
CERRONE
, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
686 Glen Street. The applicant proposes establishment of a commercial use on a pre-existing,
nonconforming lot in a PC-1 Acre zone. The relief that is being requested is appreciable. It is
37,430 square feet, but there are mitigating circumstances, in that there’s no way to acquire more
property and the lot cannot be used for anything else as far as we can see. The applicant is also
seeking relief from the requirement for seven parking areas, and we will grant five parking areas,
any use that would require more extensive parking would be subject to variance approval. The
benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be allowed to establish a commercial and professional
office on a pre-existing lot. There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives, and as has been
stated, the relief is substantial, but I feel that granting the variance is appropriate. There will be no
adverse impacts on the neighborhood, and the difficulty does not appear to be self-created.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes,
Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. MALI-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-So, anything more than an office building, you’re going to come back and see us.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Round has something to tell us about the next two variances.
MR. ROUND-Okay. I think both applicants know that the notifications were not sent correctly to
all adjoining property owners. It’s my understanding that the Chairman’s going to open both
meetings, public hearings, so that anybody who is here could speak, and we’re going to have a
special meeting on Monday, this coming Monday, the same location, at seven o’clock. It will be
advertised. It may have been advertised today, or the notices were sent out, and we’ll be able to
vote at that time.
MR. THOMAS-It sounds good to me.
MR. ROUND-My apologies to both applicants on the part of the Staff.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1997 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 JEWELS DONUTS,
INC. OWNER: MARK F. LAPOINTE 22 W. MAIN STREET CORNER OF MAIN
AND CAROLINE STREETS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
DUNKIN DONUTS SHOP. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM MINIMUM LOT
SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-24. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
11/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 131-5-1, 34, 33 LOT SIZES: 0.17, 0.17, 0.17 ACRES SECTION
179-24
ROBERT LINSELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MS. LAPHAM-Project applicant, Jewel Donuts, Inc. 95 Saratoga Avenue, South Glens
Falls. Applicant’s Agent - blank. Property Owner: Mark F. Lapointe. Description of
Project: Dunkin Donuts shop. Zoning Classification: CR-15. Any previous Planning or
Zoning Board determination regarding this property.? See attached copy of previous area
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
variance. Present use of property - private residence and limousine service business.
Proposed use of property - Dunkin Donuts shop. The following questions reflect the
criteria for granting this type of variance. How would you benefit from the granting this
area variance? It would allow us to construct a Dunkin Donut shop for income. What
affect would this variance have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety
and welfare of the community? It would enhance area values, appearance. Can see no
adverse affect on health or safety. It will add approximately 15 jobs, additional sales tax
revenues and real estate and school taxes. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance?
No. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? We know from past
experience the variance will allow more than adequate space to safely operate a Dunkin
Donuts shop. The proposed use is in keeping with the purpose of the commercial
residential zoning. Will the variance have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district? No. Town of Queensbury
Community Development Department Staff Notes. Area Variance No. 76-1997, Project
applicant - Jewel Donuts, Inc. Project location: corner of Main and Caroline. Meeting
Date: November 19th. Description of proposed project: Applicant proposes construction
of a commercial enterprise Dunkin Donuts. Relief required: The applicant is requesting
relief from Section 179-24 requiring a minimum of one acre in area for commercial uses.
The proposed lot measures approximately 22,500 sq. ft. Criteria for considering an area
variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: Benefit to the applicant - The applicant
would be allowed to construct and operate a commercial enterprise. Feasible alternatives
- Feasible alternatives are limited to no construction or acquisition of additional property
in conformance with the ordinance. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?
Relief may be interpreted as substantial. Affects on the neighborhood or community. An
increase of the density of an allowed commercial use in anticipated as a result of the
proposal. Is this difficulty self created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel history - the subject parcels are currently utilized by Sue Howard Limousine. Staff
comments: The applicant’s request for relief from the minimum lot size requirement will
allow for development of a commercial enterprise on an approximately one half acre lot.
