1998-07-15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 15, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY
LEWIS STONE
BRIAN CUSTER
PAUL HAYES
MEMBERS ABSENT
ROBERT MC NALLY
JOSEPH PORTER
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
-CRAIG BROWN
SENIOR PLANNER
-SUSAN CIPPERLY
STENOGRAPHER
-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1998 TYPE II HUGH SINCLAIR OWNER: SAME ZONE:
LI-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF MERRITT RD. & CORINTH RD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND REQUESTS RELIEF
FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE REQUIREMENTS, SETBACK
RELIEF FROM THE LI-1A ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND RELIEF FOR EXPANSION
OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 7-1991, UV 126-
1992, AV 18-1992, SP 41-92, SP 55-92, SP 13-94, SP 19-94, SP 37-38 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 7/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 146-1-10 LOT SIZE: 22,500 SQ. FT. SECTION:
179-28, 179-26, 179-79
HUGH SINCLAIR, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-1998, Hugh Sinclair, Meeting Date: July 15, 1998
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ Corner of Merritt Road and Corinth Road
Applicant proposes construction of a 220 square foot addition to an existing building which
already has a 120 square foot addition without approval. The building in question lies within the
75 foot setback of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone and the 50 foot front setback of the LI-1A
Relief Required:
zone. Applicant requests 30 feet of relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay
Zone setback requirement of 75 feet Sect. 179-28, and simultaneously requests 5 feet of relief from
the front setback requirements of the LI-1A zone 50 foot requirement, Sect. 179-26. Additionally,
since the existing storage building is within the 75 foot setback of the TCO, and the 50 foot front
setback requirement to the LI-1A zone, the applicant requests relief for expansion of a non-
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
conforming structure, Sect. 179-79
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to
2. Feasible alternatives:
construct additions in the desired location. Since the entire storage
3. Is this relief
building is within the 75 foot TCO setback, feasible alternatives are limited.
substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
30 feet of TCO relief may be interpreted as substantial,
4. Effects on
while the underlying zone, (LI-1A), relief of 5 feet may be interpreted as minimal.
the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
of this action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
UV 7-1991 res. 2/20/91 to convert
residence into office (approved.) AV 118-1992 res. 12/16/92 setback relief for garage expansion
(app.) UV 126-1992 res. 12/16/92 to expand existing non conforming garage (app.) SP 41-1992
res. 9/17/92 for curb cuts and parking items (approved) SP 55-1992 res. 12/22/92 to construct a
13-8 x 22-6 shed (approved) SP 13-1994 res. 4/19/94 to construct a fence and place parking signs
(denied) SP 19-1994 res. 5/19/94 to construct fence and place parking signs (approved) SP 37-
Staff comments:
1998 res. Pending to construct fence Since the easterly addition has been
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
constructed, impacts related to demolition and removal may be noted. This sites’ ongoing
expansion which requires relief, may suggest that a business of this size would be better suited on
SEQR Status:
another site. Type II”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of July
1998, the above application for An Area Variance to build 2 additions on main building over 2
existing concrete slabs for storage of equipment and business materials was reviewed, and the
following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Teri Ross, Vice
Chairperson.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Sinclair, is there anything else you want to tell us, add, discuss?
MR. SINCLAIR-I don’t believe so. One of the things that was stated was maybe another location
would be a great spot, but there aren’t any that are within my budget.
MR. THOMAS-Well, the way you’re expanding there, it’s my opinion that anything, if you keep
expanding at the rate you’re going, because of all these site plans and variances you’ve had there,
that, you know, you’re going to run out of room here pretty soon. So, that’s my take on it. Are
there any other questions for Mr. Sinclair, or comments?
MR. STONE-The leach field in the back, I mean, you had some discarded or old equipment in the
back. Is any of that sitting on the leach field, by the way?
MR. SINCLAIR-No. The leach field goes from the corner of the garage, and it curves around
right through the middle of the property
MR. STONE-Okay. So there’s nothing sitting on top of it?
MR. SINCLAIR-No.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for Mr. Sinclair? 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
STAN BATEASE
MR. BATEASE-I have some questions I’d like to ask on this. I’m Stan Batease. I’m his neighbor,
okay.
MRS. BATEASE-And I’m his wife.
MR. BATEASE-Okay. Now, he has his leach field, and I assume, is this where you’re going to
build is over your leach field?
MR. SINCLAIR-No. The actual, where we’re going to build, this little space, I believe they might
have had a garage on that once before. It is, the leach field actually runs behind the garage, the
septic tank’s here, and the leach field runs out in that open part.
MR. THOMAS-Here’s a picture right here.
MR. SINCLAIR-Here’s where the leach field is, right back out here.
MR. BATEASE-This is my property here, right. Okay. The leach field runs from here up to here.
MR. SINCLAIR-That’s right.
MR. BATEASE-You’re driving over your leach field now, when your people park here. The leach
field is here. Am I right?
MR. SINCLAIR-I believe it’s here. See, where it’s marked?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. BATEASE-I don’t believe so. I believe it’s here, and his leach field is probably, his leach
field, I believe, is about 80 feet from our well. Okay. Now what our conversation, my
conversation with him the other day, he told me he wanted to put up a building there to be able to
wash his trucks in there, and I’m concerned with him washing it, and with the leach field that’s in
there now, contaminating my well. Understand?
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. BATEASE-Okay. Now, when, at my residence, we had to put in two 8 foot by 8 foot
drywells, and all he has is just a regular old fashioned leach field in there. I don’t know how many
feet it is, but I am concerned of contaminating our well.
MR. STONE-Are you saying the leach field, instead of going to the west, goes to the east?
MR. BATEASE-No, it goes that way, but I don’t think this is accurate. I think it’s more even with
the existing garage that’s there now, the lean to, more toward Merritt Road than what it shows
here.
MRS. LAPHAM-You’re saying it’s farther south than what it looks like here?
MR. BATEASE-No, it’s further east.
MR. STONE-Farther east. Because he shows the Distribution Box, if that’s what that is, 24 feet
from the septic tank to the west, and you’re saying you don’t.
MR. BATEASE-I don’t believe it’s there. I believe it’s closer to Merritt Road than what this
shows. I would say about the length of his garage that’s existing there now.
MR. SINCLAIR-We had Frank Shaw from Morning Star put this in, and he consulted with us and
showed us where this was, and my, one of the ladies in our office drew it as he outlined it to us. It
actually runs, we believe it runs out behind the existing garage and goes toward the willow tree out
there.
MR. THOMAS-How long ago did you put that septic system in?
MR. SINCLAIR-We did that when we first moved in. That was about 10 years ago, wasn’t it,
Stan?
MR. BATEASE-Yes. Shaw put it in, down in Wilton there.
MR. THOMAS-Would that be in the records?
MR. BROWN-Probably, yes.
MR. THOMAS-So the records would tell us exactly where that septic system is?
MS. CIPPERLY-If it was 10 years ago, we would have a septic permit.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because I didn’t see a septic permit listed in the.
MR. STONE-I don’t see one.
MR. BATEASE-It was less than 10 years, wasn’t it?
MR. STONE-You’ve been in there for seven years, right?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes.
MR. STONE-You had the residence you converted to the office in ’91?
MR. SINCLAIR-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re talking seven years.
MR. BATEASE-Seven years, but he was there a year before he put the septic system in.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-So that’s ’92. That’s six years ago.
MR. BATEASE-That’s right. Am I correct?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. Well, we didn’t do anything with the building, though.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets get back to the septic system, here. If they put a septic system in by
permit, the permit would not have been issued unless they were 100 feet from the neighbor’s well,
right?
MS. CIPPERLY-Right, unless they got a variance from the Town Board, and the question I have
for Mr. Sinclair, are you on Town water, in your building?
MR. SINCLAIR-The water coming into the building is from the Town. The septic system is just a
tank and leach.
MS. CIPPERLY-But it doesn’t go down Merritt Road, the Town road doesn’t go down Merritt
Road?
MR. BATEASE-It goes down Merritt Road, yes.
MR. SINCLAIR-So we have Town water, but not Town sewage.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So like I’m saying, if a permit was issued, then it would have had to have
been 100 feet from any neighboring well.
MS. CIPPERLY-Unless there’s Town water provided. Then the well is kind of a moot point.
MR. THOMAS-Then it’s a moot point, but if it’s an active well. You’d have to look at the records
on that.
MR. BATEASE-No one ever came over to ask us if we had Town water, and it should be on
record that we don’t pay water rent.
MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. Then you may not be in the water district.
MR. BATEASE-It is in the water district.
MS. CIPPERLY-We’ll have to look this up.
MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, if it’s in the water district, you have to hook up, right?
MRS. LAPHAM-No, it’s your prerogative.
MS. CIPPERLY-We would have to look in the, if there was a septic permit within the last 10
years, it would be in our files in the Building Department.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that would show distances to, at least the property lines.
MS. CIPPERLY-Yes.
MR. BATEASE-Mr. Sinclair’s lot is 150 by 150 yards, is 150 deep by 225 foot frontage, okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and your well is on the north end of your property?
MR. BATEASE-No, it isn’t. It’s on the east side of the property. It’s probably about 30, 35 feet
from Merritt Road, and approximately 80 feet from where his leach field is now.
MR. STONE-How far from the property line?
MR. BATEASE-From the line?
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, your well.
MR. BATEASE-About 50 feet from the line between his place and ours.
MR. STONE-From the property line between your two properties, the property line between your
two properties to your well is 50 or 60 feet?
MR. BATEASE-Between 50 and 60 feet. I haven’t taped it off, but it’s close, you know.
MR. STONE-He shows the garage currently at 50 feet, and the leach field is obviously less than
50 feet, the way it’s drawn here.
MR. BATEASE-That’s right.
MR. STONE-And that’s probably the 80 feet that you’re talking about, if that’s the case?
MR. BATEASE-Yes.
MR. STONE-But then again it depends where the leach field is. If it’s where it is on this drawing,
it’s probably more than 80 feet, because it’s on the diagonal.
MR. SINCLAIR-That’s what we think it is. It’s going.
MR. STONE-But we need to know, obviously.
MR. BATEASE-That’s right. I’d appreciate it if you’d check it.
MR. THOMAS-Do these two new sheds, do they impact your septic system? I mean, are you
adding any water into these?
MR. SINCLAIR-There isn’t going to be any water in either one of those.
MR. THOMAS-And no water into the sheds for any kind of use, washing or anything like that?
MR. SINCLAIR-No. The washing is downstairs.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but that’s existing. There’s nothing new.
MR. BATEASE-And there’s one more thing I’d like to make record of, and I’ve talked to Mr.
Sinclair about this. I’ve seen his men, when they come in, with cleaning rugs and stuff, dumping
the stuff out in the back yard, and I’ve spoken to them twice, and I’ve spoken to Hugh, and I’d like
that stopped, if it continues. I haven’t seen it lately, but I have seen it twice.
MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s an enforcement issue. You’d have to talk to Craig Brown.
MR. BATEASE-And I have no objections if he wants to build over toward the Corinth Road and
stay away from our place, along side of his house, where his, well, what was Joe Seybolt’s den in
there, where their fireplace is. If you want to build over there, I’ve got no objections.
MR. STONE-I did see a sign that said, to your workers, every other day to wash their vehicles.
MR. SINCLAIR-To wash them, yes.
MR. STONE-Where do they wash them?
MR. SINCLAIR-Right now they’re washing them in the sand, and what Stan’s talking about is
something I’m not aware of, and I tell them, do not dump this here. We have a permit to go to the
City water waste plant.
MR. STONE-This is gray water you’re talking about?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. It’s mostly just sand and silt from people’s carpets.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-Right, but cleaning solution, though, too?
MR. SINCLAIR-Well, there’s some, but it’s not much in there. One of the, I think a bigger
concern to Stan might be our washing machine. Our washing machine is washing towels out every
single day, and that may be a different concern, but that’s always been there. We have several
issues over there, and one of the things that we’re eventually wanting to do is put up an area where
we can lock our vans inside. We’ve had them vandalized four times, and it’s cost me over $6,000
for the vandalism that’s been done to them, and that’s an issue, I don’t know if we’re talking about
it right now, or whether it’s next meeting.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re talking about adding more buildings to the property?
MR. SINCLAIR-Right now we’re just talking about the.
MR. STONE-I know what we’re talking about now, but you said you’d like to get the trucks
inside.
MR. SINCLAIR-All I want to do is erect a fence so that people can’t crawl over and take my grills
off, take my mirrors, break inside my trucks. It’s been pretty frustrating, and we have installed
lights and things like that, but I guess that just helps them see a lot better.
MR. BATEASE-Hugh has done quite a lot up there, and we have discussed about putting up a
stockade fence between his place and ours, and making a fence so he could enclose his trucks on
the inside. Am I correct? And we’ve talked about sharing the expense, too, but right now, what
I’m concerned about, mainly, is not contaminating a well. My wife, at different times, when she’s
drawn water, has said, look, boy, that looks like soap suds in there, but whether it is or not, I don’t
know, and I told you this, Hugh.
MR. THOMAS-Well, if you’re really concerned about it, you can go to the Town and you can get
a look at that permit, and it’ll tell you exactly where their septic system is, compared to the
property lines.
MR. BATEASE-You mean it’s my obligation to go and check this out?
MR. THOMAS-If you think, yes. If you want to know.
MR. BATEASE-I would like to see the plot plan of his property.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, if you stop at the Town Hall, it’s down in the Planning Department,
and I’m sure they can pull that permit out and show it to you if you want to see it.
MR. BATEASE-Okay, and then what do I do afterwards?
MR. THOMAS-If you feel that you’re being wronged, then you can file a complaint with the Code
Enforcement Officer.
MR. BATEASE-All right. Okay. Very good.
MS. CIPPERLY-Could I ask a question of Mr. Sinclair? You have a site plan application in for
next week to do a fence. That’s behind your garage, right?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes.
MS. CIPPERLY-And is that for parking your vehicles?
MR. BATEASE-That’s where we need, we needed a place to secure those vehicles. It’s really
getting to be, you don’t know if you’re going to go out there and even find four tires on a van.
MS. CIPPERLY-Are they going to drive through the garage to get?
MR. SINCLAIR-No. What we’re hoping to do is, from the end of the garage, there’s a space
between trees that we can drive out through the back there, and they’re going to be then facing
Merritt Road when they pull in there, I believe.
MR. STONE-But you’re going to drive onto the leach field.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. SINCLAIR-Across it.
MR. STONE-Across it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any more comments you’d like to make concerning this
application? We’ve got to move things along here.
MR. BATEASE-Well, not really, but I would like to know the outcome of this fence deal here. We
have discussed this, and we’ve talked about maybe 75 or 80 feet from the western corner over to
his garage, but leave a low fence, so that, from our yard, we could see across.
MR. THOMAS-That’s on next week’s Planning Board meeting?
MR. SINCLAIR-The site plan.
MR. THOMAS-The site plan. Yes, that’s the Planning Board. This is the Zoning Board. So it’s
another meeting. It’s a whole different bunch.
MR. BATEASE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-That’s when they’re going to talk about the fence. You’ll probably get
notification in the mail.
MR. BATEASE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak opposed? Is there any
correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Lets talk about this.
MR. STONE-I have a couple of questions of Mr. Sinclair.
MR. THOMAS-All right.
MR. STONE-As I understand now, you have one building up, and one you want to construct. Is
that true, or are they both up?
MR. SINCLAIR-No. There’s one that we want to add on to, where the concrete is on the, I guess
that’s the north side there.
MR. STONE-Okay, but, I mean, you show on this thing, you show two buildings in yellow, there
are two buildings outlined in yellow. Can you tell me, is this one there now?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, the smaller one is.
MR. STONE-And this one is not there?
MR. SINCLAIR-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. So my question is, why did you build the small one without getting a
variance?
MR. SINCLAIR-I thought there was something that said if the building wasn’t such and such a
size, that we didn’t need a building permit, and secondly, when our carpenter looked at it, he said, I
think you already have the building permit for this thing, and it wasn’t until one of the gentlemen
came over and said, this isn’t included in this building permit that you have.
MR. STONE-Because it’s in the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, and therefore couldn’t be without
a variance.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. THOMAS-That’s right. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Sinclair? If not, lets talk about
it. I’ll start with you, Jamie.
