1999-10-20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
LEWIS STONE
ROBERT MC NALLY
PAUL HAYES
CHARLES MC NULTY
DANIEL STEC
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1999 TYPE II SFR-10 LEWIS & SUSAN OVITT OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 118 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A
SWIMMING POOL IN THE SIDE YARD AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP
NO. 114-2-2 AND 3 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES, AND 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-67
LEWIS & SUSAN OVITT, PRESENT
MR. STEC-“Area Variance No. 84-1999 Lewis & Susan Ovitt Tabled Motion to table Area
Variance No. 84-1999 Lewis & Susan Ovitt, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: The applicant proposes the construction of an above
ground pool and seeks setback relief. The applicant has expressed a willingness to revise the plans
presented to us in conjunction with the neighbor, and having heard the comments made by the
Zoning Board of Appeals. This will be tabled for 62 days, and if a revision is available before the end
of the month, it may appear in October. Otherwise, it would appear in the November meeting if the
revision gets in during the month of October.” Signed Chris Thomas, Chairman, Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Do we have the revised plans here?
MR. OVITT-Yes, we do.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. OVITT-I also have a letter from her that she wanted me to give to you.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’ll read that for the public hearing. Okay. It appears that you’ve got the
pool into the back yard, but it doesn’t quite meet the setbacks.
MR. STONE-The problem last month was, it was in the back yard, but it was over and the deck was
in such a place that the next door neighbor was quite concerned about her site lines.
MR. OVITT-Yes, well, I talked to her and took her out, and I moved it back, as you can see, 10 feet
from her fence. She’s happy.
MR. STONE-She’s happy, but she was unhappy last month because the word was, and the fact that
she is confined to the house a great deal of the time, and viewpoints and things like this, and so it
was a matter of where the actual deck, the big part of the deck was going to be, and the applicant has
moved it. He can talk to us about that.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Do you want to tell us about the changes that you did make?
MR. OVITT-Yes. We drew up three plans, and the one she was happy with is the one you have.
The big problem was, where we wanted the deck, and the last time it was right on her fence, two feet
from her fence. So we moved that, and that meet the setbacks by 10 feet, and put the deck on the
side of the pool.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. OVITT-Other than that, there’s not much you can do in that area.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. STONE-True.
MR. OVITT-I moved it. There’s three ways you can do it, and she’s happy with it this way, and I’m
happy with either way.
MR. STONE-So what you’ve got is you’ve taken the deck and you’ve put it on the long side, closest
to the house.
MR. OVITT-Toward the house, and she’s happy.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. OVITT-The view she gets, looking out her window at my house, if it makes her happy to move
the deck, we moved it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. 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 additional correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STEC-I have a letter dated October 14, 1999, Queensbury Town Board, “Sirs: I wish to
withdraw my opposition to Mr. and Mrs. Ovitt’s plans for building an above ground swimming pool
on their Dixon Road property. Joyce E. Wilson”
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STEC-And no other correspondence.
MR. THOMAS-That does it? All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Read Staff
Notes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 84-1999, Lewis & Susan Ovitt, Meeting Date: October 20,
1999 tabled Sept. 22, 1999 “Project Location: 118 Dixon Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of an above ground pool and seeks setback relief. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 9 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback and four feet
of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation requirement for an accessory structure per § 179-67,
Accessory Structures and Uses. Further relief is requested to have a pool in a yard other than the
rear yard. 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 an additional
recreational area. 2. Feasible alternatives: This reconfigured proposal appears to be more feasible
than the original. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative
requests may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
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. However, the pre-existing
location of the home may contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be
anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed location of the pool 11 feet from the rear
neighboring property may present visual and audible impacts. However, support from the affected
property owner should be noted. Consideration should be given to screening views and sounds from
adjacent properties as well as from Dixon Road. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets talk about it. I’ll start with Lew.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s very pleasing to me, and gratifying to see that you have listened to us and
listened to your neighbor, because obviously she was very upset last month.
MR. OVITT-Well, you’ve got to live with your neighbor.
MR. STONE-And that’s very true. I think you’ve done as good a job as you can do on that property,
considering the location of the house. Obviously, you can’t put it behind the house unless you are
the neighbor. Because that’s where the house is. I will have no objection to this, but I would like to
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
see granting your variance conditioned as per Staff Notes, that there be some screening, certainly on
the front of it, between the street and the pool, just some kind of screening, just to break up the
outline, because one of the concerns that we have here, and we get requests fairly often to put pools
in yards other than the rear yard. In this particular case, it’s mitigated by the fact you have a garage
there, which is going to screen a little bit of the pool, and it is so far back off of Dixon Road, that
you really have to look very hard to see it, but I still think we should have a little bit of screening, but
having said that, I have no problem with granting this variance.
MR. OVITT-As far as screening, shrubbery?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. OVITT-Yes, we plan on doing that anyway.
MR. STONE-Yes, okay.
MR. OVITT-We don’t want people looking at us either.
MR. THOMAS-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think Lew is right. I mean, this is obviously a change of plans from the last
time that you were here, and we kind of put it out there that you needed to do that and you did. I
think this very panel exists to consider minimal relief, particularly when efforts are made to mitigate
any impact on the rest of the neighborhood, and I think you’ve done that to the best of your ability,
in this circumstance. It is a unique lot, for sure, because of, as Lew pointed out, the placement of the
existing structures, but I think you want a pool, and it’s in as good a spot as it can be. So I’m in favor
of it. I’m okay.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree with Jaime and Lew, and I also want to add that I don’t think there’ll be
any significant effect on the neighborhood or community, and the fact that the neighbors themselves
have no objection to your proposal leads me to support your application.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t have much to add. I agree. I think the pool is now configured as well as it
can be. I don’t see any other place you could put a pool in that particular yard, and with the
neighbors being accepting of it now, I have no problems with it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan?
MR. STEC-I agree with the rest of the Board members. I think it’s also important to note the depth
of the lot, I think, really contributes to the ease that I have with granting this variance. I think the
relief sought is minimal, and I think that they did an excellent job seeking feasible alternatives in
working with their neighbor. It’s always encouraging to see applicants work with people that have a
concern. So I’ve got no problem with the application at all.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. The only thing I can really say to add anything is I agree with the other Board
members. I think it’s admirable of the Ovitts to work with the neighbors and the Board to get a
placement of this pool where everyone would be happy with it, and with the addition of the
screening in the back, I think this is a great project, and I don’t see any problem with it. So, having
said that, I would ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1999 LEWIS & SUSAN OVITT,
Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
118 Dixon Road. Applicant has proposed construction of an above-ground pool and seeks setback
relief. Specifically, I move that we grant nine feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback,
and four feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation requirement for an accessory structure,
per Section 179-67, Accessory Structures and Uses. Further, I move that we grant the relief to have a
pool in the yard designated other than the rear yard. I would only condition this by requesting that
the applicant also follow through with their plan to plant some shrubbery to serve as screening at the
back of the property. The benefit to the applicant is clear, that they’re going to be able to enjoy an
additional recreational area, and I think they did an excellent job finding the most optimum
alternative possible. The relief sought is moderate in comparison to the Ordinance, but I believe that
there’ll be a minimum effect on the neighborhood or community, and I note the cooperation and the
approval from the immediate neighbors toward this application, and while the difficulty is self-
created, I think the nature of the lot and the location of the home did contribute to it. So on the
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
balance test, I move that we approve the variance. To include four foot high suitable year round
screening, perhaps cedar screening, at the front of the property to shield the view from Dixon Road.
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-I would like to add the other part of Staff Notes, that as well as screening from Dixon
Road, some kind of planting in front of it, between the pool and the front of the lot. That’s what
Staff is recommending.
MR. STEC-I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. BROWN-Do you want to be specific with it at all, or just say screening? It’s up to you.
MR. STONE-Maybe a series of four foot high cedars or something. Is that acceptable, on the front?
MR. OVITT-Certainly, we plan on doing that anyway.
MR. STEC-All right.
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. OVITT-Okay, thank you.
MRS. OVITT-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-1999 TYPE II PC-1A NORTHWAY PLAZA, ASSOC. LLC
OWNER: NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC. LLC ROUTE 9, CORNER OF ROUTE 9 AND
QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONFIGURATION OF PARKING AREA
AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
REGULATIONS. CROSS REF. SPR 48-99 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP
NO. 72-7-4 LOT SIZE: 18.34 ACRES SECTION 179-66, 179-22
JIM HAGAN & BILL DUTCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STEC-Area Variance No. 87-1999, Northway Plaza Associates, LLC, Tabled Motion to Table
Area Variance No. 87-1999 Northway Plaza Associates, LLC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Applicant proposes reconfiguration of the parking
area and seeks relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading regulations. The applicant has asked
that we have a more full Board for consideration of this application at the next meeting in October,
if possible. We’ll table it to the first meeting in October, or the time when we have at least six
members of the Board. Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT:
Mr. Thomas” Signed Chris Thomas, Zoning Board Chairman.
MR. THOMAS-All right. You’ve got as many as you’re going to get right now.
MR. HAGAN-My name is Jim Hagan. My address is 180 Intrepid Lane, Syracuse, NY. I’m the
architect representing the applicants, and I believe, the way we concluded our discussion at the last
meeting, a question was raised relative to what our lease requirements were to meet the Traveler’s
parking requirements, and subsequent to that meeting, I prepared a letter, dated September 30,
th
addressed to the Chairman, which delineated those requirements, and then attached to that was
appropriate sections of the various leases that the applicant has entered into with their tenant, and
basically what that does is substantiates what we represented to you, that in fact the Traveler’s
parking requirements are greater than what is required for this type of use in the planned shopping
center district, and we feel that that’s the basis for our request for relief to allow us to use eight foot
six parking spaces in lieu of nine foot wide parking spaces. Mr. Chairman, I realize you weren’t here
to hear the full presentation last time. I don’t want to go through it, for the sake of time, but I’d be
glad to answer questions, also.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I did get your letter September 30 . I did go through it, read it, and I see not
th
only do you want eight and a half foot parking spaces in width, but you also want to take it from 20
down to 18 in length.
MR. HAGAN-That’s true, but what we’re doing is providing a 24 foot driving aisle, which helps
provide the turning radius you need to get into the spaces.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. MC NALLY-When you say a 24-foot driving aisle, as it currently is, it’s 20 foot?
MR. HAGAN-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And the 20 foot’s measured from the ends of the stripes separating each parking
spot?
MR. HAGAN-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-So when you cut back the parking spaces, two feet on the side, it’s going to be
four feet wider. That’s where the four feet comes from?
MR. HAGAN-That’s correct, and I think what we also submitted was documentation on the vehicle
sizes that the overwhelming majority of the vehicles that are on the market today are less than the 18
foot length.
MR. MC NALLY-I mean, but, effectively, there is no change in that driving aisle, because the cars
that are being parked there today will be the same that are there tomorrow. All that’s changing is
where you’re putting the line and where you’re painting that line.
MR. HAGAN-That’s true, but there’s also a, let me describe it this way. It helps the drivers as
they’re pulling in to the parking spaces, to align themselves. It gives them a mark on the pavement
that they can line up with, and it gives them that there’s more room to turn than if you had the
stripes out the extra two feet. It becomes an easier visual cue for them to work with.