The Main Street corridor is subject to increased commercial development and the
associated impacts. The corridor will be the subject of a traffic planning and analysis
study. SEQR: Type II. Now won't there be, yes here they are, At a meeting of the
Warren County Planning Board held on the 12th day of November 1997 the above
application for an area variance to construct a Duncan Donuts shop was reviewed. The
following action was taken: Recommendation to approve. The Warren County Planning
Board approves this area variance specifically for this plan for jewels Donuts, Inc. Signed
by Terry Ross, Vice Chairperson.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you are Mr. LaPointe?
MR. LENZEL-No, I'm not. Mr. LaPointe owns the property. I am Robert Lenzel, I co-
own Jewels Donuts, Inc. We own and operate the three Dunkin Donuts in the area.
MR. THOMAS-Okay is there anything you want to say, add, comments.
MR. LENZEL-What I'd like to start by saying that in order for us to comply with this
requirement of a full acre it would be almost impossible on that particular corridor. I'd
have to purchase several residences that would be for sale and at this particular time there
aren't contiguously running lots that are currently for sale for me to meet that requirement.
The next issue is that in our South Glens Falls location, I'm not sure if any of you folks are
familiar with that, the South Glens Falls Dunkin Donuts is on a half acre at this point and
we feel that its an adequate space. We safely operate a Dunkin Donuts at that location. I
think for me to purchase an acre would be an overkill for our use. Develop a half acre,
use a half acre and I couldn't see a use for the additional half acre that would be required.
Within this half acre I think I have been able to meet all the requirements; setbacks, green
space, parking, signage and various other requirements that are necessary for
development.
MR. THOMAS-I have one question under here concerning the, on the application. The
applicant signature for Jewels Donuts, Inc. is an M.G. Morrison signed this.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. LENZEL-Yes, he's my partner.
MR. THOMAS-He's your partner.
MR. LENZEL-He and I are partners. Yes, he's incapacitated, just went under surgery.
MR. THOMAS-I just wanted because I'd never heard, there was never mention of any
name of Morrison on the application except for that signature right there.
MR. CUSTER-Your name again?
MR. LENZEL-Lenzel, Robert Lenzel.
MR. CUSTER-Just another point of reference, the one on Upper Glen is yours also.
MR. LENZEL-Yes, it is.
MR. CUSTER-What is the lot size there approximately?
MR. LENZEL-That I really don't know, I think I measured it at one point and I think you
are talking about 130 foot across the front if not less.
MR. CUSTER-How deep?
MR. LENZEL-Um, just as a guess I would say that has to run maybe 2 and 1/2 in depth.
MR. MC NALLY-I'm trying to think if that’s even an acre, I frequent that one more often
than I frequent the other ones.
MS. LAPHAM-It's about % of an acre.
MR. LENZEL-The South Glens Falls store as I mentioned is a half acre and that like I
said is very similar to what we are looking at here.
MR. CUSTER-Looking at this proposal I don't see a lot of difficulty with this I'm just
trying to get as a point of reference.
MRS. LAPHAM-You don't own this lot at present?
MR. LENZEL-No we don't, it's contingent upon approval.
MR. CUSTER-It's all three lots though?
MR.LENZEL-Yes it is.
MR. CUSTER-Yeah, all right.
MR.LENZEL-There are three parcels, 50'x 150' and the purchase would total. MR.
KARPELES-You would rip down everything that is on the lot.
MR. LENZEL-Yes we would, everything would be removed.
MR. KARPELES-And then this structure will be a standard Dunkin Donuts type of place
or do you have a standard?
MR. LENZEL-Pardon me?
MR. KARPELES-Do you have a standard?
MR. LENZEL-Well they do, yes. They recently, the three sites that we own, two of them
are oak image and will have to be currently remodeled. The one that we just built in Fort
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
Edward is a gray image and we just built that a year ago, now that's obsolete also. They
have come out with what they call the next generation store and that’s been developed in
Greenwich. That was a prototype Dunkin Donuts has selected it and its a much more
upscale that what you're used to with Dunkin Donuts. It’s quite an appealing place, I
don't know if any of you folks have been to the Greenwich Dunkin Donuts, its a much
different look than what we currently have and its quite nice and this building will fit the
next generation concepts.