MR. HAYES-Well, in an Area Variance, we have a balancing test that basically examines the
benefit to the applicant versus the results and implications in the neighborhood, and I certainly
applaud Mr. Sinclair’s expansion of his business. It’s good to see local business owners do well,
but in this particular circumstance, I can’t make the stretch to think that what I consider a series of
small irregular additions in the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, in this particular circumstance,
would not be a detriment on the neighborhood. As I go down the Corinth Road, there’s a lot of
buildings with a lot of irregular additions, and I don’t think that’s a compliment to the
neighborhood, and I think, particularly now the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone has been
established, and we’re examining it more, that we ought to protect it where it needs to be protected,
and I think this is a circumstance where I can’t go, I don’t think the test has been met. So I would
probably oppose the variance.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, in this case, I’m wavering. Half of me says, well, I could go with it this
time, but I don’t want to ever see you back here again asking for more usage on this small piece of
property, and the other half of me says, you know, I think Jamie’s got the right idea, we’ve just
been granting too many of these, and so many of these, to the point where it’s hard to recognize it
as any kind of zone, and the neighborhood behind his property, on Merritt, is definitely residential,
and all very well kept. So I think I would probably oppose it at this point.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-I basically agree. I wrote down, when I went out to look at the property, that you’d
have to sell me very hard, and I have heard no real convincing argument for this creeping
nonconformance if you will. We have a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone on that road for particular
reasons, because it is a heavily traveled road. It may, at some time, have to be expanded. That’s
one of the reasons we have the Travel Corridor Overlay, and I think, as Bonnie so correctly said,
what’s next? I mean, you’ve got one. You did it without getting a variance. Maybe you had bad
information. That’s not our concern here. Nevertheless, you put something up without getting a
variance. Now you come before us, crying to make that one legal, and at the same time putting
another one up that requires a variance, and I, in good conscience, as my job on the Zoning Board,
I don’t believe I can vote for it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian, do you want to give it a crack?
MR. CUSTER-Well, not having the input from either the petitioner or the Board, my feelings were,
I didn’t really stop. I did drive by there the other day, and I saw the existing, and again, I know we
go through this quite frequently, reprimanding people about doing things without the prior
approval, and then we have to look at it, would we have let that go up prior to. I’m not sure I
would have allowed it, but I also look at the fact that the office was already well into the Travel
Corridor Overlay. So there’s some mitigation there, if they have to take it, can they actually take
his office, too? Eminent Domain? I don’t know.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, it goes through a long procedure, but they could do it.
MR. CUSTER-You know, and the fact it was fairly down the road on Corinth Road, I was willing
to kind of have like a compromise decision here and allow the existing to remain, but I had a lot of
reservations about allowing the new one to go up. That’s kind of my feeling. It’s kind of a
convoluted story.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, it’s like I said, my first statement after the application was read, this
piece of property is getting pretty well built out, even though it is in the Light Industrial One Acre
Zone. Light Industrial is Light Industrial, and I believe what Mr. Sinclair is doing is more or less a
Light Industrial kind of business, that he has there. As far as the setbacks, the proposed Number
Two storage building is proposed to be 46 feet back from the property line on the Corinth Road
side, but there’s also an existing concrete slab that’s there. What was on that slab before?
Granted, the 18 months has been way past for whatever was on there. So it can’t be grandfathered.
The Number One storage shed is behind the existing office, behind the existing breeze way, next to
an existing storage building. So, this Number One shed, or storage unit, is behind everything else,
and I don’t have a complete setback for that. I don’t see any setbacks for that. I could probably
figure it out by.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-It’s about 55.
MR. THOMAS-The existing is 55?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Being in a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, it’s like Brian says, I don’t
foresee any problems that far out, because Mr. Sinclair is beyond the Carey Industrial Park. He’s
beyond the Northern Distributing, which has a lot of traffic, and by the time the traffic gets down
there, it has thinned out a little bit, but as far as this right here, I would have no problem granting a
variance for these two storage sheds , but like Bonnie says, that’s it. Otherwise, this building is
being, or this property is being over filled.
MR. SINCLAIR-What if I come back with the assurance that we’re not going to need any other
space? The real reason for needing this space is the community has lost five cleaning services this
past year, and with those people not being here, the equipment that’s needed to service the special
needs of the community, which may be all the way, like tomorrow I’ve got to go to Blue Mountain
Lake and a lot of times I’m down south in Saratoga. The things like water damage and things like
that are happening all the time, and in order to service that need, you have to have the equipment
on hand. You can’t go to U-Rental and get 20 de-humidifiers when you need them, and just in
Glens Falls this week, there’s like three houses that the City has poured sewage back inside, and
you need to have the equipment to service those people. When there were five other cleaning
companies in business, the load was kind of spread out between them. So nobody really needed a
big enough heated space to have it. Right now, I don’t have the space, and if it freezes, all these
de-humidifiers and the equipment is going to freeze up, too, and I don’t have one more spot. So my
word to you is that I don’t need any more space, other than this one area that I’m asking for, built
on to the, I believe it’s the north or west side of that.
MR. STONE-Well, is there any possibility of putting this new shed behind the current storage
shed, in other words, to the south? Still contiguous to that first shed, so that you don’t have to go
outside from however you arrange the transportation from the office. I mean, Chris makes a good
point. The other one is there. It’s almost, you can’t see it from Corinth Road, but the new
building is only going to be 45 feet from the road. It’s 30 feet of relief. If somehow you could
stick it behind that other storage building, and even if you needed a few feet of relief, because I
don’t know, it’s hard to tell. Maybe you’d need five foot of relief, that would help me a great deal,
if you could do that.
MR. SINCLAIR-I guess, the only reason we thought it was a natural there is because the concrete
slab is already there.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. SINCLAIR-We don’t have to add any more expense to the project. I hadn’t thought about
that back side, other than it would probably block off using that back yard at all.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions or comments?
MR. SINCLAIR-One of the things I see is we are trying to make an improvement on that place.
You probably remember it when we first bought it, it was pretty nasty looking, and we’re trying to
clean it up.
MR. STONE-Well, one of my concerns was the appearance of the property in the back 40, if you
will. It’s pretty messy, and I know you have equipment that you can’t use any more, and you had
an old truck back there. That doesn’t help me be positive toward a variance granted when I see a
property abused, and I think, in my mind, that property has been abused. I don’t know how the
rest of the people feel, but.
MR. SINCLAIR-The only things I see laying back there are building materials, lumber, a trailer
sitting there.
MR. STONE-Well, there’s an old truck.
MR. SINCLAIR-Well, there’s a yellow car there, right?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-A yellow something, probably your original vehicle, maybe. I don’t know, but it’s
sitting there on the property, and there’s some other material back in the corner, on the southwest
corner. I didn’t look and see exactly what it was, but it didn’t look particularly like you were using
it, and it was like, lets just throw it in the back of the lot and forget about it. I mean, that was my
feeling when I saw it, and as I say, it did not give me any positive attitude toward this variance.
MR. SINCLAIR-Well, that would be something I’d be willing to clean out of there. If we can
build onto that, that’ll give us a place to, you know, use that material and get it out of there. I’d be
willing to do that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Having gone through all this, would someone like to make a motion?
MR. BATEASE-Could I say one more thing before you make a motion?
MR. THOMAS-No, not really, because the public hearing is closed.
MR. BATEASE-This isn’t fair. I should have one more thing to say.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you should have said it when the public hearing was open.
MR. BATEASE-Well, we weren’t talking about this other stuff that’s in his back yard then. We
were talking about the septic system.
MR. THOMAS-Well, does that stuff in the back yard have anything to do with this variance?
MR. BATEASE-I would think, like Mr. Stone said, he brought it up, and I’m just adding to it.
That’s all.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll tell you what. I’ll open the public hearing one more time, just so
you can say what you’ve got to say, and then I’ll close it right back down again.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. BATEASE-There’s some other things that look like pallets, with stuff piled on them, with
plastic tarps over it, and we’ve discussed this before, and that’s one reason why he put in fort the
fence, but there’s also, over underneath the pine trees on the west end there, there’s a pile of pine
needles this high under the trees. Am I correct? And this shouldn’t be either. I asked him to
respect the people in the community, and somewhat he has, and I went to bat for him on his lean to
that he put up without the permit. I thought it was necessary, but I’d like for him to clean up the
yard a little bit. There’s old wheels and tires and stuff out there that shouldn’t be there. Am I
right? Okay.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing down for the last and final time.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Would anyone like to make a motion?
MR. STONE-It’s hard to know what motion to make.
MR. THOMAS-Either approve, deny or table.
MR. STONE-Well, I would consider, if Mr. Sinclair is going to at least think about the idea of
maybe moving the thing, and coming up with a statement that maybe we should table it, and see if
there’s anything we can add next time.
MR. THOMAS-Like what?
MR. STONE-Well, that’s a good question. I’m just trying to be a nice guy. I mean, right now, I
would be inclined to make the motion to deny, but I don’t want to go through the exercise if it’s
two, three, if it’s three, two, then. I mean, usually we’re pretty clear. We’re not very clear tonight.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, usually we are. Well, make the motion, and we’ll see what happens.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll be glad to do that.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1998 HUGH SINCLAIR
, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
On his property on the corner of Merritt Rd. and Corinth Rd. The applicant proposes construction
of a 220 square foot addition to an existing building, which already has a nonconforming, non
variance granted 120 square foot addition. The building in question lies within the 75 foot setback
of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone on Corinth Road, and the 50 foot front setback of the Light
Industrial 1A zone. Currently, the applicant is requesting 30 feet of relief from the Travel Corridor
Overlay Zone setback requirement of 75 feet, Section 179-28, and simultaneously requests 5 foot
of relief from the front setback requirements of the LI-1A zone 50 foot requirement, Section 179-
26. Additionally, since the existing storage building is within the 75 foot setback of the Travel
Corridor Overlay, and the 50 foot front setback requirement for the Light Industrial One A zone,
the applicant requests relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-79. This
notes that the current property is a nonconforming structure, pre-existing nonconforming structure.
In seeking to deny this motion, we have done the balancing test between the benefit to the applicant
and the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Obviously, the applicant
would benefit by being permitted to construct the additions in the desired location, even though one
of these has already been built without prior approval. It is recognized that these particular
buildings cannot be built within the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback, if they are to be
placed where the applicant has indicated, but it does seem that there is a possibility of moving back
the new structure to make the variance required considerably less. We have considered the
possible change in the neighborhood, and are aware that this particular piece of property has
undergone a number of changes since the applicant began to conduct his business there, and it
appears from the condition of the property, and the proximity to the Corinth Road, that this would
be an undesirable change. In addition, the request is substantial, a 30 foot variance compared to a
75 foot setback certainly is a substantial thing. We also note that this particular request for
storage buildings without water would probably not have an adverse physical or environmental
effect on the piece of property, except for the visual impact on the road going by, and we also note
that this difficulty is self created.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer
NOES: Mr. Thomas
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-So that’s four, so it’s denied.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1998 TYPE II DIANE ERCOLINI OWNER: SAME
ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF PEGGY ANN RD. & BRAYDON AVE.
APPLICANT PROPOSES A STOCKADE FENCE IN FRONT YARD AND SEEKS
RELIE FROM THE FENCE ORDINANCE. TAX MAP NO. 89-3-7 LOT SIZE: 0.47
ACRES SECTION: 179-74
DIANE ERCOLINI, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-1998, Diane Ercolini, Meeting Date: July 15, 1998
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ Corner of Braydon and Peggy Ann
Applicant proposes a 6 foot stockade fence in the front yard which fronts on Peggy Ann Road.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from the Fence Ordinance, Section 179-74, which does
not allow for stockade fence in any front yard, nor for any fence over 5 feet in height in the “other”
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town
front yard.
Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to have a fence in the desired
2. Feasible alternatives:
location. Since most of the fence has been constructed, feasible
alternatives may include; removal and relocation of the fence, replacement with plantings and no
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
construction. The relief may be
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
interpreted as moderate. Minimal effects on the
neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. However, neighborhood opposition has
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
been noted. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments:
None applicable While
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
the fence may be for privacy and safety, impacts on the neighborhood may come in the form of
SEQR Status:
additional requests for similar relief. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Miss Ercolini, is there anything you’d like to say, add, talk about?
MISS ERCOLINI-Actually, yes. I first would like to start with an apology of sorts, because as a
first time home buyer, and being relatively new to the area, I had never even heard of any type of a
Fence Ordinance. I had no idea that I was violating any type of Ordinance at all. Had I known, I
certainly wouldn’t have put the fence up. I would have applied for the variance and then done
whatever was necessary after the hearing. So I certainly apologize for that. That was naiveté,
ignorance, whatever you want to call it. I just was completely unaware. So this is definitely a
learning process for me. I also wouldn’t have taken the financial risk. Because I have invested
what, to me, is a great deal of money, in the fence, and I wouldn’t have taken that kind of financial
risk, knowing that there was a possibility that I would have to take the fence down, and I also have
invested a tremendous amount of time putting up the fence myself. Just a couple of brief things,
because I know you have a lot to hear this evening. Peggy Ann Road is a very busy road. I
consider it to be a dangerous road. The speed limit is 45 miles an hour, for those who choose to go
the speed limit. Just recently, two weeks ago, and it’s on record, there was a two car collision on
my front yard. In the evening, someone had ran the stop sign on Tomahawk and someone was
driving down Peggy Ann, and they plowed right into my side yard. Thankfully, they didn’t hit
anything except for each other, and there was just damage done to my yard. So, I’m thankful for
that, but again, it’s not a safe corner. I’ve had, since I’ve moved there, I mean, it’s a lovely
neighborhood, but being on Peggy Ann, some strange things have happened. I’ve had beer cans in
my yard. I’ve had beer bottles, soda cans, cigarette packs. I mean, this is just things I’ve found,
I’ve found this and I don’t smoke and I don’t drink in my back yard. So they’re not from me. So
I’ve found these things in my back yard. I have, almost on a daily basis, I don’t have children of
my own yet, but I have friends with children who come over, almost on a daily basis, and I feel
very safe with them in the yard with the fence there. I also have a dog, which is never in the yard
when I am not at home, but when I am at home, he’s in the yard with me. I don’t have to have him
tied up. I feel safe he’s not going to run in the road, and he’s also not going to run in any of my
neighbors yards. So for children and for dog purposes, I feel the fence is very necessary. One
night I caught, and this has happened two times, actually. One night, it was when I first moved
there, I heard a noise in the back yard and I caught three teenagers cutting through my back yard
from the rear end of my property, going diagonally across, cutting to go into Braydon Avenue. I
don’t know if they were going down to the trails at the end of Braydon. I don’t know, and that has
happened two times, and it’s scary, especially being a single woman living alone. It’s something
that I could definitely do without. I have a back, a screened in porch in the back where I would sit,
before I had the fence, I would sit with all the blinds shut, because I know that everybody can look
in, as they drive by on Peggy Ann Road. So now with the fence, I’m able to actually enjoy my
porch, as I should enjoy it, with the breeze blowing, and I don’t have to worry about everybody
looking in, seeing exactly what I’m doing. Just very briefly, when I was putting up the fence, a
seasonal neighbor, who I have only spoken to that one time, I believe he’s here this evening, came
over and stated that he does not like my fence because he can no longer look into my back yard.
Now, I would just as soon not have anyone look in my back yard, and I’m sure he didn’t mean it in
any way, but he said it in front of a witness, and I would just as soon not have anyone look in my
back yard. I’m a very private person. So I feel that a privacy fence is a necessity for me. That’s
basically it. I did have a few neighbors, I just made up a statement saying that “As neighbors of
Diane Ercolini, we respect her right to safety and privacy. We do not object to her having a six
foot stockade fence”, and I just had some neighbors sign, and there are many more neighbors I
could have gotten, too, but because of the scheduling, they work during the day, I work in the
evening, I probably could have gotten many more, but I have a list of names. I’ve made some
copies. I don’t know if you.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’ll want at least one copy for the record.
MISS ERCOLINI-Okay, and then finally, I had mentioned in the application that it was consistent
with the neighborhood, and what I did, I just was out driving, and in basically a two mile radius, I
found 20 corner lot houses with stockade fencing on the road front. Now, whether they have
variances, I don’t know. I would assume they do because it’s an enforced Ordinance that should
be enforced equally with everyone in the Town, and so I just snapped some photos of all of the
houses that I found within a two, two and a half mile radius of my house that have these stockade
fences on the road front. So, I don’t know if that’s something you’d also like to see, and that’s, I
have 20, and I know there’s probably many more, and that’s just what I’ve done, again, for the
record, and that’s basically all I have.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for Miss Ercolini?
MR. STONE-Just a comment. You said you put the fence up yourself?
MISS ERCOLINI-Me and a friend, yes.
MR. STONE-But I mean, you didn’t go to a contractor who didn’t tell you that?
MISS ERCOLINI-No, I did it myself. Yes, and probably had I gone to a contactor they would
have told me.
MR. STONE-We hope so.
MISS ERCOLINI-Right. Again, this is a learning process. I really, you know, I didn’t know.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-I would certainly like to see the pictures.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. You can bring them up now. I also need a copy of that. We’re going to
want to read that into the record, when it comes time for correspondence.
MISS ERCOLINI-These are the pictures, and then the last two.
MR. STONE-You don’t have them identified where they are though, do you?
MISS ERCOLINI-I didn’t because I didn’t want them to come across as complaints. These last
two are, that’s my house, and that’s my neighbor’s house.
MR. STONE-You didn’t measure these fences. Are they at least only five foot?