MR. STONE-I’m having, hindsight is wonderful, and when you haven’t made a vote, hindsight is
very helpful. In thinking about this thing, I understand the owner’s dilemma with a major tenant,
and a major tenant as far as the Town is concerned. Obviously, a very important tenant, and none of
us want to risk losing. I see their request for 676, 678 parking spaces, and if we can grant that at
eight six, if they’re happy with it, for example, in the sense that they think their employees can handle
that, I don’t see why the rest of the parking lot has to be made eight six. It seems to me that you can
have a dedicated parking lot for Travelers, and I even was doing some thinking, and don’t hold me to
it. You could put an umbrella on each one of the Travelers’ parking spots. I don’t think, where it
comes in the Sign Variance, I don’t know, but it would seem to me that you could dedicate enough
parking spaces that are Travelers’ parking spaces, because right now, you made a very eloquent point
last week that the character of this shopping center is changing. It is probably more office than it is
shopping center, but you haven’t said to us that we’re not seeking anymore retail tenants. You
certainly, I think, indicated you’re seeking retail tenants, and as long as we have that, and we’re going
to bring the general public in, who may be in a hurry, may not be as capable as younger working
people. I just have real trouble making the whole parking lot eight six, at this particular point in time.
MR. DUTCH-If I may address that. I’m Bill Dutch, Managing Partner of the ownership group.
Your comments are well taken, but having spent a very significant portion of my life in the public
parking industry, I can tell you that enforcement is the most difficult issue that you face. We could
put a mirror tag and an umbrella on each car and an umbrella painted on each space, and there’s only
one element that will escape us, and that is the discretion of the individual not to park in the spaces
designated, not to put the tag on the mirror, not to be able to identify that person, and we have
observed, from aerial photos that we’ve taken of this property over time, and at periodic intervals,
that cars that stay all day are parked all over the lot, and it’s not just, the Travelers space is not the
only office space in this center. I’m sure you know there’s another 30,000 square feet of auxiliary
office space located across the parking lot. I just see, having dealt with these issues all my life, and
being in the management business, that enforcement is a very, very difficult issue, and I also see, in
our efforts to lease up vacant retail space in this community, that this Plaza is leaning more toward
service, and I’m not sure that we’re going to be successful in our efforts, as much as I would like to
say that we are, that the character of this center isn’t going to change, and I think what will be the
determinant is who winds up occupying the two major big spaces we have vacant right now, and if
they happen to be sensible economic deals for us, and they happen to be service oriented, versus, I
mean, lets face it, Travelers and other employers of their ilk are here in this community because you
have a plentiful, available labor resource, a great lifestyle here in this community, trainable workforce.
They’re able to hire the types of people they need. So I’m not sure that another “back room” type
office tenant wouldn’t be attracted for us up in the Steinbach’s area, which is 35,000 feet of presently
vacant space. Also, Travelers does have options on additional spaces in this center, one of which is
retail right now. So as much as I would love to be able to accommodate that request, for me to be
able to assure you I can enforce it is another issue.
MR. STONE-In your lease, it says, exclusive use of the tenant. First of all, what does that mean?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. DUTCH-When we dealt with this, it’s an issue that is difficult to define, in that in most
shopping center environments, everything is enjoyed in common, as you probably know. So there
was originally, in the first lease, an area designated to the right of the main driveway as being for the
exclusive use, and I think that’s pretty obvious, to anybody who drives by there, but since we added
additional space in the back, and we did construct a bridge, we’ve really made it convenient for
Travelers to park their people anywhere in these parking lots, enter the main door and traverse over
the bridge, which was very expensive for us to construct, but actually interconnects all the Travelers
112,000 square feet of office space, and that was the method to our madness, was that we really
could utilize the entire parking area, rather than to not be able to provide enough parking, say,
behind the building, for the space that we most recently renovated. So the theory was with the
elevators, with the bridges, you could park out front or in the back, and it didn’t matter whether you
had a specifically defined space, and that was the difficulty when we negotiated this last expansion.
MR. STONE-I understand that, but it still seems to me that you could provide 676 or 78, depending
on how you add the numbers, 676 parking spaces of eight six, if that’s one way to get those as close
to that right hand parking lot. I assume that’s what we’re talking about, trying to get them as
concentrated as possible, near the front door of the building, even though you talk about the bridge.
Obviously, there’ll be some behind, but at this point in time, since you’re still a mixed use facility, I
don’t see the problem with doing, not doing the whole thing at once.
MR. DUTCH-Jimmy may get mad at me, and I’m engaging him, but I said last time I think I’ve made
a big mistake. I wear a size 12 shoe. What we’re talking about is half the size of this shoe on each
parking spot. So I don’t think we’re dealing with.
MR. STONE-Well, we’re not dealing only with Northway Plaza.
MR. DUTCH-I understand that.
MR. STONE-We’re dealing with a Town of a lot of shopping centers, and right now we require 20
by 9.
MR. DUTCH-Well, you will agree with me on one point. We have made every effort to come up
with any other alternative we have, in terms of acquiring additional property, investing money. We
just are out of options.
MR. STONE-But you can find 676 spaces, and you can call those eight and a half, and leave the rest.
There’s a lot of room that’s, I mean, there’s going to be approximately 750, as I did some quick
calculations, and I haven’t rechecked them, but that if you made 676 at eight six, now I know it’s not
geometrically because of the islands and all that sort of stuff, but there’s approximately 800 full sized
spaces.
MR. HAGAN-My calculations, when I compared the two plans, we’re gaining about 80 some spaces
by going the difference, but I think the issue here is that the way Travelers is utilizing the parking
now, they’re using the area to the right of the main entrance drive, south of the entrance drive, using
parking spaces on the south end of their space, down where the Monroe Muffler is, and around the
back, as a matter of fact, all the way back to where the Stone property is, they’ve got people parking,
because that’s the concentric, closest point.
MR. STONE-Everybody wants to be as close as possible.
MR. HAGAN-Close to their space. I think the only area where I could say that Travelers or other
office tenants are not utilizing the parking area to the left of the entrance drive, kind of in front of
the area where Steinbachs and Ben Franklin, the CVS Drugs and all that area. So I think that’s the
area where you might have a concern. What Bill is saying is that Travelers does have options for
additional space that include some of the retail space, for instance, where the Peter Harris store is
right now, which if they took that, would mean that their people would then start to encroach on this
area that I’m talking about. It’s possible that those other spaces may go to other service uses. They
may not go retail. We’re not sure where those are going to at this point. I think if, .we were talking
about compromising. That would be the one area where it might be feasible. The rest of the areas
are pretty much being utilized, at one time or another, by Travelers’ people, or the other office uses.
MR. STONE-That is, in a sense, what I’m saying. I just think there’s some reason for compromise.
I would like to be able to say, if we granted this variance, if somebody else appeared before us and
said, well, you gave eight six to these guys, we want eight six. I’ll say, no, we didn’t. We gave a
specific type of operation, which is obviously, they cram a lot of people into their space. Let’s put it
that way.
MR. HAGAN-It’s an intense use of the space.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. STONE-Yes, and that’s fine. That’s the kind of business they’re in, but you’re telling me that
they may, they’ve shown interest. They have options, but they haven’t done anything, and I just
think, why do it all at once, when we’re only talking striping. We’re not talking building. I mean,
obviously, if you came before us and you said, we want to build an oversized building because we
think we may. We’re not talking that. We’re talking striping. I want the rest of the Board, I don’t
want to monopolize this thing, but maybe they don’t agree with me or they do. I’d like to hear them.
MR. THOMAS-I have a couple of questions. How many spaces do you need?
MR. STONE-Fourteen hundred.
MR. THOMAS-You need 1400 actual spaces.
MR. STONE-By law, by zoning.
MR. HAGAN-By zoning.
MR. THOMAS-No, I mean, how many do you need?
MR. MC NALLY-They’ve got 1433 spaces today. If they change the dimensions of the spots, they
would have 1518. That’s an additional 85.
MR. STEC-But I think the Chairman’s question was, what is the minimum number you need to
satisfy your?
MR. THOMAS-No. How many parking spaces do you need? I just need to know how many spaces
does Travelers need?
MR. HAGAN-Okay. Let me try to simplify, and I think I referred to this in my letter to you of
September 30. By Ordinance, we’re required to have five spaces per thousand, which results in
th
1400 parking spaces. Travelers requirements is six per thousand, or one per thousand more. They
require, they occupy 113,000 square foot of space. So we’re required to have 113 more parking
spaces, or 1513 spaces.
MR. THOMAS-You need 1513 spaces?
MR. HAGAN-Yes, counting the Travelers.
MR. STONE-Using the requirement, based on the requirement of the Zoning Code, that’s where he
just came from.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s what he just gave you.
MR. THOMAS-I don’t want the zoning requirement. How many parking spaces do your employees
require, to park there? How many employees have you got there, and say everyone drives a car?
MR. STONE-You’re talking about the whole mall.
MR. THOMAS-No. I’m talking about Travelers.
MR. DUTCH-Six seventy-eight.
MR. THOMAS-You have 678 employees.
MR. DUTCH-No, 678 cars, or spaces are required, by lease.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, 678.
MR. STONE-And they do make some comment in there, I think, about for second shift they want
people to be able to find spaces in there. That’s what they’re saying. That’s why the number comes
out to be.
MR. THOMAS-So there’s 678 employees there, right?
MR. DUTCH-That, Mr. Stone, is probably justification alone.
MR. STONE-I know, I’ve heard that, but they can always park in a bigger place.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-That’s how many parking spaces Travelers requires, is 678, okay, and how many
spaces are in that parking lot now?
MR. HAGAN-As striped at nine foot, you would have 1433.
MR. THOMAS-Fourteen hundred and thirty-three.
MR. STONE-And that includes the Stone property?
MR. HAGAN-Yes, it does.
MR. STONE-That’s not me, by the way, folks. We’re talking Stone here. It’s not me.
MR. HAGAN-That includes the area that Northway Plaza has been encroaching on the Stone
property for probably the last 20 years.
MR. STONE-And the Town?
MR. HAGAN-And the property that they’re acquiring from the Town.
MR. DUTCH-That transaction is about to be concluded.
MR. STONE-Okay, but with, assuming you get that piece of land by the cemetery, and you buy the
land you’re currently encroaching on, it’ll be 1433.
MR. HAGAN-Yes.
MR. DUTCH-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-Where I’m coming from, and these guys picked up on, is, you know, right now, not
to make the spaces smaller, but lower your requirement. That’s why I asked how many employees
you have. Because I’m really not in favor of narrow and shorter parking spaces, even though the cars
today are smaller, and stuff like that, but we’ve had this discussion since I’ve been on the Board, over
seven years now, about, that the parking requirements in the Town seem to be a little, seems to be
too many spaces are required.
MR. HAYES-It’s over broad, that’s all.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. If you go around and look at some of these shopping centers, Wal-Mart, Ames,
K-Mart, Aviation Mall, around in there, you see a lot of empty spaces.