MR. THOMAS-I have to stay away from the one in Greenwich, we had a little problem
with the sign going into the power lines.
MR. LENZEL-Oh, is that right?
MR. THOMAS-Yeah.
MR. KARPELES-Is this a one story building?
MR. LENZEL-Yes, it is.
MR. MC NALLY-Is there any problem with this being on the corner as far as the
setbacks? Does it change, is there two front yards?
MR. THOMAS-No, there is this right here being in a travel overlay corridor here again 50
minimum, 75 because its in the travel overlay corridor and I do believe that on Main Street
there or the Corinth Road that they do have 75 back required that the have that, they meet
the parking,
MR. MC NALLY-What about Caroline?
MR. THOMAS-In terms of Caroline that would be a front also considered a front and
they required 50 feet and it looks like they have got, lets see, 20, 40.
MR. ROUND-Top of the drawing, it meets both the road setbacks.
MR. THOMAS-They have got both the front on Caroline and the 75 on Main Street.
MR. MC NALLY-There is a shaded area along Main Street along Caroline Street, what is
that area?
MR. LENZEL-I believe that is all green space.
MR. MC NALLY-What plans do you have for that area?
MR. LENZEL-I'm sorry?
MR. MC NALLY-What plans do you have for that green space?
MR. LENZEL-That hasn't been addressed at this point. Like I said it will be green space,
obviously I think when we go in front of Queensbury there will be a Beautification
Committee or something to notify us as what they would hope to have in those areas. I
also wanted to mention that I think our requirement on green space is 30% and we're
above that. We've been able to anticipate the fact that Queensbury is trying to maintain a
particular look.
MR. KARPELES-The store in South Glens Falls, does that have a septic system?
MR. LENZEL-No that is on Town water and sewer.
MR. KARPELES-Have you gotten a professional opinion as to whether this is adequate
for a septic system on
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. LENZEL-I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
MR. KARPELES-Have you gotten a professional opinion as to whether this is adequate
for the, that the lot size is adequate to have a septic system?
MR. LENZEL-Yes, I think we had spoken to the Town and they are aware of the fact that
it would require a septic. There will be no production of any sort on the premises so its
mostly just a restroom facility that they would have to accommodate with a septic. Our
architect also led us to believe that we could meet any requirements necessary in that area.
But that at this point has not been addressed, I mean we have touched bases on all these
particular issues but that has not been pinned down that. I didn't feel the need to go
forward because if I can't get this variance this project is over as far as that location.
MR. MC NALLY-So this is not one of the Dunkin Donuts where your actually cooking
on site, you do them some place else. Rest of conversation not able to be transcribed.
MR. LENZEL-We’ll produce in South Glens Falls and eventually that will change also.
MS. LAPHAM-Change to what?
MR. LENZEL-The Albany market which we're a part of is going to hopefully by July 1st
of next year build what they call a central producing location and will build a kitchen and
all of the franchisees in this market will buy into it, it will be a 3 to 4 million dollar
endeavor but we hope to what we'd like to do like I said I have two oak image stores that
I have to remodel. We want to eliminate the kitchens and return that floor space to the
customers and offering retail space and bake off premises for many of our locations that
we all currently have.
MR. THOMAS-If you're baking off premises there has to be delivery to these Dunkin
Donuts. What’s the delivery rate, is it two trucks a day, four trucks a day?
MR. LENZEL-I believe that you're looking at a minimum of two deliveries a day but
we're about a very small vehicle to accommodate this.
MR. THOMAS-Where?
MR. LENZEL-They would probably have just my four stores on one vehicle, we're talking
about something smaller that most vehicles like a panel truck or a step situation like that.
That decision won't be made by me. But I do know that they will be relatively small
vehicles.