MISS ERCOLINI-I believe they’re six feet. I didn’t go up on their property and look at these.
MR. THOMAS-The fact of the matter is they’re stockade fences.
MR. STONE-They’re stockade fences, right, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Because a corner lot has two fronts and two rears and no sides.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any more questions for Miss Ercolini? 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
NORM BENACK
MR. BENACK-Hi. My name is Norm Benack. I’m the neighbor she’s talking about, and I would
like to say that I would like to apologize for the abruptness that, when I came home from Florida, I
drove up to my house, and this big, huge stockade fence, that’s all I could see.
MR. STONE-Where are you located, sir.
MR. BENACK-I’m right on the corner of Peggy Ann Road and Tomahawk Road.
MR. STONE-So you’re to the south?
MR. BENACK-I’m just to the south of her, and the only one that this affects.
MR. STONE-Yes, I understand.
MR. BENACK-And I’m sure if it affected some of the other neighbors, they would have probably
said something, but it affects me tremendously. For l5 years, I’ve lived here, and the people that
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
owned this house were good friends. I’m not trying to look in anybody’s back yard. I just, it was a
clear piece of property, the trees, the flowers, the ground. When I looked out my dining room
window, it was just a pleasant view, and now I look out my dining room window and there’s that
stockade fence, sitting right at me. I understand what you’ve gone through. I feel bad about this.
Believe me. I’m not an old grouch. I probably sounded like that the day I came over, and they
were putting up this fence. They were just finishing it. I can see red, but it does not conform. I’m
willing to try to work something out. I have a, not as elaborate pictures, taken out my dining room
window, for one thing. Can I approach?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. THOMAS-Come on up.
MR. BENACK-Now this is out of my dining room window, and of course, it looks much bigger
than this. This is from a distance, standing back, I didn’t want to embarrass Miss Ercolini by
trying to snap pictures out there and so forth.
MR. STONE-Is your property four lots wide?
MR. BENACK-My property is, I’m right around the corner.
MR. STONE-Yes, but is this, it all looks like all one tax number in here.
MR. BENACK-This is my development, it was my development here, and I built these houses
down this road and this road here.
MR. STONE-How many houses on here? I’m just curious.
MR. BENACK-On where, down here?
MR. STONE-Yes, because it looks like one number. 121-8-150, that’s four lots.
MR. THOMAS-How big is your lot?
MR. BENACK-This is my lot right here.
MR. THOMAS-How big is your lot on the front, on Peggy Ann Road?
MR. BENACK-On Peggy Ann Road? Probably about, something maybe like 125. I didn’t bring
any map with me.
MR. THOMAS-All right. So from that corner it would be, well, this is.
MR. STONE-You’re saying the house is right about here?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. BENACK-No, my house sits kitty corner, on the property, and it’s sitting right out there. It’s
fairly close to the road.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, see this property is 165 foot long.
MR. BENACK-And this is one, you know, coming down the street by car I see that, but it’s much
bigger and larger with a Polaroid camera. So it really doesn’t show much. Now, I have lived there
for 15 years. I have picked up bottles, paper, beer cans, and you name it. I’m on the corner. In
fact, people have run across the corner of my lot, skidded their tires, and I used to go out there,
boy, constantly, repairing huge ruts from their tires, kids trying to be funny, and so these are the
things that happen to most people when they’re living on a corner, especially, and I do understand
she has a problem, and that, I started this whole thing, I guess, and I’m here, and I just hate to see,
if something could be worked out some way. If this was a page fence, something you could see
through, you know, that would just be sort of open, like an open type, page type fence, I wouldn’t
have said a word, but I know that you look, as you say, you’re looking for privacy. You don’t
want anybody looking in your back yard. I don’t know what to say. Other than the fact that I’m
willing to bend a little bit on this, too, and is there anything that can be done, any suggestions?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. THOMAS-I can’t come up with any right now, but there’s really nothing that you can do.
MR. BENACK-There’s nothing I can do about it? Then what am I doing sitting here?
MR. THOMAS-Well, you’re trying to do something, but you had the opportunity to, because
you’re within 500 feet, you have an opportunity to speak, either for or against or neutral.
MR. BENACK-Well, it’s affecting me. Like I say, I look out my window, and aesthetically, it
affects me.
MR. STONE-Okay. You would prefer it not be there?
MR. BENACK-I would prefer it not to be there, and I think it’s affecting the sale of my property,
as a real estate broker. When the time comes, and somebody looks out my window, and they come
in my home, and they look out my window and they look at the fence, and it looks a lot, you know,
that picture doesn’t really do it justice, and that’s what I’m looking at is the fence, and I feel that
it’s going to affect, to some degree, the pricing of my home, when the time comes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to say?
MR. BENACK-I guess that’s about it. There’s not much more I can think of.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed?
GUY BRENNAN
MR. BRENNAN-Hi. My name’s Guy Brennan. I live at One Mohawk Trail. It’s approximately
like two lots away.
MR. STONE-Mohawk Trail, though, it two lots in from Peggy Ann.
MR. BRENNAN-Right.
MR. STONE-So, I mean, it’s in the development that?
MR. BRENNAN-It’s in Tyneswood.
MR. STONE-Are you on the corner of Tomahawk and Mohawk Trail?
MR. BRENNAN-Yes, One Mohawk.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRENNAN-Yes. I had the opportunity to run into this young lady. Just a couple of weeks
ago she had some people drive over here yard. I stopped to see if everything was okay. She talked
about some, had some spray paint writing on the fence and this and that, and the wife had
mentioned it to me a couple of weeks before, or a week or so before, and I had noticed it. The
fence is, you know, I’ve got two dogs. I’ve got two kids, and they run around, and we have them
on leashes. We’ve got a chain out back and a dog run. The dog runs back and forth on this cable,
and I’ve got no problem with wanting to protect your house. I don’t want people peeping into my
place, either, but the back yard is kind of an open area. It’s not walled in. This whole, the whole
neighborhood is basically kind of open, and it’s beautiful, because of the openness, and it is family
oriented. It is high priced houses. I’m not trying to be uppity, but the houses are rather high over
there, and the re-sale value, like the gentleman stated just a little bit ago, might probably be going
down. Here’s this, you know, fences about eight, nine feet high, and it does.
MISS ERCOLINI-Six feet.
MR. THOMAS-Six feet.
MR. BRENNAN-Okay, well, from the road anyway it looks a little higher, but I’ve got nothing
against a fence. The gentleman said that some other kind of fence. I didn’t catch what kind of
fence he said, but by this letter here, it said the front of the house. Now, if we’re talking about the
fence that’s just there, I’ve really got no problem with the fence there as long as you’re not trying
to hid anything.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MISS ERCOLINI-See, that was confusing, too. That’s what they’re talking about.
MR. BRENNAN-Stockade fence in the front yard.
MISS ERCOLINI-I’m not adding another fence.
MR. BRENNAN-Okay. Well, I’m totally against a fence in the front. In the back yard, if it could
maybe be a little bit lower, or even an open type of fence. I don’t care what you have in your back
yard, if you want to sun bath nude or go behind a screen or do whatever you want. Excuse me, but
it’s, I’m just scared to see something, it turn into an area like Van Dusen, with the car lots going up
and down and get cruddy and dirty, and what are you trying to hide, or this and that. I’m not
saying that you’re trying to hide, but if it’s boxed in like a junk yard is, where you can’t see
anything, but a fence, no problem, but that one there, to myself, is kind of looks like a wall, like
you’re trying to block a storage place in, unit in. There could be a concrete wall around here for
your unit, but other than that, that’s basically all I’ve got to say, and I’m against it. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed? Is there any
correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No, just this. Okay “As neighbors of Diane Ercolini, we respect her right to
safety and privacy. We do not object to her having a six foot stockade fence. Elizabeth Taft, 8
Braydon Ave.; Michael Bondy, 23 Peggy Ann Rd.; Kerri Ann Bondy, 23 Peggy Ann Rd.; Gina
Patnode, 27 Peggy Ann Rd.; Blake White, 29 Peggy Ann Rd.; Carole A. Steves, 26 Braydon Ave.;
June Leo, 8 Peggy Ann Rd.; Bertha Jovaisas, 6 Peggy Ann Rd.; Crystal Reynolds, 4 Peggy Ann;
Trisha Kemp, 1 Peggy Ann; Lynn White, 12 Peggy Ann; Jean Stickholm, 11 Peggy Ann; Kathleen
Chesney, 14 Peggy Ann Rd.; Jerry Taft, 8 Braydon Ave.”
MISS ERCOLINI-May I just respond very briefly?
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Yes. It’s your turn.
MISS ERCOLINI-In response to blocking of a “junk yard” as it was put, I’m very proud of my
property and I keep my property well, and those of you that have visited it, I think you can attest to
that. So that I took a bit of offense to, and just one quick thing, and I understand the people that
are opposed. The gentleman, I’m sorry, I forget his name, that is across from me, on Peggy Ann,
just to make note, he also, he does not face, as he said, he faces kitty corner. So his view is more
or less, he has to really turn to look directly across the street because his view is kitty corner, more
toward West Mountain, and I did have a picture to show that, but you can picture what I mean.
MR. STONE-Well, but he could take it from the inside. I mean, obviously, he didn’t stick it out
through the glass.
MR. BENACK-This is what I took from the dining room.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BENACK-If she wants to look at it, she can see what I’m talking about.
MISS ERCOLINI-I see, yes.
MR. THOMAS-You can see that from here?
MISS ERCOLINI-No, but I don’t need to see it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to say?
MISS ERCOLINI-Well, I had planned, I have beautiful perennial gardens that are ready to be
divided in the fall, and I had planned to, I don’t know if I need a variance for it because it’s not my
property, officially, on the outside of my fence, which I do take care of that property and mow, I
had planned to plant some of the extra flowers on the outside of the fence, because right now it
does look very stark, and it’s a new fence, and it looks, and you do just see the fence, and I had
planned to, around the fence, just to landscape that a bit, to kind of soften the effects of the fence,
so it wouldn’t look just as plain and fence like.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-This drawing you gave to us, that is your true property line? So you’re just inside
the property line?
MISS ERCOLINI-Just inside, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay, because we always get into a discussion of the right-of-way and, because this
is obviously a dedicated road, and it’s 50 feet wide.
MISS ERCOLINI-I had measured like from the middle of the road to the fence, into the property.
MR. STONE-Well, even that doesn’t always, because sometimes the road is on one side of the
right-of-way, and you never really know until you ask.
MISS ERCOLINI-But it is just inside my property, my property line.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? And all the correspondence has been
read?
MRS. LAPHAM-Right.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Lets talk about it.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Now on this side, this right here, you have no further plans to build
anything there?
MISS ERCOLINI-Is that the rear of the property? That’s, Jerry Taft has a stockade fence.
MRS. LAPHAM-Let me see the, I didn’t get this one.
MR. THOMAS-Because Miss Ercolini also asked us to consider the 32 feet from Peggy Ann
Road, across the rear of the property line, across the rear of the property, on the property line, just
inside.
MR. STONE-With the same thing.
MISS ERCOLINI-With the same thing. Nothing’s there now, but I figured, if you do approve it.
MR. STONE-There is a fence, isn’t there?
MISS ERCOLINI-It’s a temporary fence, just to keep the dog in. It’s just for now. It’s like a
temporary metal fence.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MISS ERCOLINI-But if you did approve, I figured I might as well kill two birds with one stone,
and eventually, so I added that.
MRS. LAPHAM-Then after this 32 feet, you’d just have like an open, a chain link fence or
something for your dog, or you have that now?
MISS ERCOLINI-No, as I understood it from Craig, I wouldn’t need any type of variance, if I did
want to put in, because it’s not road front.
MR. STONE-In the back yard.
MISS ERCOLINI-But that 32 feet is considered front yard, still, so that’s why I had added that in.
MS. CIPPERLY-Just for clarification’s sake, she could have a six foot fence from the back corner
of the house, to the property line. There’s a dashed line.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Where that dashed line is.
MS. CIPPERLY-She could have a six foot fence there.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what I was going to ask. Could she move the fence, but could it be
stockade?
MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, because it’s no longer in the front yard.
MR. THOMAS-Because it’s a corner, it’s still considered two front yards, and two back yards.
This would be from the side of the house out to Peggy Ann Road, is considered the front yard, is
considered a front yard.
MS. CIPPERLY-Well, if she moved it back so that it came from the corner of the house to the
property line, that would be considered.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, east to the property line, along that dashed line that shows on this print.
MISS ERCOLINI-I don’t have that with me.
MR. THOMAS-The print? We’ve got it right here.
MR. CUSTER-I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. You’re saying?
MR. STONE-That that fence could exist.
MR. CUSTER-To there.
MR. HAYES-From here to here.
MR. THOMAS-From this corner to here.
MR. HAYES-Legally?
MR. STONE-Legally.
MR. THOMAS-Legally, without, from this corner to here.
MS. CIPPERLY-So, in other words, if she moved it 32 feet back.
MRS. LAPHAM-She could do that anyway.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. You could put a six foot fence from the corner of the house here.
MRS. LAPHAM-And it could be stockade.
MR. THOMAS-And it could be stockade. It could be six feet high. From this corner of the house,
right back along this dotted line right back to the property line.
MS. CIPPERLY-I mean, this is somebody else’s front yard.
MR. STONE-But it would be legal.
MR. THOMAS-But it would be there legally. She can put a six foot stockade fence from the
corner of this house, right here, okay, this being Peggy Ann Road, and this is Braydon Avenue,
right straight across, right straight back, following this line, right straight back to her property line,
with no variance, whatsoever.
MR. BENACK-Well, there’s nothing I can do about it, but it would certainly be better than what
she has right now.
MR. THOMAS-It could be.
MR. STONE-Well, it would be behind some trees, too.
MR. BENACK-Then you could plant flowers or whatever you want to do in there.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. THOMAS-Yes. See this would still be open. You wouldn’t have that as enclosed, but you
would still have all this enclosed. It’s called pulling a lot of fence out and re-planting it.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, what about, would either of you be happy with this solution. Leave the
fence where it is and instead of just perennials, how about some evergreens?
MISS ERCOLINI-I would be happy to do that. You mean in front of the fence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, because it would soften it and give you a tree line.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. This isn’t lets make a deal.
MR. BENACK-To be honest, if I can’t do anything about this, this is better than this, and I know
it means work to you, but, you know, this is something that, at least you’ve got some lawn here, at
least you could plant flowers, or do whatever you want. I’m not telling you you have to go out and
plant flowers or whatever, but you certainly can do some things where this is not going to, to me,
right now, when I back out of my driveway, I almost feel like I’m going to run into your fence.
MR. THOMAS-That would be legal, doing it that way, okay, and, you know, it’s going to take a
lot of back breaking work. It probably was putting it in that way, but the only thing you would be
losing is really just 32 and 4 is probably, 36. I’m telling her what she can do legally.
MR. STONE-Legally, without getting a variance.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because if she doesn’t like the way this is going to go, she can always
withdraw the variance and move the fence.
MR. STONE-That’s what she needs to know, right.
MISS ERCOLINI-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, so I’ll tell her that ahead of time, like I do everybody else. All right. The
public hearing’s closed. Lets talk about it. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I’d like to know if you dug those holes by hand or did you use a power auger?
MISS ERCOLINI-I dug them by hand.
MR. CUSTER-I’m incredibly impressed with this lady. I’m sitting on the fence. I have some prior
experience on a negative side with this myself. In my old neighborhood, where I used to live, I had
a neighbor who put up a very similar situation, right across the street from me, and I thought it was
like Fort Apache, and I was waiting for Centuries to walk up and down, but I understand why he
did it, too. He did it for privacy reasons very similar to yours. So, the problem was it was right
out on the road, so blatantly, and I thought detracted from what should be there. Unfortunately, it
was built prior to the ’93 Code being done, but I think the Code is pretty specific, in regard to this.
If it were just a small stretch of fence, I might be able to work with you here, but it’s quite a long
run, and although I sympathize with you, and I understand what you’re trying to accomplish, it’s a
very busy road, and I’m a dog lover, too, and I certainly know you want to protect your dog and all
that, but I do think that, obviously, the Ordinance was penned for certain reasons, and this is one of
them. I think there’s a workable solution, although it’s going to require some hard work, and that
is to pull the fence in, as we outlined. So, reluctantly, I’m against granting the variance.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I actually am in favor of this variance, and you have my sympathy,
because I live on Ridge Road and pick up the beer bottles and the cigarette packs and stuff on the
way to the dump that flies out of the trucks every day, and when people choose to go the speed
limit, which is 45, I used to always slow down and say the dogs and children I’m saving are
probably mine, and it’s a very real problem, and it’s worse when you’re on a corner, and as a
broker and appraiser, I know that corner lots are not as easy to sell for those reasons. You lack
privacy. You lack protection from the traffic, and as the road gets busier, it gets more difficult.