MR. HAGAN-Except for several times a year.
MR. THOMAS-How many times? Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, and the day before
Christmas when all the men go out and shop. So you’re probably only talking maybe two days. All
right, say seven.
MR. DUTCH-These developers apply national standard to what they feel they need, and they buy
pieces of land large enough to accommodate those standards. You’ll very rarely ever see a developer
come, I think without exception in this community, and buy a piece of land smaller than what it
typically needs nationally, just to be able to build that store. They have a footprint, prototype, and
they stick to that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but like I say, you go up here and you look at these stores in the Town of
Queensbury, and these malls that I mentioned, and any time of the day, really, any time of the year,
except for the day after Thanksgiving and right around Christmas, I mean, they’re empty.
MR. DUTCH-We agree with you, but that isn’t our problem. Our problem is our people come, stay
all day.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. See that’s what I’m trying to do is.
MR. HAYES-I guess, is the logic that you’re putting forth is you need the 1500 something period, as
far as?
MR. HAGAN-I think what Mr. Dutch is saying is that he’s got a significant amount of vacant space
right now, and to be able to actively market that to any kind of reasonable tenant, they’re going to
look for reasonable parking ratios, and if we can’t show them that they’ve got the numbers where
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
they need them, that it will really restrict his ability to lease those spaces. That’s why we’re trying to
optimize what we can on the site.
MR. DUTCH-In all these negotiations I’ve been in, I’ve never, with a retail tenant or a service tenant,
had a definition put in a lease of the size of the parking space. It’s so many spaces being required.
So I can only assure you one thing, the wider aisle is a much more convenient animal to deal with
then a long space and a narrower aisle. I have a lot of experience in that. Try it yourself. I’m sure
you’d much rather have a wider aisle to back up in then a wider parking space.
MR. STONE-But let’s just keep that in perspective. You’re talking a visual wider aisle. It’s not any
wider, because the car, if there’s a large car in there, it may stick over the white line, if it’s more than
18, or vehicle.
MR. DUTCH-We presented tabular data.
MR. STONE-You gave us some data, but.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, but you’re still, the front bumper of that car, when it pulls in, is still in the
same spot, regardless of how long the side lines are. So the width between parked cars stays the
same, even though your lines are changing.
MR. DUTCH-Well, it’s the depth of the car that I think you’re all concerned about, whether if a car
would exceed the 18 foot, rather than the 20.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, whether it does or not, if you’ve got two 18 foot cars opposite each other,
then the balance of the space is the driving aisle. It doesn’t matter how long the side lines are. It’s
just a visual cue.
MR. HAGAN-Right. I agree with you.
MR. STEC-What’s the total number of nine foot spaces, total, current, right now?
MR. THOMAS-Was that that 1,433?
MR. HAGAN-That’s the 1,433 if we were to re-stripe it the way I’ve shown it on my plan. That’s
not what’s striped there now. The 1,433 are those nine by twenty, with a twenty-foot aisle.
MR. STEC-And the total square foot is 279,967?
MR. HAGAN-Gross Floor Area, yes.
MR. STEC-That’s what works into our Code and works into your lease is that 279,967?
MR. HAGAN-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Let me ask another question. You’re working base, now, on the square footage
that Travelers has leased?
MR. DUTCH-That’s correct, presently.
MR. MC NULTY-Presently, and this plan would give you just enough spaces to accommodate that
requirement?
MR. DUTCH-I think what we’ve calculated present and future, what they have options on.
MR. HAGAN-No, I think his point is that I said we need 1513 spaces. We’re showing 1518. If, in
fact, Travelers does acquire another 20,000 square foot, we would technically need another 20 spaces.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So if we approved this now, if we were to accept their proposal now, that
satisfies the current lease? Next year Travelers leases more property, more space from them, they’re
going to have to be back here, or find another solution for additional parking places.
MR. STONE-I don’t think, Chuck, it’s quite that simple. I mean, obviously, if every store was vacant
right now, Travelers would have 12 or 14 per thousand square feet. That’s nice, but what does it
mean? I mean, if you don’t have a fence around, and I’m not suggesting you do, but if you don’t
have a fence around the Travelers’ parking lot, we’re dealing with something you can’t really come to
grips with, in terms of dimensions. I mean, they need 678. They’ve got 678. Because right now
there’s 5 or 600 empty spaces at any one time. So they have them, and that’s what, it’s hard to come
to grips with this thing. It’s very amorphous, really.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Hagan, how many employees does Travelers now have?
MR. HAGAN-How many on-site right now?
MR. MC NALLY-I know 678 is the number of parking places they require, but that’s not actually the
number that they have working there, is it?
MR. DUTCH-No. If a full compliment of every desk was filled with Travelers, based on the square
footage they have now, I believe I was told that at full employment it would be about 1,000
employees, but they have empty desks now. One division of their business is less than fully
occupied, and that’s their assigned risk.
MR. MC NALLY-My question is, how many employees, if you know.
MR. DUTCH-As we speak?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, sir.
MR. DUTCH-I’m only giving you a guess, but it’s a best guess, about 650.
MR. MC NALLY-And has the possibility of public transportation ever been explored or carpooling
or some kind of way to lessen the intensity?
MR. DUTCH-It’s easy for me to suggest, but if I can’t comply with what the tenant’s requirements
are, they’ll look elsewhere, and this came up in the last lease negotiation. This was, I think what we
tried to demonstrate to all of you, if you all hopefully got a copy of this letter that Jim sent, was that,
and I don’t think I stressed this point enough, when I made my presentation last time, and I went
back to the office the next day after I appeared, and I said, you know, I really want to make sure that,
I was not speaking out of school, but we inherited a situation, when we bought the property, that had
one set of facts. The set of facts was changed after the fact. We got into another negotiation, and
when they’re sitting down with me, and asked me, you can deliver this, you can do this right, can’t
you? Of courses I can, we don’t want to lose a tenant, and when we got into this negotiation with
them over the parking, I came to Jim immediately and I said, I think we’ve got a problem here, and
we put our heads together and said we’ll work it out. We’ll try and buy some more land. Somehow
we’ll get around this. So we sort of represented to them that we did have it. Well, as things happen,
fortuitously for Travelers, not for us, we have other vacant space so that the problem isn’t a glaring
one now. It doesn’t look to be a problem at all. Hopefully, we’ll be fully rented again some time in
the near future, and then it becomes as different issue. In the mean time, as I said to you, I wouldn’t
have been here. Believe me, I didn’t want to go out and have to buy, at least one, if not two more
pieces of property, make the kinds of improvements we’re talking about. I prefer not to do all these
things. It’s just money that we have no return on. It’s not productive. We’re not earning any.
MR. STONE-Let me just jump back in with this lease that you’ve sent to us. I’m just reading what it
says here. “Landlord’s obligation to provide the ‘exclusive use’ of the parking space of the tenant
shall be satisfied by the landlord, marking these spaces in some manner, such as painting them a
separate color or striping them in a certain way to segregate them from other spaces”. I don’t hear
you even talking about this. That’s your lease. You’re telling me that you have, they have a tight
lease with you that requires six, and yet you’re not even suggesting setting these up as exclusive
parking spaces.
MR. DUTCH-It’s something that they’re accustomed, I mean, nobody’s pressing the issue at this
point, and like we talked about early on when we negotiated this, if we have to do that, then it
becomes prominent. We haven’t had to do that so far. We’ve said to Travelers, we intend to re-
pave. We’re making some improvements. We’ll deal with it.
MR. STONE-Well, which part of this are they concerned about? I mean, if the same paragraph says,
we’ve got to have 241 in this particular section, which is six, I happen to umpire softball. I’ve done it
for many years, and I’ve had people say, how can you call that one? I say, because it’s in the book.
You tell me which rules I’m not supposed to follow, and you’ve got a whole paragraph here, they’re
telling you what they want, and you’re saying, well, we only want parking spaces, but we don’t care
where they are.
MR. HAGAN-Mr. Stone, if I could address that. It is there. Bill and I have had discussions about
doing that, if and when the re-striping does occur and the re-paving work and what have you, and,
yes, we’ve talked about trying to enforce it. Bill admits, as he stated before, it’s hard to enforce. It’s
in there, and they may have to have colored stripes. They may be pink stripes instead of yellow or
white ones, but that may have to be done, but I think it goes back to, okay, we stripe their spaces.
We’ve got X number of spaces left. What do we need to accommodate the other tenants, and what
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
do we need to be able to market the vacant spaces to entice new tenants to take over the vacant
spaces? And that’s what we trying to really achieve, and I’m not saying we’re not going to color code
them. We probably will have to do that.
MR. HAYES-I think part of any commercial lease, obviously, it’s the intent of what’s going on versus
actual enforcement. When you do have areas in common in a plaza or a business, or whatever,
obviously, people are going to negotiate for some exclusivity, but there’s also the reality of public
parking. I mean, let’s face it. If I decide to go to Piro’s Deli, and the spot closest to Travelers is
open, I’m going to take it, probably even if there’s an umbrella on it. I mean, that’s the reality.
MR. HAGAN-Let me take it one step further and play a little Devil’s advocate. Let’s assume that we
go ahead and we stripe these spaces in a separate color. Travelers comes up to full employment.
Bill’s successful in his leasing, and he gets a couple of retail tenants in there who are doing a good
business. Now, all of a sudden, the parking lot becomes full. Now, people are trying to get in there
at five o’clock because they want to get into the stores. The shifts are changing. Things are going on
in the parking lot. The next thing you know, Bill’s getting complaints from the Travelers’ managers,
their employees are having a hard time finding parking spaces, where are they going to go, somebody
else is parking in their spot. Now Bill becomes the bad guy because now he has to either hire his
staff or some quasi-law enforcement agency to go out and ask people to move out of the Travelers’
spaces, or tow their cars away and charge them a fine, and it just opens up a whole series of problems
that we really don’t want to get into.
MR. DUTCH-Well, further compounding the problem has been we have a building that sits between
Travelers and the rest of the retail space where many of you may be familiar with the Deli, the
tanning salon and a hair cutting salon there, and our general manager is sitting here in the audience,
and he will tell you how many complaints we get from the deli and the other tenants that Travelers’
employees are taking spaces in front. So it’s become a marketing dilemma for us to be able to lease
retail spaces. If I put an umbrella or color code, which we may have to do, every Travelers’ space,
and I get a national real estate representative for a major tenant come in here and say, why are all
those spaces reserved? We don’t want to be in a shopping center where all those spaces are reserved
for office tenants. It’s self-defeating. We will not be able to lease to any retail, and I’m not sure
we’re not headed in that direction now, not by choice. Again, we inherited the situation. The end of
that center was retail. It was the most prominent space. It was, in a shopping center like that, you
always want your anchor space to be a foundation retailer. It was Montgomery Ward, as you all
know. I didn’t make the deal. We bought the property. Yes, we inherited the set of facts, but we
have added 40,000 feet of additional space for Travelers, which is, I think at full employment,
another 400 jobs for the community. By using some ingenuity, converting warehouse space to office
space, and the die was already cast. The center had been changed. So it was either get rid of
Travelers and give them up, and maybe give them up to the community, or try and solve their
dilemma, keep them here and expand them. We opted to keep them here and expand them.