MR. THOMAS-Delivery times?
MR. LENZEL-That I really couldn't say at this point. I would assume if we hope to be up
and running our busiest time is at 6 a.m. and probably be within a half hour prior to that
5:30 or so.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MS. LAPHAM-What would your hours be?
MR. LENZEL-That I haven't addressed also. Dunkin likes for all their locations to be 24
hours. I don't know if there is any particular ordinance on that issue at this point. I'm not
aware of it. Of course we’ll do whatever we have to do. Looking at the traffic counts and
the night time traffic counts we would hope to enjoy some of the evening hours or even a
24 hour situation but if I can't have that, that's something I'm willing to do.
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions? If not I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing
to speak in favor of this application? In favor op. Anyone wishing to speak opposed?
Opposed?
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Is their any correspondence?
MS. LAPHAM-No.
MR. THOMAS-I'm going to leave the public hearing open and because of the advertising
snafu.
MOTION WE TABLE THIS APPLICATION (AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1997
JEWELS DONUTS, INC.) UNTIL MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24TH AT A SPECIAL
MEETING
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian
Custer:
At that time proper notification will have been done and a decision can be rendered on this
application and at that time also the Short Environmental Assessment Form will have to be
addressed.
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MS. LAPHAM-Chris I just need to ask him one thing. These floated up. Are these phone
messages that say that these people didn't get their notices or are they calling to say no
they are against the?
MR. ROUND-Yes, I think what Sue had done is she didn't know whether she had sent
them out or not and she polled a couple of people and hadn't received them so that.
MS. LAPHAM-Because it was hard to tell whether they were No I don't want the donut
shop or No no one told me what was going on anyway.
MR. THOMAS-Yeah, so I made the motion, I need a second. So at 7 p.m. right here next
Monday a decision will be made hopefully, there will be at least 4 people here. If there
isn't four people.
MR. LENZEL-Try again.
MR. ROUND-Is Brian going to be here, Mr. Custer you will be here, okay.
USE VARIANCE NO. 77-1997 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED UR-10 PAUL G.
SCHUERLEIN OWNER: LINDA PAQUIN 188 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES OPERATION OF A PLUMBING BUSINESS IN AN EXISTING
STRUCTURE. PROPERTY HAS A USE VARIANCE FOR OPERATION OF A
CARPET CLEANING BUSINESS. APPLICANT SEEKS A USE VARIANCE FOR A
NONCONFORMING USE IN THE UR-10 ZONE., SECTION 179-17. TAX MAP NO. 92-
2-7.1 LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES SECTION 179-17
MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 77-1997, Paul G. Schuerlein, Meeting Date: November 19,
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
1997 “ 188 Dixon Road Applicant
Relief
proposes operating a plumbing business in an existing structure located in the UR-10 zone.
Required:
The proposed project requires relief from the requirements of §179-17; UR-20.
The applicant for a use variance must
Commercial activities are not allowed in the UR-10 zone.
satisfy all four (4) of the following criteria for the granting of a Use Variance: 1. Can a
reasonable return be realized as the property is currently zoned?
The structure on the property
was built for commercial purposes. The applicant has presented financial evidence regarding the
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
2. Is the alleged hardship unique to the property?
return that may be realized if used as zoned.
The hardship demonstrated by the applicant may be interpreted as unique on the basis of the
3. Will the requested variance alter the essential
previous use of the existing structure.
character of the neighborhood?
The area is residential in character. The subject property has
historically been utilized in a commercial manner. The continuance of a commercial enterprise at
4. Is the alleged
the site is not anticipated to alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
hardship self-created?:
No. The hardship is attributed to the zoning ordinance not allowing the
Staff comments:
use for which the original structure was constructed. As indicated above the
applicant must satisfy all of the criteria established for the granting of a use variance.
Additionally, the board should consider the impact of the proposed variance on the zoning
SEQR Status:
regulations themselves. Unlisted (Review of the short EAF required)”
MR. THOMAS-Did anything come in from Warren County on that?
