1999-03-17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 17, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
DANIEL STEC
CHARLES MC NULTY
LEWIS STONE
ROBERT MC NALLY
MEMBERS ABSENT
BONNIE LAPHAM
PAUL HAYES
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1998 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DAVID DUFRESNE OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 24 BRAYTON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED AN ENCLOSED PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING
AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE WR-
1A ZONE AND THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND REGULATIONS AS WELL AS
RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. THE TOWN
BOARD APPROVED THE SEPTIC VARIANCE REQUEST. ALSO RELIEF IS BEING
REQUESTED FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/11/98 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-24
LOT SIZE: 0.13 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT, DAVID DUFRESNE, PRESENT
MR. THOMAS-Would you read the tabling motion on that, and the Staff comments.
MR. BROWN-“Meeting Date: January 20, 1999, Motion to table Area Variance No. 81-1998 David
Dufresne: Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Until no later than the March meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant is asking for
this tabling until the full Board can hear the application.”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-1998, David Dufresne, Meeting Date: March 17, 1999
“Project Location: 24 Brayton Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed
a 276 square foot enclosed porch addition to an existing two story camp. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 4.98 feet of side setback relief and 16.12 feet of shoreline setback relief as well as
relief from the Floor Area Ratio 22% requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. The
applicant proposes a total floor area ratio of 37%, a 4% increase above the existing 33%. Applicant
also seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, Section 179-79, as the existing
structure does not meet the setback requirements. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to complete the proposed addition and occupy same. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include downsizing the addition and no construction. 2. Is this relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance?: 4.98 feet and 16.12 feet of setback relief may be interpreted as
moderate, however, this proposal calls for expansion of a site on which the current Floor Area Ratio
is 33%, the proposal calls for a total Floor Area Ratio of 37%, which may be interpreted as
substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this construction. 5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The proposed expansion may be interpreted as self created, however, the difficulty may be related to
the pre-existing non-conforming nature of the parcel and buildings. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sanitary Sewage Disposal Variance; Board of Health res.
no. : 60.98 12/21/98 Staff comments: Moderate impacts on the neighborhood and community,
in relation to the relief from the area requirements, may be anticipated. Relief for the addition of
floor area to a site with a FAR already well in excess of the requirements may have impacts in the
form of additional requests for similar relief. SEQR Status: Type II”
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Lapper, I see you’ve taken over the reins of Mr. Dufresne’s
application.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. This is an unfortunate situation because procedurally, obviously, Mr.
Dufresne should have been before the Town before he put hammer to nail, but the reason that that
didn’t happen is sort of the justification for this variance. Everything that’s on the site now has been
there, is grandfathered, in terms of the 33%, that includes the deck, and that was there before he
purchased the property approximately four years ago. He, incorrectly, interpreted the Code, or didn’t
go to the Town Code, but just felt that because there was an existing deck, that to enclose a porch on
an existing deck didn’t require Town approval, because he wasn’t putting footings or foundation in
the ground. He was just enclosing part of the deck. That was wrong. We know that was wrong. He
should have come to the Town, but he didn’t, because he didn’t know that he should have, but in
terms of the percentage, the lot coverage, everything that’s there now, this doesn’t change the lot
coverage, if you will, because the deck is already there, and this is just being built over the deck,
which, essentially, it’s still permeable, because it’s still open to the ground, but in terms of this
application, after he came to the Town, to the Zoning Board and started to meet with you, it was
determined that because of the classification of this enclosure built on top of the deck, that it put the
whole site in a different category, in terms of the septic system, and the upside of this whole process
is that Mr. Dufresne had to go to the Town Board, the Board of Health, and receive a variance for
the septic system, but that variance is only because of the location of the new designed and approved
septic system as it relates to the house, the setback from the house and the setback from the
property. Most importantly, the setback from the lake, 100 feet, will be met if this application is
granted and he’s allowed to continue with the project. So we’ve got a positive effect on the
neighborhood and on the lake by moving, putting in, a brand new septic system was also designed to
current codes, which is certainly not the case now, and it’s going to be relocated so it’s 100 feet back
from the lake, and that is all the result of this process. So that would be a positive result. In terms of
any negative effect on the neighbors, none of the adjacent property owners have a problem with this.
I think there was one letter in the record from a neighbor in the vicinity, but not an adjacent property
owner, just saying that the variance shouldn’t be granted. Nobody in the area seems to have a
problem with this, and in terms of the character of the site, because you have an existing deck, and
you can see it by going there, it’s built out onto the deck. It really doesn’t make a significant
difference, in terms of what the site looks like, and mostly the applicant is just looking for a little
mercy here, because he’s spent the money, unwittingly, to build this, and it’s half finished, and he’d
like to just have this enclosure to protect him from the elements, and that’s pretty much the story.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Lapper? We talked about this before, that
the addition over the deck is enclosed with windows, and if that had been put in with screens, it
wouldn’t count toward the Floor Area Ratio. That we know.
MR. BROWN-It would have counted toward the Floor Area.
MR. THOMAS-It would, even though it’s screened in?
MR. BROWN-It wouldn’t have counted toward the septic compliance requirement.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, since it’s screened in.
MR. BROWN-If it’s a covered porch, it’s counted.
MR. THOMAS-It’s covered, so it’s counted toward the Floor Area Ratio. I thought we talked about
that, and it wouldn’t?
MR. BROWN-It doesn’t count for the septic. It counts for the Floor Area.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-And it is an expansion of a nonconforming use.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-Not so much a nonconforming use, but a nonconforming area.
MR. STONE-Not use, I’m sorry. You’re right. It’s a nonconforming property.
MR. LAPPER-Right, because the Town Code has changed since this lot was developed.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing,
or the public is already open. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of?
Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Is there any new correspondence?
MR. BROWN-Yes, one, from Rita H. Arnstein, Cleverdale homeowner, 12 Eagle Point Road,
Hampton, VA March 12, 1999, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, Attention: Bonnie
M. Lapham, Secretary, RE: David Dufresne appeal “I am not able to attend the public hearing on
March 17, conducted by the Zoning Board in regard to David Dufresne’s requests for relief from
existing requirements. If I were to attend the meeting my vote would be an emphatic NO to all
further requests by this gentleman. To continue to make exceptions of existing policies for this man
is to make a mockery of the whole purpose of a Zoning Board. Rita H. Arnstein Cleverdale
Homeowner”
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it.
Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, I have reviewed the property again. I have reviewed what I said since
November, and I see nothing to change my negative feeling toward this variance. I think we have an
extremely crowded part of the lake there. I know the neighbors, the immediate neighbors have said
they don’t have a problem, but a variance goes with the property, and all we’re going to do is make
this particular point of land on the lake more and more crowded, and more and more obnoxious, as
far as viewed from the lake, and in fact, as viewed from the road itself. I see no justification for
overlooking the fact that Mr. Dufresne did not come to us, but that’s not coloring my thinking. I
just think that this particular configuration, geographically, does not work for what’s there, and I
certainly don’t want to make it any worse. So I’m still inclined to vote no.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I wasn’t here at the first meeting, but I read the minutes, and I was at the site
yesterday, and I was actually at the site in November, too. I agree with Lew. It’s a very congested
site. These are summer homes on top of each other, and the properties are built on top of one
another. There’s a 50 foot setback requirement, which Mr. Dufresne cannot meet by building the
building as close as he currently wishes it to be. I sympathize with his desire to get away from bee
stings and allergies and what not. This is an existing two story, with a foundation I think, summer
home. So there’s certainly an opportunity for him to stay indoors if he wanted to, without having to
build an addition on to it. On balance, when you take into account the Floor Area Ratio should be
only 22% and he’s proposing 37%, I feel that that’s a substantial effect on the neighborhood, and it’s
not outweighed by his personal needs and desires. I also feel it’s self-created. I would not be in
favor of this.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-Well, to add to my colleagues on the Board, and reviewing what I said, I stand by what I
said last time we discussed this. I think that 33% is already 50% above our 22% Floor Area Ratio
limit, and to go above that, it just flies in the face of fairness and consistency. I think we do need to
bear in mind that we set precedent with our decisions, and by jumping to 37%, that is, in fact, nearly
double the 22% allowed Floor Area Ratio. So I’m not inclined either with this. I don’t begrudge the
applicant, you know, I think that it was an honest oversight. I don’t hold that against him, and I
certainly sympathize, also, with the desire to stay out of the elements, but I think that there’s already
plenty of opportunity to stay away from the insects that he has drawn attention to his concern for.
I’m just not inclined.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I guess my feelings are essentially the same. I, too, was not in on the early
part of this, but I have read the minutes. I have been to the site, and the Floor Area bothers me a
lot. It leaves me wondering, the reason that the Floor Area counts is because there’s a roof over the?
MR. BROWN-It’s a covered porch.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s a covered porch. So, if he wanted to get away from the insects by building a
screen room that had screen on the roof portion rather than something that shed water, would that
exclude him from the Floor Area?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. BROWN-That’s very creative. I think that probably would suffice. Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-So that would be a possible alternative for getting outside and being protected
from the insects.
MR. BROWN-Absolutely.
MR. MC NULTY-I've tried to look at this, ignoring the fact that the work was started before, and try
to evaluate it as I would if this were just a fresh application, and I have to agree with the other
members of the Board. I think I’m inclined to say no.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I disagree with the Board. Each one of these applications that have come
in that are built before we hear it, I look at as if it weren’t built. Would I have let this go? Would I
have voted yes for this construction? In this case I would have, because the deck is already there. It
exists, and all the applicant did was just build on top of it, and put a roof over it. I’ll grant you
they’ve enclosed it, but there’s no additional structure there to cover the ground, really, even though
it does increase the Floor Area Ratio, because it is a covered deck. It is a room, but it did exist
before that. The applicant has gone to the Town to get sewer okayed from the Town Board sitting
as the Board of Health, and he’s made an effort to do that, to not really circumnavigate the law, but
to get a septic system that was okay, because he’s really not adding anything that uses water in this.
So it isn’t really going to effect the septic system, except what it could be used for. If they use it for a
bedroom and put more people in there, well, that could do it. but to me, if this came through before
he built it, I would have okayed this for the setbacks from the lake and from the side lines. So, that’s
my story.
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, I wonder, as a compromise, and I hear that there are four people that
are not excited about this application. If we were to offer that the windows would not be installed,
but that screens would be installed instead, so that it wouldn’t be a three season room, I wonder if
that would, if that, coupled with the new septic system, which is a positive benefit, if that would
maybe effect the Board, in terms of the precedential value, if this was more toward a screened in
porch, it has a roof, and I think that my reading is that it can have a roof, and still be a screened in
porch, and not count for the Floor Area Ratio, but in terms of what the Chairman said about, that
it’s not covering the ground, and it’s really not changing the Floor Area Ratio, because the deck’s
there, I wonder if the members would reconsider, if we amend the proposal not to install windows,
but to install screens, and even though it would then not require the new septic system, to agree, as a
condition, that the septic system would be installed, if that would be enough of a compromise to
change anyone’s opinion.
MR. THOMAS-I’ll poll the Board. Mr. Stone?
MR. STONE-No, I don’t think so. I think a deck is a deck. A deck is here and there’s nothing
above it. There’s a railing, but in terms of view, it’s not as obtrusive as a screened in porch with a
roof, and I think it’s the total combination that’s bothering me, the fact that you’ve got a roof. I
mean, it’s still going to look like there’s construction right up close to the lake, much more obvious
than just the deck.
MR. THOMAS-Mr. McNally?
MR. MC NALLY-No.
MR. THOMAS-Dan?
MR. STEC-No.
MR. THOMAS-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t look like it’s going to get any minds changed by offering that. All right.
Are there anymore questions for Mr. Lapper? If not, I’ll ask for a motion.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1998 DAVID DUFRESNE, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
24 Brayton Road. The applicant has expressed interest in constructing what is now partially
constructed, an enclosed porch, 276 square foot enclosed porch addition to an existing two story
camp. The applicant requested 4.98 feet of side setback relief and 16.12 feet of shoreline setback
relief, as well as relief from the Floor Area Ratio 22% requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
16. The applicant proposes a total Floor Area Ratio of 37%, a 4% increase above the existing 33%.
The applicant also seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-79, as
the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements. In voting to deny this, One, we take
note that the applicant did make an offer to merely screen in the porch with the overhang roof, but
not to put in permanent windows, that it doesn’t become a three quarter year room, as described by
the attorney, Mr. Lapper. In denying this applicant, we realize that the applicant would have been
permitted to complete the proposed addition and occupy same. We also note that neighbors
adjacent to the property have indicated no concern about this project, but in considering this denial,
we feel that because a variance does continue forever and ever, that we have to be concerned with
the appearance from the lake and from the shore, in a very, very crowded neighborhood. We
obviously feel that the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, that is 4.98 feet and 16.12 feet of
setback relief. We, however, think that the expansion from 33% to 37%, when 22% is currently
permitted is extremely substantial. In denying this application, we believe that the adverse effects on
the neighborhood greatly out number the benefit to the applicant, and we also regard this difficulty
as being self-created.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty
NOES: Mr. Thomas
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes
MR. THOMAS-I’m sorry, it’s denied.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1998 TYPE II HC-1A GARVEY KIA OWNER: GARVEY
VOLKSWAGON, INC. 714 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SEPARATE
ENTRY FOR PSM AUTO BODY AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE
SEPARATION DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESS POINTS. WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 10/8/98 CROSS REF. SPR 54-98 REZONING BY TOWN
BOARD P4-98 APPROVED TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.30 LOT SIZE: 1.38 ACRES
SECTION 179-66
SEAN GARVEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. BROWN-I’m trying to find the tabling motion.
MR. THOMAS-Didn’t we just carry the tabling over?
MR. BROWN-Yes. Actually it was tabled in October, prior to the Petition for Zone Change.
MR. STEC-October 21, and then we carried it over.
st
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’ve been carrying it over for every other month.
MR. BROWN-The applicant has since submitted an updated application. Would you like to go
through that?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. You might as well read the new application in, and forget about the old one.
Does the new one have a different number on it?
MR. BROWN-No. It’s the same number, 73-1998.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but it’s a new application?
MR. BROWN-Well, it’s updated. I don’t think it’s changed at all.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, we’ll use that as the application, then, the updated one. So we’ll have to
read it in.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No.73-1998, Garvey KIA, Meeting Date: March 17, 1999
“Project Location: 714 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a second access drive to an existing auto body repair business. Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from minimum separation distance allowed between points of access as
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
required in Off Street Parking and loading, Section 179-66, B.,(4). Applicant requests relief of 133
feet and 90 feet. The separation distances proposed are 17 feet an 60 feet. The minimum separation
distance allowed is 150 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter
267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an
access drive in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include
reconfiguration of the existing drive to accommodate traffic and no construction. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 130 feet and 90 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum
separation distance may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action.
5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): UV 1349 res. 4/27/88 Auto Body Repair & Design
Sign Permits 98-3161, 98-3162, 98-3163 issued 1/23/98 Building Permit 98-566 issued 9/24/98 for
Commercial Int. Alterations Parcel was included in a Petition for Zone Change P4-98, LI-1A to HC-
1A. Staff comments: The construction of this additional drive , while it may have a Warren County
curb cut permit, may have substantial impacts on the community. Three commercial enterprise
access roads within 100 feet of each other may cause considerable traffic hazards. The availability of
interconnection may be considered. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Is there anything from Warren County on that?
MR. BROWN-There was originally. “8 October 1998 Warren County Planning Board Project
Review and Referral Form Project Name: Garvey KIA Owner: Garvey Volkswagen, Inc. ID#:
QBY-AV-3-1998 County Project Number: October 1998-021 Current Zoning: LI-1A
Community: Queensbury Description of Project: Construction of separate entry for new business.
Extend existing front parking lot, approximately 15 feet to property edge for new car display. Staff
Notes: A copy of the site drawing included. Applicant cannot meet the required 150 foot separation
of entrances required by Ordinance. Staff recommends discussion to determine why existing
entrance cannot be upgraded. Additional curb cut will impact traffic flows on Quaker Road. County
Planning Board Recommendation: Recommend disapproval of project as presented.” Terry M.
Ross, Warren County Planning Board
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Garvey.
MR. GARVEY-Good evening. I’m Sean Garvey, and to my right is my brother Peter. I appreciate
the Board’s adjourning this application in the past. There are specific issues that Laura Moore, that I
had to address in reference to the site plan which affected the Area Variance. I appreciate you
coming in tonight to listen to me, and before I start, I felt I should give you a little history of this
project, so you’d be able to have a more informed decision. I have a time line I’d like to hand out to
the Board. I know this is St. Patrick’s Day and I have an Irish name, but I want you to know that I’m
not going to give you any blarney tonight. I wanted to look at the time line here and start with 48.
PSM Auto Body and Sales, Inc. is the name of the corporation, and it does business as PSM Auto
Body. That’s when we built the building there, and 10/97 we applied to KIA for the KIA franchise.