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions, comments, on the Board? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARK LEVACK
MR. LEVACK-Hi. Mark Levack from Levack Real Estate. Maybe I should have had some time
outside of the public hearing, but I’m not receiving a commission on the Travelers’ renewal. So we
can get that out of the way right up front, but I have been a leasing agent in Northway Plaza for the
past seven years, and have been a tenant up there for six years. Northway Plaza is a unique center in
Queensbury, primarily because of its geography. The site slopes from one end to the other, and it
sandwiches down at both ends. This was a parking lot layout, and a building configuration that they
inherited. So from a geography standpoint, that hardship was not self-created. As a tenant in the
Plaza for six years, as I said, there are times when the abundance of parking ebbs and flows, but I can
say that, in the winter months, when snow stockpiles, there is definitely a parking problem, when
Northway Plaza’s at full occupancy, and at one point in the last two years, we did have it 100%
occupied, and it was very, very evident that we did have a problem with the number of spaces. I’m
just here to say that I support, from a commercial real estate, highest and best use development
standpoint, I think what they’re asking for minimal relief, and I can also support and reiterate Bill’s
fact that when the Travelers lease came up for expansion, the developers from several States
converged on Queensbury, and they tried, with a vengeance, to take Travelers elsewhere, and I can
say without getting into any names, if you want to know, I’d be happy to tell you, but this tenant’s
status and livelihood in Queensbury was very, very much in question. We were in competition with
Saratoga. We were in competition with Albany. We were competition with Wilton. We were in
competition with South Glens Falls, with the former Joy Department Store. So when he says that we
need to do what we can do, as a community, to keep an employer like this satisfied, I can’t emphasize
that enough, and I think Queensbury hopefully puts forth an image to the business community that
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
they are willing to do what it takes to satisfy them. Just, again, here to support it as a leasing agent. I
can tell you, also that Bill’s earlier comment that the Steinbach space, as much as we’d all like to think
that we’re going to fill that again with another retailer, I can tell you that of the people that have
looked at the property, and the people that we’ve shown the property to, probably at least 50% have
been in the telemarketing, conferencing center. We went through all studies on fiber optic lines, T-1
lines to, there’s a short list of groups, requests out there for space through New York State
Economic Development that we’re trying to satisfy in the area. So, overnight, this center could
become an office center, and I think their reason for being here is primarily that they want to
improve the center. They’ve been a great tenant in the Town of Queensbury. The tenants enjoy it.
The community enjoys it. Their emphasis on detail and cleanliness is, I think, outstanding. They
want to pave the parking lot, and the reason why we’re here today is basically they want to improve
the center, and I think, to have to go through and do this thing twice, or to modify a striped plan
seems a little backwards, in light of the fact that the relief being sought, I don’t think, is a stretch. So,
any leasing questions you have, I can answer. I can tell you there are office service tenants looking at
the Plaza. So I hope we can satisfy them, but the comment Bill made that, even though the spaces
seem to be there, the real estate agents today, representing incoming tenants, whether they be office
tenants or retail tenants, are very sophisticated. They have their formulas. They have their map.
They look at the size of the center. They look at the size of the spaces, and if we don’t have those
spaces available to them, we don’t get them as a tenant. So, that’s been a problem for Northway
Plaza, based on the geography, where the lot sandwiches down at both ends. We put two deals
together this week. Hopefully they’re both office service related. So, you know, the trend is
definitely leaning that way.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks a lot. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Would anyone
like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any additional correspondence?
MR. STEC-I do have a packet from J.S. Hagan Architect, P.C. design build, dated December 30,
1999, signed by James S. Hagan, which we’ve referred to and discussed its contents tonight, and it’s
in the package.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions, comments? Will you read the Staff Notes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 87-1999, Northway Plaza Associates, LLC, Meeting Date:
October 20, 1999, tabled September 22, 1999 “Project Location: Corner Route 9 and Quaker Road
Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes reconfiguration of parking areas and seeks
relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations. Relief Required: Applicant requests
0.5 feet of relief from the 9 foot minimum parking space width and 2 feet of relief from the 20
minimum length required by the Off Street Parking and Loading regulations, § 179-66, B. Criteria
for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to increase the number of available parking spaces. 2.
Feasible alternatives: Acquisition of a significant portion of the Stone property may allow for an
adequate number of compliant spaces. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
0.5 feet of relief from the 9 foot requirement and 2 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may
be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 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.): Site Plan Review pending 10/26/99 Staff comments: Moderate impacts
may be anticipated as a result of this action. Attention may be given to the adequacy of an 8.5 foot
wide space to accommodate all vehicle sizes and still allow sufficient access in and out of vehicles.
Based on the current requirements of § 179-66 it appears as though this site does not presently
comply. This proposed downsizing of the spaces coupled with the acquisition of additional lands
would bring the site closer to compliance. Consideration may be given to perhaps a larger parcel
from Stone, which may allow for the increase of compliant spaces. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Does anybody else have any comments? Like I was saying before, you
know, the Town of Queensbury requires, for an office space, one space per 150 square feet of area,
and Northway Plaza and the Travelers’, Travelers’ themselves require six spaces per thousand feet.
Right? So that’s more stringent than the Town, because the six spaces per 150 feet comes up to 900
square feet. So there’s that extra 100 square feet in there. Why does Travelers want six per
thousand?
MR. DUTCH-It’s a national standard.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-It’s a national standard for them?
MR. DUTCH-It was nonnegotiable in the lease. So, rather than draw attention to it, I just didn’t
make an issue out of it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, okay, and you said you needed 678 spaces, just for the Travelers.
MR. DUTCH-Presently.
MR. THOMAS-Presently. Okay, and if you add on 83,000, say, like half of the remaining, 83,000
would be about half the remaining Plaza.
MR. DUTCH-Well, Travelers presently has options on 31,000 additional feet.
MR. THOMAS-All right, additional 31,000. So you’re talking another 96 spaces. You’re talking six
per thousand.
MR. DUTCH-One hundred and eighty-six, I believe, is the number.
MR. THOMAS-Thirty one thousand, and six per thousand, would be 96 spaces, right?
MR. DUTCH-One hundred and eighty-six, thirty-one times six.
MR. MC NULTY-But they’ve already got five spaces per thousand now. So it’s 31 additional.
MR. DUTCH-That’s correct. Mr. McNulty is correct. One additional space per thousand.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So say 31,000 that you may or may not occupy, you would need another 186
spaces.
MR. DUTCH-For their designated use, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. DUTCH-But it would be actually 31 more than the Code requires, local code requires.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but for your lease there, you say you need six per thousand?
MR. DUTCH-That’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-So that’s 31,000. So you’d need really another 186 on top of the 678 that you
presently use. So you’d need 864 spaces, out of the 1433 that are there.
MR. DUTCH-If they exercise both options.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-I’m looking at something here which, I’m just looking at it because I don’t understand
exactly when I’m thinking about it. It says office building, the one you just alluded to, one per 150
square feet, which is 6.67 per thousand square feet, which requires even more than you’re asking for.
MR. HAGAN-That’s correct.
MR. DUTCH-Right, but we’re not asking to change the designation of this property.
MR. STONE-I understand. You’d like it to change, though, the way I’m listening to you.
MR. DUTCH-No, I think then we’d be less compliant.
MR. STONE-Well, you would be. It becomes, in a sense, confounding. You’re becoming more and
more of an office building in a shopping center style building.
MR. DUTCH-I don’t know, and I’m somewhat of a math aficionado. It’s a very complicated issue,
and if somebody else can figure it out and feel like we’re getting some preferential treatment, I think
we play with these numbers all the time, and it confuses us, but I think that our overriding concern
here is that we are compliant with both the Town and the tenant’s requirements. That’s a simple way
of summarizing it. A lot of what Northway Plaza is, is grandfathered. The property’s been around
for 35 years, since it was filled and constructed. So we’re not dealing with a new development here,
and as I said, we have exhausted every option we have to expand the lands that we can use.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. MC NALLY-You bought land from the Stones?
MR. DUTCH-No, we haven’t.
MR. MC NALLY-You plan to.
MR. DUTCH-We’re attempting to. It’s not an easy negotiation.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s part of your existing proposal that you have?
MR. DUTCH-It’s part of the existing proposal, and there is a question of possibly adverse
possession in our business, open, hostile and notorious use for a long period of time. This land is on
fill that’s been used for 30 years, and it is hard-surfaced buy not paved, and we are using it presently,
and we have offered, as good neighbors and good citizens, to acquire the land from Mrs. Stone who
is the widow of the original owner, who is an out of state resident now, and she is in her late 80’s,
and this is not a major issue with her. So it’s been a protracted negotiation back and forth, visa vie
her local attorney here, and we would have liked to have wrapped it up. There are a lot of other
extenuating circumstances and she wants to put the land up, and rather than us make a claim for
adverse possession, we offered her some money for it. So I’m hopeful that we can acquire it in the
not too distance future, and that could happen as early as next week, or we’ve been fooling with this
for 18 months now.
MR. MC NALLY-Why can’t you purchase more land from the Stones? It’s all vacant property back
there.
MR. DUTCH-Well, I think Mark could address it better. It’s so overvalued we can’t afford it, and I
think it’s being marketed as a commercial property, where only the piece of ours in the back, over the
gully, which would add on to the parking and ask for a similar zone change consideration, if we do
get it, that we ask for the cemetery piece.
MR. HAGAN-I think the point I can make is that the property is currently zoned residential. The
property goes through to Montray, and that’s residential property up there with residential houses
along it. There’s also a significant amount of topography that exists in that area of the site, and we’ve
looked at it. There may be a possibility that we could get additional parking back in there, but I’m
not sure, at this point, exactly how much that is, and what that’s all going to entail, and ultimately
what the Town Board, granting a zone change, and the Planning Board are going to allow, once we
go through that process.
MR. MC NALLY-What’s the price she’s asking that’s so difficult?
MR. DUTCH-I think it’s like $165,000.
MR. MC NALLY-And that’s for the entire parcel, not just the sliver you’re currently using for
parking?
MR. DUTCH-No, that’s correct.
MR. STONE-That’s going to be adjacent to the new hotel eventually, right?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes.
MR. DUTCH-Is there one planned there? I wasn’t aware of it.
MR. STONE-Next to Ponderosa.
MR. HAYES-It sounds like that might be on hold right now.
MR. STONE-Is it? They’re digging. They were digging today. At least they were moving earth
around, right, Craig?
MR. BROWN-They have a building permit.
MR. STONE-They got a building permit.
MR. MC NALLY-Isn’t that on Blind Rock? The parcel we’re talking about backs onto Blind Rock
Road, right on that curve there.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. STONE-I don’t know where they all come together there, actually. The area is changing,
obviously.
MR. DUTCH-Mark can articulate this for us, too, because he understands that.