MR. ROUND-No.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Levack.
MR. LEVACK-Hello. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Zoning Board, my name’s Mark Levack
from Levack Real Estate. We are the listing agent on the property and have been marketing the
property for the past six months, seven months. I have Mr. Schuerlein here, Paul Schuerlein who
owns Schuerlein Plumbing and Heating. Paul’s under contract to purchase the property contingent
upon a Use Variance. We’re here to answer any questions that you have on the proposed use and
any of the arguments that we’ve made under the four part criteria.
MR. THOMAS-All right. The first question I’ll ask is, how’s this building going to be utilized? Is
it going to be just for storage and a workshop, storage/workshop/retail sales? What?
PAUL SCHUERLEIN
MR. SHUERLEIN-No sales, just strictly storage and just office.
MR. THOMAS-Storage and office and workshop.
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes, workshop.
MR. THOMAS-If you have to prefabricate something. What about storage of materials?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes, storage of materials.
MR. THOMAS-Anything hazardous?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-No. Just plumbing fixtures, maybe some pipe, toilets, water heater, stuff like
that.
MR. THOMAS-What about lead pipe, anything mercury?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-No. Lead pipe’s been deemed unsafe anyway.
MR. KARPELES-This is all going to be in the building, not in the garage? The garage is going to
be used strictly as a garage?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Right, strictly as a garage.
MR. KARPELES-And that other building, that has nothing to do with this, right?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-No. That garage is somebody else’s.
MR. HAYES-Where do you store these materials now, I mean, in your garage on Henry Street?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-On Henry, yes.
MR. HAYES-So that’s what you’re trying to relieve, basically?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes. I’m trying to free up the garage.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. CUSTER-Mark, do you also represent the property owner?
MR. LEVACK-Yes, I do.
MR. CUSTER-Okay. Because I think we have a little flawed argument here right now, and I
relate this back to a similar applicant that we had not too long ago who was seeking a variance for
a used car dealership in an unapproved zoning area, and we rejected that, not because we were not
in favor of what he was doing. In fact there was a lot of supporting evidence to do so, but he was
not the only property, and by law, we have to substantiate the property owner cannot make a
reasonable rate of return on the property. So, you know, have you tried to sell this parcel for her
for quite a while?
MR. LEVACK-Yes.
MR. CUSTER-I mean, if she were to rent this out, would that not be a reasonable rate of return?
MR. LEVACK-You couldn’t even rent it out for anything other than a “carpet cleaning business”.
MR. CUSTER-And that was attempted?
MR. LEVACK-And we’ve attempted to contact every carpet cleaning business in the area, and
they don’t want it.
MR. CUSTER-I just want to keep it consistent with what I’ve done on the Board, not that I’m
looking to cause a hard time.
MR. LEVACK-I’m here this evening as an agent, not only on behalf of Paul Schuerlein, but also
on behalf of the Paquins.
MR. CUSTER-That’s what I wanted to be sure.
MR. LEVACK-Yes.
MR. CUSTER-Because to me it’s not up to Mr. Schuerlein to prove financial hardship. It’s up to
the property owner to prove financial. Other than that, I have no problems with the other
arguments you’ve made.
MR. LEVACK-That’s correct.
MR. CUSTER-In fact, you did a great job of presenting them to us, and I appreciate that. I just
wanted to make that clear in my mind.
MR. KARPELES-That’s a very unusual structure. Are you going to be able to utilize that high
spot somehow as storage?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-I have no idea what I’m going to do with that.
MR. KARPELES-But you will maintain it?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes. We’re going to landscape it and paint it up and stuff like that. It is
quite an eyesore right now.
MRS. LAPHAM-Right across the street is Sears Trees, isn’t it?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes, and Kruger Concrete I think, too, or something or other. I don’t know
what’s up there.
MR. LEVACK-We also have here a letter I would like to read into the record. Paul basically,
being a neighborhood resident, has contacted 10 of the immediate adjoining property owners, and
every single one of the property owners has given this project their approval.