KIA likes to have their cars sold in a separate location. They do not allow them being sold with any
other makes. They don’t mind if the service or parts are located with another business, but the
showroom has to be a standalone business. So we had to fulfill the needs of the franchisee by
finding a separate location for KIA. KIA is less than one percent of the cars sold in the Country,
and we weren’t sure how well it would fly in Town, but we knew that there was a market for an
inexpensive four-wheel drive. So since we owned PSM Auto Body, we felt that would be a good
location for it, since the building wasn’t being used to full capacity. So we applied for a sign permit
from the Town, and it was issued the first of the year. As we spent time there at the site, we realized
there were issues that we needed to address, so we asked Warren County for a curb cut permit, and
were granted that. Since we knew that the franchise was viable, nine months after opening the doors,
we asked the Town for a building permit so that we could build a showroom within the PSM Auto
Body building. One month into construction, Chris Round stopped in, and he stood outside right
over here in the corner of the lot, outside, and he pointed out a couple of things that were not really
quite right with the situation. The Town issued me a sign permit for a nonconforming use. Auto
sales is not allowed in a Light Industrial zone, and because auto sales are not allowed, I could not
build a showroom in a Light Industrial zone. This was as the men were building the walls within the
building, but within the same breath he said, I’ll work with you here, and also for this extra road that
you wanted to put in here, you’re going to need an Area Variance. So, we occupied the showroom
within a month after that, and due to his diligence and the Community Development Staff and my
own, late I think in last year we had the whole corridor re-zoned from Light Industrial to Highway
Commercial. Obviously, once that was done, a Use Variance was not needed. If I could go back 10
years to when PSM Auto Body occupied the site, the corporation is PSM Auto Sales and Lease. It’s
been a licensed auto dealer for actually over 18 years, since its inception. It’s also a licensed
inspection station, and a licensed repair shop through the State of New York. It was approved for
auto body repair at that location, but occasionally during our tenure there, for the last decade, the
auto body sold cars occasionally, not realizing that it wasn’t within the Light Industrial zone
guidelines. So, obviously, when we applied for a Sign Permit and got it, and applied for a building
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
permit and got it, we felt that we were in compliance, and though the Town did work hard with us to
correct that situation, but since KIA Auto Sales is a new use and requires site plan review, and the
curb cut requires a site plan review, of course, and I’m here tonight because the curb cut requires an
Area Variance, and you probably want to know why I want to do that, and I tried to explain it in my
application, but there’s only one word that sums up my reason why I want to spend this money for a
curb cut, and that’s safety. I need you to go back in time for a minute, back on this time line to 1/98,
when we started selling vehicles there. We didn’t have a showroom. We just sold out of little 8 by 8
offices, and my brothers and I rotated our shifts there, and after a while we figured that it really
wouldn’t fly. It wouldn’t be viable to franchise until someone concentrated on it. So that became
my job, and when I started putting all of my time in this one location, I paid more attention to the
business, and I paid attention to what was going on on the lot, and I felt that it was a bit, it wasn’t as
safe as I thought it could be, and soon after this thought, there was an accident right in front of the
dealership, right in front of the Auto Body, at the main entrance that’s pointed here. This accident
was just a normal fender bender because the traffic lines up from Dix Avenue, and sometimes it is
very, very heavy, but it was around four o’clock in the afternoon there was an accident right there.
Of course, there were two cars involved, and obviously emergency vehicles came, ambulances came,
fire trucks came. People that were using the road stopped by. Relatives came, and obviously this
one single entrance to my building was blocked. It was blocked for a full two hours. It was in the
wintertime, and for my employees to exit, we had to use a plow in the back right hand corner and
actually break through a snow bank so that they could leave. Not all of them could leave, because
they all didn’t have trucks, and I was kind of concerned about that, because I’m getting older and
grayer. I figured, well, if I had a heart attack during this process, or if there was a fire up there, that
there was no way that this could be attended to, and so that concerned me, and also the two
businesses, even though they’re both auto related, the auto body shop has a lot of fast deliveries,
maybe someone dropping off parts or paint or tools or supplies, and these delivery vehicles seem to
zip in and out like pizza delivery drivers, as I mentioned in my application, and I felt, obviously, for
me to sell cars I have to display them, and I have to put them in the front of the lot, and I felt it was
unsafe, because families have children, and they’re walking around cars, and I did not like that. Okay.
Our busiest day at KIA is when the Body shop is closed, though. They’re closed on Saturday and
Sunday, and Saturday is our busiest day. So, I had to address this Area Variance because I felt I
needed a separate entry into PSM, and I wanted to guarantee safety for my customers, and if you
could turn maybe to the third page of your handout, obviously what’s there are the laws that you well
know, and this is the first time that I had actually read them, and maybe the safety thing was going
around in my head. Please understand you’re talking to someone that ran an automobile dealership
for 19 years before it had an OSHA inspection. Fortunately, dealers up here don’t get OSHA
inspections often, mostly dealers in the large metropolitan areas, because that’s where OSHA offices
area. I was the first dealer in New York State to ever get an OSHA inspection and was never fined.
I didn’t even have to bribe them. It was just the safe environment I supplied for my customers and
my employees. You’re looking at someone who has fire extinguishers all over his house. I offer fire
training and first aid training for my employees, and I want you to understand that because that is
what I am, and safety is of paramount importance to me, and obviously looking at your third page
here of the handout to you, one of the things that for me to follow this Ordinance that you’re here to
enforce, is that I have to supply a safe egress to my business. I have to guarantee access for
emergency vehicles, and I have to have, supply safety for pedestrians. Obviously, in my application
there’s letters from Kip Grant, Fire Marshall, and the Queensbury Fire Chief, and they both feel, and
the only way that they can address this safety issue, because there’s flammables inside the building
because it’s a body shop, and because of the new congestion with the additional cars in the front, the
best way that they could address, access the building is from a straight entry on the right side. By
putting the straight entry in here, coming in straight, they can fight a fire in the front of the building,
on the side, or access the back lot. Now, you’re probably saying, well, by putting a separate entry
here, how would I prevent and control the flow of traffic? I considered putting a row of like trees
here or like railroad ties, trees, I thought that would look very nice, but I didn’t really think that was
very smart when it comes to snow removal. So I thought if I could, I’m losing, obviously, four cars
here, to put this entrance in, I can’t display four cars. I thought if I could block this entrance here
with cars stacked up, so the front of the cars were facing toward the way customers could see them,
this way I would accomplish and be able to control the traffic into PSM Auto Body, with a separate
sign, and a separate entrance way, a separate sign for KIA, a separate entrance sign. This way the
PSM Auto Body traffic would come in and out this way, and if they have to do a “K” turn in the
back or a “U” turn, that’s their problem, but I thought by doing that, I could control this
environment here. Laws control how people enter, but I had to, what was the safe way for me doing
this, and that was the only way that I feel I could address it. If I made this road wider, so fire trucks
could enter, then I still would not be able to offer safety to pedestrians. So, obviously, why we’re
here because of Paragraph 4, which I have in front of you. I can’t have my access points 150 feet
apart, or is it 150 feet from other roads, and I tried to ask the Town this, and it seems that they
interpret the law both ways, or the Ordinance both ways. If you could look at the map that’s on the
back of my application here, it shows that the distance between the two proposed drives is 60 feet,
and because my new drive that I’m proposing for PSM Auto Body is 17 feet from the existing exit
for the Car Wash, I need 130 or 133 feet of relief, because I’m that close to them, because I did not
know that I needed 133 feet relief. I thought I only needed, I was 60 feet from my own current
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
drive, and I thought that by, I was only asking for 90 feet, but it looks like they interpret this law,
which I have photo-stated for you, on Page 3 of the handout, access points have to be separated by
adjoining access points by at least 150 feet. I must have read this 100 times. Maybe I read it 150
times, and this idea of adjoining, I guess it could be interpreted almost any way. Then I asked Craig
here, I said, when the, if you can look by the pictures here, you can see the exit way of my friendly
neighbor the Car Wash. When they built, I said, well that road is obviously, their road is closer than
150 feet from my driveway that existed at that time, and I asked the Town if they required an Area
Variance for that road, and their response was that there was no Area Variance required for that, but
obviously, that is not in compliance, and then I said to myself, well, what if I put two roads in? What
if I had a double entrance like the Car Wash did? If I put two roads in, in compliance, 150 feet from
each other, on the edges of both of my 200 foot wide lots? That would mean the Car Wash would
have to have only one entrance, and they wouldn’t be able to have an exit, the one way, way down,
because that would have to be 150 feet from mine. So what this Ordinance is saying, if you have
three lots that are 200 feet wide, side by side, you can’t be in compliance, that they want to have
more than one entrance, and they can’t even be in compliance if they put the entrance in the middle
of each lot. So it’s a Catch-22. What do you do? As I pulled in here, I noticed that, obviously, there
is an entrance and exit to the Town of Queensbury that, possibly, they’re closer than 150 feet, but
that’s not the point I’m trying to make tonight. So, I guess what I’m trying to say here is that it is a
concern of the Town, so I said, well, what am I going to do? I need an expert. So I went to
Transportation Concepts, and their letter of endorsement is in my application. Obviously,
Transportation Concepts, which I’m sure you know well, Mark Gregory, he’s been in front of, I
think he’s been in front of you in the past a number of times. I think he was involved with the
Lowe’s complex primarily. His suggestion, in his third paragraph, was the separation of, he suggest
separating the commercial traffic from the family oriented traffic associated with automobile sales.
He also suggested separate business signs, which I included that. He also felt my driveway, my
entrance should only be 22 feet wide. I actually wanted it wider, but I complied with him, because
he’s the expert. I know that Hess down the road has gotten a variance for curb cuts that are closer. I
know you’ve been all over Town, especially on Route 9, and there’s business after business after
business that have curb cuts closer than 150 feet. There are some that have no curbs. People go in
and out, lets say at Price Chopper on Route 9, in and out any way they want on the left side or the
right side. C & D Auto, at the intersection there, across from Price Chopper. You can go in and out
any way next to a stop light, any way you want there, and what’s surprising is that there aren’t cars
piling up in accidents. So obviously, it may not be as appealing, but it’s not as unsafe as you may feel.
An example would be like the CVS variance that was approved for them, next to Shop N’ Save, or
Hannaford. Obviously, that’s a congested area. A lot of traffic goes in and out, but you don’t have
cars piling up there. So, another concern would say, well, obviously, that is an exit for the Body
Shop, and it’s very close to the PSM drive. I would have to address that issue. The Body Shop does
very little business during the week. Their big business is on Saturdays and Sundays. When I say the
Body Shop, I’ll refrain, I’m sorry. The car wash does very little business during the week. The car
wash does its major business during the week. If you’ve gone there and probably waited in line to
get through. That’s where they do the major volume. During the week is not as much volume, and
especially it’s very little in the morning. PSM has most of its deliveries and most of its customers
come in in the morning or the cars get towed in, or people come in for estimates. PSM Auto Body
works Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30, and then it closes. It is closed on Saturday and Sunday,
when the large volume of cars that go in and out of the car wash, and obviously, the road, as you can
see on the picture, that’s an exit for the car wash only. My neighbor from the car wash, in their letter
of endorsement that’s in my application, said they had roughly 70 cars a day. That’s their weekly
average. So obviously it’s must less during the week and much higher on the weekend, but PSM is
closed then anyway. So that drive is not going to be used on Saturday and Sunday, when the car
wash is doing its major volume. So, I’d like to sum up my application. I feel I can provide, I need
and I can provide a safer environment for the pedestrians that look at cars at my auto dealership.
There’s a need, and I can provide a guaranteed access for emergency vehicles with this proposal.
This plan is supported by the Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief. It’s supported by the adjacent
landowner. The volume of vehicles is less, at the car wash, when the volume is higher at PSM, and
PSM is closed for business when the car wash does most of its business, and Transportation
Concepts has advised me how I should design this to attend to your concerns. I know that this is
really not what you want to hear. This is not an easy, this is not a perfect plan, but it’s the best that I
could come up with, and it’s I believe the safest plan. I have one other handout here for you. This is
from Hunt Construction. This is one of the estimates I received for the separate access way. I
modified it slightly, because I don’t think its’ necessary to make a railroad tie wall. So you say to
yourself, why does this man want to spend $20,000 for a separate entrance way? And that’s because
it is my ultimate fear in life that I get a phone call some day or some night, when someone else is
working there, because a child gets run over by a car, and the only way that I can control this is with
a separate entrance, a way that I can control the traffic. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Garvey from the Board?
MR. MC NALLY-The four and a half foot to five and a half foot timber retaining wall?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. GARVEY-That was one of the designs, we thought that because that estimate was written when
we wanted, he actually, in the beginning, he did the application, obviously, he was the builder and I
thought he could do it better than me, and he’s done it many more times, from what I understand,
and he proposed, expanded the parking lot 15 feet, but that was too far. We did not want that. It is
not part of the proposal, and that’s why, that was one of the things that delayed my application. We
only wanted to expand it seven feet, seven and a half feet, and as you can see by the design there, it’s
basically flat. So I’m just going to bring it up to the edge of that flat zone. I’m just going to leave the
gutter the way that it is.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re not filling it or bringing the road any closer?
MR. GARVEY-Absolutely not. It’s just strictly so I can get the cars further away from the building.
MR. STONE-Can you just point out here your property lines?
MR. GARVEY-Here and here.
MR. STONE-And it’s right, the grass is not on your property?
MR. GARVEY-It’s at the edge of the pavement or it’s slightly out. I think it’s slightly out a little bit.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you have a little bit of the grade.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. STONE-I wasn’t talking from a green space standpoint. I was just, for my own, just describing
this, where it is. Was any consideration given to building two new entrances and taking out the one
in the middle?
MR. GARVEY-I thought of that, and because I've been known to be cheap, I would rather do this,
obviously. I had considered that, but the way we designed the building, which, the picture that you
have, the black and white picture, is kind of, it’s older than this one. You can see by the design, I
guess, on this large plot plan, that the showroom is to the left, and that’s how it was designed,
because of where their driveway existed. I want people to drive in and be able to see the cars. So,
that’s why I put the, and because the offices for PSM are on the right of the building inside the
complex. So that’s why I thought that would be better.
MR. STONE-You have reversed the two offices, in a sense.
MR. GARVEY-Not really, no, not at all.
MR. STONE-You were doing business on the west side.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. I was borrowing or actually occupying offices from PSM temporarily.
MR. STONE-That’s what I meant, yes. So PSM offices are on the northwest corner, and the
northeast is the showroom.
MR. GARVEY-As you look at it, the far right hand corner to the front is where PSM is, and that’s
where they’ve always been, and we’re to the far left.
MR. MC NALLY-The driveway that you propose, and the exit driveway from the car wash, on this
drawing, it depicts a separation between the two.
MR. GARVEY-They are.
MR. MC NALLY-Will that be maintained?
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-How wide a separation is that, and how will it be treated or planted?
MR. GARVEY-It’s 17 feet right now. There’s a utility pole right in the middle of it, and it’s slightly
higher. Their driveway’s a few feet higher than mine.
MR. MC NALLY-So there wouldn’t be any confusion, people turning in to the exit lane of the car
wash?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. GARVEY-No. That is strictly an exit for the car wash. Sometimes people do turn into it, but
it’s mostly used as an exit.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for Mr. Garvey? The only one I've got is, did you
explore the possibility of joining in to that road that the car wash owns?
MR. GARVEY-It’s two separate, the levels are off. Maybe where they meet the road it’s level, but
quickly.
MR. THOMAS-As you go toward the back.
MR. GARVEY-Yes, and that’s strictly an exit. Okay. If I joined it, we’d have to change, there’d be,
it’s been used as an exit for a long time.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but it’s like you said, the car wash doesn’t do much during the week, when PSM
is operating, and PSM doesn’t operate on the weekend when the car wash is going.
MR. GARVEY-The car wash is operating Monday through Friday, when the PSM is opened.
MR. THOMAS-Right, but you stated that it isn’t as busy Monday through Friday, using the 70 car
per day.
MR. GARVEY-Right. That’s an exit now. It’s one way traffic.
MR. STONE-Now you’re proposing, which is not our call, but what kind of signage?
MR. GARVEY-Basically, right now there’s a sign on the pole, which, on the left side of the main
entrance. I would put a similar sign, with proper permits, at the PSM entrance, and also, you
probably have seen them. I think it’s like a, is it a four square foot sign you’re allowed? I was going
to have a lighted sign saying, PSM, and one for KIA.
MR. THOMAS-Directional signs are four square feet.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. There is one now for the Body Shop, I mean for the car wash I think that says
exit there.
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Garvey? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone
wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed?
Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Additional correspondence?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. THOMAS-The letters are included there in the application, should be all read in.
MR. BROWN-Were they read in before?
MR. THOMAS-No, because you said this was a new application.
MR. BROWN-They may have been included before.
MR. THOMAS-Transportation Concepts, February 16. Kip’s letter is December 22, Adirondack
thnd
Car Wash, January 20.
th
MR. BROWN-I’ll read them all. Transportation Concepts, dated February 16, 1999, to Mrs. Laura
Moore, Planning Assistant, Town of Queensbury, RE: Garvey KIA, secondary site driveway “Dear
Mrs. Moore: Mr. Sean Garvey (Garvey KIA) has contacted our offices with regard to providing a
separate driveway to the shared land use of Garvey KIA and PSM Auto body located at 714 Quaker
Road, Queensbury, New York. Mr. Garvey maintains that a higher degree of safety can be achieved
“on-site” for the respective business customers given this secondary driveway design. He suggests
that in addition to safety, benefits to emergency access will be derived as part of this additional
driveway design. After reviewing the preliminary site plan, project study area, Town of Queensbury
code requirements and traffic volume information provided by Mr. Garvey, Transportation Concepts
would like to provide the following comments. The land uses adjacent to this property vary, as do
the peak hours of operation of each use. The PSM Auto body portion of this site, which is only
open Monday through Friday, has peak hour traffic volumes generally between 8:00 AM and 9:00
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
AM. The KIA auto dealership peak hours of traffic are between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM weekdays and
between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM on weekends. The auto dealership immediately to the east of the
project site is likely to have similar peak hours as those suggested for Garvey KIA. Immediately to
the west of the site is the Adirondack Car Wash whose highest peak hour of traffic is on weekends
when PSM is closed. Generally, the weekday average traffic volumes associated with the KIA
dealership, PSM Auto body and the Adirondack Car Wash have been suggested as 15, 25 and 70
vehicle trips per day (vpd) respectively. We agree that “on-site” separation of the commercial traffic
associated with PSM business and the “family-oriented” traffic associated with the automobile sales
is a good idea. However, certain issues are prevalent with the suggested design such as the inability
to attain the Town of Queensbury Code requirement for 150 feet separation between adjoining
access points and conflicting turning movements during peak periods of traffic. Given the above
stated issues, if the Town accepts a secondary driveway for this shared land use parcel, the following
recommendations are suggested to mitigate potential turning movement conflicts associated with this
design. *Recommend that separate business signs shall be posted for each business driveway.