MR. LEVACK-I’ve been involved with negotiating the Stone property, and I think what they’re
proposing is a very, very fair purchase. It purchases a strip of land. The ravine is huge, if anybody
has seen it back there. Jim, you have the topography map. It’s enormous. So there’s only one
section of the property to be purchased that’s actually even usable for their purposes, but there are
some nice homes on Montray, and I think that the key here was that Mrs. Stone was sensitive to only
selling so much, so that if she had, the balance of her property was residentially zoned property, she
didn’t want the commercialism to encroach on her property more, to diminish the value of her
remaining residential property, and I think the configuration that Northway Plaza has made an offer
on, and we are very close to acquiring that parcel, is a common sense configuration on that property
to be purchased. So I think to answer your question, why don’t you buy more land and satisfy your
problem that way, you solve one problem, but you create another, because you’re encroaching more
into a residential area.
MR. STONE-And it is pretty steep, as you say.
MR. LEVACK-And the terrain totally prevents it, in the southern, southwestern direction.
MR. DUTCH-Which made a portion of it natural for us to buy and leave as a buffer between
whatever a future developer does.
MR. LEVACK-This is the culmination of about 11 months worth of negotiation. So it’s not an easy
thing to.
MR. DUTCH-Two years. That’s how we’ve been able to hold Travelers at bay, really, on some of
these parking lot improvements that we caveated to do, because we said we really needed to acquire
the additional land before we could approach the Town with our overall plan for improvement.
MR. LEVACK-And I could sum it up by saying they have made every effort to try to mitigate their
issues elsewhere.
MR. STONE-But what you’re saying is that you don’t have 1433 spots at the present time.
MR. DUTCH-Well, there is a legal issue here which I’d rather not address, because this isn’t the
forum, but our attorneys claim that we, in fact, have a claim as an adverse possession claim. We
don’t have a deed or a quit claim or anything, and anybody with a legal background, and I don’t
profess to be an attorney. So, I can just tell you that rather than staking the claim, we felt that an
honorable negotiation was the route to go.
MR. LEVACK-And those contracts are drawn up, and we are literally right there.
MR. STONE-Unfortunately, we have one coming up later this evening, we had other promises.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, we don’t want to get into that. All right, any other Board members have any
questions or comments they want to make? If not, lets talk about it. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, as I spoke about at length at the last meeting that we had, I’m sold on this
application, and I’m sold primarily on economic arguments. First of all, I believe that Mr. Dutch is
correct, in that particularly in our community, we’re experiencing the growth of large retail, that’s
happening through big box facilities, big retailers, and they’re coming in typically and purchasing
large tracts of land where they can have large amounts of parking, and they’re spending a lot of
money to do that, but in that light, they’re also looking for a criteria, and a look and a setup and a site
that they can do that, and I think that that eliminates the Plaza, or hampers their efforts to attract
tenants, retail tenants, that might possibly fill the spaces that Steinbachs and the other large areas that
are in the Plaza. It’s going to be an uphill battle because that’s not the economic trend in our area, or
the developmental trend. Lowe’s, Hannaford Brothers, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, they all take on large sites
and do a lot of development, even the Hess stations that we’ve approved are, they’re very large. I
mean, that’s just what’s happening now. So they’re not moving into stores of the size that are in the
Plaza, which leads me to believe, and also agree with Mr. Dutch, that the fertile ground for renting
those stores or that square footage has a higher possibility in possibly office type formats, or non
retail formats, which, by definition, has a higher intense use, as far as parking. I think it’s a trend
that’s going to happen. I think it’s going to continue in the future. The other argument, economic
argument, that I think compels me to be in favor of the application is, being developer myself, I
don’t believe for a second that a developer would propose spending capital that doesn’t return rental
dollars itself, without a need, unless he has a need to defend to keep tenants, and I think in this
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
particular case, that the arguments that he’s putting forward about Travelers and the idea that they
have a number of alternatives. We’ve all read articles in the paper and are aware of, as Mr. Levack
pointed out, that right now, fortunate or unfortunate, these tenants can seek alternatives, and there’s
plenty of suitors, when it comes to good tenants, which Travelers provides a lot of good jobs in this
community. So I really am convinced that, from a developer’s standpoint, that he must feel the need
of this, and in fact if the parking spots don’t work out, at eight and a half feet, it’s really on his head,
not the community’s. I mean, it would lessen the value of his development. So those two main
economic arguments, which, to me, were also evidenced by the fact that elected officials in the Town
decided to sell the Plaza property next to Pineview Cemetery, as an accommodation to these very
tenants. I mean, there must be some wisdom, beyond just this panel, that feels that there’s a
legitimate issue with Travelers here, and that there’s a reason to meet their needs. So I think when
you consider those economic arguments, and then relay them into a neighborhood impact, which is
part of the test for an Area Variance that we’re charged with. My own particular opinion is that one
of the worst things for a neighborhood or a community is to have a large amount of vacant retail
plazas that are vacant, whether it’s potential employers or people that want to move into the area
come by and see large vacant retail spaces, it’s not a good representation of our community, and I
think Northway Plaza becoming a full plaza, a rented plaza with jobs, particularly office jobs, I think
that there’s plenty of motivation, in my mind, to recognize the neighborhood impact of what’s at
stake here. So, I’m okay with this application, as I pointed out before. So I’m for it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-This is a very close question. I waffled last week. I was against it, I think I was for
it before we tabled it, and I waffled because I really take seriously the threat that’s been made that
Travelers will go away. If you don’t do what we say, we’re going to take away jobs or the lifeblood of
the community. When I look at it, I see that the applicant is essentially asking for permission to
maximize the intensity and use of this Plaza. This Plaza was a retail Plaza for which there was
sufficient parking spaces, but by maximizing the use and making it an office space, they’re increasing
the number of uses, above and beyond what it was when they purchased it, and above and beyond
what the use was when it was built. It was never intended as an office complex. So the benefit to
this applicant would be they would be allowed to rent as many possible spaces to their tenants as
possible in order to maximize their income. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that. The feasible
alternatives are that they can use the existing parking spaces as they are, and I’m not convinced that
you can’t, as much as there are demands for 678 spaces for Travelers, in a parcel in which there are
currently 1433 spaces, and which, whenever I go by, there is always ample empty spaces, I don’t
think that the applicant’s demonstrated an actual need as it currently exists. The purchase from the
Stones would certainly be an alternative that’s open to them. The objection, of course, is it’s not
feasible because it’s expensive, or because it will involve additional lands which we won’t utilize.
There’s a deep ravine in the back there. There’s also a lot of flat land, too. It depends upon
engineering and construction to make it feasible. I don’t know that public transportation or
carpooling is something that the landlord should think about, but certainly that’s an option that
Travelers has, and this Board should consider, as being an alternative open to these applicants. I
have no doubt that when an applicant says he wants to spend $500,000, and that he wouldn’t be
coming to us unless he was going to spend $500,000 with the best of intentions, but he’s quite
serious about the need for improvements in the parking area, but those improvements are long
standing, because that parking lot needs a lot of work. The existing planters and what not would
certainly have to be taken down. The surface needs to be fixed up, and I actually look at this more as
an attempt to increase the spaces in a situation where you’re going to have to re-do that parking lot
anyway because the tenant would require it, given its current condition. So the fact that a lot of
money may be proposed for this expenditure doesn’t mean that there’s a need for these number of
parking spaces. Again, I don’t doubt that the applicant wants to make this the best Plaza for them,
commercially and economically and financially viable, but I don’t know if, on balance, the expense of
the citizens of Queensbury, of our community. I really was concerned that someone would come in
and tell me that a 24-foot wide aisle is being made by not painting the lines 20 feet wide instead of
18. The actual travel distance that cars going in and out of that Plaza is going to be the same. It has
no effect whatsoever. So effectively, there is no increase in the aisle dimensions. I park there a lot,
and a parked there specifically for this meeting and the last meeting that we were at, and it was tight,
and I see you came in with a list of vehicles, and you say how, well, it won’t be so bad if we reduce it
by two feet and six inches on either side, but I drive a Ford Ranger, and it was tight going in and out
there, because the people in the Travelers area and throughout the parking lot, they don’t park within
the lines. They park slanted. They park sideways, and there are a lot of cars that would not normally
fit in an undersized lot. We talked about these things at the first meeting, family vans, Dakota trucks,
Caravans, Crown Victorias, Ford F-150’s, Expeditions, Continentals, Town Cars, Cherokees.
Vehicles like this are very common in the area, and I’m concerned that the citizens of this
community are going to have a difficult time in that lot. You can say that, well, they’re going to park
their cars at eight o’clock and they’re going to leave at five, but they do come in and out, and if you
keep retail establishments in there, you’ve got children walking through, elderly walking through,
you’ve got workers walking through. They leave for errands. They leave for work. They leave for
the doctors. So it’s not as if they’re going to stay there and not come in and out and cause a
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
problem. The problem is compounded when you think about what it’s like in wintertime up there.
There are no lines in the wintertime up there, and there are small mountains of snow and ice, and
they take up a lot of space. There’s no way, no possible way, that it’s going to be a safe condition for
the people who live in our community. I think that the relief he requested, while on the face is
nominal, ultimately has an effect on the community and people, it’s substantial. On balance, I don’t
think I can be in favor of this.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Several thoughts. One, it strikes me this hardship was self-created, because the
current owners should have purchased the property with their eyes wide open, as far as what was
there and the way it’s retail or office space and what was available in the way of parking. I also feel a
responsibility to the employees of Travelers who also are citizens of this Town, and I think
somebody needs to defend them, if you will. I don’t see any reason to give them substandard
parking places. Another thought that strikes me is, I’ll agree, we want to keep business here. We
want to attract people. One of the reasons they come here is, as the applicant has indicated, the
quality of living, and while it’s a small contribution, things like decent sized parking places are part of
the quality of living, and if we keep taking away some of the things that attract people to this area, in
order to get more people in here, pretty soon there’s not going to be a reason for them to come. It
also strikes me that while this is retail space, theoretically, it is becoming, in fact, office space, and the
requirements for parking for office space are more stringent then the requirements for retail space.
So as this Plaza converts more and more to office space, the problem’s going to become worse yet. I
can see that the alternatives for the owner are tough, but I think as Bob kind of indicated, there still
is the option of trying to buy the rest of the Stone property and work up some kind of a
configuration with that that would still protect the residential areas. There are other alternatives as
well, whether it be a small parking garage, which I’m sure is going to be extremely expensive. I think
that there well could be a way of working something with mass transit. With the number of
employees that are working at Travelers now, a bunch of them have got to live in Glens Falls and
Queensbury areas that are currently served by mass transit, and I think something could be done
even beyond just suggesting to them that they use mass transit. There could be even some deal
worked with subsidizing bus passes for them to get them to and from work if necessary, but I guess
my bottom line is, when I look at it, other than the fact that there’s a threat that maybe Travelers will
pick up their marbles and go somewhere else if we don’t give them more parking places, I don’t see
anything that makes this area any different than any other office space in the Town. I don’t see any
reason for us to grant this request for smaller parking places because this place is unique. So, I’m
sorry, but I still come down opposed.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan?