So I would be in favor of this, and I think that it would be, and I think if we could agree to some
sort of, I know we don’t do site plan review here, but the perennials and the trees, what have you,
would soften the look, so that it would hopefully not be as offensive. So I would vote for this
variance, just for the reasons I’ve outlined.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-I’m very concerned by the presentation that you’ve made, not in terms of what
you’ve said, but what you’ve showed us, that if, in fact, we have this many corner lots, with this
many stockade fences, some of which appear to be certainly more than five feet, but they’re
stockade fences never the less, the one question that your pictures may or may not tell is what we
were just talking about, whether they extend from the corner of the house, they don’t appear to be,
but I’m very concerned by that, and I certainly would charge the Code Compliance Officer, with
finding these and at least making them come before us, as Miss Ercolini has come before us. That
notwithstanding, we have a very clear case in this case. The Ordinance is very clear, nothing over
five feet, no stockade fences. It is, and it may be because it’s new, it is very obvious as one drives
down Peggy Ann. It hits you right in the face, whether you’re driving east or west, particularly if
you’re driving east. I just can’t, in clear conscience, go against our Zoning Ordinance with
something that is this specific. This is not necessarily a balancing act. It says no fences, no
stockade fences, nothing over five feet. It’s very clear, to me.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I do accept the applicant’s reasons why this occurred, you know, that you did
the fence yourself and that a contractor wasn’t involved, though I certainly would have been
concerned if that was the case. She did apologize for the non compliance, which is nice to hear,
because that doesn’t always happen, but we’re a Board of Appeals. I think, as far as I’m
concerned, that she’s made the case that this is a unique circumstance. It is, in my experience,
which I do travel Peggy Ann Road substantially, it is a collecting arterial. There’s a lot of traffic.
There’s a lot of speedy traffic, and it doesn’t surprise me that there was an accident or many
accidents in that neighborhood. Some of the other neighbors have commented that they also have
tire ruts and those type of things in their front yard, and I do believe that. The property, as I look
at it, is well kept. From an aesthetic viewpoint, while the fence is stark, she could have that same
fence 32 feet closer to her house. I guess I don’t see the difference, as far as aesthetically, or the
impact on the neighborhood. So I guess I’m with Bonnie on this one. I could live with this unique
case, based on the facts that were presented.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Going through the balancing act here, whether the benefit can be
achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Well, that was already discussed, by moving it
back 32 feet and bringing it into compliance. Is there an undesirable change in the neighborhood
character or to nearby properties? Well, we had two people here come and say, yes, it would
present an undesirable change. Is the request substantial? It’s very substantial. The applicant is
asking for a 32 foot variance on this fence, 32 plus one, plus up a foot. Will it have an adverse
effect on the physical or environmental? Maybe the physical, definitely not the environmental. Is
the alleged hardship self created? It’s definitely self created. It would be my opinion to vote this
down, because three years ago we had a similar request, about a mile down the road, a mile to the
east further, on another corner lot. The applicant wanted to put a six foot fence up. At that time,
the Ordinance said the fence had to be back, I think it was 10 feet from the property line, and they
wanted to put it right on the road, and we turned that one down. So I can’t see having to be
consistent for the same thing, that I would have to vote no for this. Now, before I ask for a motion,
would you like to withdraw the application and move the fence back?
MISS ERCOLINI-Suppose I cut it to five feet and took every other picket off?
MR. THOMAS-Would that still be a stockade fence?
MR. STONE-What is the definition? It’s not in the Code, the stockade fence.
MS. CIPPERLY-The way it’s been interpreted as opaque, that opaque stockade. I think a board
on board.
MR. STONE-But you can’t see through it, even up close?
MS. CIPPERLY-Right. I think her suggestion would be in conformance.
MR. CUSTER-You mean to pull off every other picket?
MR. HAYES-She dug the holes.
MISS ERCOLINI-I mean, I don’t want to do it, but.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MS. CIPPERLY-That would be a conforming fence, if it were five feet tall, and ever other.
MR. THOMAS-And every other picket was gone, that would be no longer considered a stockade
fence?
MR. BROWN-I’d have to call it a picket fence.
MR. THOMAS-That would be considered a picket fence?
MS. CIPPERLY-And then she can use the other boards for the rest of her property.
MISS ERCOLINI-Yes, and my neighbor’s going to come and help me do it, right?
MR. BENACK-Yes, I’ll be right over.
MRS. LAPHAM-The only one more thing I would like to say is that while two people are
objecting to this, 14 people have said it’s all right.
MR. THOMAS-Are they directly affected like Mr. Benack is?
MRS. LAPHAM-Maybe not as directly, but they have to be somewhat directly, because they’re all
on Peggy Ann Road.
MR. BENACK-Some of those people that are affected are down the road.
MISS ERCOLINI-They are all affected. They’re on Peggy Ann and they’re on Braydon Avenue.
They have to drive by it. They have to see it every day, 14 people.
MR. THOMAS-They’re not as affected as Mr. Benack is, across the street, but getting back to
taking off every other picket, or every other board, would you consider that not a stockade fence?
It would become a picket fence, according to the Ordinance?
MS. CIPPERLY-Right. In fact, just before she said that, I said, she could take every other picket
off and cut it down to five feet, and then it would be conforming.
MR. STONE-These pickets are, what, three inches wide maybe? I mean, there’s, obviously, you’d
be able to see the fence. You’d be able to see inside. It would be a picket fence there, a different
form.
MR. THOMAS-So if it was five feet tall, and every other board was gone, that would be a
conforming fence.
MR. BENACK-Lets not play games. This is the way the Ordinance is written, and the public
hearing is closed. So there’s no input from the public, but as far as playing games.
MS. CIPPERLY-But if she does that, it’s not going to provide the privacy that she’s looking for.
It will keep people from going through her yard. The neighbor to the east there, I don’t know what
their feelings are on it, but part of the reason for this Ordinance, for corner lots, is that is somebody
else’s front yard to the east, and having an opaque fence running all the way down it, may or may
not be desirable to that person. So you’re sort of limiting their view.
MR. STONE-But you can put planting inside the fence, either side of the fence, to take the place of
the missing pickets, over time.
MS. CIPPERLY-You could.
MR. THOMAS-It is a game.
MISS ERCOLINI-But they still wouldn’t have the view into the yard.
MR. STONE-It’s not the view into the yard. It’s the starkness of the fence that hits you in the
face, and that’s the reason for the Ordinance. A broken fence, I mean, it’s like Venetian blinds.
You, the way they are, you can see through them, even though there is a covering on the window.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MRS. LAPHAM-That’s why I had mentioned the greens, the evergreens and flowers and so forth,
because it would just soften it, and then as it weathers it’s going to get softer, too.
MR. THOMAS-So, one more time. If the fence is five feet high and every other board is gone, it’s
a conforming fence, according to Staff. Do you want to check with the head honcho?
MS. CIPPERLY-No. I mean, if she put up a picket fence, five feet tall, I mean, there are picket
style, stockade, whatever, you know, in the Moore’s catalogue or whatever, they have them both
kinds. Whether it’s a flat board or whether it’s a round board, vertically, as long as there’s space
in between, I would call that a picket type fence. If you’re talking about the points at the top, they
both have those, too. What’s That’s why I had mentioned the greens, the evergreens and flowers
and so forth, because it would just soften it, and then as it weathers it’s going to get softer, too.
MR. THOMAS-So, one more time. If the fence is five feet high and every other board is gone, it’s
a conforming fence, according to Staff. Do you want to check with the head honcho?
MS. CIPPERLY-No. I mean, if she put up a picket fence, five feet tall, I mean, there are picket
style, stockade, whatever, you know, in the Moore’s catalogue or whatever, they have them both
kinds. Whether it’s a flat board or whether it’s a round board, vertically, as long as there’s space
in between, I would call that a picket type fence. If you’re talking about the points at the top, they
both have those, too. What’s you’re take on it, Chris?
MR. THOMAS-I don’t know. I’m not into fences. That’s why I’m asking you.
MS. CIPPERLY-You’re saying, just in the time that I’ve been here, it’s generally been this, even if
it were a board on board fence, the opaqueness of it is the point, out in the front yard, because it
does do things to people’s view.
MR. STONE-You mean like this type fence?
MS. CIPPERLY-Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes, but she’s not talking, she’s talking this, right?
MS. CIPPERLY-Right, but I’m just saying, a comparable fence, I don’t think somebody could put
an opaque board fence out there either, but if they took out every other board, they could.
MR. THOMAS-You got us.
MS. CIPPERLY-But if she wants here complete privacy, she could move it back to the corner of
the house.
MR. STONE-Well, there are two choices, yes.
MR. HAYES-Either one she doesn’t need a variance for, though. So it’s not our concern.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. So, if you do what you said, take off every other board, make it five feet
high.
MR. STONE-Basically, you withdraw the application, and take one of those two options.
MISS ERCOLINI-All right, but can I, I don’t know if I should ask this, but are you basically
telling me that you’re going to deny it as is? Is that basically the gist of things?
MR. THOMAS-Basically, I’ve got, right now I’ve got a three to two, which wouldn’t carry. I’d
have to wait for the other two Board members to get here. So it would have to carry over to the
next meeting, or the one after that. Because I need a majority, because there’s seven members. I
need a four vote.
MISS ERCOLINI-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-So I would need four votes, and I can only get, as I see it right now, it’s three to
two, and that wouldn’t carry. Unless I can get someone to change their mind.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MISS ERCOLINI-Well, then I’d just as soon wait, because I don’t mean to be a pain, either, but it
also is a tremendous amount of work. So I don’t know. I don’t know what to do.
MR. THOMAS-Do you want us to table it until next month?
MRS. LAPHAM-That would probably be best.
MR. THOMAS-Until the other two Board members can come up to speed on this, and they can
make an intelligent vote?
MISS ERCOLINI-I guess so. I don’t want to cause problems either, but if we can do that.
MR. THOMAS-No. It’s your prerogative. It’s not a problem, you know. It’s your prerogative to
do that. Because, like I say, this is a seven member Board, and there’s only five here. You have
the right to have a full Board hear your application.
MISS ERCOLINI-I think I would like that.
MS. CIPPERLY-To table it, you mean?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, just to table it until next month.
MR. STONE-And can you get confirmation from Staff? I mean, I’m not denying the two of you,
but maybe there’s something in the records.
MS. CIPPERLY-We’ll tell him the answer.
MR. STONE-You’ll tell him what you said, that’s fine, but there may be something in some
obscure Code somewhere.
MS. CIPPERLY-And that would give the applicant, I think, some time to think about whether
she’d like to do one of those alternatives or not, rather than just making a spur of the moment
decision right now.
MR. THOMAS-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1998 DIANE ERCOLINI
, Introduced by
Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Until a full Board can hear this application and make a rational decision on it, because I don’t see
us getting a four vote either way.
th
Duly adopted 15 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-So we’ll put you on for August.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1998 TYPE II DAVID DUTCHER OWNER: SAME
ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 10 WEST DRIVE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO
CONSTRUCT A 24’ X 30’ DETACHED GARAGE AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM
THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE LI-1A ZONE AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 93-3-14 LOT SIZE: 11,000 SQ. FT.
SECTION: 179-26, 179-67
DAVID DUTCHER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-1998, David Dutcher, Meeting Date: July 15, 1998
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ 10 West Drive Applicant proposes
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
construction of a 720 square foot detached garage and seeks setback relief. The proposed location
is too close to both the side and rear property lines and too close to the principal structure than the
Relief Required:
setbacks require. Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from both the side and rear
30 foot setback requirements of the LI-1A zone, Section 179-26, and 8 feet of relief from the 10
Criteria for considering an Area
foot accessory structure setback requirement, Section 179-67.
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant
2. Feasible alternatives:
would permitted to construct a garage in the desired location. Feasible
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
alternatives are limited due to the size of the lot.
ordinance?:4. Effects on the
The requested relief may be interpreted as moderate.
neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood or community are anticipated
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
as a result of this action. The difficulty may be attributed to the
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff
size of the lot. None applicable.
comments:
Minimal impacts on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action as the
major relief, 8 feet from the 10 foot requirement, is to his own building. NYS Building Code
SEQR Status:
allows for an 18 inch minimum separation. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right, and there was no Warren County involved on this one. Okay. Mr.
Dutcher, is there anything you’d like to say, add, tell us about?
MR. DUTCHER-Not me, no.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant?
MR. CUSTER-The only thing I have, when I drove by, is there any reason why you don’t want to
attach it or move it? I guess we have to have a 10 foot is how I understand that Code? But he
could attach it if he wanted to.
MR. DUTCHER-Yes.
MR. CUSTER-But you don’t want to?
MR. DUTCHER-Right.
MR. CUSTER-Plain and simple.
MR. DUTCHER-But if I have to, I will.
MR. CUSTER-All right.
MR. BROWN-If he attaches it, there’s a breezeway there. The building code requires it to be five
feet, the breezeway has to be five feet, where if it’s not attached, the separation distance can be 18
inches.
MR. CUSTER-Okay.
MRS. DUTCHER-It’s not a breezeway. It’s another room we added on.
MR. CUSTER-I mean, I can see why you don’t want to attach it, too.
MR. STONE-How did the house get so close to the south side of the property line? Was that
grandfathered, that three feet?
MR. DUTCHER-The house itself?
MR. STONE-The house itself. I was just curious.
MR. BROWN-I have no idea.
MR. STONE-It’s three feet from the property line.
MR. BROWN-I’m assuming it’s been there for a long time.
MRS. DUTCHER-We thought we owned more property, but when we put the chain link fence up,
we found out that we really didn’t own that much.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-And when did you build this house?
MRS. DUTCHER-It’s been there about 20 years.
MR. STONE-Twenty, okay. If you were to put this garage in, what would you do with those other
out buildings on the property?
MR. DUTCHER-They’d be down. I’d tear them down. I wouldn’t need them, with the garage.
MR. STONE-Okay. I would like to see them go down.
MR. DUTCHER-They’ve been there for a while.
MR. THOMAS-A long while. As far as I can calculate here, the way that the applicant has it
drawn here, that there’s a nine foot separation between the 14 by 16 addition and the proposed
garage. I went through and did the math.
MR. BROWN-There was no dimension on the plot plan that was submitted. So I called and spoke
with Mr. Dutcher, and he said it was about two feet. That’s where I got the dimension from.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because what I did, I started with the three feet, added the 24, or the 40
across, and then added the 14, added the 20 off the other property line, and added the 24 across the
front of the garage, and it’s 110 feet across, and that’s how I came up with nine feet between the
two. So I would say they would need one foot of relief.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, I didn’t do that math. I just asked him where he had it proposed, and
he stated that it was two feet from the existing sun room.
MR. STONE-You said 18 inches is all it has to be.
MR. BROWN-That’s the New York State Code. He’s got it proposed at two feet.
MR. HAYES-Two feet from the breezeway?
MR. BROWN-Two feet from the sun room, is what I got from Mr. Dutcher.
MR. THOMAS-That’s not the way I added across there.
MR. CUSTER-I get seven. The sixteen is the length, not the width.
MR. STONE-He’s got 24 by 40. So it would be 16.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it looks like, is it 16 deep or 14 deep, across the front of the addition, the
sun room?
MR. DUTCHER-Fourteen.
MR. THOMAS-It’s fourteen across there.
MR. STONE-But the house is 40 across the front?
MR. DUTCHER-Right.
MR. CUSTER-Then you’re right, Chris, I get nine feet, if the 110 frontage is correct.
MR. DUTCHER-Yes, it is.
MR. THOMAS-So we have to get this math right. So everyone would agree it would be one foot
of relief?
MR. STONE-One foot of relief.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. BROWN-If he’s going to propose it at 20 feet setbacks from the property line, the relief
would be one foot. If he wants it two feet from the sun room, the relief would be less than the other
both side and rear. It depends on where he wants to have it.
MR. THOMAS-Right, but he’s showing 20 feet off the side and 20 feet off the back, where it has
to be 30 and 30, but if you do the math, as proposed, then it, once he lays it out on that property
line, it’s going to be 9 feet.
MR. STONE-You want it nine feet from the sun room?
MR. THOMAS-From the sun room?
MR. DUTCHER-I want it two feet from the sun porch, if I have to. According to the Town of
Queensbury, it has to be 30 feet from the existing building?
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. DUTCHER-I can’t get the 30 foot that way. Either way, I can’t get 30 foot.
MR. THOMAS-No, you can’t, but if you move that within two feet of the sun room, you can get
27 foot on the side setback. All right. That would be 27 feet, and you’d still have the 20 in the
back, unless you move the garage forward.
MR. DUTCHER-I can’t do that. It would be too close to the front, then.
MS. CIPPERLY-Do you want to have the garage two feet from the sun room?
MR. DUTCHER-Yes.
MS. CIPPERLY-Or would you be happier with five or nine? It looks like you could do nine.
That’s what you’re saying, right, Chris?
MR. STONE-That’s what we’re saying. You could do it.