*Recommend maximum separation between eastern car wash driveway and proposed secondary
driveway. *Recommend secondary driveway width not to exceed 22 feet. *Recommend posting
either peak hour left-turn movement restriction signs or “right-turn only” signs for egress
movements at the secondary site driveway. We hope this letter addresses all outstanding issues
related to the proposed secondary driveway design at this time. Please feel free to contact our office
or Fax, if you should have any questions or comments in regard to this matter. Sincerely,
Transportation Concepts, Mark W. Gregory, P.E.” A letter from the Adirondack Car Wash, LLC,
708 Quaker Road, Queensbury, NY, January 20, 1999, Town of Queensbury, 742 Bay Road,
Queensbury, NY Zoning Board of Appeals/Queensbury Planning Board, RE: Area Variance No.
73-1998, Site Plan No. 54-98, “To Whom It May Concern: As the adjoining property owner (to the
west) of PSM Auto Body and Garvey KIA, I have no problem with the construction of an access
drive adjacent to mine. On the average, we wash seventy (70) vehicles per day and cannot see how
there would be any adverse effect to traffic flow or safety to this Quaker Road corridor.” This is
from the Town of Queensbury, 742 Bay Road, December 22, to Mr. Sean Garvey, Garvey KIA,
nd
714 Quaker Road “Dear Sean: Regarding our conversation today, a new entrance to the KIA/PSM
site in line with the west side of the building would, in my opinion, improve fire department access.
The present entrance would necessitate one or more sharp turns for fire apparatus to reach the sides
or rear of the building. A new straight approach off Quaker Rd. in line with the paved area along the
west side of the building would speed access to all sides of the property providing, of course, it is not
congested with vehicles (usually not the case, recalling my inspection visits). I would recommend
that you contact Chief David Jones of the South Queensbury Vol. Fire Co. for his opinion. As
Chief, his input would be extremely valuable. Chief Jones may be reached at his home telephone.
C.A. Grant Fire Marshal” A letter from the South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, dated
December 29, 1998, to Mr. Sean Garvey, Garvey KIA “Dear Sean: This letter is in reference to your
inquiry to Chief Dave Jones about accessing your property during an emergency situation. PSM
Auto body building can be accessed by our Pumpers using the existing entrance to the building off
Quaker Road, but is very difficult because vehicles are usually parked near the entrance. Under ideal
circumstances there would be no vehicles in front of the building, but we know this is not feasible
nor does it make any sense. The property is now shared by KIA Sales, which means more vehicles
there now than have been there in the past. An entrance at either end of the property would greatly
increase the access which in turn would enhance any firefighting operations if they were ever needed.
The existing entrance located in the center of the property means at least two sharp turns and
possibly backing up in order to gain access to the sides, and rear of the building. If it is needed, I
would be more than happy to demonstrate accessing your property with one of our Pumpers. If I
can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me. Yours truly, William H. Duell 2
nd
Ass’t. Chief/Secretary So. Queensbury Vol. Fire Co.”
MR. THOMAS-That’s it?
MR. BROWN-That does it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Garvey? No more questions? Lets talk about it. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Having one entrance into the parking lot, configured like this one is, with the
vehicles parked where they are, is difficult to access businesses at the rear. I don’t think there’s any
question in that, and I think it would be a great benefit to the applicant to have another entrance into
the parking area. The substantial nature of what you’re requesting troubled me initially, but when
you really do think about it, you look around Route 9, and there are quite a few businesses who have
curb cuts right on top of each other, and well within the limitations that Mr. Garvey is proposing.
So, I was a little bit set against it to begin with, but I've come around, and I’d be in favor of the
proposal.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. THOMAS-All right. Before we go on, there’s that letter you gave us from Rist-Frost tonight.
Could you read that one in, too.
MR. BROWN-Yes. That came in today. Rist-Frost Associates, dated March 17, 1999, to Mr. Chris
Round, Town of Queensbury Office Building, RE: Site Plan No. 54-98 Garvey KIA “Dear Mr.
Round: We have reviewed the documents forwarded to us with the above referenced application,
and have the following comments: We recommend that the applicant re-work the internal travel
lanes to provide a minimum width of 24 ft. The added width will allow safer passing distances
between vehicles and accounts for build-up of plowed snow. The applicant may need a variance
from the Town for providing less than the required number of parking spaces. We recommend that
the applicant address the area of the overhead door to provide delivery vehicles adequate space to
turn around and exit PSM entrance/exit. The applicant does not clearly state what recommendations
from Transportation Concepts that they plan to incorporate into the site plan. We reviewed the
internal traffic flow and layout only. The Warren County Department of Public Works should
review and comment on the new entrance curb cut. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly
yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATE, P.C. Thomas R. Center, Jr. Project Engineer”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan, you’re next.
MR. STEC-All right. Well, I agree, and I applaud the applicant for their concern for safety, and I
understand his concern. The multiple access is very common, as he points out, in Town. So, again,
as far as, are we introducing a new problem or a new issue if we approve this? I don’t think so. I do
think that it will improve the safety in his parking lot. I think that some sort of deal or compromise
with the Adirondack Car Wash is probably not a bad idea, but the topography there makes it a little
difficult, and the one way nature of their exit makes it hard to, again, at first I wasn’t overly inclined
with another curb cut, but I think that, all in all, this will improve safety, and I don’t think that the
added curb cut detracts from the safety on Route 9 itself, given the nature of the traffic flow there.
So I’m inclined to approve it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I have a problem with the closeness that that new entrance would have to the
other entrances. I can agree that there are a lot of businesses in the Town of Queensbury that have
similar type entrances. That doesn’t necessarily make it right, or safe. My feeling is putting a new
entrance there is going to create problems. I don’t have the total idea of what a good alternate would
be, but I’d like to see other possibilities investigated. For instance, possibly making the main
entrance into the building one way in, and arranging a connection with the exit road with the car
wash and using that as the exit lane. The applicant has indicated that there’s a little difference in
topography level there, but it can’t be great if they managed to plow a snow bank out of the way and
at least got trucks through, the day that they needed to. So with a little bit of grading, it strikes me
that somewhere along that site there ought to be a good opportunity to engineer an exit, but even
that aside, even if that’s impossible, I still come down feeling that an additional entrance that close to
the others is going to create traffic problems. So I’m inclined to say no.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, and maybe I should have asked this question before. I’d like to know, really,
exactly what you want to do. I mean, I've heard 20 feet. I've heard 22 feet. One suggestion Rist-
Frost is saying today, which obviously you haven’t seen before, that inside, the inside lanes be 24 feet
wide. I have no idea what they are now, and I guess I would like to see what the proposal is actually
going to be, and if it’s on this thing, then I need help?
MR. GARVEY-I’ll address that, so that you can vote properly. The main entrance is 22 feet wide.
The Rist-Frost suggestion is that the road that goes around the building, you can see there’s parking
spaces on both sides of it. If you go straight in on the PSM road, the main entrance, on the left you’ll
see there’s parking underneath the canopy and there’s parking, parallel parking, to the right. That
corridor is 20 feet wide there, or 22 feet wide. I think Code is 20 feet, and they would like to see it
24 feet. So their 24 feet suggestion has nothing to do with the entrance.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. GARVEY-It’s the way around the building. So to do that, I’d have to make the parking spaces,
I think they have to be 13 feet wide, I think Code is, 13 by 20 or something, and so I would have to
pave more of the property to do that. That was their suggestion. I felt this was adequate.
MR. STONE-Having gotten that answer, I don’t like the idea, but I understand the need for it, and
that’s why we sit here as a Board trying to grant a variance. I think if I had my druthers, I think the
suggestion that was just made is a good one. I think the idea of taking out the middle one and
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
putting the two on either end, but having said all that, I recognize your concern for the safety of your
customers and people who come there.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. There’s going to be people walking around the front parking lot.
MR. STONE-I understand that, and I appreciate that. As I said, I would reluctantly vote yes for this
thing. I mean, your difficulty is self-created, and yet it’s a creation of the law, and that’s why we sit
here, and I think that, having looked at the property extensively, and listening to you, I would be
inclined to go along with it.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-At first I didn’t think that I would want this, but after listening to Mr. Garvey and
the letters issued by the Fire Marshal, the Fire Chief, concerning the safety of this operation, I would
be more inclined to go along with it, with some stipulations to it. There really is no other way out of
this, and since this was re-zoned from Light Industrial, which required a minimum of 200 feet of
front to a Highway Commercial, which requires a minimum of 150 feet of front, this kind of sort of
put the squeeze on it. So, really it’s what the other Board members that are going to say yes said, I
would go along with that. The only stipulation I would throw in there is one of the letters stated that
at that PSM driveway, that a sign be put on the end of it that says “right turn only”.
MR. GARVEY-That was Transportation Concept’s suggestion. I have no problem with that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. The only thing is how, you can’t enforce it. There’s no way you can enforce it.
You can put the sign there, but you know people are, especially the delivery people who have to go
back up toward Route 9. They’re going to make that left turn. They’re not going to make that right
turn, go down to Quaker Road and go all the way around.
MR. GARVEY-There is a road across the way that they could use, obviously the access way to the
old Earl Town. So that they do obey the law by taking a right, they can easily do.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, come out of there and take a left into that.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-How long is that going to be vacant like it is now?
MR. GARVEY-Well, the entrance will be there.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. GARVEY-It’s been vacant for years.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, a long time, but like I say, I’d reluctantly vote yes on this, with the stipulation of
a “right turn only” sign at the PSM. Does anybody else have any questions or comments?
MR. STONE-The other question. You’re saying right turn out only, is that what you’re saying?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-Do we have any concern, and I’m not sure I do, of a right turn in only?
MR. STEC-I don’t.
MR. STONE-Okay. I don’t think I do either, but when we start talking about, we’re talking about
right turn, left turns there, I was wondering what he meant.
MR. STEC-Because a right turn on the exit would alleviate any safety problems with the exit of the
car wash. So I think a right turn only sign on the exit is a good idea.
MR. STONE-That’s a good point.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore comments, questions? Would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1998 GARVEY KIA, Introduced by
Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
714 Quaker Road. The applicant has proposed construction of a second access drive to an existing
auto body repair business. The applicant requests relief for, and I move that we approve the request
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
for relief, for minimum separation distance allowed between points of access, as required in Off
Street Parking and Loading, Section 179-66B(4). The applicant has proposed separation distances of
17 and 60 feet. The minimum separation distance allowed is 150 feet. So we are granting 133 feet
and 90 feet of relief. The benefit to the applicant would be the permission to construct an access
drive in his desired location to improve the safety of his business. While there are some alternatives,
this is the most feasible alternative. The Board recognizes that it might be a consideration to add two
additional accesses, but that may be cost prohibitive, and it may not significantly improve safety
anyway. So this is probably the best alternative. The relief is substantial to the Ordinance.
However, we feel that the safety improvement overweighs the significance or the substantial nature
of the relief, and we think that overall it will have a positive effect, in particular to the safety of the
community, and again, the difficulty, while self-created, is also partially due to the nature of the
zoning law requiring a separation distance in this corridor, but all in all, the Board feels that the
improvement in safety warrants approval of the relief sought. The applicant also recognizes the
Board stipulates that the new easternmost exit nearest the car wash will have a, on the exit direction,
western corner, a right turn only sign. The applicant is willing to prevent traffic around the entire
outside of the building. The applicant agrees to barricade, either with cars or some other manner, the
western end of the building, to prevent traffic from crossing between the two businesses entrances,
and the applicant will also barricade, in some fashion, the rear of the building to prevent vehicular
traffic behind the building. That the approval of this variance is contingent on site plan review
approval by the Planning Board.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1999, by the following vote:
th
MR. BROWN-Just before you get a second, Mr. Chairman, the County recommended disapproval.
MR. THOMAS-The County recommended disapproval, so we need five positive votes to override
the County Planning Board.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-They recommended against? Was that read?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, the Planning Board.
MR. BROWN-They issued a curb cut permit, but when it went to the Planning Board, they
recommended denial.
MR. STONE-I don’t think I heard that.
MR. GARVEY-Pardon me. You need a super majority for those that are here?
MR. THOMAS-No, I need a super majority of the Board, which is seven.
MR. GARVEY-Could I address Mr. McNulty, then?
MR. THOMAS-Go ahead.
MR. GARVEY-Primarily, you can see how vehicles are lined up here for display. Sometimes they’re
a little bit closer to the curb, to the edge here. What I am concerned with is while people are viewing
these vehicles here, people driving in here to drop something off to the PSM main entrance, or cars
getting towed in, or cars getting towed in either way, because the tow truck drivers can go either way,
and you’re suggestion of possibly maybe making this a one way in, and finding, sharing this exit,
doesn’t solve my problem. If I follow that, I would have to display cars from here over, and this
would, I wouldn’t be able to use half of my property, because it would prohibit even displaying of
cars here, because the traffic would flow this way, or out this way. For me to conduct business, I
need to display cars, and the only way I can display, it’s not like a store where I can put everything
inside. I need to show them outside. Everyone knows that’s a KIA store, and they’ll drive in to look
at KIA’s. Used cars, someone that’s not familiar with the product, I need to display. It is not the
idea suggestion that I come up with. It is not perfect. People that know more about traffic flow
than I suggest that this is a good choice, and that was Transportation Concepts. That’s all he does,
every day of the week, every year, and so by me putting a separate road here, displaying the cars
where I have them, but in a “U” shape right here, so I’m blocking this, people cannot come in here
and drop off cars, get estimates or drop off parts. I’m going to be blocking it, and they’ll be
instructed, if they want to conduct business with us, to come in and out this way, and they’re going to
tow cars in, put them underneath the canopy or (lost word). They’re going to drop off parts, they’ll
do this and do a (lost word) turn and leave. The back of this will be blocked, more than likely with
dumpsters and our sold cars, so that you cannot do a “U” turn like that. This is in and out this way
with PSM and in and out here. Please understand. There’s families. You’ve got little kids. There’s
two to three year olds. They’re running around. I’m trying to show a customer a product here and
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
the kids over here, running over there. I cannot control that, and the only way that I think I can do
this safely is to block this, and obviously if I block it with a permanent structure like a fence or trees,
that’ll look very nice, but for snow removal it wouldn’t be very good. So I figure by blocking it with
cars, I could move the cars when I plow and put them back. I thought that was a viable option.
Also what happens, many people cut through the car wash here, across my, when it’s not snowing,
across this property, and exit here as a short cut they perceive it as. That would also stop that from
happening, because they can’t do that anymore. If they cut across, they would be leaving out the
PSM exit. So I would ask you to be considerate. Thank you.
MR. STEC-Mr. Chairman, if I may amend my motion to include the applicant’s willingness to
prevent traffic around the entire outside of the building. I’d like to amend it that the applicant agrees
to barricade, either with cars or in some other manner, the western end of the building to prevent
traffic from crossing between the two business entrances, and the applicant will also barricade, in
some fashion, the rear of the building, to prevent vehicular traffic behind the building.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, also as a portion of this, and maybe if the Board’s inclined to approve
this application, may consider making it conditional upon the approval of the site plan, which is
going to address all of these access issues which the applicant’s expressed willingness to comply with.
So, I think if the site plan is approved, given these traffic flow considerations and on-site congestion
parking spaces, if the applicant can comply with what the site plan is going to require, that this could
be contingent upon that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Just add that in there.
MR. STEC-I’d further amend the motion that the approval of this variance is contingent upon site
plan review by the Planning Board.
MR. BROWN-That, I’m assuming, might address some of Mr. McNulty’s concerns about traffic
safety and flow on the property.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does everybody understand the motion? Any questions on the motion? I’ll
ask for a second.
MR. MC NALLY-Second.
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes
MR. THOMAS-There you go with the stipulations, and you have to do site plan review also.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you, thank you all.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA WILLIAM P. HUNT OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE FIELDING LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
AN EXTERIOR DECK AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 12-1-6 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES
SECTION 179-16, 179-79
WILLIAM HUNT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-1999, William P. Hunt, Meeting Date: March 17, 1999
“Project Location: Fielding Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed an
exterior deck and seeks relief from the setback requirements of the WR-1A zone. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 33 feet of front setback relief from the 30 foot minimum setback requirement of
the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267
of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain and utilize
the existing non-conforming deck. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include
reconfiguration requiring less relief and removal. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: 33 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4.
Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a
result of this action. Both the existing camp and deck appear to be located within the Town of
Queensbury right of way for Fielding Lane. This deck was constructed without a building permit
and only after identification of the violation, by the Building Department, did the applicant apply for
a variance. If any relief were considered, the maximum would be to the property line, as no relief can
be considered on property the applicant does not own. The existing cabin encroachment into the
Town of Queensbury right of way is a legal issue that must be addressed. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. BROWN-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form William P. Hunt
ID Number: QBYAV12-1999 County Project No.: March 99-22 Project Description: Applicant
proposes to construct an exterior deck and seeks setback relief and relief for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure. Staff Notes: A copy of the site drawings are included with the summaries.
The site drawing A1 is attached, states that it is existing site conditions. Review of the materials
supplied in this application indicates that the applicant is two feet over the property line, and Staff is
concerned about the Planning Board approving construction on a portion of a parcel that is not
owned by the applicant. In addition, Staff does not see any indication in the drawing provided of any
new construction. The only labeling on the drawing indicates decking that exists. Staff is
recommending discussion on this application. County Planning Board Recommendation: No
County Impact” Terry M. Ross, Warren County Planning Board.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Hunt?