MR. THOMAS-Do you want to throw it in here for the record?
MR. LEVACK-Yes, please.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. THOMAS-I’ll have the secretary read it in and just read the names down through.
MRS. LAPHAM-Should I read it right now?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “I understand that Mr. Schuerlein’s plumbing and heating business would
conduct day to day operations at this site. His use of this building would include interior material
storage, general shop operations and office use. I support Mr. Schuerlein’s Use Variance. I
believe granting him use of this building would improve the building and grounds. Richard and
Judith Petite, Heidi Rye, Mr. Rye, Mr. and Mrs. Duffy, Melodie Sutliff, Ruth Pasco, Rose Palacy,
Rick and Jenny Rodriguez” Rick lives at 63 Zenus Drive which is definitely right behind, but I
can’t make out Rick’s last name.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any more questions for the applicant? All right. I’ll open the
public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Is there any other correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Not from the public. There is correspondence from C.A. Grant, the Fire
Marshal.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, why don’t you read that in there.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. To the Zoning Board, from C.A. Grant, Fire Marshal, Subject is 188
Dixon Road Use Variance No. 77-1997, “Regarding the proposal for use of 188 Dixon Road, I
feel the Board should at least be aware of a Code violation existing at the above location and some
background. Perhaps with the cooperation of the involved parties, the issue can be satisfactorily
resolved without turning to other means. At issue is a portable above ground gasoline tank from
which Mr. Clark filled his carpet cleaning vehicle. During my most recent fire inspection, I
advised Mr. Clark of the requirement for a fire suppression system. He assured me the business
would be closing in the near future. At such time the tank would be removed. Since seeing the site
th
on your November 19 agenda, I have unsuccessfully attempted to find someone at the address and
phone messages left on the carpet cleaning business answer machine have not been returned.
Though a simple means of compliance would be to remove the tank from the property. C.A.
Grant, Fire Marshal”
MR. THOMAS-Would you like to address that?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-We’ll just remove the tank.
MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that.
MRS. LAPHAM-That certainly does.
MR. LEVACK-If Paul chooses to replace the tank, he would make an application and replace it
properly, but at this point in time, he has no plans of keeping that tank there. He plans to remove
it.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? What’s your business hours?
When would you be in the shop?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Eight to five.
MR. THOMAS-I mean, you wouldn’t be in there banging at like two o’clock in the morning
sweating pipe together?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-No. I’d be in sleeping.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. THOMAS-I mean, you know, I could understand if somebody called and said, my hot water
heater just exploded, can you replace it. I could go down there, pick one up and go from there, but,
I mean, it wouldn’t be anything other than that.
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Most of the time, I won’t even be there. I conduct my business at people’s
houses.
MR. THOMAS-Do you work by yourself, or do you have people that work for you, or with you?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-I just have a helper.
MR. THOMAS-And is he with you all the time, or does he have his own vehicle?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-No, he’s with me.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you’re just running one vehicle?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Right, at present, yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-He would just park his personal car there and you would just park your personal
car there.
MR. SCHUERLEIN-There’s a garage there. Probably, there will be no outside storage. In fact,
right now there’s stuff outside. There will be nothing outside, not even a car. I’ve got a two car
garage there also. So, if anything, it will be in the garage.
MR. LEVACK-But I think if a customer of Paul’s shows up wanting to do business with Paul, that
that customer shouldn’t be prevented from parking their cars and going into Paul’s office. There is
an on site, off street parking area there. Paul has no intentions of laying down more blacktop, but
the blacktop and concrete that’s currently there is sufficient to house probably a minimum of four
or five vehicles in that area without being on street or on the adjoining property owner’s property.
MR. THOMAS-What about signage?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-We would apply for a sign permit through the Town of Queensbury Building
Department and conform with their Sign Ordinance. Probably put it right where the existing
Adirondack Carpet Cleaning sign is right now, but that’s undecided at this point.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll table this until
Monday. No more questions for the applicant?