MR. HAYES-Do you want more or less away from the sun room, I guess?
MR. DUTCHER-More. I’d rather have more, really.
MR. CUSTER-Yes, that’s what the sun room’s for.
MR. STONE-Yes. So if you put it nine feet, then you need relief, from the 30 feet, you need 10
feet of relief, from the side.
MR. DUTCHER-From the side, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all we need.
MR. CUSTER-I don’t think we’re going to have a problem with that.
MR. THOMAS-No. Well, I’ve got to 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-All right. Lets talk about it. I’ll start with Bonnie.
MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t have any problem with this, really. The Dutcher property is very well
kept, and with those, the only question I had, you already asked about the outbuildings coming
down.
MR. DUTCHER-They’d be down, yes.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MRS. LAPHAM-And as long as, they’d probably come down because whatever’s in them would
go in the garage, I assume.
MR. DUTCHER-Right.
MRS. LAPHAM-I think it would be a really nice addition to their property.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-I basically agree. My only concern was the, those other outbuildings. One, of
course, is very, they’re both very close. They’re both on the line. They’re both in a sense
nonconforming, but I would prefer they’re gone, and if you’re willing to state they will be gone,
then I have no problem with the variance request.
MR. DUTCHER-Yes, they’ll both be down, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I agree with Lew. My concern was the other buildings, and the applicant has clearly
stated that he intends to or will remove those. I have no problem with the application.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-No problems.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I don’t have any problems with it either. I did have questions about the
lean to in the back and the shed on the north side, but Lew asked it, I got a satisfactory answer. So
having said that, I would ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1998 DAVID DUTCHER
,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
10 West Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 720 square foot detached garage and
seeks setback relief. The proposed location is too close to both the side and rear property lines and
too close to the principal structure that the setbacks require. The applicant requests 10 feet of
relief from both the side and rear 30 foot setback requirements of the Light Industrial 1A zone
Section 179-26, and one foot of relief from the 10 foot accessory structure setback requirement of
Section 179-67. The benefit to the applicant would be it would allow him to construct the garage
as laid out to us. Feasible alternatives are limited, based on the size of the lot. Is the relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t believe that it’s substantial, being particularly that
the property is set back in. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I think removing the
existing structures that are there now and putting a good garage there actually will have a positive
impact on the neighborhood and the community as a result. Is the difficulty self created? I don’t
think it is. I think that it’s attributable to the nature of the lot in question. So, I would move for
approval of this variance. As an addition, as a requirement for our approval of the variance, that
the two existing outbuildings that are not, will be removed.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MRS. DUTCHER-We want to thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1998 TYPE II ANN MURPHY OWNER: SAME ZONE:
WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 16 LANSBURG LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2 CAR GARAGE WITH STORAGE ROOM ABOVE AND
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
INTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1269, SP 38-98
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-9.32 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES
SECTION: 179-16, 179-79
ANN MURPHY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-1998, Ann Murphy, Meeting Date: July 15, 1998
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ 16 Lansburg Lane, Applicant proposes
construction of a 1012 square foot addition to include a two car attached garage, storage
Relief
room/bedroom, mud room and bath. Applicant requests setback relief and relief to expand.
Required:
Applicant requests 17 feet of relief from the 20 foot rear setback requirement of the
WR-1A zone. Section 179-16, and relief for expansion of a non conforming structure, Section
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
179-79.
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct and inhabit an enlarged
2. Feasible alternatives:
home in the desired location. Due to site constraints, feasible
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
alternatives are limited. 17 feet (85%) of
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
relief may be interpreted as substantial.
5.
Moderate effects on the neighborhood or community are anticipated as a result of this action.
Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, however, site
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
constraints should be noted. AV 1269 -
Staff
res. July 15, 1987 - To construct an undersized home on the lot and setback relief.
comments:
Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. Site constraints limit the
feasibility of construction further from the right of way. The site is not visible from a Town road.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of July
1998, the above application for an Area Variance to add a mudroom, 2 car garage with storage
room above and bathroom off second floor loft was reviewed, and the following action was taken.
Recommendation to: No County Impact” Teri Ross, Vice Chairperson.
MR. HAYES-I have one question for Staff before we start. Why is this nonconforming? Is it rear
setbacks? Is that why it’s nonconforming, the expansion of the nonconforming?
MR. BROWN-Right, plus it’s an undersized house.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Which they got a Use Variance for, but it currently doesn’t meet the setbacks to the
right of way.
MR. STONE-Right. Well, I’d like two questions then, Craig. One, please note that in the 179-16,
there should be an asterisk at rear setback, as explained underneath. It’s only under side setback.
So if the Town Board, in its infinite wisdom, could correct this in the Code, there should be an
asterisk there, should there not?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Secondly, explain “undersized”. This is the first time I’ve ever heard it.
MR. BROWN-Some place there’s a minimum requirement of 800 square feet. I think it’s 800, for
a minimum sized house, or dwelling, and this is at least 600.
MRS. LAPHAM-It’s actually slightly larger.
MR. BROWN-Currently now, it’s undersized.
MS. CIPPERLY-She originally got a variance to make a house smaller than the Code required. I
can find that Section, but this variance, she now wants to build a house that’s larger. So, it will
put it well into the.
MR. HAYES-She’s expanding a nonconforming, making it more conforming.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MS. CIPPERLY-Right, in terms of size.
MR. HAYES-Except for the rear.
MR. THOMAS-Well, except for the rear setback, plus it’s a more than 50% expansion.
MR. HAYES-Right. I’m just saying I wanted to know what both ends of the nonconforming.
MR. STONE-That’s not even listed here, is it?
MR. HAYES-The expansion of a nonconforming structure.
MR. THOMAS-Nonconforming structure, 179-79. Anyway.
MR. STONE-The first question I have, I want you to bottle the view, and give us each a bottle.
It’s an absolutely gorgeous spot there from the porch.
MS. MURPHY-Thank you.
MR. CUSTER-How big is the lot right now?
MS. MURPHY-It’s a third of an acre, but because of the way it’s situated, there’s only a little tiny
bit of it on top of the cliff.
MR. CUSTER-Right.
MR. STONE-And you go up toward the, I guess it’s north, that hill toward north, toward Exit 18.
That’s all your property, where it goes up, almost straight up? Not the front.
MS. MURPHY-Part of it is. The property line is along the dirt road, the dirt driveway, and it
comes, there’s a diagram in here of the shape of it. It’s a very odd shape.
MR. STONE-But that line to the north side, that’s up on top of that hilly portion?
MS. MURPHY-Yes. That’s part isn’t, I don’t believe that part is in question. This is the water
down here, and it goes like this.
MR. STONE-Most of your acreage is like this toward the river, right?
MS. MURPHY-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-The garage that you propose to build, how many square feet is just the garage
itself?
MS. MURPHY-Well, it’s 20 by 20.
MR. THOMAS-20 by 20, 400. Okay.
MR. STONE-And the upstairs room would add, the living space was.
MR. THOMAS-Well, she wants to add 1,012 square feet, but that’s.
MR. STONE-Yes, but that’s total living area as defined in the Waterfront Residential Zone?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. No, that includes the garage.
MRS. LAPHAM-That includes the garage, too.
MR. STONE-I understand that, but that’s not the footprint type thing. That’s the two stories.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-We only worry about this in the Waterfront zone.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. BROWN-For the Floor Area Ratio.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that’s all been met, with this.
MR. STONE-Yes. Are there any other questions for the applicant? All right. I’ll open the public
hearing. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LINDA LANSBURG
MRS. LANSBURG-I’m Linda Lansburg. We live next door. We own like 2.57 acres that is on
the east and the south side.
MR. STONE-Out to Big Bay.
MRS. LANSBURG-Out her lot. We’re the second house in, in the neighborhood of two.
MR. STONE-Your lot goes up toward Big Bay?
MRS. LANSBURG-Yes. We own the road. We had two concerns. One was, how far the garage
was going to come from the east corner, and that’s 30 feet, and that’s fine with us. Our other
concern was that we’re three feet back from the road, and the snow plow in the winter of ’94 was
terrible down there. We barely got out. So I was worried about the snow, building a little
addition. We got that all worked out. I have to say that it would be nice not to see Ann come out
at 20 below zero and go and open her hatches and go down into her laundry. That would be a
definite plus. I’d rather have her call me up and go over and have a cup of coffee. So a garage
would be better. It would actually improve, this would be an improvement of the neighborhood of
two. So I want to say that my husband and I are for this.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anything else you want to say?
MRS. LANSBURG-No.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this
variance? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-No. I’m just pleased that the neighbor did come forward to say, because that was
one of the things I asked Ms. Murphy, what does her neighbor feel, and I’m very pleased that you
came forward. We always appreciate it when we hear people say, I like the idea, because we get a
lot of the others.
MS. MURPHY-And I appreciate that very much as well.
MR. THOMAS-The only question I have, is there any way you can push that structure closer to
the river, to get that three feet back? Because that’s the first thing I noticed when I went down
there. I was down there today.
MS. MURPHY-Did you go over to the edge? I mean, there’s a bank there.
MR. THOMAS-I noticed there was a bank there. I didn’t know how, because of the front of the
house appears to be closer to the river than the proposed addition, you could bring that a little
closer, that would give that three feet, increase that a little bit and alleviate snowplowing problems.
MS. MURPHY-Well, I would be putting it back as far as it can safely go, and be built.
MR. THOMAS-So you’re saying it’s as far toward the river as it can go?
MS. MURPHY-Yes, because that’s to my advantage as well as to theirs, because I need a little
area to pull forward and back into.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-So you’re saying if it can go, when you start to put the footings in, if it can go a little
closer to the river, you’d probably put it there?
MS. MURPHY-Definitely will, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. That was the only question I had. Are there any more questions for
the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Brian, what do you think?
MR. CUSTER-I really don’t have a lot of difficulty with this one. The bottom neighbor showed
up and expressed her positive outlook on it. That’s always very helpful, and I think Chris did
address the one thing I was curious, whether it could be pushed back any further, but I know it is a
very difficult slope there, but on the whole, I’m pretty much in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I’m I favor of it. It’s an absolutely beautiful spot. I can’t imagine anybody
having to go out in below zero and open a hatch to go do the laundry, and as long as one of two
neighbors seem to think it’s fine, so do I.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-I agree we should grant the variance.
MR. THOMAS-Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I agree with the Chairman that it is a substantial request, because of the magnitude
of the relief, but the rest of the test is carried pretty substantially. So I think I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-I have no problem with this variance application and the relief the applicant is
requesting. Like I stated before, my only thought was that that building could be pushed forward,
farther away from the road, the better it would be, but the applicant states that because of the
measurements, and there is that steep slope that goes down to the river, and then pushing it farther
would take away from the footings of the garage, and we really don’t want to build a garage on
stilts. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1998 ANN MURPHY
, Introduced by
Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
16 Lansburg Lane. The proposed project is described as construction of a 1,012 square foot
addition to include a two car attached garage, storage room/bedroom, mud room and bath. In
granting this variance, we will need to provide the following relief: 17 feet of relief from the 20
foot rear setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, under Section 179-16, and also greater than a
50 percent expansion of a nonconforming structure, under Section 179-79. The benefit to the
applicant, by granting the variance, it would allow the applicant to increase the size of her existing
home, and all the positive things that go along with that. Feasible alternatives are somewhat
limited, due to the size of the lot in question. The relief may be substantial, as noted before,
however, it is necessary also because of the lot size. Effects on the neighborhood or community
are minimal. In fact, the comments made here tonight were all positive by the neighborhood. The
difficulty also could be interpreted as self created, but it is, in my estimation, not due, again, to the
site constraints.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-There you go, Ms. Murphy.
MS. MURPHY-Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
MR. THOMAS-I think you have to go before the Planning Board, because this is in a CEA?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MS. MURPHY-Next Tuesday, I believe.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. Just as long as you’re aware of it.
MS. MURPHY-I am.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MS. MURPHY-Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1998 TYPE II OREST A. BOYCHUK OWNER: SAME
ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: DIX AVE. J. ALLEN FURNITURE STORE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 4,000 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO REAR OF THE J.
ALLEN FURNITURE STORE AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SIDE YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 32-98 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 7/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.25 LOT SIZE: 1.00 ACRE SECTION:
179-22, 179-79
BILL TROMBLEY & OREST BOYCHUK, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-1998, Orest A. Boychuk, Meeting Date: July 15, 1998
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ Dix Ave. J. Allen Furniture Store
Applicant proposes construction of a 4000 square foot addition to an existing 6000 square foot
Relief
building. Applicant requests setback relief, buffer relief and relief for expansion.
Required:
Applicant requests 9.7 feet of relief from the 30 foot side setback requirement and both
29.7 feet and 12 feet of relief from the 50 foot buffer zone requirements of the PC-1A zone,
Section 179-22 and relief for expansion of a non conforming structure, Section 179-79, as the
Criteria for
current building violates the side setback and buffer requirements of the PC-1A zone.
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant:2.
Applicant would be permitted to construct an addition in the desired location.
Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the proposed addition to
meet the setback requirements. However, since much of the lot is subject to the 50 foot buffer
3. Is this relief
requirements, relocation would still require relief from the buffer requirement.
substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
9.7 feet of side setback relief may be interpreted as
4. Effects
moderate, while 29.7 feet and 12 feet of buffer relief may be interpreted as substantial.
on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood or community are
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
interpreted as self-created. Town Board
Resolution 115.94 dated 3/7/94 to rezone from LI-1A to PC-1A SP 32-98 res. (pending)
Staff comments:
proposed 4,000 sf addition Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this
action. The proposal calls for an addition which does not increase the setback violation. However,
SEQR Status:
the addition would increase the area in violation of the buffer zone requirement.
Type II”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of July,
1998, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 100’ x 40’ addition for the
purpose of a larger showroom area and stock room was reviewed, and the following action was
taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Terri Ross, Chairperson. was reviewed, and the
following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Terri Ross, Vice
Chairperson.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Boychuk or Mr. Trombley. Okay, Al, tell us the story.
MR. BOYCHUK-Basically, what we would like to do is put an addition onto the existing building,
and in line, that would be on the east side, where it would continue in the straight, going toward the
north.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-Well, if you think of Dix as east/west, it would be to the north. Toward Nemer is
what we’re talking about.
MR. BOYCHUK-Toward Nemer, correct, just continuing with the.
MR. TROMBLEY-Yes. It would be headed north, but it would be the east side that we’re looking
for relief.
MR. BOYCHUK-Yes, correct.
MR. TROMBLEY-Is it correct to assume that when this building was originally constructed for
Northeast Welding, that there was a different setback allowance or Ordinance at that time?
Because they have like 20 foot 6 inches is the setback right now on that side line.
MR. STONE-Well, they’re both 20 feet, approximately, yes. The building next to you and.
MR. BOYCHUK-Car Essentials is about the same?
MR. STONE-According to this thing is says 20, doesn’t it?
MR. CUSTER-Twenty feet, right.
MR. BOYCHUK-That’s what it used to be.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I was just looking that up, in the LI-1 Acre zone, no, it had a 30 foot side.
Yes, Light Industrial One Acre was a 30 foot side setback.
MR. CUSTER-When that building was built, though, was the zoning the same?
MR. THOMAS-When was that building built, do you know?
MR. BOYCHUK-I have a feeling that that building’s been there probably 15 years maybe, like
’83, somewhere in there.
th
MR. TROMBLEY-Actually, according to the survey, Donald Baker, it was April 4 of ’86.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, so, what did you say, Sue, that back in ’82 there was a Zoning Ordinance?
MS. CIPPERLY-I said it may have been a different setback requirement.
MR. THOMAS-Back, way back when.
MR. TROMBLEY-That’s what I was inquiring as to, and what we’re trying to do is conform with
that side of the building, to keep this addition in line. The roof runs entirely from the south, and
it’s tapered back toward the north, even with the new addition. So everything would line up
accordingly on that side, and the rainfall would just run to the back yard.
MR. STONE-You’re saying this building would be lower in the back than it is in the front,
because of grade? There’s a diagram here.
MR. TROMBLEY-Yes. There’s roughly a 1/12 pitch on that roof. That’s existing now. The
building is 60 feet wide, 100 foot wide, 60 feet deep, lets say, with a one inch pitch per foot. At
present, it’s still about 15 foot high at the rear wall. When we put this new addition in and carry it
out 40 feet, we’ll still be maintaining 10 foot, roughly, ceiling height, and still be able to maintain
the roof pitch running back with the front roof. So it’ll all be one continuous slope.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-None of these pictures show that back portico that you have, or whatever. There’s a
deck back there with an overhang, on the current building.
MR. TROMBLEY-I’m not sure whether that was there. How long have you had the building?
MR. STONE-It’s not shown on any of the.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. TROMBLEY-That has to be torn off, by the way.
MR. STONE-I realize that, but I mean, it doesn’t even show. I was just surprised it didn’t show
on the drawing.