MR. HUNT-Yes, sir.
MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you’d like to say, tell us about?
MR. HUNT-No, sir. I had a permit to do the inside of the camp, and I re-did the camp. I put those
steps on. Both legs were operated on two years ago, and the steps that were there were really steep.
So it’s hard for me to get down and up, and if you see the deck, it’s like a California deck, and that’s
what it was made out. When it was planned, there’s a stockade fence there. I've been on this
property since 1968 or ’69. That fence has always been there. I bought the property in 1977, and the
deck was built, didn’t touch the fence or didn’t go to the end of the house. I didn’t know I was
doing something wrong because I had done the inside of the house, and the inspector kept coming,
and I honestly didn’t know I did something wrong. I didn’t know I needed a variance for this. I
think I was understanding that if you didn’t put cement footings or attach it or anything it’s just a
wooden deck, just so you could go out of the house, because the house is high. I didn’t realize that I
had to be that far from the road, and yet there’s a fence all along that property. It’s like a compound.
You can’t see the deck from the road. It’s 400 feet to the lake. So it’s even hard to see it from the
lake. I really didn’t know I did anything wrong until they had said that I need to file for a variance,
and that’s what I did, and that’s why I’m here now.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions?
MR. STONE-Can you, on this drawing I had the same problem the County apparently had. I see an
arrow that says “existing deck”, and since I couldn’t see over the six foot fence, which is illegal but
you’re saying it was always there. Is the existing deck just that little rectangle in the middle?
MARIO MUGRACE
MR. MUGRACE-On the plan, if I may introduce myself, my name is Mario Mugrace. I’m here on
behalf of Mugrace architecture who is representing Mr. William Hunt in this issue. The existing deck
is all that portiated structure, the steps that step down, as well as that angled portion which projects
out beyond the property line to the picket fence. So even though it says existing deck and it looks as
though it’s only representing that small rectangular portion, it is actually that forshayed or shaded
area that you see there, including the steps and that angled portion.
MR. STONE-Okay, but by existing deck, in other words, the construction is that whole thing, the
illegal construction.
MR. MUGRACE-Correct.
MR. STONE-Is the whole shaded area?
MR. MUGRACE-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. STEC-Lew, I could see it down over the fence.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. STONE-Well, you’re taller than I am.
MR. STEC-Rest assured, the deck comes all the way to the other opposite side of that fence.
MR. STONE-I just didn’t know whether or not they had been using the terminology, whether it had
been this, and you made it bigger. You made the whole thing.
MR. MUGRACE-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-And that’s your definition of existing.
MR. HUNT-Correct. There was a cement sidewalk that went out from the camp itself, down at the
bottom of the steps, and that’s what we had covered it. It was pretty unlevel, but that’s not really
why we did it. We did it so you could sit there and actually see down to the lake, which is far, and
when we’re on that side of the fence, I never knew this boundary line was even like that, to be really
honest with you. This did not come out until I hired his dad as the architect, or his firm, and this all
came out now. I've been up there for, it’s been in my family since 1910 or earlier. I never knew, and
I wouldn’t have done something if I thought I was done something wrong. Seriously, I wouldn’t
have done that.
MR. STONE-The architectural front yard is to the west?
MR. MUGRACE-Yes, that is correct.
MR. STONE-The door seems to be around that jut out that goes to the west.
MR. HUNT-No, the door coming out is in the middle of the deck, in the middle of that shaded area.
That’s how we came out before, there was.
MR. STONE-You came out this way.
MR. HUNT-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-So the east side is your front yard. Okay.
MR. MUGRACE-If I may interject, there’s two entrances, actually, to the camp itself, what you
people might consider the front entrance is by the driveway road which would be on the west side of
the building. There’s another entrance in the rear.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. HUNT-I call the front because of the lake.
MR. STONE-I do, too. Most people don’t. I just wanted to be sure.
MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for Mr. Hunt.
MR. MC NALLY-Just so I understand, you took down a deck and put this one up?
MR. HUNT-No, there were stairs that went out.
MR. MC NALLY-Just stairs. They were cement?
MR. HUNT-No, they were wood, and this is only wood, too. I made it so it would look nicer
because we put a lot of money into the camp so it would look nicer for aesthetic.
MR. MC NALLY-And did the old steps, were they adjacent to the fence on the interior surface?
Were they also in the Town’s right-of-way? Or were they more toward the center of the building?
MR. HUNT-No, they were toward the center of the building, sir. Like I said, I didn’t know, that
road is not taken care of by the City or the Town or anybody. They don’t plow it. We fill our own
potholes in all summer. I paint that camp probably every two years because of the dirt that comes
off of that, and I didn’t know that. I just didn’t know that I was doing anything wrong.
MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff. We say that there is a right-of-way on Fielding Road, and
yet our tax map calls it an unnamed road.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. HUNT-They don’t do anything there. They’ve asked, the people that live there have asked for
it to be taken care of.
MR. STONE-I mean, our GIS system doesn’t even come up with a name for it.
MR. BROWN-I forwarded this application to the Highway Superintendent, and he responded that,
which is a letter we can read at the public comment, that it should be investigated by the legal, Town
Counsel, before they comment on it. He didn’t make a mention that it wasn’t a Town road and he
wasn’t going to comment on it because it wasn’t a Town road. The maps that I have show it as a
Town road.
MR. HUNT-Sir, if I could just say something. I think back many, many years ago that was used as a
driveway to get into the camps that were down in the back of Sandy Bay.
MR. STONE-Well, there is Town property down at the end of that road, though.
MR. HUNT-Absolutely, but I think that was the right-of-way to come in and out of those properties
plus my property.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. HUNT-And it’s just been there forever, and they built a house on there, which is my camp. I
don’t know how they did that.
MR. STONE-Well, I was going to ask how they built so many camps on there, but that’s another
story. That’s not your problem. It’s just interesting.
MR. BROWN-Well, I think if we go under the assumption that it’s not Town road and it’s not Town
property, it’s not the applicant’s property either.
MR. MUGRACE-If I may so note, in construction of the deck at the time that it was constructed, he
tried to, as far as he felt, stay within the boundaries of his property by keeping the deck in line with
the existing house, and actually keeping it a little bit further back, so that it didn’t impede up on the
fence that had been there. So it wasn’t his intentions to try and get as much room as he possibly
could. It was his intentions to try and stay within what he felt were obviously some existing
boundaries, by keeping it in line, or actually a little bit further in from the house.
MR. STONE-But whether or not this fence existed and the house existed, this is construction which
required a setback, and that’s current. That’s nothing to do with what was there before. The house
may be illegal. The house may be in the wrong place, but the deck required a setback. That should
have been known to the applicant. Setbacks are what we live for on this particular Board. That’s
why we’re there. So, yes, the house is in the wrong place, the deck never should have been in the
wrong place, as far as I’m concerned.
MR. STEC-Right, and to add to what Lew’s saying, I think that the house is a completely separate
issue, although it’s a contributing factor to what happened with the deck, but I think the issue at
hand is really the deck, and I believe it was an honest mistake, but the responsibility is the
landowner’s to know the property boundaries before you start making improvements to it, and so I
think it’s an unfortunate error, but I think the error is the applicant’s and no one else’s.
MR. HUNT-Sir, I built within what I thought was my property line that has been there since I
purchased that property. I mow that lawn. I keep both sides of that fence as clean as I can. I would
have never, ever thought that I was not in my property, and I didn’t even know building this was
wrong because I had, I mean, the building inspector was coming all the time. It’s not like I was
hiding from somebody. He was coming back to give me a CO when I just, I never thought that I did
something wrong here.
MR. STEC-I don’t doubt your good faith at all, at all, but the fact remains that you’ve encroached
over your boundary line. So, I mean, this is an issue that this Board has to resolve tonight.
MR. STONE-Well, maybe more so, you have failed to recognize the need for a setback on the front
of the property, because it’s on a road. It’s not a corner, well, it goes this way, but it’s still a, it’s not a
corner lot, but it’s a side setback of a minimum of 25 feet.
MR. HUNT-The house isn’t that wide, sir.
MR. STONE-Twelve feet, how wide to the lot?
MR. BROWN-It would be a front setback you’re looking at from the bounds of the right-of-way.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what I meant. That would be fine. So that’s 30 feet.
MR. MC NALLY-You don’t consider that a side setback? Which would require the 12 feet?
MR. BROWN-Frontage on a right-of-way is a front setback.
MR. HUNT-But that would be assuming that Fielding Lane is a right-of-way.
MR. STONE-Right, and obviously, we don’t know that. It would be hard for us to act, wouldn’t it,
Mr. Chairman?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’d have to know if that’s Town property or if that’s private property,
because if it was private property, he would still need a side setback of 25 feet. Because he would
have no frontage on a Town, County or State right-of-way, which would require another variance.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BROWN-Right. In that case I think that would be considered a rear setback. You’d use the
shoreline.
MR. THOMAS-You’d use the shoreline.
MR. BROWN-Does the property have shore frontage?
MR. MC NALLY-Just a tiny bit.
MR. BROWN-So you’d have a shoreline setback, two sides, and rear setback.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you’d call that a rear?
MR. BROWN-So you’d use that as a rear setback. If this is a Town, if it’s not a Town right-of-way.
MR. STONE-So that’s 25 feet.
MR. THOMAS-Twenty-five feet in a Waterfront Residential.
MR. STONE-Yes, the rear is 25 feet.
MR. MC NALLY-But isn’t that split, 12 feet on each side?
MR. STONE-Not rear.
MR. THOMAS-No, not the rear.
MR. MC NALLY-Not the rear? Okay.
MR. BROWN-Just something to throw out, the map prepared by Mr. Mugrace appears to be
prepared from a property line survey. There’s no reference to it. I mean, there’s boundary line
distances to the hundredth of a foot, but perhaps an accurate certified survey would yield.
MR. MUGRACE-In reference to the plan, the preparation of the plan itself, it was prepared after the
fact, as we were addressed and approached to represent Mr. Hunt here on this issue, from the
Town’s map that was provided to us, from the Town itself.
MR. BROWN-The tax map.
MR. MUGRACE-Correct.
MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s not an accurate survey.
MR. MUGRACE-Right.
MR. BROWN-So in order to maybe shed some light on who owns the property, maybe a qualified
person should determine who owns the property, by way of a survey.
MR. THOMAS-Can’t Paul Naylor determine if we own it or not, the Town owns it?
MR. BROWN-I would assume he would have referenced that he did.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but he said he wanted to check with Counsel before he said one way or another.
MR. BROWN-Right. So I would be inclined to believe that it’s a Town right-of-way.
MR. THOMAS-Does the Town plow that, do you know?
MR. HUNT-No, sir, it doesn’t.
MR. THOMAS-They don’t plow it in the winter time?
MR. HUNT-They don’t maintain it at all. I said earlier that we fill the potholes all summer.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, I heard you say that.
MR. HUNT-And we paint, I paint that camp every two years because of the dirt that comes from the
cars coming back and forth. During the winter, somebody at the end of that road pays for the
plowing. They don’t maintain the property at all. It’s never really, to be honest with you, never
bothered me because I’m really not there all winter. I’m there in the summer and I kind of like filling
holes anyway. It gives me something to do.
MR. THOMAS-So I’ll take this through the public hearing, right up to the motion phase, but I won’t
take any motion until we find out who does own this property, this Fielding Lane, if it is indeed
private or if it’s Town. Because we have to determine if it’s a rear or a front.
MR. STONE-And if we were granting relief, we wouldn’t know what we were granting.
MR. THOMAS-That’s right, you’re absolutely right. So are there anymore questions for Mr. Hunt?
Or Mr. Mugrace?
MR. MC NULTY-I have one or two.
MR. THOMAS-Go ahead.
MR. MC NULTY-Where is the door, exactly, that goes from the camp to the deck?
MR. HUNT-It probably is right in, you see where the stairs go down? It’s probably about three feet
over, or maybe two feet over, and then it’s a sliding door that goes out onto the deck.
MR. MC NULTY-Kind of in the middle of that wall?
MR. HUNT-Yes, that’s where it was, sir.
MR. MC NULTY-But I’m thinking ahead. Assuming that the property line is where it’s shown,
obviously, you’re going to have to make some modification to the deck to at least bring it back in to
property line. It would still leave your deck functional, if you took that one angled corner off it, then.
MR. HUNT-Yes, sir.
MR. STEC-After we get the answer to our questions, we’ll know exactly what we’re dealing with, but
in the end, there’s going to need to be a modification to the deck because it’s over your property line.
It’ll help us to know, because we want to work with you, and you need an exit, but I mean, at the
very minimum you’re going to have to pull it back to your side of the property line, but we can’t
grant any relief until we know exactly the answer to that question, what we’re talking about.
MR. HUNT-So that line, it seems to go into my property there, on the other side of the fence, that’s
been there forever. Does that continue on all the way down the road? Is everybody else in the same
predicament I’m in? Because all the houses.
MR. STONE-If you look at this, there’s an indent in the GIS survey.
MR. THOMAS-Then it comes back out again.
MR. STONE-Then it comes back out again. Of course your neighbor encroaches on your property.
MR. HUNT-I know. This is all fenced in. It’s like a compound.
MR. STONE-As I said, the fence is, by today’s standards, too high. We can’t address that.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. HUNT-Well, what happens to me here?
MR. STONE-You’re going to have to wait a month.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-You built the deck. It’s up to us to decide what to do. You’re going to have to wait a
month, right, at least.
MR. THOMAS-Maybe two months, no more than 62 days.
MR. HUNT-There’s no possible contingent resolution in regard to finding out what exactly who
belongs to Fielding Lane?
MR. THOMAS-No, because they’re different, we don’t know if it’s going to be 25 feet or 30 feet,
and we have to be specific in the motion.
MR. HUNT-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Specific footages. So, if there’s no more questions from the Board, I’ll open the
public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Would
anyone like to speak against? Against?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Correspondence?
MR. BROWN-Yes. There’s a letter, March 11, 1999 to Mr. Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent,
Town of Queensbury, Regarding William Hunt, Area Variance No. 12-1999, Fielding Lane, Tax Map
No. 12-1-6 “Dear Mr. Naylor: Enclosed please find for your review a copy of the above referenced
Area Variance request for Mr. William Hunt. As you will see, the existing cabin and deck are
depicted within the Town of Queensbury right of way for Fielding Lane. This variance application is
requesting relief to maintain the deck in the current location. This deck was constructed without first
obtaining a building permit or receiving any type of discretionary review. The existence of a
structure within the right of way poses a serious legal issue, which must be identified and resolved.
The addition of an unapproved deck within the right of way only exacerbates the situation. This
application is scheduled for the March 17, 1999 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Any response
prior to this time would be appreciated. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, DEPT. OF COMM. DEVELOPMENT Craig Brown,
Code Compliance Officer” March 15, 1999, from the Town of Queensbury Highway Department,
to Craig Brown Code Compliance Officer, from Paul Naylor, Regarding William Hunt Area Variance
application 12-1999 “Please have the legal department research this and get back to us before a
Building Permit is issued. Paul H. Naylor Highway Superintendent Town of Queensbury” We
have a record of phone conversation dated March 16, 1999 between Mary Socia and Sue
Hemingway, Zoning Office Staff, Regarding Area Variance 12-1999 William Hunt “Not opposed to
project. States project will enhance area. Very much in favor of project” And a record of phone
conversation dated 3/17/99 between Town Counsel Mark Schachner and myself, regarding William
Hunt Area Variance for the deck “Discussion regarding the unapproved construction of a deck
within the Town R.O.W. Granting any relief for the deck within the R.O.W. would be
EXTREMELY inappropriate!!!” And then my comments at the bottom, “Minimum: removal of
deck within R.O.W. and perhaps more of the deck to alleviate the zero clearance situation NEED
ACCURATE CERTIFIED SURVEY!”
MR. STEC-So, did I mis-hear you? Did Town Counsel determine that this was a Town right-of-
way?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think that’s an issue for the Town Counsel. If it s a right-of-way, obviously
you don’t want any relief for it. I mean, determination of property lines and ownership, I think, is
best left to a land surveyor.
MR. STONE-Yes. No, I think he said, what I heard him say, if it’s on a Town road, there are other
ramifications that come in.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-Is this survey accurate? We’re not really looking at the area of the deck Is that a
concern to us, as to where the boundary is?
MR. STONE-We don’t know what relief to give, if we’re of a mind to give relief.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. MC NALLY-Should the applicant get a full survey done?
MR. THOMAS-Is that what you’re saying, Craig, that the applicant should provide a survey?
MR. BROWN-I think it would be helpful in rendering a determination. It may yield that the
property line doesn’t, you know, jump in there nine and a half feet. Maybe a current survey would
show that it is a Town right-of-way and it goes straight in that area. This was compiled from a tax
map, which, as you know, aren’t the most accurate instruments out there, especially when you’re
dealing with this type of relief, zero plus setback. I think an accurate location of the property line
would be something that would be very helpful.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-That’s something you can consider.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that possible?
MR. HUNT-I’ll have to find out. I’ll do what you want me to do.
MR. MC NALLY-In order to grant any relief, we have to know exactly where your boundary is.
From this, you really can’t tell. It appears to be over the Town property.
MR. STONE-If it’s Town property. That’s the other question.
MR. BROWN-In fact an accurate survey may show that the deck is on the property.
MR. MC NALLY-Right.
MR. BROWN-And you’re looking for setback relief when you’re not over the line.
MR. MC NALLY-In all honesty, I think you need a survey.
MR. STEC-The woods across the street I think is County property.