MR. STEC-Well, I think Chuck and Bob make some very good points, and I do believe, I find it
hard to believe that Travelers is going to be, or has been, as inflexible on this issue as clearly the
applicant is insistent on, and by the same token, I think the applicant, as Jaime pointed out, has
certainly demonstrated the willingness to, and the urgency and need to correct this situation. So,
from that standpoint, I believe in the applicant’s sincerity, coming before the Board, that they feel
that this is their last alternative, and that they’ve done the best that they can, although I find it hard to
believe that Travelers would, as Chuck said, decide to pick up their marbles and go elsewhere, but
taking the applicant on their word with that, and looking at the five criteria that we’re supposed to
use, when granting an Area Variance, there’s, obviously, at least from the applicant’s perception, clear
benefit, in being able to maintain one of their largest tenants. Additionally, I think there’s benefit to
the Town to maintain that. Now, although I’d prefer to not have that stick waived at me, and I don’t
think it has, I think it’s been dropped a few times, and it’s been subtle, but it’s definitely present.
Feasible alternatives, I would prefer, and I would encourage, variance granted or no variance granted,
that the applicant, on their word, if they are granted the variance, to continue to seek other land. Just
because you have a variance doesn’t mean that you have to use it. I think we would all prefer to see
additional lands acquired, and maintain the size of the parking spaces, but again, we’ve got another
application coming before us again where promises were made and didn’t happen. So it’ll be hard to
enforce, but again, you know, we all live here, and shop together and work together. So hopefully,
we could take people at their word, but for me, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, and
for me, this is the litmus test, and I can’t, for the life of me, think that six inches of relief is significant
enough to really vote against this. I think that, I fear the effects on the neighborhood or community,
and I’m not willing to call their bluff, and say, yes, I’ll gamble. Am I concerned about the employees
of Travelers? Yes, I want them to have good parking spaces, too, but I don’t want to substitute my
judgement tonight and say, I’m going to say no, and call the bluff, and have Travelers roll out of here
and then have to turn to an employee and say, well, you know, we were thinking of your parking, but
now you lost your job. So I’m not willing to make that call tonight. So with that said, I’m in favor of
the proposal, but I would prefer to see more land acquired, and then revert back to a nine-foot space.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. STONE-Well, what we’re just hearing here is one of the reasons that I personally enjoy being
on the Zoning Board, because we do stick our necks out. We do say where we’re coming from, and
it’s an interesting experience. I recommend it to everybody. I’ve listened to all these arguments, and
I guess I’m coming to the conclusion that, in one sense, this application is premature. Why do I say
that? Well, I read the lease requirement here. It says they want so many parking spaces, and they
want them specially marked. The applicant says to me, well, we’re not going to specially mark them
at the moment. So therefore there’s adequate parking for Travelers in that lot, as it’s currently
striped. There are more than enough spaces for the way the business is going in that particular thing,
and I guess I would rather see the applicant say, well, lets wait until we see when we really, really need
this, when we fill this building up and we have more cars in this parking lot, in a nine foot parking
slot than we can possibly handle. You tell me you’re not going to specially stripe. So these are not
Travelers’ spots. There are approximately 1400 parking spaces in that lot, which, by my math, is a lot
more than 678. Yes, other ones are used for other businesses, but nowhere have you said tonight
that you anticipate at any one time these days having 1433 cars in that lot at any one day. I would
prefer, I really would prefer, because I hear the arguments made by Mr. Stec. I hear the arguments
made by Mr. Hayes, in that we need the business, we need the tenant, and we do. There’s no
question. I’m certainly in a position, I’m not in a position to say we don’t need jobs in this Town,
particularly for the next two weeks I can’t say that. We do need jobs in this Town, and I don’t want
them to go away, but at the same time, why don’t we, this is not, I’m all for planning, and I love to
anticipate, but I don’t think we have to anticipate anything here until we fully lease out this building.
Then I certainly would like you to come back, if, in fact, you have to say to me, we need more spaces
because there are more cars in this building than we can accommodate. Then I think we can talk
about it. At the moment, I think, on balance, looking at the whole thing and listening to some very
excellent arguments, as I say, I just think it’s premature, based upon what you said to me, that you’re
not going to mark them. Therefore, there’s more than enough spaces for Travelers right now, and I t
think on balance, I would probably vote to deny.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ve listened to all the Board members’ very eloquent speeches, Jaime, with
his, the additional land that the applicant plans to buy from the Town of Queensbury, that the Town
Fathers have thought that the sale of this land would indeed help the Northway Plaza with additional
parking, and also the Stone property on the Northeast corner of this is zoned SFR-1 Acre, which one
of my predecessors considers the most holy of zones in this Town, and I do not want see any more
than would have to be parking places in an SFR-1A zone. As far as, you know, the underlying
statement that, well, if we don’t get this parking that we’re going to pull out of town, I don’t know,
but I think it was Dan that said, are we going to say, you lost your job because you didn’t get an eight
and a half foot parking space? Really, and that, you know, would I rather have an eight and a half
foot parking space or would I rather have a job? I think I’d rather have the job. As far as anybody
else coming in and asking for eight and a half foot parking spaces. I don’t see it because this is a
unique circumstance where a shopping center is now going into an office complex, and I think it was
Jaime that said, from the developer’s point of view, that the developer would not be putting this
money in there unless he thought he was going to get some kind of return on it. They wouldn’t
spend money for nothing. So, in my opinion, I believe that the eight and a half by eighteen-foot
parking space would only encumber the occupants and the tenants of the shopping center, and it
would not really encumber anyone else in the Town or the community. So, having said that, I would
vote, yes, on this application.
MR. MC NALLY-They need five to pass, don’t they, Mr. Chairman?
MR. STONE-I think it was denied at the County.
MR. THOMAS-Did the County recommend no?
MR. STEC-That’s where were last time. We had four but not five out of five. It was four one last
time.
MR. THOMAS-Which way?
MR. STEC-Four in favor.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-But as two of us have said, we’ve heard more.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you’ve heard more, but maybe you’ve thought about it a little more.
MR. MC NALLY-The point about losing a job for an 18-foot spot is well taken, but you flip it
around, though. Are you telling me that Travelers is going to quit this area because they’ve got a (lost
word) wide parking spot?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. STEC-Well, that was my point. I find it hard to believe, but that’s why I believe.
MR. HAYES-There was just an article in the paper about North Greenbush sputtering along on a
development, and they just left.
MR. STEC-I went to work the next day, and the flavor at work the next day was, what were they
thinking.
MR. HAYES-Correct.
MR. STONE-Yes, but wait a minute, though. Travelers is not asking for an eight-foot six inch
parking area. They want 678 dedicated spots. I mean, that’s all we have heard tonight. Travelers has
never said it has to be eight, six.
MR. HAYES-Yes, but they’re asking compliance with what they need, and what they might even
need.
MR. STONE-Well, the compliance might be that a variance is asked for the number of parking
spaces for the rest of the project. I mean, that’s another way to look at it. Staff, is that something
that could be asked for, relief from the number of parking spaces, for the remaining?
MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s what I was trying to allude to earlier.
MR. STONE-I know you were.
MR. THOMAS-But that kind of fell by the wayside.
MR. STONE-Well, not really. We just didn’t bring it up.
MR. BROWN-Well, I think as the applicant has stated, that as the Plaza was originally constructed
and developed, the number of spaces, the nine by twenty, the number of spaces that were there were
compliant. If you take into account the existing uses, the Travelers’ office space, the other office
spaces, the potential for office versus shopping spaces, they’re probably going to require more spaces
than they have there now. So in order, to give them more spaces, if they’re six inches smaller, I think
it’s going to get them closer to the number of spaces the actual uses are going to require. Regardless
of what the property is classified, the actual uses in the building, in the building square footage, I
think are going to require more spaces than are available on the property. So to give a higher
number is going to get them closer to what they actually need.
MR. STONE-I understand that, but when does the building, the property change designation? Right
now it’s shopping center, and I recognize if this were classified overnight as an office building,
they’re in terrible trouble. They haven’t got close to the number of spaces, six and two-thirds per
thousand square feet.
MR. BROWN-They’re a pre-existing, nonconforming Plaza. I don’t think we can hold them to new
standards. They’re not making a new building.
MR. STONE-I’m not suggesting. I’m just wondering out loud.
MR. BROWN-Plaza Commercial, right? Yes, an office building is a permitted use.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, a professional office.
MR. STONE-So, if you’re Plaza Commercial, you don’t have to have six and two-thirds. Is that
what you’re saying? If you permit offices in there, the six and two-thirds does not come into play.
MR. MC NALLY-Correct.
MR. STONE-If offices are a permitted use in Plaza Commercial, then the offices are legal that are in
these buildings, but they’re not mandated to be six and two-thirds parking spaces per thousand
square feet.
MR. BROWN-If it was a new development.
MR. STONE-New development it would be.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-Yes, I understand that.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. BROWN-We don’t require them to right now, because they’re pre-existing. I’m trying to make
the point that the actual uses may require that. I mean, the physical use of an office building, they’re
going to most invest. They’re going to jam the people in as close as they can to get the most
employees for the square footage. The actual physical requirements of the floor space that they’re
using might require them to have more space than what they can provide. So to give them smaller
spaces might get them closer than the number.
MR. STONE-But it really comes down to if every available space were office space, yes.
MR. BROWN-Yes, they wouldn’t even be close.
MR. STONE-But we’ve got a post office which obviously doesn’t require, I mean, it’s a small area.
We’ve got a, I don’t know what’s going to happen when Convenient Medical moves out, what you’re
going to do with that space.
MR. MC NALLY-They’ve got retail.
MR. STONE-Yes, so I mean, they’ve got lots of things.
MR. MC NALLY-A lot of vacancy.
MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, as I said earlier, I certainly appreciate, you’d hate to lose on the basis of
not lowering parking spaces, but that isn’t the question, to me, that’s before us, until they tell me that
they’re going to stripe 678 for Travelers. Then, what do we do with the rest? I haven’t heard that. I
just heard they need 678 spaces.
MR. DUTCH-Would you like me to talk about that? I’d be happy to do that.
MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead.
MR. DUTCH-I’d be happy to tell you that I’ll stripe those 678 spaces for Travelers, if that’s what’s
needed to move this thing along.
MR. STONE-Will you leave the rest at nine?
MR. DUTCH-Mr. Hayes hit the nail on the head with our dilemma. Traditional retail as we know it
has changed. The retail of the present, and who knows what the future’s going to bring with the
Internet and the change in consumer habits. We don’t know. I don’t know what’s going to happen
to all these big boxes. I don’t know what’s going to happen to all these empty malls. You don’t have
as many here as we do back in my home town of Syracuse where we’ve got three empty malls now
and nobody’s figured out a reuse of those yet. The best idea that’s been proffered is a warehouse
space right now.
MR. STONE-We had a mall that I guess Jaime said, you’d hate to see empty space. We had a mall
that was full of empty space. Now it’s full.