MR. TROMBLEY-I see what you’re saying. These are preliminary drawings. As of yet, we
haven’t applied to the Building Department for a permit. We were informed at the time that I went
up there that we need to go to Site Plan Review.
MR. STONE-And what about the metal shed?
MR. BOYCHUK-That would come out.
MR. STONE-Okay. Good.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to
speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TROMBLEY-At the time that we came up with this 40 by 100 square foot addition, this is
what we had in the preliminary drawings. This is what we took to Site Plan Review. We have to
go back to Site Plan Review next week. If we wanted to extend 10 foot to the west, making that
building 110 foot, and I’ll tell you our reasonings in a second, making it 110 foot, maintaining that
side line, we would be jutting out 10 foot to the west side. The tractor trailers that bring in
furniture have a very difficult time, sometimes, coming in. They do it. They back in, but they
can’t back right up to the side of the building. So therefore, furniture is removed, carried over, and
put in what is now the so called stock area, which is very small. By coming out 10 foot, we could
put in a door, which would be looking south. In other words, that 10 foot would be sticking out.
Tractor trailers could back right up straight. Stock could be taken right off. If we entertain this
further, and when we go for our building permit, is this going to be a problem, according to the
Zoning Board, because we would add 10 foot to what our original.
MR. STONE-Well, it depends whether that number is 52 or 32.
MR. THOMAS-Well, in a PC-1 Acre, the side setback has to be 30 feet, minimum side setback is
30 feet.
MR. BOYCHUK-That is 52.
MR. TROMBLEY-On the west side.
MR. THOMAS-So you’d be down to 42. You’d be in compliance.
MR. TROMBLEY-So we wouldn’t have to come back here. I just wanted to bring that up as a
matter of, if it had to be dealt with, if we could deal with it.
MR. THOMAS-Would that 10 feet be within the 50 foot?
MR. BROWN-Right. It would be violating the buffer zone.
MR. THOMAS-Be violating the buffer zone, though. So you’d have to come back for that.
MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the buffer zone, you could address.
MR. STONE-Where is the buffer zone?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, I’m missing that, too.
MR. BROWN-Well, this parcel was originally Light Industrial.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. BROWN-So all the way around it is Light Industrial. This is the only PC-1A.
MR. THOMAS-This particular lot is the only PC-1 Acre?
MR. BROWN-It was re-zoned.
MR. THOMAS-Wow.
MR. BROWN-Around you is zoned Light Industrial. This lot in the middle of that, in fact, is PC.
MR. STONE-This is not spot zoning, of course?
MS. CIPPERLY-This happened at the time that K-Mart was re-zoned.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what I figured.
MR. TROMBLEY-A car dealership is classified Light Industrial, rather than commercial?
Because that’s behind them.
MS. CIPPERLY-The zoning’s different on Quaker than it is on Dix. It’s not something that we
can address. It’s just that you need to be aware.
MR. STONE-So you’re saying that the buffer zone is in from his property line on three sides?
MR. BROWN-Three sides.
MS. CIPPERLY-And right now, his building is 52.7 feet in, and we’re just saying if he wanted to
go 10 feet closer, he’d be 42 feet from the zone line.
MR. THOMAS-You’d need a variance for that.
MS. CIPPERLY-And it’s mentioned in the notes that that’s something that needs to be considered
tonight, for the rest of it, too.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MS. CIPPERLY-So, if you’re planning on doing that, I don’t know how the Board would feel
about addressing that tonight.
MR. STONE-It wasn’t advertised for tonight.
MRS. LAPHAM-What about advertising?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. There would be a problem with advertising.
MS. CIPPERLY-I mean, that Section was advertised, but that project wasn’t.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. So, the Section that was advertised, that covers it, right?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-So, if he wanted to put a 10 by 40 foot addition on that west side, you could tell
us now that you’re going to do that, and if we were going to give you the variance, we would give
you that variance, and if you decide not to put it on, well, then they don’t, but you’re still covered.
MR. BOYCHUK-So we would be covered then tonight, would do it, if we were to ask for that?
MR. THOMAS-Right. You wouldn’t violate the side line setback. The only thing you’d be
violating is the buffer zone setback.
MR. STONE-But we would have to put that in a motion?
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that would be on the motion, on the left side.
MR. BOYCHUK-And that the buffer zone is something that Site Plan Review deals with, is that
correct?
MR. THOMAS-No, we deal with buffer zone. Site Plan Review is because it’s an expansion of a
commercial business, I believe. This is going to Site Plan because it’s an expansion of a
nonconforming use in a commercial zone?
MS. CIPPERLY-Something like that. I don’t have the advertisement in front of me. I guess the
only question I would have, if you were going to have the trucks backing up there, and it’s more of
a site plan issue, is where would they be backing from? Would they back in from Dix Avenue, or
would they back in your?
MR. BOYCHUK-That’s what they do now. They pull in from the parking lot. They’re not on the
road.
MS. CIPPERLY-So they’re making a “Y” turn on your property? Okay.
MR. STONE-So it’s on site.
MR. BOYCHUK-Right. They would be on site. They would just be backing up straight into the
proposed addition. It would make deliveries a lot easier, especially if it was rainy weather and
you’re taking furniture off. I mean, you could be right there.
MS. CIPPERLY-And if that does get approved, we would need a drawing of that to get to the
Planning Board before, it’s on next week, I believe.
MR. BOYCHUK-We’d have to revise our prelims.
MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. We would just need one of these drawings showing whatever gets.
MR. BOYCHUK-We could add to what we’ve already submitted as a preliminary.
MS. CIPPERLY-Right, because you’re already scheduled for the Planning Board.
MR. THOMAS-Does anybody have any problem with the applicant adding that 10 by 40 foot
addition onto the requested proposed addition?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Even though, you know, it would still conform to the side line setback, but
it would still not conform to the buffer setback. All right. No problem there? What we’ll do is
we’ll add it on here, and if you decide not to put it on, well, then it becomes more conforming.
Believe it or not, that’s the word. All right. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? All
right. Lets talk about it. Lew?
MR. STONE-As far as I’m concerned, this is relatively simple, particularly when I hear that your
lot is the only thing that’s buffered in the whole area, and just recently, we granted relief from a
buffer zone slightly to the east, in the Hess property there, in the triangle. The fact that you’re
going to get rid of an eyesore, this metal shed back there, the fact that we’ve heard no opposition
whatsoever to it. I have no absolutely no problem with it, and I would certainly vote for its
approval.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I agree with Lew. I mean, the whole notion of a buffer zone is for some protection,
but I don’t think it’s for protection against yourself. So I have no problem with the application. It
looks like a good project, and I congratulate him.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I have no problems with it.
MR. THOMAS-Bonnie?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MRS. LAPHAM-I feel the same way as the other Board members.
MR. THOMAS-I’ll bet I can make it shorter. I have no problem with this application, even the
requested addition of the 400 square foot that may be added at the applicant’s request. So, it’s a
good project. It would clean up the site, especially getting rid of that shed and doing some
landscaping around the back there. That is just a little tall back in there.
MR. STONE-That would be nice, yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, that would be.
MR. THOMAS-So, having said that, are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll ask
for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1998 OREST A. BOYCHUK
,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham:
Dix Avenue, in actuality, the J. Allen Furniture Store. The applicant proposes construction of a
4400 square foot addition to an existing 6,000 square foot building. The applicant requests
setback relief, buffer relief, and relief for expansion. Specifically, the applicant requests 9.7 feet of
relief from the 30 foot side setback requirement and 29.7 feet of relief from the 50 foot buffer zone
requirement of the PC-1A, Section 179-22, and also 7.3 feet relief on the west side from the 50
foot buffer zone requirements of the PC-1A zone, and in addition relief for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure, Section 179-79, as the current building violates the side setback and
buffer requirements of the PC-1A zone. The addition will be 4400 square feet, relative to an
existing building of 6,000 which is over the 50%, and we recognize that. In granting this variance,
we recognize the benefit to the applicant, that he will be permitted to construct an addition in the
desired location. The feasible alternatives might include re-location of the proposed addition to
meet the setback requirements on the east side, but since the lot is basically subject on all sides to
the 50 foot buffer requirement, relocation would still require relief, and we’re granting that relief.
Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Parts of it may be, but because this lot is unique
in the area, in that it is the only Plaza Commercial lot and therefore subject to the 50 foot buffer
setbacks on all sides, it is not considered substantial. There will be minimal effects on the
neighborhood or community, and while this difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, it
represents an expansion of an on-going business on a lot well suited to sustain this expansion.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. BOYCHUK-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Make sure you get that revised plan for the Planning Board, next week.
MR. TROMBLEY-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED THE WOOD CARTE OWNER:
CHRIS, LINDSAY & KELLY CARTE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF
RT. 9, ACROSS FROM SUTTONS APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITION AND
SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK, PARKING AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS
OF THE HC-1A ZONE AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 41-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/8/98 TAX MAP NO.
73-1-8.1, 8.4 LOT SIZE: 1.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-23, 179-66, 179-79
JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-1998, The Wood Carte, Chris, Lindsay and Kelly Carte,
Project Location:
Meeting Date: July 15, 1998 “ West side of Rt. 9 across from Suttons
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a 7,378 square foot addition to an existing
21,569 square foot building which does not meet the: side line setback requirements, maximum
density requirements and the off street parking requirements of the HC-1A zone. Applicant
requests relief from the setback, density and parking requirements of the HC-1A zone, Section 179-
Relief Required:
23 and relief for expansion of a non conforming structure, Section 179-79 The
sideline setbacks in the HC-1A zone call for a total of 50 feet with a 20 foot minimum. Currently,
the building has a total of 36.6 feet of side setbacks with a 5.1 foot minimum on the South side.
While the proposed addition meets the minimum setback requirement, it does not meet the total of
50 feet, consequently, 13.4 feet of relief is requested. The maximum allowable gross floor area for
a multi-story building, on this 1.39 acre parcel, is 21,800 sf. This proposal calls for a 7.378 sf
addition to bring the total to 28,947 which would require 7,147 sf of relief. Additionally, the
applicant requests relief from the off street parking requirements, Section 179-66. The proposal
calls for 43 parking spaces, while the requirements, for this size building, call for 127 parking
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
spaces.
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the desired
2. Feasible alternatives:
addition. Since the existing building is at the allowable building square
3. Is this relief substantial
footage threshold, any expansion would require relief of some sort.
relative to the Ordinance?:
A 34% increase to a building which is already at the maximum
allowable size, relief from 84 parking spaces and 13.4 feet of relief from a 50 setback requirement
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
may be interpreted as substantial. Minimal to
5. Is
moderate impacts on the neighborhood or community are anticipated a result of this action.
this difficulty self-created?Parcel History
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP41-98 res. (pending) 7,378 sf addition and site items.
Staff comments:
This proposal calls for fairly substantial relief from both the parking
requirements and the Gross Leasable Floor Area requirements. However, the proposed addition
does not increase the current side setback violation. This proposed over development of this site
SEQR Status:
might suggest that an alternate site would be better suited for this type of project.
Type II”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of July
1998, the above application for an Area Variance to construct an addition to an existing furniture
store was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendations to: No County
Impact” Teri Ross, Vice Chairperson.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and I’m here with Jim
Miller, and we’re here on behalf of Chris, Kelly and Lindsay Carte. Chris and Kelly are here to
answer questions when we’re done with our presentation, and their business, The Wood Carte,
Inc., which is the operator, they own the property individually, and their corporation runs the
business. Although this sounds complicated, because we need three separate variances, density,
setback and parking, what’s proposed is really a fairly straight forward addition to a pre-existing
building, which is an unusual shaped building on an even more unusual shaped lot. In essence,
we’re filling in a gap in the building that’s there now, and as a result of that, we feel that the
impacts, because it’s set back from the road, where this construction will take place, would be very
minimal on the neighborhood, and as a result of this, and as a result of the DOT plan to re-do that
section of Route 9, Jim has come up with some changes for parking and landscaping in the front,
which will actually increase the permeability, and allow some landscaping to take place up front,
which will greatly soften the appearance of this building which was built originally, it’s a
manufacturing building, in this zone, and we think that this will be really positive for the zone.
We’d like to start out to have Jim walk you through the site plan to show you exactly what we have
in mind, and then I’ll go through the criteria on the specific variances that we’re requesting.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. The existing store, up across from Sutton’s, the “L” shaped lot that
goes behind Merritt’s carpet store, and the existing store right now, this is the main showroom, and
they have this long, narrow “L” shaped warehouse that wraps around the back, and obviously
because of the shape and the width of it, is fairly inefficient. One of the things that’s important
with this type of business, that leads to some of the variances we’re asking, we’re dealing with
furniture, a very bulky item. It takes a lot of showroom space, it takes a lot of warehouse space,
and the problem, when we’re looking at it as a typical retail business of needing one car per 100
square feet, we need a tremendous amount of cars. That really doesn’t make sense. Right now,
there are 13 designated customer parking areas. There’s nine in the front. There’s an island
located out in the parking area, and there’s a couple of spaces toward Route 9, and 7 against the
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
building. In addition to those 9 in the front, they have 4 designated along the property line, on the
driveway. These 13 spaces are adequate for their business. The employees who work there and
any deliveries and the dumpster and everything occurs in the back, and all this area in the back is
also paved, but there’s never been a problem with parking, so none of it is marked or striped. The
employees park in this area. The only time employees actually go to the rear is sometimes to pick
up larger pieces of furniture. With the success of the business, they’re looking to expand. They’re
looking to expand some showroom, and because of the existing building, it’s not really practical to
move the showroom into this existing narrow building. So what they’ve proposed is to basically
fill in some of the space created by this odd-shaped building, so they could expand the ground
coverage, 3700 square feet, and portion of it up to the jog would be additional showroom. The
area in the back would be additional warehousing. As a matter of fact, it would be an improved
door here to allow easier customer pick up, which is also a problem now. The proposal is to have
a second floor where they could store warehouse lighter pieces, on a second level, chairs, things
like that. All of the addition occurs within paved parking area. All this paved parking drains, now,
to a common drywell, and the drainage works very well. The new addition would drain back onto
the existing roof, which drains to the south. So we would have an increased drainage condition to
the south, but along the south side of the building, there’s actually a berm there. I think when the
building was originally built, they graded it and left it high. So water that comes off this roof
actually is contained there. What we’ve proposed along here is to construct a stone french drain.
So that roof water that comes off of there now will, it’ll have an increased area to percolate into the
ground, also the voids in the stone, there’s more storage area. Sothe drainage would be contained
there, but we’ve improved that drainage condition, and reduced the drainage that goes to the front.
The other thing we wanted to look at is to try to improve and increase the parking, however we
can. Jon mentioned, DOT has a plan to come through and put sidewalks in on this side of the
property, and actually would be on the inside of that existing brick island. When they did that,
they would actually lose two parking spaces, now, because some of the parking occurs out in that
right-of-way. What we had proposed to do along this front area is to remove the freestanding
island where the sign is and pull that back a little bit closer to the building, keeping the freestanding
sign, but creating a bigger island, removing some pavement here, which would allow us to still
maintain nine parking spaces out there, and also remove some asphalt in here, to have some more
green space, and some more landscaping. In addition, the intent was that this back entrance, as
well as an existing side entrance, would all be made into entrances into the showroom, and in doing
that, the green awning canopy that’s along the front, would be added to the side, into these areas.
Actually, this would be a larger canopy here, but, you know, the larger doors would be located. In
so doing with this canopy, we’ve moved the parking closer to the building with the addition, we
would stripe all the way down the side. So the customer parking with the new entrances, we would
increase the striped area designated for customer parking to 18 spaces, and the 43 spaces that we
talked about, is we’ve shown this back parking area would accommodate the additional. So if
there was ever a situation where the spaces closer to the building was not adequate, we have more
than enough space in the back. All the employee parking would be moved to the very back end of
the lot, so that the spaces adjacent to the building could be used for customer parking, but as Jon
said, it’s actually a fairly simple request to build the addition and try to re-organize the parking.