MR. STONE-State, and then Queensbury has some property down at the end of Fielding Lane,
which nobody knows about, but it is Town property. Right at the very end, around the State
property, there’s Town property, on Sandy Bay. I believe, isn’t that right, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, that still leaves us, then, with two questions, one which the applicant may be
able to solve if he gets an accurate survey on where the property line is.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. MC NULTY-The second one still comes back to the Town is or is not Fielding Lane a Town
right-of-way, which will determine our setback.
MR. STEC-Right, which would determine, are we talking about side or front.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. HUNT-What would determine that question? I mean, if it’s not maintained?
MR. STONE-Records of the Town. I mean, it’s got to be reviewed. Supposedly, the roads that the
Town owns have been identified somewhere. Is that correct, as I understand? According to State
law.
MR. STEC-We get State aid based on the knowledge of the Town.
MR. BROWN-The Town Clerk has record of all that.
MR. HUNT-Well, I think my question is, and they’ve paved this since I've been there probably twice.
They’ve paved Cleverdale Road, Mason Road, and all those roads in there, but they won’t even go
near Fielding Lane. Now if that was a Town road, wouldn’t they have tarred that?
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. STEC-It depends on who you talk to.
MR. STONE-It depends whether the residents have talked to the Town Board and the Highway
Superintendent. It’s a very complicated process what gets paved. It’s very complicated. In this
Town it’s even more complicated.
MR. STEC-There’s no requirement that a Town road be paved, at all. It could be a dirt road forever,
but it would be identified in the Clerk’s Office.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Hunt? All right. That’s about as far as we can take it.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1999 WILLIAM P. HUNT, Introduced by
Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Until no later than the May 19 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new
th
information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The
applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can
be met. The reason for the tabling of this application is for an accurate survey of the property lines,
and to determine whether Fielding Lane is a private right-of-way or a Town owned right-of-way.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes
MR. THOMAS-All right. So we’ll see you either next month or the month after. Hopefully you’ll
have that survey for us.
MR. HUNT-And that’s what I need to bring here?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, bring it to Craig as soon as you can get it.
MR. STEC-Right, as soon as you get it.
MR. HUNT-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-1999 TYPE II MR-5 MH OVERLAY ZONE MICHAEL
POUTRE OWNER: JOANN MATTISON 51 WISCONSIN AVENUE APPLICANT
PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF SINGLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME WITH DOUBLE-
WIDE MOBILE HOME AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 127-1-9 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-18
MICHAEL POUTRE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-1999, Michael Poutre, Meeting Date: March 17, 1999
“Project Location: 51 Wisconsin Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
replacement of a single wide mobile home with a double wide mobile home and requests setback
relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2 feet of side setback relief from the 10 foot minimum
setback requirement of the MR-5 zone, § 179-18. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to enlarge their home. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be
limited. A relocation of the home would require front setback relief. 3. Is this relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance?: 2 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement may be interpreted as
minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the
neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The
difficulty may be interpreted as self created, given the applicant has chosen to enlarge their home.
However, all other setbacks have been maintained and the difficulty may be attributed to the lot size.
If this was not a corner lot, all setbacks could be maintained. Parcel History (construction/site
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
plan/variance, etc.): BP 92-416 – 7/22/92 BP 93-500 – 9/1/93 AV57-1992 – res. 6/17/92 Staff
comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
proposed home replacement would be consistent with the disposition of the neighborhood. An
upgrade/enlargement should only enhance the character of the area. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and nothing from Warren County?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Poutre, do you want to tell us something additional?
MR. POUTRE-I don’t know what to say. Pretty much following the application, just trying to
enlarge our home and need a setback relief.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. You proposed putting a double wide on?
MR. POUTRE-Putting a double wide in place of the single wide.
MR. THOMAS-Is it a new one?
MR. POUTRE-It’s a brand new model, yes.
MR. THOMAS-A brand new model. Is that going to sit on a foundation or a slab?
MR. POUTRE-We were going to put it on a foundation, but our finances are going toward the slab.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. There’s no sewer in there, so that’s septic system, right?
MR. POUTRE-It’s septic. We have a leach field right now, but that will also be upgraded to
drywells.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-I was just concerned about the vehicles on the property.
MR. POUTRE-Two of them are like summer vehicles, a Mazda, and one of them is a vehicle that I
work on for my brother.
MRS. POUTRE-Which will be gone.
MR. POUTRE-They’ll be gone in the spring.
MR. STONE-She said it will be gone. I heard her.
MRS. POUTRE-It will. He’s had many vehicles and most of them are gone now.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. POUTRE-That’s the bad part about a mechanic.
MR. STONE-The fence on Central Avenue, when was that put in?
MR. POUTRE-’92 when we moved in. It was like late ’92.
MRS. POUTRE-There was someone that complained about it.
MR. STONE-That’s a six foot high fence.
MRS. POUTRE-Yes, and I remember Craig, he came up and spoke to me about it, and he said he
would check into it, and he said the Code changed after we put the fence up.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-It was after? Okay.
MR. BROWN-’93.
MR. STONE-That’s what I thought. Okay. So it can be six-foot.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. BROWN-It’s a pre-existing, nonconforming.
MRS. POUTRE-If there was a problem, we would have gone lower.
MR. THOMAS-Any other questions?
MR. STONE-How about that shed?
MR. POUTRE-That’s all coming down.
MR. STONE-That’s coming down, too?
MRS. POUTRE-Yes, everything is coming down.
MR. THOMAS-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? Is there any correspondence?
MR. BROWN-No.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Dan, you’re first.
MR. STEC-All right. I have no problem at all with this application? I think that a lot of the
difficulty rests with the fact that it is a corner lot. That makes it difficult, but I do think that, all in all,
this will be an improvement for both the owners and in general to the neighborhood, as it’s a very
visible lot, a corner lot, and I think two feet is very minimal. So I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I concur. Not much else to add. I think it’s going to improve the property. Two
feet doesn’t seem like a big deal.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-I have no problem either. I congratulate the Poutres in wanting to upgrade their
property. I think we need, as much as possible in this section of Town, and I congratulate you for it.
MR. POUTRE-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Mr. McNally?
MR. MC NALLY-I have no problem with it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have one question. Do you own the property?
MR. POUTRE-We're in the process of purchasing it.
MRS. POUTRE-My mother owns it. She’s here, and she has no problem.
MR. THOMAS-So your mother is Joann Mattison?
MRS. POUTRE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have no problem with this. I think it’ll be an improvement to the
neighborhood, especially on a corner like that. I’m not thrilled about the fence, but it was pre-
existing, nonconforming so there’s nothing we can do about that. The septic system will be
upgraded to meet today’s standards. That’s an improvement, and I think the property will look a lot
better with a double wide on there and that garage/shed removed. So, having said that, I’ll ask for a
motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-1999 MICHAEL POUTRE,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
51 Wisconsin Avenue. The applicant proposes the replacement of a single-wide mobile home with a
doublewide mobile home, and requests setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests two feet of
side setback relief from the 10 foot minimum setback requirement in the MR-5 zone, Section 179-18.
The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be allowed and permitted to enlarge their
home to replace their existing home with a modern structure on a slab that would be a great
improvement both to the lot and to the neighborhood. Feasible alternatives are limited. This is a
corner lot. So essentially there are two front sides requiring 30 feet setback, which they have to meet,
but to do that, they have to take up two of the 10 foot rear setback requirement. Is the relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance? Two feet of relief, in my opinion, is minimal. The effects on
the neighborhood are going to be minimal. If anything else, this will be an improvement to the
community and certainly would be recommended. The difficulty is not self-created. It’s more the
result of this particular lot. For these reasons, I move the approval.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1999, by the following vote:
th
MR. THOMAS-Okay, before I ask for a second, I've got one more question. On your north side, on
the print here it says “Joann Mattison”. Is that your mother?
MRS. POUTRE-That’s my mom.
MR. THOMAS-And she lives next door to you?
MRS. POUTRE-She lives next door.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-And she has no problem. That was the only question I had, but when you said that, I
figured.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes
MR. THOMAS-So, there you go.
MR. POUTRE-Thank you.
MRS. POUTRE-Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JIM, JR. & JEAN WANAMAKER
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 30 KNOX ROAD, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED 3 CAR GARAGE. SEEKS RELIEF
FROM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.8 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES
SECTION 179-16
JIM WANAMKER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-1999, Jim, Jr. & Jean Wanamaker, Meeting Date: March 17,
1999 “Project Location: 30 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a three car garage and seeks relief from the height requirements. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 7 feet of height relief from the 16 foot maximum accessory structure height
requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. The applicant proposes a 23 foot tall structure. Criteria
for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the proposed structure. 2.
Feasible alternatives: A feasible alternative would be a shorter building. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet of relief from the 16 foot requirement may be
interpreted as moderate to substantial. (44%) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is
this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. BROWN-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form Jean & Jim
Wanamaker, Jr. Property Owner: Same as above ID #: QBY AV 1499 County Project Number:
March 99-27 Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a three car detached garage and
seeks relief from height restrictions Staff Notes: The applicant is requesting a 23 foot tall garage
when the Ordinance requirement for a detached garage,” and some of these numbers aren’t accurate
“for a detached garage is 15 feet, maximum height. However, the area does allow residences, other
buildings to be 30 feet in height. So the issue appears to be of local issue only with no significant
building alteration anticipated. Given that situation, Staff does not identify any impacts on County
resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Terry Ross, Warren
County Planning Board.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Wanamaker, is there anything else you want to tell us about?
MR. WANAMAKER-I’m just trying to contain my vehicles, some vessels, and create some
reasonable storage area for the plot.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Wanamaker?
MR. STONE-I have a couple of questions. Which way is the door of the garage going to face?
MR. WANAMAKER-The over-sized garage? The over-sized door is facing west, and three cars are
going to be facing the house.
MR. BROWN-It’s going to be a big door on the end and three smaller doors on the long side of the
garage.
MR. STONE-Okay. Because all I have is the Knox Road view. That’s the west side of Knox Road?
MR. WANAMAKER-Right. That would be facing out.
MR. STONE-Is that going to be connected to a driveway?
MR. WANAMAKER-Yes. The driveway that’s there would come out and come in.
MR. STONE-How many driveways are you going to have on the property?
MR. WANAMAKER-One.
MR. STONE-You have one in the front now.
MR. WANAMAKER-Right.
MR. STONE-You have the one that exists.
MR. WANAMAKER-One in the front?
MR. STONE-Well, leading up to the basement, it looks like there’s a swale there that vehicles go
into.
MR. WANAMAKER-That was just entrance way into that, that was there. I just bought the house a
year ago. I didn’t create it or make it. It was there.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m just trying to get an idea. I mean, I saw that there is a driveway right there,
there’s the one on the north side, if you will.
MR. WANAMAKER-That was, actually what it is, we just bought the house a year ago. Actually, it’s
easier to carry stuff in and leave it downstairs sometimes than it is to drive it all the way and walk it
through the hallway. That’s why it seemed like it was a driveway.
MR. STONE-Okay. How many trees are going to have to go?
MR. WANAMAKER-Five, maybe seven.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m just a tree grabber. I wanted to make sure.
MR. WANAMAKER-Yes. I want to take away as least as possible.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. THOMAS-Is that because of the height of the garage, you have to take that many down? If it
was shorter would you have to take that many down?
MR. WANAMAKER-It’s just the area is suitable. If you put it in the middle of the property, keep it
away from all the boundaries and everything, make it somewhat close to the house, yet not over-
bearing toward the house.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-One thing that you would do with this piece of property, you’re about the only one
acre lot in the one acre zoning on the waterfront, of all of Lake George I think, almost. It’s nice to
have a one acre lot up there. There aren’t many.
MR. MC NALLY-Are you planning any space in the rafters for storage or anything?
MR. WANAMAKER-That’s the only storage space that I’ll end up with, yes. I mean, with
equipment, with three kids and everything, I don’t want to build the garage and clutter the inside of it
with stuff.
MR. MC NALLY-What kind of ceiling height will there be in that storage area?
MR. WANAMAKER-I don’t know. I think it’s about seven feet. The builder that is helping me
design it is here.
BUILDER-Yes, he’s going to have about seven feet. It’s going to be an attic truss system on the top
of it. So it’s going to be a narrow long roof.
MR. STONE-Just a long little bit.
BUILDER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Did you connect the shed to the house?
MR. WANAMAKER-No. He built the house to the shed.
MR. STONE-They built the house to the shed after the fire?
MR. WANAMAKER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll tell you one concern I have, and I know you’re talking about the 10/12 or
12/10 pitch. I don’t know which number is which, I have to admit, but there are a lot of properties
up there, well constructed properties, that don’t need that kind of pitch for the kind of snow fall that
we have, and a lot of your request for a variance is because of the steep pitch that you want, and yet
you have neighbors who obviously don’t have any problem from the snow and they have almost flat
roofs around there, and I’m just wondering if it has to be that particular pitch.
MR. WANAMAKER-Well, there’s a, if you came on to Knox Road and there first house on your left
has a garage very similar to the one that we’re proposing, and I don’t think there’s much difference.
MR. STONE-Yes. I don’t know how that got built. That’s a huge garage. That’s before my time on
the Board. Are you aware of the one with those boats in it?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. STONE-It’s a big garage.
MR. MC NALLY-Does your current home roof have a pitch of 10/12?
MR. WANAMAKER-I think it has more than that. It think it’s 12/12.
BUILDER-The current house is a 12/12, and unfortunately, trying to meet height requirements
putting a garage up there and say putting a 4 or a 5/12 roof on it is going to look totally out of
balance with the rest of the house.
MR. STONE-Except it is pretty far away from the house, though. It’s over almost 100 feet, 80 feet,
90 feet.
MR. THOMAS-Seventy-two to the closest point.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. STONE-To the corner there. Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-And then another 25 to the building.
MR. STONE-It’s pretty far away. Having said that, lets listen.
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone
wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed?
Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence?
MR. BROWN-One from Paul Knox, III, 12 Colvin Avenue, Albany, NY, dated 3/10/99 Attention:
Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, Regarding: Jean & Jim Wanamaker, Jr. application
for relief of height restriction “Ladies and Gentlemen: As I will not be able to attend your meeting
scheduled for Wednesday, March 17 regarding the Wanamakers request for relief of the height
th
restrictions relative to building a new 3 car detached garage , I would like to go on record as NOT
opposing their application. Sincerely, Paul Knox, III”
MR. THOMAS-That does it?
MR. BROWN-That’s it.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-And he is the owner of the adjacent property that he’s trying to develop to the north?
Is that correct, Paul owns the?
MR. BROWN-It doesn’t say.
MR. WANAMAKER-Well, no, he owns the property in back of that. Somebody else owns the lot
next to me.
MR. STONE-Somebody bought that lot?
MR. WANAMAKER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. So, I mean, it was his, he’s the one that subdivided it.
MR. WANAMAKER-I think he originally, or his father owned all that property at one time.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Wanamaker? Okay. All right. We’ll talk about
it. Chuck, you’re first.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m torn both two ways with this. Obviously, somebody put the 16 foot
height restriction in place for a reason, and I hate to see us continue to make exceptions to that. On
the other hand, I am inclined to agree with the applicant and his builder that, given the architecture
of that house, I think the higher pitched roof is going to fit a lot better on that piece of property than
a lower pitch would. So I guess I’m inclined to approve.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, as the guardian of the lake, I shouldn’t say it that way, but initially, I had some
concerns, but when you look at the property, knowing where it is, it is not visible from the lake, and
one of the reasons, at least my interpretation of the Waterfront zoning is to protect the view from
the lake. This will never be seen from the lake because of the hill there going down to the lake. I
would prefer that it not be that high, as Mr. McNulty says, but when you consider everything,
obviously, you need a garage, and you’re entitled to have a garage. I wish it were not 23 feet. I wish
it could be something less, maybe not 16, but something less, but I also hear your need for space, and
when you consider the benefit to you versus the detriment to the community, I have to come out in
favor of the application.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. MC NALLY-This is an isolated, large parcel. It is very well treed. The house has a steep
pitched roof, and I think any garage is going to have to have the same type of roof in order to match
it. I see no effect whatsoever on the neighborhood. I’m for it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan?
MR. STEC-I’m for it, too. Again, the one acre lot size is the exception on the lake, and so I think the
lot size supports, and the lot location, in that we’re not visible from the lake, but the lot will support
a structure that size. Again, I agree with Lew, I’d prefer not to continue to grant variance above the
16 foot limit. However, we’ve granted that in the past, and again, it’s a balancing between what’s in
character for the particular situation, and I think that the architecture of the house and the lot size
make it easy for me to approve a variance in this case.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members with everything they’ve said, and
I’d like to add the fact that there is no building behind this garage which would block any kind of
view, being that high. I notice on the tax map that there is a large vacant area behind there, but it
doesn’t have a tax map number on it. So, I don’t know who owns it or if it’s State owned property
or what, but as far as I can tell, it wouldn’t block any view along with the other things the other
Board members have said. So, I would go along with this application. Having said that, I would ask
for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1999 JIM, JR. & JEAN
WANAMAKER, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel
Stec:
30 Knox Road. The applicant proposes construction of a three car garage and seeks relief from the
height requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests seven feet of height relief from the 16 foot
maximum accessory structure height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. The applicant
proposes a 23 foot tall structure. The benefit to the applicant would be the applicant would be
permitted to construct and utilize the proposed structure. Feasible alternatives would include a
shorter building. The relief is moderate to substantial, given the seven foot relief from the 16 foot
requirement. However, the effects on the neighborhood are going to be probably minimal as the
result of this action, and while the difficulty may be interpreted as being self-created, the benefit to
the applicant seems to far outweigh any detriment to the neighboring area. So, on that basis, I move
that we approve this variance.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. WANAMAKER-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1999 TYPE II HC-1A EVERGREEN BANK, N.A. OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF QUAKER ROAD AND EVERTS
AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO THREE
PARCELS (FORMER QUEENSBURY MOTORS PROPERTY) AND REQUESTS
RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/99 CROSS REF. SUB. 2-1999 SKETCH/PRELIMINARY
PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE: RES. NO. 483, 98 TOWN BOARD TAX MAP NO.