MR. DUTCH-Well, our dilemma is what we’re constrained with here, and we cannot tear down, nor
attract a big box tenant to get us back to full occupancy. We have a tremendous amount of money
invested in these facilities now, and have invested three or four million dollars in addition to what we
paid for this, to keep Travelers in this community. So we have “put our money where our mouths
are”. We are committed to Queensbury. Our group has owned this property for 10 years. We
weren’t hit and run artists here. We faced a crossroads which was, give Travelers up, and what Mark
said was exactly true. Travelers opened this up to an RFP. I hate to tell you this, because this isn’t
my ego speaking, but Travelers happens to be a very loyal tenant, and we have taken care of them
very well, and unless you do something that is critical and crucial, they’ll stay with you. We don’t
have long-term leases here. The term of the lease I don’t think was on the excerpts that we gave you,
but there are very few developers that would go out and invest several million dollars for a short-
term lease with Travelers. My problem is that Travelers has become a much bigger entity today than
what it was when I began dealing with it. Citi Group is the largest corporation in the world. I
believe it is ranked Number One, and what decisions were made at the Travelers level are now being
made by others in that organization. It is my fervent hope that they will expand the job base in this
property and in the community, and I don’t want somebody to visit here and say, hey, this isn’t
where we should be. I couldn’t find a parking spot when I came in, you know, one of their upper
level management people. We have enough to do, and our time is better spent kowtowing to their
needs, and doing our part to keep them in the community. I’m the one that has to pay taxes to the
local taxing authorities on the vacant space that’s there. Travelers isn’t paying tax. They’re paying
taxes on the portion they occupy. Right now, with the number of square feet we have vacant, I’m
picking up the burden myself. Economic hardship, I’m not asking you to feel sorry for us. I’m
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
saying we’ve invested money in Queensbury. We believed in this and we inherited it. I agree with
you, but there’s a limited number of uses that we have available that we have to us and options for
the space that we do have vacant here, and I can tell you. I’ve talked until I’m blue in the face to real
estate representatives for national types of tenants, and unfortunately today, they’re the ones that are
creditworthy. Could I have predicted that Steinbachs was going to go bankrupt on us? Well, we
invested $675,000 in improvements in that store in 1993 to keep them here, and four and a half years
later, they were gone, and our money’s down the tubes. How often can we afford to do that, and Mr.
Hayes made the point, that investing in parking facilities, we negotiated, Travelers didn’t say here
only because they loved Queensbury. They stayed here because they got a very competitive
economic deal from us, and one in which is part of their criteria is cheaper than what they can get in
New York or in a major metropolitan community, coupled with the plentiful and trainable labor
force and the style of living here, all of those things are salient in their arguments. How much relief
are you granting us? I cannot expand or stretch that property out any greater than it’s expanded right
now. I don’t have any alternatives. I can’t build a garage. I built garages for a living for a long time,
believe me, we can’t afford to put up a deck in this property. So we went and we tried to use our
best judgement as to what the best course of action was for us. I don’t think our issue here, I think
we’re losing sight of what it is. I mean, we’re talking about six inches. From the environment I came
from, I striped 85% of the 50 some odd facilities we had, myself, and in open air surface parking lots,
I striped seven and a half foot spaces, seven and a half by eighteen, not eight and a half by eighteen.
So we didn’t come in here saying, eight by eighteen. I came in here at what I thought was still
comfortable with the hairpin configuration that Mr. Hagan proposed that will actually get people to
avoid the problems I think Mr. McNally pointed out where people do straddle spaces. They feel that
they have, the car is a major investment today. It wasn’t that major investment 20 years ago. Today,
a car is a major investment, second to a house. So I think that hair-pinning the spaces and all those
things, nobody’s going to suffer any hardship getting into an eight and a half foot space that’s hair-
pinned, so that you’re actually guided into the space, and without, if we had daylight, I could come
out here and demonstrate to you that having a wide aisle and a shorter space, you’d find it easier to
maneuver in and out, and it’s the maneuvering that counts, not the width of the aisle. It’s your ability
to maneuver. So I made our case. I think we’re at our limit. We’re maxed out here, and we need
your help.
MR. STONE-Two things. One, I guess I would like some help on, that this is not premature, and
one of the things that maybe you could help me with, it got alluded to tonight because I had
forgotten it from a month ago. You need to re-pave. That’s one of the things that hasn’t been said
tonight.
MR. MC NALLY-No, they can’t wait.
MR. STONE-They can’t wait. You need to re-pave, and obviously, when you re-pave, you have to
re-stripe.
MR. DUTCH-Well, yes, you’re going to line new stripe on, but we’re reconfiguring, in addition. We
are improving the traffic patterns.
MR. STONE-You’re going to make a major improvement in physical parking area.
MR. DUTCH-That is our intent, yes.
MR. STONE-And obviously, if you put down new blacktop, you cover up the old striping, so you’ve
got to put new striping in. There’s an expense, and you’re saying you’d like to do that at eight six
rather than (lost words)?
MR. DUTCH-If you can bear this in mind. We came in here in good faith. We could have just gone
out and striped it at eight six, and probably nobody would have said boo or even known the
difference, but as good citizens, we came in here and said, this is our intent.
MR. STONE-Well, I think that, as reluctant as I am, I could probably see my way to say yes.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? Anymore
questions for the applicant? We’ve talked about it. Would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-1999 NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC.,
LLC, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Corner of Route 9, Quaker Road. The applicant has proposed reconfigured parking areas and seeks
relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations. Specifically, I move that we approve six
inches of relief from the nine foot minimum parking space width, and two feet of relief from the
twenty foot minimum length required by the Off Street Parking and loading Regulations per Section
179-66B. The criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law,
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
Number One, the benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be permitted to increase the number
of available spaces, becoming more compliant with both the Town’s Code and their major tenant’s
lease agreement. Additionally, I note that there would be benefit to the Town, in continuing to retain
a major employer in the Town. Feasible alternatives, I believe that the applicant has adequately
sought for the best feasible alternative possible, has demonstrated a willingness to acquire additional
properties and improve traffic flow on the site, with the reconfiguration, and because they’re going to
resurface the parking lot, it seems most feasible to re-stripe it the best way possible the first time,
rather than coming back and talking about re-striping in the future. Is the relief substantial relative to
the Ordinance? In my opinion, six inches of relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance, or to
the ramifications from non-approval, potentially, and effects on the neighborhood or community.
There would be no adverse effects directly on the Town. The burden would be entirely confined to
the property itself, and would have no impact on the community or Town. Is the difficulty self-
created? It could be interpreted as self-created only in that the character of the use has changed over
time, but with all this said, I think that the balancing test falls in favor of the applicant in this case,
and I would just add to the record that I think that the applicant should continue to seek more
parking area, so that they could perhaps, in the future, go back to a wider space. I move that we
approve the variance. That the distance from the travel lane between the parking rows will be 24
feet.
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
MR. THOMAS-Okay, is there any question on the motion from any of the Board members?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, one. Although I still intend to vote against it, I think you should also add in
there that travel distance between the lanes will be 24 feet rather than 20. Because the way it’s stated
now, they could reduce the distance between the lanes by four feet.
MR. STEC-Agreed.
MR. STONE-I’m just wondering if we ought to cite, the six inches, obviously, you read it on paper is
a very small number. Should we say 5.1% reduction, because that’s about what it comes out to be?
MR. THOMAS-No, because it’s stated in feet, in the Ordinance, not percentage, I would rather stay
with the actual measurement, rather than percentage.
MR. STONE-No problem. Should we put the number of parking spaces that this should lead to,
1500 and whatever the number is?
MR. STEC-No reason not to, but, what’s the number again, it was 1433?
MR. THOMAS-No, 1518.
MR. STEC-All right.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, suppose they don’t get the property for, that they’ve got an adverse
possession claim over. By saying 1518 spaces, are you saying that they could squeeze 1518 into the
existing lot?
MR. STEC-Good point.
MR. MC NALLY-Are we doing the same thing, relying on their good faith in order to go ahead?
MR. STONE-How many spaces are going to be on the Stone property, as you’ve contemplated, at
eight five?
MR. BROWN-I think probably the best way to handle it would be to give them relief for the spaces
on the property that they own.
MR. STONE-That’s all we can do.
MR. BROWN-Right, and once they acquire title to the other property, they’ll have to come back and
get relief.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s just the safest way.
MR. STEC-So leave it stand as is.
MR. THOMAS-Leave it stand as is.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. STONE-For the property currently owned.
MR. THOMAS-The application is for the property they currently own.
MR. STEC-We can’t grant a variance to property that he doesn’t own.
MR. STONE-That’s true, but in the Staff Notes, it’s mentioned in the Staff notes, the Stone
property, you mentioned it in the Staff Notes that acquisition may. So we ought to be clear that
we’re talking about the property currently owned by the applicant.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-But that’s specific in their application. They reference a tax map number. That’s the
parcel that they own.
MR. STONE-Okay. If it’s clear, fine.
MR. STEC-I think it’s clear. Is it clear to you, applicant?
MR. HAGAN-Yes. We understand that we can’t get a variance on the other Stone property.
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally
MR. THOMAS-That’s four yes, two no, and they had to have, Warren County said no. So you had
to have five. Would either one of the no votes like to be changed to a yes? No? Okay. Now what
do we do, Craig? We could wait for the appointment of the seventh member, bring him up to speed.
I don’t know how soon you want to do this.
MR. DUTCH-I posed this question before I left the last time. This is, I hope, not a moot question,
but is there any ground on which either of the dissenters would have to reconsider their vote? I
mean, I haven’t heard an issue where, if you do this, or, you know, is there some other gray area? I
think I posed that to Mr. Stone last time. Assuming that we could satisfy what I thought was the one
piece of business that the Board had a little bit of discomfort with, which was a statement I made
about Travelers parking requirements, which we then came back and documented, and so I ask again,
before we leave, are the no votes retractable, and I’m not trying to pressure you, but we obviously
put a lot of time and effort into this.
MR. THOMAS-I would ask Bob and Chuck, is there anything the applicant can do, can change, can
say that would change your votes?
MR. MC NALLY-No.
MR. THOMAS-Is there anything that they can change in their presentation, in what they propose to
do, you would like to see them do, to change your vote?
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. MC NALLY-No.
MR. DUTCH-The reason that I asked that is I didn’t hear, I listened to the arguments very carefully,
and I didn’t hear anything compelling that we were getting some preferential treatment. I mean, I sit
here and listen to people talk about getting a major deviation in a side yard setback on a swimming
pool, and yet this thing has a far more reaching impact on the community, and if you had raised an
issue that I, myself would have some trouble groping or going to sleep at night over, I could
understand it, but we’re not talking about, this, to me, isn’t a matter of principle. This is a matter of
just common sense. If there’s something, and I respect your opinions, believe me I do, but I just
didn’t hear anything from either of you, other than the fact that we might be squeezing people into a
little bit tighter parking space.
MR. MC NALLY-I had a comment last time we met. I had a comment this time we met. I’m not
convinced of the need. I’m not convinced that you haven’t explored all feasible alternatives.
MR. DUTCH-Can you just stop on that one and tell me what other feasible alternative we might
have that we haven’t explored?
MR. MC NALLY-Well, you haven’t even purchased the property that you’re proposing, with your
plan, to add to the Plaza.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. DUTCH-We have finalized our deal with the Town. That’s a done deal.
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve not finalized the deal with the adjacent property owner. You might object
to some of the prices. You might object to some of the terms.