The parking is adequate for the type of business that’s there, and what we’ve tried to do is increase
the green space, especially at the front of the building, with the island along the side to help soften
the view down to the back, to try to increase the aesthetics of the street side of the property, and
basically that’s it.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of the impact on the neighborhood, if you’re heading north on Route 9,
you can’t see this little cut out area where we’re proposing to add the building at all right now, and
if you’re heading south on Route 9, the carpet store completely blocks that as well. So in terms of
the impact of the construction this building, it’ll be virtually invisible from somebody traveling on
Route 9, but by taking out some pavement, as Jim mentioned, and adding the shrubbery up front,
it’ll certainly make it look better. In terms of the parking, it is true that to say that to go from 127
to 43 sounds like a big deal, but we’ve all been talking about the Queensbury Ordinance and
parking for a number of years now, K-Mart and what happened with the Lowe’s, where we built
less than what the Ordinance would have required, and on some other projects that are pending as
well, and the thought in Town in general now is to not build unnecessary parking just for the sake
of complying with the Code. This type of business, and it really comes down to the issues that Jim
mentioned about the size of their merchandise. They’re perfectly satisfied, and they’ve been in
business in Queensbury, first at Northway Plaza, and now here for a number of years, and they’re
comfortable with the 13 spaces that there, in terms of what they actually need on a busy Saturday
afternoon, to meet their customer’s needs, and with the 43 in total, which would allow customers to
park in the back if necessary, that is more than they need, and part of it is just the nature of their
business, with a furniture store, where you need a lot of area to show merchandise. I don’t think
that this is going to be creating any kind of a parking issue. They feel that even what they’re
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
showing now is more than they actually need, but it does, Jim’s plan does allow more parking up
front than what was there, by moving it along the side, with the 18, and that should be a help. In
terms of the density, for density calculation, we’re counting the 7,000, approximately, square feet,
because it’s the two stories, and we’re not going to dispute how the Code determines parking as it
relates to density, but in general, what they’re doing here is not going to, this is not going to be a
huge draw. It’s going to allow them to display more merchandise and to have more merchandise in
storage, so that they will actually have in stock, if somebody orders something, that they’ll just give
them some more flexibility, but this is not intended as something that’s going to significantly
increase their business. It’s just going to make the whole site work a lot better, and right now it’s
pretty tight, in terms of both storage, because of the narrow building, and in terms of the
showroom, because of the size of the pieces. We look at this as an existing local business on kind
of an unusual shaped site that is looking for relief, but that this is something that is going to be
positive for their business, and not negative for the neighborhood and really just cleaning it up.
MR. THOMAS-Is that it?
MR. LAPPER-I’m not sure that Bonnie read the, and I may have missed it, the, I included three
separate pages describing the variances, side setback, parking and density, on separate pages, and I
just didn’t catch if she read the second two, just in terms of the record.
MRS. LAPHAM-I didn’t read this first letter, but I read.
MR. STONE-So there’s three pages you’re saying, three Number Two’s?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Which doesn’t say anything different than what Jim and I have been saying, but
just in terms of clarifying for the record.
MR. THOMAS-One says parking, and the other says density.
MRS. LAPHAM-Right.
MR. THOMAS-They have to be read into the record.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. No, I didn’t read those. I didn’t even notice them. Do you want me to do
that now?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. You might as well do that now.
How would you benefit from the granting of this Area
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “Parking -
Variance?
The Applicant requires expanded showroom space and warehouse space for its existing
What effect would this variance have on the character of the neighborhood and the
business.
health, safety and welfare of the community?
The project will have a positive benefit by
increasing site permeability and by adding landscaping at the Route 9 frontage which will visually
Are there feasible alternatives to this variance?
improve and soften the view of the site. No,
Is the amount of
because the size and configuration of the site does not permit additional parking.
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?
No, because the additional parking is not needed to
Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
service the site.
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district?
No, the site will be improved.
How would you benefit from the granting of this Area Variance?
Density - The Applicant
What effect
requires expanded showroom space and warehouse space for its existing business.
would this variance have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and
welfare of the community?
The project will have a positive benefit by increasing site
permeability and by adding landscaping to the Route 9 road frontage which will visually improve
Are there feasible alternatives to this variance?
and soften the view of the site. No, because the
Is the
existing building is too small to accommodate the needs of the Wood Carte business.
amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?
No, because the total proposed building
size is 28,947 square feet which is not substantially larger than the existing 21,569 square foot
Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
building.
conditions in the neighborhood or district?
No, the site will be improved”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything else you want to add, Jon?
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. LAPPER-Not at the moment.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Lapper or Mr. Carte or Mr. Miller?
MR. STONE-I only want to say to Mr. Cartes that I was sorry to hear about your father.
MR. THOMAS-I had a couple of questions. The parking, that’s parallel to the existing showroom,
the three spaces that are parallel to the proposed addition. These are, what, nine by twenty-five
foot spaces. Okay. Would you agree that, if you put a car in that nine by twenty-five foot space,
that if you pulled in, you know, with the driver’s side to the building, that they would be outside,
they’d have to be outside of that parking space, just to get that door open?
MR. MILLER-Well, most cars are like six to seven feet wide. There’d be some space there.
There’s also the nine foot goes to, if you look at the building up there, they have the columns that
stick out. There’s actually an additional foot against the building, where they have a curb and
some columns and stuff. It would be tight. It would be tight being against the building, but we
think there’d be adequate space for them to get in and out.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Because to continue with my train of thought is emergency vehicle access,
because, you know, we are dealing in wood here.
MR. MILLER-Yes, well, we still have 20 feet beyond the parking space, out to the, we still have
20 feet. One of the other things, at one point, both of these properties were in one ownership, and
actually there’s access, you know, for an emergency, there’s actually access, if there was
something blocked here, there would be access around the adjoining property, and vice versa. If
they had their driveway blocked, they could actually come to the rear of theirs also.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. HAYES-I had a question about the nature of the construction, like from the jog, you’re
continuing the line straight back. Is that going to be kind of contiguous to what’s there now, as a
block, in other words, is that the plan?
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. HAYES-The same color?
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, I thought you meant the distance. In terms of the construction material?
MRS. LAPHAM-It will look like it does now, except filled in.
MR. CARTE-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-And better in the front.
MR. LAPPER-The awnings will be a nice touch, in terms of brightening it up a little bit by
continuing that green along the side, at both entrances on the side, and Jim also included some
plantings around the other side entrance, and some curbing to just make that more noticeable,
which will improve it.
MR. CUSTER-Is the building sprinklered?
MR. CARTE-No.
MR. CUSTER-No.
MS. CIPPERLY-I have two questions about the parking, one I mentioned to Jon previously. The
space closest to the road is, half of it is off the property. So you’ve really got 42 and a half spaces
on the property, and following that reasoning with the emergency vehicles, in part, where would a
delivery truck unload, and would that conflict with customer traffic or emergency access?
MR. MILLER-Well, deliveries, they typically have one delivery, one tractor trailer delivery a day.
Their own truck is a small 25 foot truck, which actually the truck that’s shown in this plan is the
size they have. So the truck that goes in and out most frequently is a very small truck. They do
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
have one delivery. It typically comes in the morning, early in the day, before, it’s an off hour kind
of delivery. The existing loading dock is right in this corner. So as this addition came back, it
stopped short of that dock. We would extend the roof over to cover that dock, but the circulation
actually, for the delivery, actually happens exactly the way it does now. The trucks come in. They
pull into this area, and then back into that dock, and when they come out they have to pull up,
back, and then come back out, and we’re actually, this addition doesn’t effect, other than the fact
we cover that dock, it really doesn’t effect that turning motion, and the key is, with the parking
here, is that the peak, if there was ever a time they needed this parking in the back, it’s going to be
a Saturday when there’s no deliveries. It’s probably going to be evening hours. So, you know, it’s
really an off hour delivery, and it’s really not going to change. As far as the space in the front,
what happens now is, the existing condition, they park two cars the other direction now, and with
the plans show, DOT’s going to come in and basically take about seven feet out, and just cut that
out and add the sidewalk. So we do show utilizing all the pavement that’s going to be left there,
after DOT puts in that walk. So you’re right. It is an encroachment into the right-of-way, but it’s
less than what’s there now.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant. If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant or his agent? If not, lets talk about
it. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I guess I’d have to take these one at a time. I agree with the applicant. I have
no problem with the parking issue. I patronize the store myself, and with the little parking that
they have in front, I’ve never had a problem finding a spot parking. I don’t think it’s an issue, in
the sense of how the business runs or the flow of traffic there. In regard to the setback, I don’t
have a problem with the setback either, because basically it is, I think this is a unique, it definitely
is a unique building, in the way that it sits on the property, and the lot itself is very unqiue. I mean
you almost really couldn’t get much more so. So the fact that they’re filling in that jog, I don’t
have a problem with that violating the cumulative setback, I guess, because the 5.1 foot on what
would be the southern portion of the property is remaining the same, and that’s the biggest
encroachment is on that side. So it’s basically remaining the same. It’s only a question of the
cumulative relief. So I guess the only question that I would want to hear from the rest of the Board
would be, has to do with the density, the Gross Leasable space and the density, and I could go
either way on that. I’m leaning toward favoring it, being that it looks like this is using a building.
It is a successful local business, and it looks like they’re coming up with a plan that makes sense
without kind of blowing my mind. So I woiuld listen to the other Board members, as far as that
particular aspect of it. Seven thousand feet is certainly a lot of relief in this circumstance, but it’s
a unique piece of property. So I’d want to hear what everybody else had to say.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I agree with Jamie on the first two issues. The parking, again, I’ve been up there
100 times and never had a problem getting in or out of the store. Likewise, the setbacks, there’s
really no change. It’s just, it’s cumulative when you grant that relief, if we’re going to do it, and I,
too, I guess, have more of a problem with the third than I have with any of them, and my initial
thinking of it, it was too much, although Mr. Lapper’s application says it’s minimal. Thirty some
odd percent, to me, is fairly substantial, but after hearing things tonight, and maybe taking a better
look at it, I’m not so sure that’s a problem. There’s no question this building is a very strange lay
out, and I look at it. I’m trying to picture in my head. It actually kind of fills a void in there and
makes it a little bit better presentation. I think, as Mr. Lapper said, driving north, you don’t see it.
Driving south, it’s also blocked from the existing store on the north side there. Again, it’s a two
story addition. So it’s not like it’s 7500 square feet of all one floor and spreading out into different
areas. I’d like to hear what everybody else has to say, but I guess I’m kind of leaning in favor of
the variance at this point.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie?
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MRS. LAPHAM-I like the way it’s laid out, and I like the idea of it, because it will be, I think, an
improvement. I mean, they definitely need more space, from what I can see and what I’ve heard
tonight. This addition won’t alter the setbacks, because they’ll be the same. It’s not going to really
change the emergency access. Parking, we’ve all said is not that much of an issue in this type of
business. I almost think this type of business where five people get in a car to get one piece of
furniture, but you have one car, and the fact that they’re going to put in the greenery and soften the
look of the building with the canopies and all, I think it sounds good. I like it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, I basically, everything I’ve heard certainly has strengthened my thought that I
don’t really have a real problem here. The density is obviously a problem, but when you consider
that the lot has already been paved. It’s been paved for, obviously, a number of years. We’re
going to replace a paved low area with a two story paved building. It is, as described by my
colleagues, a unique lot. I would quite agree that you’re not going to see the second story as you
drive north. I think two stories above one story is probably going to be seen, but it doesn’t bother
me that it’s going to be seen because we’ve got a commercial building, a successful business. This
will hopefully make it more successful, and one of the things that we do need is more successful
businesses in Town, and I think it’s a good project, and I really have no problem with it
whatsoever.
MR. LAPPER-If I could just respond to that. It is two stories on the other side.
MR. STONE-The warehouse that it’s going to be next to is one story.
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, but the building in front of it is two stories.
MR. MILLER-But it’ll match the front building.
MR. CUSTER-If you’re inside, it’s one story, but it’s high.
MR. MILLER-That’s right.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the answer.
MR. STONE-Okay. That makes it even better for me. I just think it’s, going back to one thing I
said, the parking, if the applicant’s feel what they have is more than adequate for the kind of
business that they do, and people don’t shop for furniture every day, and you don’t have a run on
people looking for a table every single day. You wish it were so, but you don’t have that, and
certainly the side setback is, just because it happens to be inside another building, which is already
more offensive, if you will, from the Code, I don’t have any real problem. I think this will be a
good project.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I have no problem with this project. In the beginning I did, but I went
out there, and was out there at the site today, and I sat in that back parking lot and I looked at it
and I visualized it, and it’s like Jon said, going north, you won’t even see it, and coming south, it’s
blocked by the other store that’s there. As far as the parking, I don’t go in The Wood Carte often,
but every time I’ve gone by, or if I have been in there, there was no problem with the parking. It’s
like everyone else says, it’s not like a supermarket where everybody’s in there, every day, picking
up the necessities. The density on this, because of the uniqueness of the lot, and the uniqueness of
the existing building, the density, the additional density, I don’t see a problem with it, but the only
thing I do see is that this lot is probably built out as much as it can take. So I can’t see any more
additions other than this one going on this lot. I think that the Cartes will have to find another lot
or another location, if they want to expand anymore. Because like I say, this lot is jut about, is
built out with this addition, and this addition being probably, what, 7800 square feet over the
density requirement would be more than built out, but the way that they have it laid out, and the
presentation they made today, I have no problem with it.
MR. STONE-I only have one question, after looking at this, only because of the other Board on
which I serve. The building next to you, did you ever consider buying that building? I know she
was. You did?
MR. HAYES-Well, they leased part of that, because you had furniture in the back of it for a while,
right?
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
KELLY CARTE
MR. CARTE-We have a lease with an option on the thing, but we didn’t exercise the option. It’s
still up for sale. We didn’t know what the future would bring.
MR. STONE-Okay. Because I know she appeared before the Board of Assessment Review a
couple of years ago when it was empty, and now I see it’s got a business in there. So I just
wondered. Okay. All right. Having said that. I would ask for a motion.
MR. LAPPER-Excuse me. Before you pass a motion, the Staff had indicated that this wa a Type
II Action, and it’s really an Unlisted Action because the parking, the SEQRA individual lot setback
variances would be Type II, but the parking would not qualify as that. So you do need to make a
SEQRA motion before voting.
MR. THOMAS-All right.
MR. STONE-Under the new guidelines.
MR. THOMAS-Under the new guidelines as outlined by our counsel. Since Part A, or the front
sheet, is done by the applicant, we have to go through Part II on the back, the Environmental
Assessment, to be completed by the Agency. So if everyone would take out their Short
Environmental Assessment Form, Part II, and we have to go through this step by step.
MR. STONE-Thank you, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-I apologize.
MR. THOMAS-I was hoping I was going to get away with this. All right. Now this only has to
do with the parking. Right?
MR. LAPPER-The density would be hard to characterize. I think you might as well just do it on
the whole thing, just to be safe.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. All right. Considering everything that the applicant is asking for, the
parking, the density and the setbacks, Part II A “Does the action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6
NYCRR, Part 617.12?” Whatever that means. Does anybody on Staff know what that means?
MS. CIPPERLY-I don’t have it in front of me.
MR. LAPPER-I could give you some examples. That would be building of 100,000 square feet,
parking for 1,000 cars, etc.
MR. CUSTER-No.
MR. STONE-The answer is no.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. So we will make Part IIA, no. Part B “Will action receive
coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? If no, a negative
declaration may be superceded by another involved agency”. Coordinated review, yes, this has to
go before the, Site Plan.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s not coordinated, because it’s not Type I, which agency would make an
independent SEQRA review.
MR. THOMAS-So that’s a no again. Part C “C-1 Could action result in any adverse effects
associated with the following: (Answers may be handwritten if legible) Existing air quality,
surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste
production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. THOMAS-No. Do you want an explanation on this, Staff? Just because we say no, do you
want an explanation? Part II C-1, it says existing air quality….Explain briefly. We said no, and it
says explain briefly. No, because?
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-No. I think if you say yes, you have to. No is no.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. No is no. Okay. “C-2 Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or
other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. STONE-No.
MRS. LAPHAM-No
MR. THOMAS-No. Okay. “C-3 Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species,
significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. STONE-No.
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
MR. THOMAS-The only one endangered would be the consumer. “C-4 A community’s existing
plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural
resources?”
MR. STONE-Yes. This is the density factor, what the variance is all about.
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes.
MR. STONE-We recognize that it would change the density, and we’re granting a variance to that
effect.
MR. LAPPER-But that that would not be a significant environmental effect.
MR. STONE-Yes. Yes, but no.
MR. THOMAS-I just wrote a little note on there. “C-5 Growth, subsequent development or
related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” No.
MR. STONE-No.
MR. THOMAS-“C-6 Long term, short term, cumulative, or other affects not identified in C1-C5?”
MR. STONE-No.
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
MR. THOMAS-No. “C-7 Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of
energy)?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you’re going to have to increase the electrical service.
MR. LAPPER-Physical energy.
MR. THOMAS-We’ll put no there. For what they’re going to increase, it won’t make. “Part E, Is
there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” No.
Okay. “Determination of Significant Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially
large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF.”
Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any
supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this
determination.” I will check that box, and then the rest of it will be taken care of by Staff.
Thanks, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Now I’m looking for a motion.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1998 THE WOOD CARTE
,
Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
The west side of Route 9, across from Suttons. The description of the proposed project is as
follows. The applicant proposes the construction of a 7,378 square foot addition to an existing
21,569 square foot building, which does not meet the following side line setback requirements, the
maximum density requirements, and off street parking requirements of the HC-1A zone. In order
to grant this variance, we need to provide the following relief. The side line setbacks in the HC-1A
zone call for a total of 50 feet, with a 20 foot minimum. Currently, the building has a total of 36.6
feet of side setback, with a 5.1 foot minimum on the south side. The proposed addition meets the
minimum setback requirement, but does not meet the total of 50 feet. Therefore, this variance will
grant 13.4 feet of relief. Number Two, the maximum allowable gross floor area for a multi story
building on a 1.39 acre parcel is 21,800 square feet. This proposal calls for a 7,378 square foot
addition, bringing the total to 28,947 square feet. Relief is needed in the total of 7,147 square feet.