108-1-31, 32, 33.1 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-33.2, 34, 35, 38 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-27, 28 LOT
SIZE: 12.84 ACRES SECTION 179-23
JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-1999, Evergreen Bank, N.A., Meeting Date: March 17, 1999
“Project Location: SE corner of Quaker Rd. and Everts Ave. Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes subdivision of the existing parcels and requests relief from the minimum lot
width requirement. Relief Required: Applicant requests 25 feet of relief from the 150 foot
minimum lot width requirement of the HC-1A zone, § 179-23. Criteria for considering an Area
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant
would be able to create the desired lots in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: A
feasible alternative may be lot line reconfiguration. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: 25 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as
moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Modest to significant effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The
difficulty can be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.): P3-98 – Petition for Zone Change – res. 11/24/98 Staff comments: Minimal to moderate
impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While lot 3 could be created by combining two
non-conforming lots via boundary line agreement, lot 2 is proposing to create a non-conforming lot
from two conforming lots. Accessibility and the ability of the proposed lots to support future
development may be considered. Approval conditioned upon Subdivision and Site Plan Review may
be considered. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. BROWN-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 15 March 1999
Project Name: Evergreen Bank, N.A. Owner: Same ID #: QBY-AV-15-1999 County Project
Number: March 99-21 Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of property into
three parcels (former Queensbury Motors property) The existing building on the site would be
located on separate parcels for separate sale and separate uses. Relief is sought from width
requirements. Staff Notes: A copy of the application’s site drawing is included with the summaries.
The applicant is basically requesting to create three lots, one with a 63 foot frontage, one with 125
feet of frontage and one with 350 feet of frontage to accommodate the existing structures.
Irrespective of the fact that the buildings exist, Staff is not in favor of this application at this point in
time because it would create the need for additional variances for side yard setbacks at a future date,
due to inadequate lot width for commercial type uses. There will also be an increase in signage and
curb cuts necessary for these three separate parcels to access Quaker Road. Staff therefore is
recommending discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approval” Signed Terry M.
Ross, Warren County Planning Board
MR. THOMAS-What did they say, approval?
MR. BROWN-Approval.
MR. STONE-They were concerned, but they recommend approval?
MR. BROWN-Basically, the Staff Notes section isn’t really part of their meeting. That’s not the
discussion at the meeting.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-That’s their Staff’s recommendation.
MR. STONE-Their Staff was against it. The Planning Board.
MR. BROWN-Right, they recommended discussion. Therefore, throughout the discussion, they
came to an approval. It’s kind of confusing, the way they do it.
MR. THOMAS-It is. Mr. Lapper, you’re up again.
MR. LAPPER-And with Matt Steves who did a lot of the design on the site plan. Just to answer that
issue, when Wayne LaMoth at the County indicated before the meeting that they had these concerns,
we got ourselves in gear and did the site design for the middle lot because we realized that you would
have the same kind of issues, as to what the lot was going to look like, to justify why we’re asking for
the 25 foot reduction in width, and when we went through the site plan with the County, they were
pleased, and we hope you will be, too, when we get there. Just to back up for a second, what we
have to begin with is what we consider objectively to be a tired 1960’s development which is
pavement all the way out, and actually into the County right-of-way on Quaker Road. Everything
that you see from the road is pavement. It’s all automotive. The property has been for sale for a
while. There was a lot of interest, most of it was toward a big box use, and there were rumors that
that’s what might have gone on the site, which would have really maxed out, taken everything down
and really maxed it out, and it seemed like it was going to be pretty hard to fit that on the site, and
ultimately three separate purchasers came along, each to purchase one of the three buildings on the
site, one of the three commercial buildings. It would probably make sense, to start off, to have Matt
show you who’s buying what.
MR. STEVES-The larger lot here, which would be Lot One, it would be the area that would be
proposed to be purchased by Hewitt’s Garden Center. Lot Two, which is the lot in question as far as
the 25 foot request for the variance, it was the former auto body shop at Queensbury Motors, and
that is proposed to be purchased by Darren Masery.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. LAPPER-Darren Mansery, Northway Car Care.
MR. STEVES-Northway Car Care. He currently is on Miller Hill.
MR. LAPPER-Next to the Subway.
MR. STONE-Okay, yes.
MR. STEVES-And the parcel three or Lot 3 as shown on the map, which was the old used car sales
lot, is proposed to be purchased by Mac Hayden. He does auto detailing. So you’re basically staying
in consistency with what the use was.
MR. STONE-So Hewitt’s is taking from the corner of Everts and Quaker all the way back to the
back, the south property line?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but the parcel in the back, right where Matt’s hand is, we didn’t ask the Town to
re-zone that. We came in for a re-zoning last fall, before we had contracts, knowing or anticipating
that in order to sell the property, that it was all going to have to be re-zoned to commercial. We
didn’t ask for the parcel in the back to be re-zoned because that would serve as a buffer between the
residential zone and the new commercial. It also has that long dog leg piece, is what I’m referring to,
and that has some wetlands on it as well. So it just seemed like a good buffer. So that’s still
residential. That’s always going to remain as a buffer, regardless of what gets built on the big parcel.
MR. STONE-That’s east of those properties on Everts?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-I didn’t notice that was.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s part of the 12 acre parcel, but that’s not part of the re-development.
That’s just going to sit there. So what Hewitt’s is proposing, they’re going to substantially renovate
the showroom building and we’re going to come in next month with a site plan for them, which is
not going to require any variances, which will include removal of pavement along Quaker Road and
Everts, increasing the landscaping, and building a separate, attached greenhouse building that would
be next to the showroom, and the showroom’s going to have substantial interior and exterior
changes. So that if anyone’s familiar with the Hewitt’s on Route 9 in Wilton, that’s going to be a very
similar operation, and that’s a very nice facility. This will just be a much softer use because I mean
what they display is growing plants, but also they’ll do a nice job of landscaping it and the Planning
Board won’t let us get done until we prove that. The end lot, if we can jump to the lot that’s the
farthest east, that’s not really part of a subdivision, per se, because that was a prior nonconforming
lot, which in fact the lot line right now goes through the building, and what Matt did was expand
that, so that it’s much larger than it was by adding all that in the back, but it still, it makes it less
nonconforming. It still does not meet the zone requirements of an acre, but we can do that with a
boundary line adjustment because we’re not creating an additional lot, because that is already a lot,
and in fact we’re reducing the number of lots, because this whole parcel has nine, and we’re going to
be creating three when we’re done. So that can be done without subdivision approval, with a
boundary line adjustment, and no changes are proposed for that building, and after consulting with
Craig and Chris, we’re not going to be applying for site plan approval for that lot, because there are
no changes to that lot whatsoever.
MR. STONE-So the 63 feet, which is nonconforming, was and still will be?
MR. LAPPER-But it’s at 63 on the width, but the lot itself was around a quarter acre, that the
building is, and now it’s going to be .63 acres. Is that the right number?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Yes, .63.
MR. LAPPER-So that’s going to be a larger lot, still nonconforming, in terms of area and width and
setbacks, but it’s less nonconforming because it’s a bigger lot with bigger setbacks in the back. With
that said, after consulting a number of times with Planning Staff, we’ve proposed a change, relevant
to some of the discussions you’ve had earlier tonight, to re-locate the curb cut which is all within the
County right-of-way here, to re-locate the curb cut in front of those two automotive uses. Right now
the curb cut is all the way on the east and we’re going to re-locate it so it’s going to be the center, so
it’ll function better for those two uses, and most importantly, I guess this is a good time to jump into
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
the site plan for the middle use, we’re proposing to take out a lot of pavement. It’ll require County
DPW permit, but we don’t see any reason why we won’t get it, to substantially vegetate along Quaker
Road. Right now that’s all pavement, except for the little island within the right-of-way. What Matt
was able to do there was to make that conforming for green space, which is 30%. Right now it has
zero on the lot, to bring that to 30%, and that’s without counting all the additional green space that
you’re looking at within the County right-of-way. So that’s going to make a major difference. It will
be landscaped, and although we don’t have the site plan yet for the Hewitt’s, where the trees are, that
will be the center of an island which will be constructed within the two uses, and that’s going to
soften it up considerably from the sea of asphalt that’s there now.
MR. STONE-That’s not an opening between?
MR. LAPPER-That is an opening which we don’t plan to build, but under that provision in the Code
that says that commercial uses should be linked. We're going to provide for it with the cross
easements on both properties. Right now, the two automotive uses will have reciprocal easement,
because if you just look, because of the proximity of those buildings to each other, both of them
have garage bays that open into that middle area, and you can’t really use it unless you have cross
easements. That has to function together. So cars will be able to move between the two sites. The
entrance will be the same, and there’ll be a cross easement area in the middle, but it doesn’t seem
appropriate to link a garden use with an automotive use. So we’ll show it, in the future, if the use
becomes appropriate, the Planning Board can say, go and open it up. They’ll show it with dotted
lines on the site plan, but we’re not proposing to actually connect those two.
MR. STONE-Somebody wanting to, I’m jumping, but somebody wanting to get access to the
detailing shop, looking at the arrows you have there, on the map in front of me, are they going to the
west of the body shop, or are they going to come down that alley between the two, which will have?
MR. LAPPER-They’ll come down the alley.
MR. STONE-They will?
MR. LAPPER-Because that has a showroom, right in front. So that would be.
MR. STEVES-I’ll clarify the arrows. What they are doing is pointing to the location of the opening.
MR. LAPPER-There’s one issue that came up when we met with Craig and Chris this week. On the
middle lot, the way we designed that lot, and first of all, the justification for the variance, the reason
why we made it a one acre parcel that’s 125 feet wide rather than 150 feet wide is because it is
anticipated that the garden center use is going to be a much more intensive use, in terms of traffic. If
you go to any of these garden centers on a Saturday in May, June, July, it’s pretty busy. Fortunately,
that’s not the peak hour for the road, which is a.m./p.m. on weekdays, but we wanted to have both
the lot size for the parking for access, for storage, stockpile of plant materials, these two car uses are
just not going to require that much land. So we made this one acre. We were able to make it
conforming in all respects, except for one that we’ll talk about, but it’s just not necessary. To throw
the extra pavement in, to make that wider is just not necessary, and it is necessary for the Hewitt’s
because of the size of the operation, and the additional visitors that they’re going to have compared
to the automotive. What we determined that we had missed on the first go around when we met
with the Town is that the proposed owner of the middle site is, that building is pretty unattractive if
you look at that from the road. It’s a concrete block wall. It has bays, because that was an ancillary
building for the automotive dealership. They didn’t have to have a waiting area, any kind of
customer area, because that was all done in the showroom building. So that’s pretty plain and
unattractive looking. What the new owner is planning is to build a waiting area in the front.
MR. STEVES-Twenty-four by twenty-four off the front.
MR. STONE-That’s new construction?
MR. LAPPER-That would be new construction to clean it up. That would require a variance, an
Area Variance, because the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone says that you have to be 75 feet back for
buildings, and that would be about 50 foot.
MR. STEVES-That would be seven feet.
MR. LAPPER-To build that. So this is not contingent upon that. If this Board, we will have to,
when we apply for site plan for both parcels, we’ll also apply for an Area Variance for that addition
next month, which we’re not going to argue tonight, and if the Board denies it, that will still be
purchased, it can be put in the back. It just won’t be as practical, but the other justification for that is
just visually, it doesn’t look attractive now with this concrete block wall, and to put the showroom
with some glass and to do a nice job architecturally, will soften that up and make that look more
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
attractive, and part of the justification for that is the same as this on that whole parcel, is that by
adding all this green space and the vegetation, you’re really cleaning up a tired old use, and an existing
building that anyone has the right to just go in and use now as a pre-existing building.
MR. STEVES-That would be a waiting room, glass, just an area for the customers to sit and read,
just an actual entrance to the auto repair shop. So it would be a glass front waiting area, nicely
decorated up in the front, landscaping, nice walk around it.
MR. LAPPER-But this is in no way contingent on that. If you decide that we don’t meet the
standards for the Area Variance for that, then that can be built in the back. It can be, something else
can be done.
MR. STONE-How wide is the right-of-way of Quaker Road?
MR. LAPPER-It’s huge.
MR. STEVES-I can get my scale out. If you look at Quaker Road, this is the actual location of the
entrance and drive lanes, and this is a five lane road in here. So you can see that the width of the five
lane road of the asphalt, and then you have about two-thirds of the width of the asphalt and the area
between the edge of the road and the property line.
MR. STONE-It goes to the other side, too?
MR. STEVES-Yes, it does.
MR. STONE-Wow.
MR. LAPPER-So in terms of that 75 feet, the reason that it’s there is so that Quaker Road could be
expanded, widened in the future. That could be done without getting anywhere near the front
property line. Hopefully that’ll never happen.
MR. STEVES-But as you can see, with the location of this and the location of the plaza, continuing
to the east, and the old showroom to the west, as far as where the, consistently the buildings are in
that zone that exists.
MR. LAPPER-The other thing that we didn’t mention, as part of the site plan, is that the curb cut
that’s right in front of the showroom building, which will be the garden center, is going to be
eliminated. So we’re going to be reducing the number of curb cuts, in addition to moving this one
over so it’s consolidated between the two. The garden center is only going to have one curb cut on
Quaker Road. Right now there are two curb cuts on Quaker Road. That site would function with an
ingress/egress on Everts and one on Quaker, so that cars can just go through, but we’ll have more
on that next month, and when we come back to talk about the middle parcel, we’ll have the site plan
just to use descriptively for the garden center as well.
MR. THOMAS-While you’re talking about that middle parcel there, coming back next month for a
possible variance for that addition, what about the sign?
MR. LAPPER-We talked about the sign, and we’ve shown the sign.
MR. STEVES-We show the sign, as far as the requirements of the Town, it requires a 15 foot
setback. There’s no problem meeting that, and as far as the sign requirements of the Town, I believe
that what the client is proposing falls in line with what’s allowed by the Queensbury Town Code.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Just in case.
MR. LAPPER-I've talked to the Hewitt’s owner, and we’ve talked to the middle parcel owner about
signs, and it does not appear, I know that will disappoint you, with any Sign Variances. They would
each have one pylon and one façade sign per Code, and that seems to be fine because there’s good
visibility on Quaker.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for either one of these gentlemen? None?
MR. STONE-I think you’ve done a masterful job, one, of selling the three properties. I think that’s
great for the Town because obviously, it has been sitting there now for upwards of a year, and I think
it’s great. They’re going to be viable businesses in there, and obviously, I know we have a competitor
in the garden business over here sitting here, but they always are attractive, and in terms of visibility
for people, it’s very nice to have something like that. What it does for competition, Harry, that’s
your problem.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. THOMAS-All right. If no one has any questions for either one of these gentlemen, 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
SANDRA CLARK
MS. CLARK-My name is Sandra Clark, and I’m at 44 Everts Avenue in Queensbury. I’m not
opposed, so you don’t give anybody a chance to be on the fence. I’m not opposed. I think it’s
wonderful to develop some of these empty lots and stuff. I just want to make a comment on the fact
that, my concern is we are just on the other side of the wetland, okay. I never knew that you re-
zoned these other two parcels up toward the end of Everts, of which we lived on. So I guess my
comment is, I’m just concerned that when things are being changed, that we’re not adequately
notified. So I guess we need to keep our eye on it. I doubt that you’re going to be able to change the
wetlands, hopefully, because I kind of like having that wooded area next to my house.
MR. THOMAS-No, you can’t touch those.
MS. CLARK-I think it’s great that this parcel is being developed and as they say the greenerys and
things are wonderful, but I would just like to make the comment that it’s too bad we weren’t notified
that it was re-zoned.
MR. THOMAS-I didn’t know it was re-zoned until I read it in the paper. We don’t do the re-zoning.
The Town Board does it.
MS. CLARK-The Town Board does that, and the notification to the people that live in the area is?
MR. STONE-Five hundred feet.
MS. CLARK-Five hundred feet.
MR. THOMAS-I think they do that by advertisement in the newspaper.
MR. BROWN-There’s absolutely advertisements in the newspaper, several.
MR. THOMAS-But I don’t think they send out notification on those.
MS. CLARK-Well, it’s a learning experience for me this evening.
MR. STONE-The wetlands on the west side of Everts, is that what you’re? Where are the wetlands,
the west side?
MS. CLARK-The west side is right. That whole parcel is wetlands, and we’re just on the opposite
side of it.
MR. STONE-That whole parcel is wetlands.
MS. CLARK-And it’s very beautiful. Because it’s all trees. That was my only comment, is that I’m
not opposed to it, and I’m not either way. I’m just saying that I think it’s fine that something’s going
to come in there and those homes that are there are letting to be run down anyway. So I think it’s
nice that something’s going to be done, but it’s so strange the way it operates. Do you know what
I’m saying?
MR. THOMAS-I hear what you’re saying.
MS. CLARK-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-What kind of wetlands are those, State or Federal?
MR. BROWN-State, I would think, yes, DEC.
MR. STONE-So where is 44, where is she?
MR. THOMAS-She’s over here.
MR. LAPPER-I have a wetlands map that we presented to the Town Board, as part of the re-zoning,
that I can show you.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. STONE-Are you willing to stipulate that that doesn’t get built on?
MR. THOMAS-He’s going to jail if it does.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s another thing. It doesn’t show any wetlands.
MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t have to on ours.