MRS. LAPHAM-Are you a licensed plumber?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes.
MR. LEVACK-Can we, there is some concern that Monday comes and we have four members
present. Can we poll the panel right now to get an idea of the panel’s individual interests and who
plans on being at Monday’s meeting?
MR. THOMAS-Who’s going to be here?
MRS. LAPHAM-I’ll be here.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie, Bob, Jaime, Brian and Bob. There’s going to be five. You’ll have
five there.
MR. LEVACK-And we’ll need four.
MR. THOMAS-You’ll need four to.
MR. LEVACK-Right. I’d just like a quick frame of reference from the panel members what your
initial reaction is. As we try to approach the timing of closing this property, I’m anticipating
hopefully a favorable outcome on Monday.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. THOMAS-Well, do you want to say anything about that, Bob down there on the end? In
favor, don’t know, haven’t thought about it?
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t really have any problems with the project in the general sense. To be
perfectly honest with you, I have not made a decision or not thought about it hard enough because I
knew it wasn’t going to be on until next week. No promises.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-My dad did this for years, he was a plumbing contractor. So if he does exactly
what I think he’s going to do, there shouldn’t be any problem. In fact, he’ll probably run out of his
house, because all you need is a phone, and a truck.
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but you can nail that down positively after the public hearing on Monday,
you can nail him to that.
MRS. LAPHAM-Exactly.
MR. THOMAS-Bob, you’re going to be here.
MR. KARPELES-Yes. I’m going to be here. As of right now, I have no objection with it. In fact,
I think you’ve done an excellent job of outlining and pointing out to us how you meet the four
requirements, and I feel much the same way I did about this area up on Glen Street, that if a good
use isn’t found for this place, it’s going to sit there and deteriorate. So, as of right now, I’m in
favor of it, unless something comes up to change my mind.
MR. THOMAS-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-My feelings are closely aligned with Bob’s. I mean, I think that the Use Variance,
you’ve got to touch all four bases, and I think that I agree with Bob. I think whoever prepared that
did a good job doing that. So, outside of something coming up, I would feel good about it.
MR. THOMAS-Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I, too, agree with Bob phrased it. I asked the one question I had to ask, and it’s
been answered to my satisfaction, and I’d be in favor of it unless, as Bob said, something comes up
that we’re unaware of.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anything else?
MR. LEVACK-No. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 77-1997 PAUL G. SCHUERLEIN
,
Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
th
Tabled until Monday, November 24, until the public has had a chance to be notified. Also at that
time, the Short SEQRA form will also be addressed.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles,
Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of that.
MR. LEVACK-See you Monday. Thank you.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/97)
MR. THOMAS-You won’t see me. I won’t be here.
MRS. LAPHAM-Who’s going to be Chairman?
MR. THOMAS-That’s what we’re going to do right now.
MR. CUSTER-You’re the senior member, Bob.
MRS. LAPHAM-That’s right.
MR. KARPELES-Yes. I know that it would look great on my obituary that I conducted a Zoning
Board meeting one time in my life, but I think, I really think, as much as I’d love to do it,
somebody that aspires to be Chairman of this illustrious group should do it.
MR. THOMAS-Would someone like to nominate a member of the Board that is going to be
th
present on Monday, November 24 to be Acting Chairman for that one night? The polls are now
open for a nomination.
MR. CUSTER-Can our Secretary do both jobs?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
MR. KARPELES-I nominate Jamie.
MR. CUSTER-Who’s senior here? Jamie. Actually, I’m not sure. We both joined the same time.
MR. HAYES-I think we did. I think we were at the same meeting.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone else want to put anyone else’s name in nomination? Okay.
Do we have a second to Jamie’s nomination?
MR. KARPELES-I second it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets have a vote.
MR. CUSTER-Aye.
MR. MC NALLY-Aye.
MR. THOMAS-Any opposed? The Ayes have it. Jamie will be the temporary Chairman. All
right. I guess that’s all we’ve got right now. I’ll make a motion we adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
39