Number Three, additionally, this motion provides relief from the off street parking requirements of
Section 179-66. The proposal calls for 42 parking spaces. The size of the building requires 127
parking spaces. Therefore, relief is needed for 85 parking spaces. In granting this variance, the
following criteria were considered. The benefit to the applicant. By granting the variance, the
applicant will be permitted to construct and utilize the desired addition. Feasible alternatives are
somewhat limited due to the odd shaped lot and the odd size of the building currently in use. Is the
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Taking these in numeric order, Number One is not
considered substantial in granting 13.4 feet of relief from the 50 foot cumulative setback
requirement. It could be determined that it is substantial in granting the 84 parking spaces, and the
34% increase in the building size. However, again, due to the size of the lot and the shape of the
current building, we feel that this relief is adequate for the project. The effects on the
neighborhood or community are minimal. There has been no negative voices from the community
at tonight’s presentation, and is the difficulty self created? It can be determined it is self created,
but again, it is restricted because of the odd sized building and shape of the lot.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1998 TYPE II BIG APPLE RENTAL AND SALES
OWNER: T.T.B., L.L.C. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 437 DIX AVENUE
APPLICANT IS SEEKING SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE HC-1A ZONE FOR 4
STORAGE TRAILERS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK RELIEF FOR 1
ADDITIONAL STORAGE TRAILER. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 9-98 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 7/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-13 LOT SIZE: 1.728 ACRES SECTION:
179-23, 179-67
TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-1998, Big Apple Rental and Sales, Meeting Date: July
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
15, 1998 “ 437 Dix Avenue Applicant
proposes placement of 5 storage units on the parcel. Four of the storage units require rear setback
Relief
relief and the other requires relief from the accessory structure setback requirement.
Required:
Applicant requests 19 feet of relief from the 25 foot rear setback requirement of the
HC-1A zone, Section 179-23, and 50 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement for accessory
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter
structures, Section 179-67.
267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to place and
2. Feasible alternatives:
utilize storage units in the desired locations. Feasible alternatives
3. Is this relief substantial
include relocation of the storage units to comply with the setbacks.
relative to the Ordinance?:4.
19 feet and 50 feet of relief may be interpreted as substantial.
Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
interpreted as self created. SP 9-98 res.
3/17/98 to utilize property for construction equipment rental and sales. SP 9-98 res. 7/21/98
Staff comments:
modification pending variance Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of
SEQR Status:
this action. The storage unit next to the building is not visible from the road.
Type II”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of July
1998, the above application for an Area Variance to allow 5 existing storage trailers on property
was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact.”
Terri Ross, Vice Chairperson.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Barber.
MR. STONE-May I just ask a question of Staff? I wish the notes had reflected that they were
already in place. They say “Feasible alternatives include relocation”, but that’s the only place it
even mentions that they’re there. You’re usually pretty good at it.
MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you want to tell us about, Tim?
MR. BARBER-No. We use the storage trailers for off season merchandise, for the rental store at
the present time. It’s within our future plans, up in that corner, to construct a faciilty to warehouse
the off season rental equipment. It’s not in the near future. It’s not, you know, in our year, year
and a half scope of things, but right now, it’s an alternative to us to keep the back storage area in
the existing building which is small, neat and clean and safe, to get the off rentals out of the way.
MR. CUSTER-Can’t you pull them forward?
MR. BARBER-Well, yes, they can be pulled forward, but there’s a ground slope there, and if you
can imagine pulling them forward and trying to keep the containers level, we’re going to be
blocking up the door side, which is the rear side, the east side, of the containers up about three,
three and a half feet. So, appearance wise, they’re not going to look real good from the road.
You’re going to see a lot of air under the trailers and they’re going to be up higher. I don’t think
they’ll group together as nice as what we have there.
MR. CUSTER-I just wanted to hear your reasoning for it. I mean, I could see that.
MR. BARBER-Well, that would have been the simplest thing, just pull them ahead.
MR. STONE-Is this thing on the top of the page here, is that buffer zone? Is that what you’re
showing there?
MR. BARBER-That is correct.
MR. STONE-But you haven’t asked for relief. Could it go into the buffer zone?
MR. BARBER-No.
MR. THOMAS-No, it can’t.
MR. BARBER-I moved them out of the buffer zone, yes.
MR. STONE-We could grant relief. I didn’t say we would.
MR. THOMAS-This was a battle for this buffer zone, believe me. This goes back. What was it,
last year or the year before?
MR. STONE-I bow to you guys. I missed that discussion.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If there’s no other questions for
the applicant, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this
application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
DONALD DUELL
MR. DUELL-I’m Donald Duell, 65 Queensbury Avenue, two houses up from Mr. Barber’s place.
What are the four trailers there now? Is that what you’re asking for, or is it more?
MR. BARBER-No, correct, these trailers and the one that I have in this little, you can’t really see
this trailer unless you’re on the property. It’s this one and these four.
MR. DUELL-They’re there, right? How come you’re asking?
MR. BARBER-I moved them out of the buffer zone, not realizing that there was a 25 foot setback
when I placed them there, with the crane.
MR. DUELL-Okay. Now this fence along the front, it has dents in it, right? There was a great big
pile of wood up there, right?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MR. DUELL-And do you rent lawn mowers?
MR. BARBER-No.
MR. DUELL-Do you want to borrow one? I’m serious.
MR. BARBER-This is all mowed. You mean up here, you mean?
MR. DUELL-All over. All this. All that. The weed whacker would work beautiful. I mean, last
year, when you came, everything was going to be beautiful.
MR. BARBER-This is all mowed.
MR. DUELL-No, it isn’t. That high? I mean, it’s nice to have variances, but lets live up to them.
If you buy a piece of property, and it’s not big enough, you keep, you know, there’s places, and
how about signs? Is there a limit to height of signs?
MR. BARBER-That’s all approved. That sign’s all been approved and passed.
MR. DUELL-How about the thing out there with the extension? That’s advertisment, right?
MR. THOMAS-What’s that?
MR. DUELL-That thing you raise.
MR. BARBER-The bounce house?
MR. DUELL-No, no. They just cause accidents. That’s all, but, no, the equipment that you raise
up. That’s up there a mile high. A car comes by, looks there, goes by the light, and it’s bad.
These things, you know, you’ve got to look at. Because I’ve got totals on that corner, just for
people not.
MR. BARBER-Well, there is a positive stop signal there. I mean, for four ways, there is a light.
You can’t get more positive than that, stop.
MR. DUELL-I know, but when you have distractions. That thing sticking way up is a distraction,
but that’s beside the point. I made my point.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but what about the crux of the matter here, the storage trailers? Do you
have any problem with those?
MR. DUELL-Not really on those.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. DUELL-As long as they don’t extend out.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. STONE-The four that are in place right now, or the five. There’s no problems.
MS. CIPPERLY-They’re painted green.
MR. STONE-You sound like you were concerned about more.
MR. DUELL-Right. I’m concerned about the whole lot.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. BARBER-With the cutting of the grass, I mean, if you went out there, that grass is mowed. I
don’t know what your objection is there, but it’s mowed. It might not be as tight as yours, but it’s
mowed.
MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Some of the things, sir, that you’re concerned about are things that the
Planning Board would look at, and their meeting is next.
MR. DUELL-I mean, variance after variance after variance.
MS. CIPPERLY-I mean, but if you got a notification about the Planning Board meeting, I think
it’s either next week or the one after that.
MR. DUELL-No, not yet.
MS. CIPPERLY-Okay, then it’s probably the second one.
MR. CUSTER-Can you get a four iron through that grass?
MR. BARBER-Probably.
MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Barber?
MR. STONE-Well, the one concern I have, I mean, obviously, when things are in place, and they
require a variance, I get very upset, and some of my colleagues get upset. I think I could live with
where they are. I just wish the lot looked better. I mean, I drove in there with my wife to look at
the whole area, not realizing at the time, and that’s why I made the comment about Staff Notes,
that they were there, and I’m looking for them, and, they are far away from your business. They
couldn’t be further, obviously, but the lot just had an unkempt appearance. I didn’t look at the
grass, per se, but it just seems to be like stuff, put it here and leave it, because we’re not using it
today.
MR. BARBER-You mean the back unimproved areas?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-It’s where all that, the scaffolding and all that, you know, stuff is piled along the
fence there. The grass is growing up through it, and stuff like that. We’re not here to.
MR. STONE-I know that.
MR. BARBER-That will all be straightened out. There’s been some transitions there, and they’re
just trying to figure out where they’re going to put everything. So that’ll all be straightened out.
We had to get some things cleared up and some more stuff out of there.
MR. BROWN-All those items are addressed in his Site Plan modification. That’s part of the
modification, that he cleans up and removes everything that’s not rental stuff, basically. So, those
things will be addressed.
MR. THOMAS-The big question of the night, define “temporary”.
MR. BARBER-Not permanent.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. THOMAS-How long are they going to be there?
MR. BARBER-I really can’t answer that. It’s in our plans, as soon as the funds or resources
become available, the business can afford it, to put a facility up there. I don’t know if that’s going
to be a year, year and a half, two years. We’d like to see one there now. It would make our
warehousing and merchandising much nicer, but that facility will run upwards of $200,000 to
$250,000, with the industrial shelving needed.
MR. STONE-A question for Staff. What do we consider these bounce houses out there? Is that a
sign? Obviously, it’s telling something about the business.
MR. CUSTER-They’re air supported structures. Temporary air supported structures.
MRS. LAPHAM-And people rent those and you move them?
MR. BARBER-Yes. We have 21 of them.
MS. CIPPERLY-To answer your question though, Lew, in his case, they’re something that he’s
renting out that’s sort of a merchandise thing, but he also has his name on it.
MR. BARBER-All of our equipment has the name on it, and logos. I don’t know how you’d
classify that.
MS. CIPPERLY-I’m just trying to, in other situations where people have, like K-Mart wanted an
inflatable balloon or something on top of their building. We said no because it’s not allowed by the
Sign Code. So we’re looking into that.
MR. STONE-You’re looking into it. Okay.
MS. CIPPERLY-It’s part of his site plan review again, too, like how many of those should be out
there bobbing around in front of the fence versus in back of the fence, and that sort of stuff.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Barber? No? Okay. We’ll talk
about it. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, I brought up my basic concern, is the appearance of the lot, and you brought
up the concern about temporary. I mean, the way they sit, the four on the other one, obviously, I
didn’t even see when I drove in, and I could see where it is. I mean, the four are neat, and they’re
not skewed around. They’re lined up very nicely. They are unobtrusive. If we didn’t have a
setback ordinance, it would be a perfect place to have them. Having said that, I certainly don’t
want to be one that stifles a business that is attempting to grow, and recognizes that it’s best for
their interest and the Town’s interest to put it in a permanent structure, as soon as possible.
Having said that, as soon as possible, of course, is open to a great deal of definition, as our
Chairman asked, but at this juncture, I would be inclined to go along with granting a variance for
these things, but I would like, if it’s possible, to put some kind of time on it, because they are
temporary. That’s even the request. So I think it’s up to us to say what may be.
MS. CIPPERLY-You can do that, and if he’s not in a position, like say you said two years. In two
years he could come back and ask for a renewal of that. I mean, we’ve had people do that.
MR. STONE-Okay. If we could do that, I would like to do that.
MS. CIPPERLY-Because people have gotten variances for houses or other structures, and just
weren’t able to complete the work by the time the variance expired. They have come back for
renewals. So you’d have to evaluate it at whatever point you want to put on it.
MR. STONE-I’d like to do that if we all agree that this is what we’d like to do.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I agree with Lew that the trailer that’s behind the building, really, I don’t consider
that a factor at all. That’s not, you can’t see it from the road, and it’s tucked back in there, and it
seems to me that most of the things that I’m concerned about are going to get site plan scrutiny,
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
according to Staff. So that’s their job. I think, let them do it. Outside of that fact, I don’t have a
problem, and the fact that a time thing has been introduced, and I’m not really opposed. I’m for it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I really don’t have much more to add. I think Lew and Jamie pretty much summed
it up. We’re looking to grant a variance on these temporary structures, not the other items, but I
do concur with Lew. I’d like to see some kind of a time constraint added to that. I don’t know
what that would be, but something.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I’m pretty much with Brian. I think Lew summed it up, and Jamie also, but the
general appearance of the lot will be addressed at site plan. The trailers are unobtrusive, but I’d
like to see a time limit, also, and hopefully site plan will address a time limit, maybe, on clean up,
but I suppose that’s their thing, not ours.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I do believe you’re right. I have no problem with the five temporary storage
trailers being in there. As far as the four on the northwest corner of the property, it’s probably the
only place on the property that those structures could be placed, because as Mr. Barber said, any
other place they would have to crib them up or put them on legs or something like that, because of
the sloping of the lot. As far as the one tucked into the building, nobody can really see it, and it’s
unobtrusive. Nobody would really know it was there, unless they walked around back and looked
at it.
MR. BROWN-If I could add, the Zoning Administrator has determined that that one doesn’t really
apply, that 50 foot setback for the accessory structure doesn’t apply to that structure. So that’s
really a non issue. So you’re really just looking at the four that need the side line setback.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but the, okay, the application said there was five of them.
MR. BROWN-It was misidentified, just to let you know.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll stick to the four temporary ones up there. Like I said, it’s because
of the slope of the land, it’s the only place you could really place those trailers. They’re painted
green, so it blends in with the background of the 50 foot buffer zone, and everything else, the
concerns that were brought up will be brought up at the site plan review by the Planning Board.
So, I have no problem with this application, and I also would like to see a two year time limit
placed on this, and if those two years elapse, have Mr. Barber come back and ask for an extension.
MS. CIPPERLY-As far as the trailer that is up next to the building. Is that also going to be
subject to the two year thing, or is that something you’re planning to keep?
MR. BARBER-That, we also plan an addition in those areas, coming out, to square that building
off at some point. We don’t know when that’s going to be. So, yes.
MS. CIPPERLY-So, sort of a re-evaluation in two years, on the whole.
MR. BARBER-If that’s an impact. It doesn’t matter to me. I’m sure something will be done
within two years.
MS. CIPPERLY-I just didn’t want it to be included if it was not your intention to include it.
MR. BARBER-You can have it either way, because there’s going to be build outs on the building,
as things progress.
MR. STONE-Did you say, Craig, we didn’t need a variance for that?
MR. BROWN-It doesn’t really fall under the category of your typical accessory structure, and that
setback was basically for access, 50 feet separation for access to the structure, but since there’s no
really building code issue, as far as the construction, there’s zero clearance as far as the building
code. So, it doesn’t really apply to that accessory structure.
MR. STONE-So, in other words, that should have been 50 feet away, I mean, if it were an
accessory structure?
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. BROWN-If it were a typical accessory, garage or another warehouse.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, a permanent structure.
MR. BROWN-A permanent structure. It doesn’t really apply to that temporary storage trailer.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we’re going to forget about the one next to the building, in the motion.
Okay. Would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1998 BIG APPLE RENTAL AND
SALES
, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
437 Dix Avenue. The applicant proposes placement of four storage trailers on the northwest
corner of the property. The trailers will not meet the rear setback relief for accessory structures.
Specifically, the applicant requests 19 feet of relief, so the trailers can be placed six feet from the
line from the 25 foot rear setback requirement of the HC-1A, Section 179-23. The benefit to the
applicant would be it would allow the applicant to place and utilize the storage units at their
current location. The feasible alternatives are limited, based on the nature of the property and the
fact that the units could not be placed in the buffer zone. Is the relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? I believe that it is substantial, being that there’s 19 feet of relief requested, but the
alternatives are limited. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe it will have
minimal effects on the neighborhood. Like it has been pointed out, the units are painted. They
seem to be well placed, and it is Highway Commercial. So I think it’s minimal impact, and is this
difficulty self-created? I believe that it is, but in this circumstance, the applicant has a growing
business. He’s trying to manage it, trying to do the right things with his assets, and in that way, I
think the weight of evidence is in favor of the variance. So I would move for its approval. As a
contingent, this variance would be contingent on the removal of the temporary storage units within
a two year period. If not, the applicant would be required to come back and ask for new variances
or an extension of the existing one.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. BARBER-Thanks a lot.
MR. THOMAS-Before we go, one more thing. We have minutes from the June 17, 1998 meeting.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
June 17, 1998: NONE
MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 17, 1998 MINUTES, AS PRINTED
, Introduced by
Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter
MR. THOMAS-I will make a motion to adjourn.
MR. HAYES-Second.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/15/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
53