MR. STONE-This property, while you’re looking there, Matt, this property went surrounded the
Myhrberg property and all the other property between Everts and this thing?
MR. STEVES-Yes. All the way down to the south end here.
MR. STONE-All the way down to the south end. Not surrounded, but I mean, bordered on all of
those.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. It bordered on Everts Avenue here, on the south end, wrapped
around the south end and wrapped around the east side of the property, back to the point which is in
the back of Framis Development, which is that plaza.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-This is the State wetlands, and this whole dog leg piece here is the residential parcel.
This is all treed.
MR. STONE-This is still going to be residence?
MR. LAPPER-It’s still residential. It didn’t get changed. It didn’t get requested to get changed.
MR. STONE-Did this, this is your property.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-So Myhrberg now changed to go along with this property.
MR. LAPPER-I know that he requested that.
MR. STONE-He did that Monday night.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, and he’s here tonight also.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-The old zone line was here.
MR. MC NALLY-And what was that property re-zoned?
MR. LAPPER-This was residential. It was re-zoned to Highway Commercial One Acre. The same
as the front.
MR. THOMAS-And this one was here?
MR. STONE-Monday night it was.
MR. THOMAS-It was. Okay. So if he builds anything on here, he’s got a setback plus, because this
is still residential, plus the buffer.
MR. LAPPER-Right. He owns this also.
MR. THOMAS-He owns that also.
MR. LAPPER-The justification for the re-zoning was that everything around here was, Duke
Concrete and everything is all commercial or industrial.
MR. THOMAS-Right. You don’t have to worry about buffers, but he does if he does anything in
here.
MR. STONE-It wasn’t mentioned to him the other night.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, 50 foot plus the setback.
MR. STONE-It’s 105.
MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone else that would like to speak either for or against this proposal? Is
there any correspondence?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Steves or Mr. Lapper? If not, lets talk about it. We're
back to Lew.
MR. STONE-I think, as I stated, I think the promise that, or the future of this property as depicted
by the applicant or the applicant’s representative, at least, certainly is a very promising one, in terms
of the owner and the new owners and the community, and considering it’s location and the fact that
it is Highway Commercial, I have really no problem with this particular lot. The only thing that I
would wonder, this residual piece will be residential, so there’s nothing that can be done anyway, so
we don’t have to stipulate anything on that. I have, I think it’s a, I’m very pleased that this is going
the way it looks like it’s going. I think it’s great.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. I don’t think the
effects on the neighborhood are going to be detrimental. It will be a positive benefit. The feasible
alternatives Jonathan has discussed with us, and I think that this is an acceptable course that they’ve
chosen. So I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m generally in favor. I am bothered some by the idea of granting relief for that
25 feet, because it doesn’t strike me that that’s a significant amount of land, but what it could be
pulled off the bigger piece and give us a conforming lot there, especially thinking ahead to some time
when the new owner decides they want to sell that piece of property. It would be nice to have that
be a conforming lot, instead of a nonconforming lot. So I guess I’m wavering at the moment, which
way to go, and that’s the only reason.
MR. THOMAS-All right? Dan?
MR. STEC-Well, I’m sorry I missed the previous discussion. I thank the Board, though. I’m not
feeling quite 100% tonight. I caught the tail end of what Chuck was saying, and I share a little bit of
the concerns he does. Again, in light of the curb cut discussion that we had earlier tonight on
Quaker Road as well, but I really think that the fewer, or the reduction in curb cuts of this overall
proposal makes it easier for me to be in favor of this proposal. However, I realize that the variance
travels, you know, will outlast any curb cuts, and this could change a few years from now, if
ownership changes or whatnot, but again, when I try to balance the benefit to the applicant, the
benefit to the neighborhood, I think that they outweigh my concern for the 25 feet variance, and the
problem that that might pose with future access to Quaker Road. So I’m in favor of the proposal.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. I think this is about the best
proposal they could come up with considering what’s there, and as far as Chuck was talking about
the changing any kind of access, or if the middle lot is sold. I think that it’s pretty well established
where the entrance and the exit is going to be by those grass islands that are there, and if somebody’s
going to buy that, I think they’re going to buy it for the way it is. I don’t think they’re going to want
to go through there and change that, especially along that Quaker Road corridor. It’s nice to see that
three businesses are going to come in there, and so that it isn’t going to stand empty for a long time,
like some other pieces of property in the Town have been. Like I said, to repeat myself that I think
this is a very good idea. It’s a good plan, and I think we should approve it. Having said that, I’ll ask
for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1999 EVERGREEN BANK, N.A.,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
Southeast corner of Quaker Road and Everts Avenue. The applicant proposes subdivision of the
existing parcels and requests relief for one created lot from the minimum lot width requirement.
Specifically, the applicant requests 25 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum lot width requirement
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
of the HC-1A zone, 179-23, that is 150 foot on Quaker Road, asking instead for 125 foot. The
benefit to the applicant would be that they would be able to create the desired lot in the preferred
configuration. Obviously, there is a feasible alternative, in that the lot might be made wider by taking
more land from the big 11 acre parcel remaining. That’s a feasible alternative. In considering this
request, it does not appear that 25 foot of relief from the 150 foot minimum requirement is more
than moderate, it’s less than moderate, when we consider the fact that there will be one curb cut for
the two lots that are being created at the easterly end of this property, namely, the one lot in question
for which were granting relief, plus the next easterly lot, they will have one curb cut on Quaker Road.
In considering the effect of this application on the neighborhood, we do not believe that there will be
a significant effect on the neighborhood as a result of this action, and while this difficulty is self-
created, it is self-created to the extent that the applicant is desiring to make as part of this application
three lots, three new businesses for the Town of Queensbury. Therefore, the benefit to the
community and the benefit to the applicant are both on the positive side.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr.. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A T.L. CANNON CORP.
OWNER: AFTAB BHATTI ECONO LODGE PROPERTY, AVIATION ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES OFF PREMISES SIGN TO ADVERTISE APPLEBEE’S
RESTAURANT AND LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE AND SEEKS
RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/99
CROSS REF. OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 1-99 TAX MAP NO. 72-5-13 LOT SIZE: 1
ACRE SECTION 140
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 16-1999, T.L. Cannon Corp., Meeting Date: March 17, 1999
“Project Location: Econo Lodge, Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of an Off Premises Directional Sign and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance.
Relief Requested: Applicant requests relief for a second free standing sign and for 14 feet of relief
from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance, § 140-6,B.(3),(c) and § 140-
6B.(2)(a). Off premises directional signs may be erected in any zone…subject to the approval of the
Town Planning Board. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a sign to
advertise and provide direction to their establishments. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include relocation of the sign on the property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative
to the Ordinance?: 14 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement along with the request for a
second freestanding sign on the same property may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SV22-90 –
res. 3/28/90 – 70 sf freestanding sign at a 5 foot setback SP66-89 – res. 12/19/89 – 17 additional
motel rooms AV136-89 – res. 11/15/89 – permeability relief AV86-89 – res. 7/26/89 – density and
setback relief Variance 1241 – res. 4/22/87 – 12 additional units Variance 1078 – res. 6/18/86 –
setback relief for swimming pool Variance 1045 – res. 12/18/85 – setback relief for motel
expansion Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. A
second, illuminated, permanent freestanding sign at a 1 foot setback from the property line doubles
the intensity of the signs on a property in an already “sign congested” area. The benefits of the
additional advertisement and directions must be weighed against the visual impacts to the area.
SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. BROWN-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form T.L. Cannon
Corp. ID #: QBYSV1699 County Project Number: March 99-26 Project Description: Applicant
proposes to install a 20 square foot sign to direct public to Applebee’s Restaurant and Lowe’s Home
Improvement Warehouse and seeks setback relief for a freestanding sign and also needs Planning
Board approval for an Off Premises sign. Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing to install a sign
which requires setback relief for a freestanding sign and also the fact that Off Premises signs are not
allowed by the Queensbury Sign Ordinance. The Board has a historical precedent established for
dealing with signs in the Town of Queensbury that do not conform with the Ordinance. If that
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
precedent is upheld, then agenda item number 25 would also be denied. Therefore, Staff is
recommending discussion for both items 25 and 26. County Planning Board Recommendation:
Denial” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board.
MR. LAPPER-Craig, could I trouble you to read my letter?
MR. BROWN-Absolutely. It’s a letter from Jonathan Lapper, dated 23 February 1999 to Craig
MacEwan, Chairman of the Planning Board, and Chris Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board, regarding
T.L. Cannon Corp. request for Off Premises Sign for Applebee’s., Lowe’s Plaza to be located at the
Econo Lodge property, 543 Aviation Road “Gentlemen: On behalf of T. L. Cannon Corp., the
franchisee and operator of the new Applebee’s restaurant located in the Lowe’s Plaza on Quaker
Road, I am hereby applying for planning board approval of an off-premises sign which requires an
area variance from the zoning board of appeals. Pursuant to Section 140-60(B)(5) of the Town sign
code, off-premises signs are permitted if approved by the town planning board. The Applebee’s
restaurant is located in a commercial section of the Town which is not readily apparent to visitors
entering the Town at Exit 19. Upon arrival it appears that the commercial center of the Town is
limited to Aviation Road and Route 9. The purpose of this off-premises sign is to indicate to visitors
that the commercial corridor extends east on Quaker Road. As such, the proposed sign would assist
other commercial businesses in the Bay Road, Quaker Road commercial area and would serve to
disburse traffic from the more congested Aviation Road, Route 9 area. In accordance with Section
140-6(B)(5)(a) of the sign code, the proposed sign is twenty square feet in size which is allowed
because it includes two logos, “Applebee’s” and Lowe’s”. As indicated on the site plan, the
proposed location of the sign does not meet the required fifteen foot property setback. The sign is
proposed to be located within the existing landscaped planter on the southeastern corner of the
Econo Lodge property. Although the proposed location is immediately adjacent to the property line,
the intended purpose of the sign code is met because this location is actually 60 feet from Aviation
Road. The landscaped area between the sign and Aviation Road is owned by the Town of
Queensbury as the result of the relocation of Aviation Road at the time that the Aviation Mall was
constructed. There is no location on the Econo Lodge property which meets the fifteen foot setback
and is reasonably visible from the travel corridor. Moreover, there is no other suitable property in
the vicinity of the Exit 19 area which can accommodate the sign. I've enclosed an original and nine
copies of the site plan application, an original and nine copies of the area variance application,
eighteen copies of a short environmental assessment form, eighteen copies of the site plan, eighteen
copies of the drawing and two checks to cover the application fees. Please place this matter on your
respective agendas for the March meetings. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper”
MR. THOMAS-Before we get started, since Warren County denied this, we need a super majority.
MR. LAPPER-I am expecting to request that we make our presentation, open the public hearing,
keep the public hearing open, and adjourn this until next month when hopefully there will be a full
Board, because we would need five votes on this.
MR. THOMAS-All right.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of Warren County, what was interesting, as they mentioned in their Staff
Notes, they looked at the two approvals separately, and they in fact, although it’s probably not in
those notes, they approved the granting of the off-premises sign by the Planning Board, but they
denied the location, which is what we’re here to talk about tonight, because they gave the standard
answer which you usually like, which is, don’t have any variances from the Queensbury sign code. So
they said they didn’t have any problem with the off-premises sign. They just didn’t want to grant the
variance for the location. To begin with, with me tonight is John Perry, who’s the Vice President of
Operations for T.L. Cannon, for all of their 22 stores in New York State. He came from Buffalo to
be here tonight to make this presentation with me, which is an indication of how important they feel
it is to some kind of signage at Exit 19. As my cover letter indicated, where we’re coming from on
this, we understand the background with the Town, and your pre-disposition against any additional
signs, but in this case, we’re trying to design the smallest sign that’s visible, so that people getting off
at Exit 19 won’t think that their only options are just what they find when they get off the highway,
and this is intended to just get people down Quaker Road, which will open their eyes to other
businesses, other restaurants as well, but just to disburse traffic, which I think is legitimate. If you are
traveling from Montreal to Albany or New York, all you’re going to see it what’s right there, and
unfortunately, for technical reasons, this did not qualify for one of those signs on the Northway,
having something to do with giving preference to restaurants that serve three meals a day, in terms of
those little logos, which would be lovely if that was available, that you can apply to DOT for, but this
did not meet the standards. So we looked at this area and tried to find something that would have a
minimal impact on the neighborhood but that would be visible, and because of, the only thing that
we’re really here to talk about tonight is not whether or not an off-premises sign should be granted,
because that’s the Planning Board’s determination, but just if the Planning Board’s going to grant it,
where it should be located, and in terms of that specific inquiry, because we have this 40 to 60 foot
strip of (lost words) the old right-of-way from Old Aviation Road. By putting this right on the edge
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
of the property line, it’s just a place where it’s still visible, where it still makes sense to put a sign
that’s not going to be a traffic hazard because people can’t see it. I mean, this could be put back into
the parking lot, if the Econo Lodge could find a place, and we could landscape something around it.
It’s just that that would be that much further from the travel corridor. So it doesn’t make sense. So
all I’m saying is that, in terms of the benefit to the applicant and the burden on the neighborhood,
that that, the 15 feet doesn’t do anything, because that’s so far, that’s not an added benefit. If you
say, okay, go to the Planning Board, but with the location 15 feet or 14 feet back, that just doesn’t
help the neighborhood by moving it back, and whether or not the Planning Board grants it this size,
this configuration, I mean, that’s going to the their issue in terms of the request for the off-premises
sign, but in terms of the location, my argument is that it just doesn’t help the neighborhood by
requiring us to move it back 14 feet. I’d just like John to go on record talking about why he thinks
this sign is important to them.
JOHN PERRY
MR. PERRY-As Jon has mentioned, we typically like to direct traffic off major freeways. This
option wasn’t available to us when we located at the Lowe’s Plaza. We felt Lowe’s, in itself, would be
a traffic generator, which obviously it has been for the area, but a good part of our business is
sustained not only by the local neighborhood, but from either pass through business or obviously
business off the highway, and we’ve explored a number of options, and even though business has
been steady with the neighborhood business, we like to have an additional directional to let people
know where we are, where in fact we are off the beaten path a bit, and if you didn’t know the area, it
wouldn’t be easily found without some additional help. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Why did you say the State would not allow it or?
MR. PERRY-First of all, there’s no room on the signs. They’re taken.
MR. STONE-I noticed that, yes.
MR. PERRY-Secondly, they, in order of priority, they request three meals a day, breakfast, lunch,
dinner, and we don’t open for breakfast. So unless there’s an open spot, we typically don’t get first
shot. We have been successful in some areas, but in this area, not.
MR. LAPPER-The only other point I’d like to make is just that, in terms of the controversial
proposal next door, they want their restaurant to be right there for just that reason, to capture the
traffic for people that come off the highway. This company elected to build their restaurant in a
place that was, perhaps, more appropriate in terms of congestion, in terms of the impact of the
restaurant. So they’re here asking for a small sign to just tell people where to find it, which is a lot
different then changing the character of that area by building a restaurant right there.
MR. MC NALLY-Is this an illuminated sign?
MR. LAPPER-It would be internally illuminated.
MR. MC NALLY-And Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill and Bar is the name of the restaurant, as
opposed to just Applebee’s?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Now, let me just ask a question, because in your argument, you say there are two
businesses mentioned. What if this plaza were called Queensbury Plaza? Would you still say that
was two businesses?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. STONE-I’m not sure what Lowe’s means to people, I mean, whether it’s two. That’s just a
question I have. I've got to think about that. I mean, you think it entitles you to 20 feet because it
mentions Lowe’s, but it doesn’t say Lowe’s store, it says Lowe’s Plaza.
MR. LAPPER-That Lowe’s will be their logo, because what the Town sign code says is that per logo,
you get 10 square feet.
MR. STONE-Per establishment it says.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you for correcting me. This was arrived at by one of the
representatives from T.L. Cannon, Applebee’s. Meeting with Craig and going over that section, in
terms of a 10 square foot sign was just deemed so small that at any distance, it’s just not visible. So
20 square feet was the minimum that you could see from the travel corridor without causing an
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
accident by having to stare at it, and the way to do that was to include the word “Lowe’s”. So the
reason to include the word “Lowe’s” was to get this to 20 square feet. That was on purpose, to
comply with the Code, and that will be the Lowe’s with the blue background, just around their
letters, the blue background, the white lettering will be how the Lowe’s reads. So people will see it as
Lowe’s, the store.
MR. STONE-Obviously, you didn’t communicate this to the sign corporation, to Hanley.
MR. LAPPER-That didn’t get communicated, yes, but that will get changed.
MR. STEC-An obvious concern a lot of people have may have is what happens when we say okay,
and then every other business down Quaker Road and Bay Road says, I want to put a sign up
between Exit 19 and the Mall?
MR. LAPPER-Well, one answer to that is that the Planning Board still has to grant approval in
appropriate cases, and that’s not saying that they will.
MR. STONE-Let me ask you a question as a lawyer, Jon, more familiar with case law than I am.
How has this particular paragraph been interpreted, “Signs for the convenience of the general public
and for the purpose of directing persons to a business activity….”, in terms of distance?
MR. LAPPER-I would answer that by pointing out those signs that I’m aware of in this Town that’s
been granted, in terms of just the history of that provision, and I know that there’s one for Hiland
Park, over by Martha’s, right at the entrance on Round Pond Road. There’s one for the Great
Escape on the Pyramid property. There’s one for Regency Park along Quaker Road at
Meadowbrook. Mead’s has one at the corner of Ridge and Quaker because they’re also not visible
from.
MR. STONE-All right, but Mead’s is 100 feet, 200 feet.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-I’m only asking in terms of distance, because obviously, I think the question that was
raised here, you know, what do you open when you say, you can put something directing someone a
mile and a half? That’s a long way, to say, have faith, baby, go. We're down here a mile and a half.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I mean, I can tell you that I've gotten off at highway exits with that little sign
and had to travel many miles to get to.
MR. STONE-And in some states they put the mileage, in Pennsylvania, for example.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but in terms of the mile and a half, I think that that’s the Planning Board’s
inquiry, and that’s relevant, but it depends on the circumstances, and our goal here is to let people
know that there’s this other commercial section. I think that The Great Escape sign is because when
everyone comes down Aviation Road, I mean it’s many miles up Route 9, but they want to tell them
when to make a left. So I think it depends upon the situation.
MR. STONE-One could argue, Jon, that people know they’re going to The Great Escape and you’re
helping them get to where they know they’re going, and that’s very different than saying, there’s a
restaurant down here, folks. You don’t know about us, but we’re going to tell you where it is.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I would argue that it’s more in our case, I mean, in terms of the nature and
reason for signage, to capture people.
MR. STONE-I understand your argument, but I’m saying Great Escape. If I’m coming up here to
Queensbury, I want to go to Great Escape, I need help to get there because I know that’s where I’m
going. Just philosophical.
MR. LAPPER-I think these are all relevant and not philosophical, relevant issues, but I think that
these are relevant to whether the Planning Board thinks that it’s appropriate to grant an off-premises
sign and that your inquiry is more limited, in terms of, should it be one foot from the property line or
fifteen feet from the property line.
MR. STONE-You’re right, Jon, but if I, and I don’t know where I stand, but if I don’t like this idea, I
have the opportunity of saying no in terms of a variance, and therefore I need to know, to help me
make a determination for the variance, as much as I can find out.
MR. LAPPER-I agree with that, but you saying no doesn’t mean that we can’t have an off-premises
sign. It means we go to the Planning Board saying, okay, we’re going to move it 15, 14 feet back, and
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
re-work the landscaping on the lot. I don’t think that it makes it a better sign. I think it makes it a
worse sign, but it’s still, if the Planning Board said that it’s appropriate for these other reasons, to put
a sign at Exit 19 to get people down there.
MR. STONE-Maybe the applicant says, well, it’s not worth it to me if people can’t see it. As I say, I
want to hear, certainly the public has stayed very long, and I want to hear what they have to say. So I
will shut up until next month.
MR. LAPPER-As will I.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions? 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
BOB WHIPPLE
MR. WHIPPLE-Hi. My name is Bob Whipple, and as a business owner on Quaker Road, a couple
of miles further east than they are, but having been there a long, long time, I’d like to go on the
record opposing any off property signage. Because I do think you’re opening up a terrible can of
worms. If you’re not familiar, I run Livingston’s on the corner of Quaker and Dix, wide open to K-
Mart. They wanted a lot of signs. I sat in front of the sign board myself, having to move a sign
that’s been there forever, because the road got changed, having to meet all these other little things,
and, you know, my business has been better every year. I was there long before Lowe’s, and I think if
you run your business properly, people will find you. I think you have newspapers that you can
advertise in, radio, television and all other kinds of things to direct people to your business, and also
from personal knowledge, having gone to Applebee’s a couple of different times, and not been able
to get in because of the long wait, I don’t think they need much help getting people there. I think
they need a little bigger place to sit the people that want to come, but I’d just like to go on the record,
because I probably won’t be able to make it back next month, but I am opposed to it, but then if you
decide to go for it, I’d like to go for the dollars that all the people coming from Fort Ann and that
way would like to find their way to the Mall, if you understand what I’m saying. Because I think just
what you’re saying. If you give it to them, then I’d like to sell some of my side of my building for
signs directing other people in different directions. I just think it’s not needed, and I’d like not to see
lit signs, not lit signs all over Town telling you where to get to businesses. Let the businesses bring
their people on the basis of the way they run their business, and the advertising that’s available to
them already. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you.
CAROLYN LUNT
MRS. LUNT-My name is Carolyn Lunt, and I live on Carlton Drive, Number 10. I’m opposed to
this sign being proposed for this spot. It sounds like, from listening to the discussion, that it’s going
to be placed on the corner, which is going to be really very close to the beautiful sign that shows
everyone that we’re coming in to the Town of Queensbury. The Econo Lodge had done a nice job
of landscaping the front of their property. I just think a sign right there is going to be just terrible to
look at, and I’m afraid, I have this fear that, down the road, there’s going to be billboards in that area,
and this is what we have to drive by every day, going to and coming from our home. As far as
Appelbee’s needing the direction, I was going to suggest maybe they put something on the
Northway, didn’t know that little detail, but I think that if somebody’s that interested in finding
Applebee’s, and they know it’s on whatever that route number is for that road, they’re going to find
it. It’s easy. Follow your nose, and as far as disbursing the traffic, don’t we have a huge problem
with traffic at the corner of Aviation and Glen Street? If we stop them by letting them go to
Friendly’s, or to the Silo to eat, fine. We’ve got a big problem down on that corner. We’ve got a big
problem with traffic everywhere. So I just think this sign is a very poor idea, and it’s not good. It
won’t look good for Queensbury. To be driving into Queensbury, it’s our entrance, and then seeing
signs popped up all over the place, pointing you in a direction. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed?
EILEEN WHIPPLE
MRS. WHIPPLE-My name is Eileen Whipple and I am opposed to it, and the reason I’m opposed to
it is because I think there are enough signs, and when people leave, they don’t take their signs with
them, and there are so many empty stores with signs still there, that I’m opposed to that. I think
there should be some kind of rule saying that if you leave, you should take your sign, too, and this is
going to be a lighted sign. What happens and who takes care of it when it breaks, when the kids
knock it down? I’m opposed to it, and I’d like to have you know that.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed?
GLENN LUNT
MR. LUNT-I want to talk about illumination. When you come off of the Northway, you run into
the Hess Station. There’s some illumination for you. Another thing, I think it’s pretty presumptive
of Mr. Lapper to think that this Board can’t consider, tonight, the question that’s before you. Thank
you. I’m Glenn Lunt, 10 Carlton Drive.
MRS. WHIPPLE-I just wanted to tell him, when you go down the Northway, there’s one section of
lot that has seven billboards on it. It talks about Red Wings, and it talks about, I don’t know how
many more it has there. Put your sign there. You’re still going the same direction.
HARRY TROELSTRA
MR. TROELSTRA-I’m Harry Troelstra from 2 Carlton Drive. I think Bob has said just about
everything that I wanted to say. Being a businessman also, I mean, if this is being allowed by some
of the new businesses in Town, if they cannot advertise in the paper and let them know where the
heck they are, I mean, then we should have the same rights, too, to put our signs wherever we want
to put them in Queensbury, basically, and tell them that Garden Time is somewhere on Quaker
Road. Whether we do it on the Mall or whether we do it on Lowe’s, but in a way, I mean, this is
going to get ridiculous. There’s going to be a small billboard alley after a while if this is going to be
allowed. I also don’t agree with the gentleman saying here, we are kind of out of the way. I think
Quaker Road made a name for itself with all the new businesses going there, especially now that
three new businesses want to establish themselves at the old Cadillac place there. So I don’t think, I
mean, that Quaker Road can be said it’s kind of out of the way. I think Lowe’s creates a tremendous
draw, and we all know about it. I do think that this is asking just too much from the neighborhood,
and an illuminated sign on that property will stand out like a sore tooth. I don’t think we need that.
I give the gentleman from the Econo Lodge credit for the way he made his business look. I think we
are nice neighbors. We have a good relationship. I don’t want to ruin that, but I think I’m speaking
for myself, but also for the other businesses in Town, that if he starts this kind of procedure, I mean
it’s going to continue and we’re going to be sitting and listening here many, many more nights, who’s
going to get a sign, who’s not going to get a sign. I think we should put a stop to it and leave the
signs with the new business that establish themselves, put a business sign in their front yard and leave
it at that. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Is there correspondence there?
MR. BROWN-Yes. We have correspondence from Kathryn Peaslee, 51 Wake Robin Road, Ballston
Spa, NY, to the Town of Queensbury Community Development Department, Subject: Proposal for
approval of off-premises sign, letter is dated March 12, 1999 “The above proposal will affect and
directly impact on the marketing of adjacent property. Tax Map #72-5-12, which is owned by myself
and my brother, Peter Liapes. Please consider the following: 1. Erection of a 20-square-foot sign
on EconoLodge property will cause potential buyers of my property to consider the visibility of my
property from Aviation Road to be severely encumbered, or blocked from view, as one travels down
the Aviation Road from the Northway. The proposed off-site sign could reasonably hinder any
future proposals for on-site signs or advertising by a new developer at my property site, therefore
directly affecting the marketability of my property. 2. The proposed sign would cause confusion
because of its proximity to the traffic light at Greenway North. The sign shows an arrow
pointing…..where? I foresee confusion to motorists unfamiliar with a heavy-traffic area.
Aesthetically, we are looking at a proposal to erect an unnecessary off-site sign in an area of Aviation
Road which has a chance at a “new beginning” of sorts, with the changes in the Aviation Mall and
hopefully, new businesses (aided by the sale of my property). Even if I did not have a vested interest
in this proposal, I would have a negative reaction to yet another sign in an area that is in the process
of being developed, and would have an impact on future businesses’ ability to advertise with their
own on-site signs! All along the Northway are small signs advising travelers of where to exit for
food, gas, motels, etc. Apparently, this is sufficient for other restaurants and businesses; why start a
trend that could become overkill? I happen to live in an area with an Applebee’s – it is at Exit 9 of
the Northway, and not visible from the highway or the main road off the Northway. Clifton Park
does not allow this type of sign saturation; yet Applebee’s seem to be doing just fine without
excessive billboarding.” And then another letter from Kathryn Peaslee, sort of a recant, dated March
15, 1999, to Queensbury Planning Board, Subject: Sign Proposal T.L. Cannon “Please be advised
that I have reconsidered my position on the above proposal for an off-premises sign on Aviation
Road to advertise Applebee’s and Lowe’s. I hereby withdraw my previous letter. If the sign is set
back from the highway and erected in a manner that is pleasing to the eye, I have no objection to the
proposal.” I have a letter from Katharine Kelly, 13 Carlton Drive, Queensbury, NY, received
3/15/99 “Dear Members of the Zoning Board: I am totally against more signs on Aviation Road.
We should all regard the beauty of the entrance to our Town. With everything going on in this area,
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
lets keep it nice! I sincerely hope that you vote wisely and not make it Billboard Town. Sincerely,
Katharine Kelly” That’s it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Lapper?
MR. STONE-I want to say something to the people who spoke. If Mr. Lapper is correct in what he
plans to do, if we vote it down, I suggest that you also go to the Planning Board meeting. I mean, I
just want to make sure that you’re aware that you have another opportunity to do something, to
speak. As Jon said, if we don’t grant the variance, he still would go to the Planning Board, in all
probability, with a conforming sign. Is that what you said?
MR. LAPPER-That’s what I expect.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. See, the only reason that he’s here tonight is for the setback. The setback from
the property line has to be 15 feet. We're not going to decide whether he can have the sign or not.
We're going to decide where he can put it. The Planning Board’s going to decide.
MR. BROWN-Actually, the Zoning Administrator has made a determination that this sign would
also require relief for a second freestanding sign on the property.
MR. STEC-That was a question I was going to ask, is it our purview to grant a second sign? We
would have to approve a second sign.
MR. BROWN-The Zoning Administrator has made a determination that this would be considered a
second freestanding sign. While off-premises signs are allowed in all zones, the Sign Ordinance calls
for a freestanding sign on the property. It doesn’t really specify whether it has to be for that business
or for another business. It calls for a freestanding sign. So, I think his determination is based on the
property is allowed a freestanding sign, and this would be considered a second freestanding sign.
MR. STONE-So this was not advertised correctly?
MR BROWN-Yes, it was. I believe it was. I think it’s in the notes that way. It just wasn’t brought
up in discussion at this point.
MR. LAPPER-I’m surprised. Chris and I had talked about that, and I think, separate and apart from
our philosophical discussion that we continue month and year in, which is separate about signs, I
think that the interpretation that, I mean, if Chris has made that determination, which obviously he
has, I wasn’t made aware of that. We had a discussion about it. I read the sign code. I think it’s
absolutely black and white that it doesn’t say that. It says that, and I don’t have it in front of me to
quote, but that, well, I have it in my bag, that each business can have, the section that we’re talking
about talks about what Econo Lodge can have on that site, and there’s another section that says that
you can have a freestanding sign, and off-premises sign, anywhere, as long as the Planning Board
gives approval, but I think procedurally that would have to have been noticed as an interpretation
request, and that wasn’t made because I wasn’t formally notified that Chris had made that
determination. So now that’s a second issue that’s separate and apart from the setback relief that this
Board would have to consider.
MR. MC NALLY-If that’s so, why don’t we re-notice it? Why don’t you give that some thought,
Craig. If it has to be re-noticed, for that second issue.
MR. BROWN-I don’t know if it would have to be re-advertised. I think the advertisement was
generic enough relief from the Sign Ordinance where it could be in there. I’m caught off guard. I’m
not sure that, the discussion that you and Chris had, I thought the last time that I had discussion with
Chris, he was going down the road that it was a second freestanding sign.
MR. LAPPER-We talked about it.
MR. BROWN-I know we discussed several times.
MR. LAPPER-But no one ever said that he had made the determination. Even though it’s late, since
that’s brought up, I just want to read into the record what we’re talking about. It’s pretty
straightforward.
MR. MC NALLY-What Section?
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. BROWN-I think it’s 140-6, I think it’s B(3), Placement and Number. Is that where you’re going
now?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s B(3)(c) “A business located on a parcel of property shall be granted a permit
for two signs”, and so what we’re talking about Econo Lodge is the business located on a parcel of
property, and that those are the business signs that say “Econo Lodge”, and then the off-premises.
MR. BROWN-Is subject to Planning Board review. Okay.
MR. THOMAS-There is a section for the off-premises.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and so I read those as totally separate.
MR. BROWN-Okay, if you and Chris had a discussion on that.
MR. LAPPER-Only to the extent that Chris mentioned that you guys had talked about it. He didn’t
tell me that he agreed with me or disagreed with me. It’s just that he never.
MR. BROWN-Let me see if he made any determination and put it in the file.
MR. LAPPER-So, I expected that he did agree with me, but.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I discussed it with him briefly, and he said we’re going to call it two signs.
MR. MC NALLY-Is this a business complex? Could the Econo Lodge be considered?
MR. BROWN-No. I think ultimately it’s going to be reviewed by the Planning Board, and they’re
going to take into consideration the fact that it’s realistically a second freestanding sign on the
property, and they could potentially review it with that criteria and say, look, we don’t want this.
MR. STONE-Jon, what it says, off-premises directional sign. It doesn’t call them freestanding or
otherwise, it just says a directional sign. I would think, obviously I haven’t researched it as much,
either, but a freestanding sign is a freestanding sign. This doesn’t say that a directional sign is or is
not a freestanding sign, and I would think.
MR. LAPPER-But this section that talks about directional, this defines what this means, in terms of
the limitation is the 10 square foot. Directional meaning you’re only allowed to say, you can’t say
cheeseburgers, you know.
MR. STONE-Agreed, but it doesn’t say it should be a freestanding or otherwise, though.
MR. LAPPER-But there are only two kinds of signs, freestanding or façade.
MR. MC NALLY-140-6B(3), Placement and Number, Subsection C, “A business located on a parcel
of property shall be granted a permit for two signs, one freestanding double-faced sign and one sign
attached to a building”. You’re saying, basically, that that does not cover off-premises signage?
MR. LAPPER-Right, that that covers on premises signage, that that’s the section that doesn’t say that
Econo Lodge would be in violation by having a freestanding devoted to an off-premises use, and a
freestanding devoted to its use.
MR. STONE-Obviously, if Craig is correct, and I assume, the Zoning Administrator has made a
decision, which has to be appealed to us.
MR. BROWN-Well, there’s no official determination in the file. It was something that was.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, why don’t you have Chris make an official determination, and put it in
letter form and send it out.
MR. BROWN-I asked him to. It’s evidently not in the file, but, as we discussed before, ultimately,
it’s going to be reviewed by the Planning Board.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but have him make a decision one way or the other, and put it in a letter, send it
out to all the appropriate people.
MR. STONE-And then Jon can appeal it to us. I mean, it’s our job.
MR. THOMAS-If Jon doesn’t agree with it, he can appeal it to us. That’s probably the only way out
of this. Because we could sit here and argue all night.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
MR. LAPPER-Our goal here is to advance what we hope you would consider a legitimate purpose, in
terms of disbursing traffic. We're trying to build the minimum sign possible that can be seen. Maybe
it’s not 20 feet. Maybe it’s 18 feet. I don’t know, but we’re not trying to build billboards and we’re
not trying to clog the entrance to Queensbury. This was located in a place that is setback pretty far
from the road. It’s not going to block the Town of Queensbury sign. I mean, that’s on the map. It’s
very far from that sign, and perhaps it can be a little bit smaller, but we think that this is legitimate,
but that’s something for the Planning Board to determine. They could say no, but for you guys, if it’s
at the property line or farther back, I think that that’s the issue to stay focused on.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what we will stay focused on.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Unless Chris comes up with something else.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, I understand.
MR. THOMAS-We’ll have to take that as it comes.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’m going to leave the public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-1999 T.L. CANNON CORP., Introduced
by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Until no later than the May meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new
information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The
applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can
be met. The reasons for the tabling are the determination as to whether a freestanding directional
sign is an additional sign, and also for a full Board to hear this application.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we’re all set there. All right. We’ll do minutes.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
February 17, 1999: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 1999, Introduced by Robert
McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have anything for the good of the Board? If not, I’ll make a
motion we adjourn.
MR. STEC-Second.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/99)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
47