MR. DUTCH-But that makes us less compliant, sir, not more.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m not saying you’re more or less compliant. All I’m saying is another alternative
that was requested. You’re asking for a change which will result in something which I think will be
inconvenience the citizens of the community and the users of your Plaza, who are more than just the
Travelers employees. They’re the patrons of the retail establishments and other businesses on the
site. I think that it poses an increase in possible danger to the travelers throughout that area,
property damage to their cars and on and on. We’ve already taken a vote. The application is denied.
I don’t know what we’re doing here now.
MR. STEC-It’s not passed.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s not passed, exactly.
MR. STONE-That’s a denial, is it not?
MR. STEC-No.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, you’re saying, what else can you do? We’ve discussed all those alternatives.
I don’t know what I can tell you.
MR. DUTCH-But neither of you had a constructive suggestion as to what we could do to appease
you, either of the people.
MR. MC NALLY-It doesn’t matter, my coming up with a constructive suggestion for you, in order
to meet your financial needs of your Plaza.
MR. DUTCH-I don’t think we’re talking about, and again, I’m not holding you hostage over this, the
financial needs of my Plaza or me. I think we’re talking about something that’s in the greater good
for the community here, and I don’t want to, as Mr. Stec said, and I’m trying not to quote him out of
context, but I, personally, don’t want to shoot crap with whether or not we’ll lose a tenant, and
whether or not we’ll lose the jobs. Enough said.
MR. THOMAS-I take this vote as a hung vote, because we don’t have the full seven members here,
and the applicant is entitled to have a full seven members before we vote.
MR. MC NALLY-Didn’t we take a vote? And if we take a vote, they want to come back with
another application, doesn’t there have to be a substantial change in the plan?
MR. HAYES-That’s for a denial.
MR. THOMAS-That’s on a denial.
MR. STEC-I think we’re where we were the last time, the same spot. It’s still open.
MR. DUTCH-Mr. Chairman, are you recommending that we ask this to be tabled? Or is it too late?
MR. THOMAS-I don’t believe it’s too late, but, in my opinion, you are entitled to have a full Board
hear you and vote. We did have one member resign last month, and I don’t know what the Town
Board has been doing to get the vacancy filled.
MR. HAYES-There’s another possibility, too, and I don’t know the rules, because we’ve never talked
about this, but as far as Warren County, I mean, to go back to them, do you have to have a
substantial change?
MR. DUTCH-I was just going to suggest that, because I think some of the arguments they raised had
to do with tourism and the parking of recreational vehicles and things that were really not germane
to, if you re-read that, and Mr. Stec read it into the minutes of the last meeting, some of their
objections had to do with things that would pertain to outlet type of centers, and I don’t know if this
is appropriate for him to re-address that or not, at this point, but I don’t think, had we had the
opportunity to deal with the County.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. HAYES-Clearly, you shot yourself in the foot a little bit by not going to the County meeting.
You’d have to investigate the rules, whether it’s possible to re-visit that, and if it is, then that would
change the vote.
MR. DUTCH-In this case, ignorance isn’t bliss. We weren’t aware of the impact of the negative
declaration.
MR. HAGAN-Thank you very much for your time.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1999 TYPE II CR-15 DOUBLE A PROVISIONS OWNER:
BEN ARONSON 64 MAIN STREET APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN
ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF AND RELIEF FROM THE PERMEABILITY
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CR-15 ZONE. ALSO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING
RELIEF FROM THE BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 9/8/99 APPROVED TAX MAP NO. 134-6-1, 14 LOT SIZE: 1.31 ACRES
SECTION 179-24, 179-72
FRANK LEO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BEN ARONSON, PRESENT
MR. THOMAS-Have you go the tabling motion on that?
MR. STEC-Yes. “Area Variance No. 83-1999 Double A Provisions Tabled Motion to Table Area
Variance No. 83-1999 Double A Provisions, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: The applicant has constructed an addition and seeks setback
relief and relief from the permeability requirement of the CR-15 zone. Also, the applicant is
requesting relief from the buffer zone requirements. This application will be tabled for no more than
62 days, in which time the applicant will consult with his neighbors as to make the situation more like
it was when we granted the variance two years ago. Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 1999,
th
by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone NOES:
NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas Sincerely, Chris Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board
of Appeals.”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Gentlemen, is there anything else you want to add, tell us about, talk about
this situation?
MR. ARONSON-I think you stated we were asking for relief from permeability, and I believe we
have enough permeability. We’ve measured it out. I think that Craig has agreed with that. The
question is the buffer in the back, due to the fact that Mr. Fish declined to sell the property, after a
contractual agreement.
MR. STONE-Nothing has changed since last month?
MR. ARONSON-Nothing. We’re asking that you consider allowing us to do the same that Dunkin
Donuts has done, Hess has done, Cumberland Farms has done, construct a fence along the property
line and landscape it with green shrubs, exactly as they’ve done. We’ll end up with about the same
buffer zone that they have. I’ve got pictures to show, if you have any questions. I’m sure you’re all
aware of the buffer at Hess, or wherever, Cumberland Farms or Dunkin Donuts. Dunkin Donuts is
new construction, was let go, and I feel we’re entitled to the same treatment. There’s no objections
from Mr. Fish. You know the circumstances there. I’m sure you’re all aware of it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We know that the deal fell through, quote unquote.
MR. ARONSON-My option is to sue Fish. If that’s what you want me to do, I’ll have to do it.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, whatever you do is, as far as legal is concerned, is up to you.
MR. ARONSON-I’d like to resolve it without doing that.
MR. THOMAS-Nobody wants to go through that expense anyway, but it’s just unfortunate that you
and Mr. Fish had an agreement, and everybody was happy with it, and then he backed out of it, and
put you into this dilemma, because the Zoning Board was very happy with the fact that he was going
to sell you the property. There was going to be that large buffer zone behind there, and it was going
to be parking lot also, but now that the deal has fallen through, we’re back here. The new
construction, it looks like a piece of it has gone over the property line between you and Mr. Fish.
MR. LEO-That’s a deck, off a rear exit. As far as moving that, we could move it to the other side of
the building.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-But it does show going across that property line.
MR. ARONSON-We can take it off.
MR. THOMAS-It shows the property line right there. It shows this overhang right here on the
property line.
MR. STONE-Did we get a new drawing, Craig, on this?
MR. LEO-Yes, that’s a little shed roof, an emergency door, is all this is. We can take this out. I can
move this here.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. You can take this overhang here and move it somewhere else.
MR. LEO-Move it here.
MR. THOMAS-So it’s not over the property line.
MR. LEO-Right, exactly. We sent a letter, when we did our application, stating that we would do
that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, right here, has agreed to have legal papers drawn up stating he will not allow
any construction on the stated property, Mr. Fish’s property. Well, I’ll have it read in to the
application. No one else has the drawing with the property line on it?
MR. STEC-I don’t. I don’t even see it in the.
MR. BROWN-That other map, turn it over, underneath the one you’ve got.
MR. STONE-Only our Chairman.
MR. THOMAS-How did I get so lucky? All right. So the addition is the same that we approved two
years ago?
MR. ARONSON-That’s correct. It hasn’t shrunk.
MR. THOMAS-Eighteen months ago, it hasn’t shrunk. It hasn’t expanded any. Okay.
MR. STONE-Where would the fence be, that you’re proposing?
MR. LEO-Right on the back property line.
MR. ARONSON-Right on the line. It would be substantial exposure from the Corinth Road that
would be landscaped. I think it would be very attractive. It would be very similar to what you’ve got
at Dunkin Donuts.
MR. MC NALLY-What kind of landscaping are you proposing along that fence?
MR. ARONSON-The same thing that they have, the green shrubs, about three feet apart.
MR. STONE-With the anticipation that they’ll be above the fence at some point?
MR. ARONSON-I’m sure they will be.
MR. THOMAS-What’s this one building that shows on Second Street?
MR. MC NALLY-The Fish.
MR. THOMAS-No, that’s not Fish.
MR. LEO-That was there once upon a time.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, a long time ago. I was going to say, I didn’t know if that was, so we don’t have
to worry about that.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s the other one that’s Fish.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. ARONSON-If I could reiterate about the permeability. According to our measurements, we do
have enough permeability. Didn’t you agree to that?
MR. BROWN-No. The calculations that Frank and I did in the office showed you propose 71%
impermeable. I re-did them and came up with 74. So either way, we’re one percent or four percent
over.
MR. ARONSON-Which we can improve on.
MR. LEO-No, it’s over, not under.
MR. BROWN-You’re proposing too much impermeable area.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that means they need.
MR. BROWN-Relief from that, or increase the green space.
MR. LEO-The green area in the front of the building now, that we propose to put a lawn, we can
make that lawn larger. That’s, you know, to make up the permeability.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you say you could bring the permeability into compliance.
MR. LEO-Yes, see this green area here? We could make this more grass here.
MR. THOMAS-Where it says stone?
MR. LEO-Where it says stone, and less stone, and that’ll take up, it should make up the difference.
This area here is grass.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. LEO-So if we move this line to here somewhere.
MR. STONE-In other words, just move the grass out toward the road.
MR. LEO-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. LEO-We should be able to take care of that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, okay.
MR. BROWN-It may require, the majority of that, you may not have any parking there, to get to the
70%. It may, I haven’t done the numbers, but.
MR. STONE-Well, what’s the size of the land? What’s the size of the parcel now? You don’t have a
ballpark figure. It’s four percent. You need four percent of whatever it is.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. LEO-Right.
MR. THOMAS-The application should have it.
MR. BROWN-The parcel is 56,846. That’s the parcel area.
MR. STONE-And you need?
MR. BROWN-You need four percent of that.
MR. STONE-Two hundred square feet.
MR. BROWN-Two thousand, I think.
MR. STONE-Two thousand square feet?
MR. BROWN-I think so, four percent of fifty-five, two thousand, twenty-two hundred.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. STONE-Twenty-four hundred, approximately.
MR. THOMAS-Well, this is 67 feet here.
MR. STONE-That’s including all the land behind, this is your property now, right?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Yes, it would take the majority of that area labeled stone. That’s roughly 45 by 55.
That’s, again, roughly 2,000.
MR. STONE-They can gain some back by the fence, too, Craig, can’t they? Take the crushed stone
out along the fence. Along the fence to the south, where they’re going to put the trees.
MR. THOMAS-They’re going to put the fence line with the.
MR. BROWN-Okay, along here?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes, on the property line.
MR. BROWN-Yes, they could do that.
MR. MC NALLY-We don’t have to grant relief. They just have to comply with the permeability
requirements.
MR. STONE-They have to comply, yes.
MR. BROWN-Right. They have to submit updated plans to show.
MR. ARONSON-We have enough room to do that, I’m sure.
MR. STONE-We could condition it on the basis of you will meet the.
MR. THOMAS-If they don’t get relief, then they’re going to have to come up with it.
MR. ARONSON-We could also expand the island on the corner if we had to. We could give you
quite a bit more there. We could bring that down Second Street another 25, 30 feet and gain
probably another 3, 400 square feet easily. I mean, it’s feasible if we have to do it.
MR. STONE-Well, if we decide that the fence is satisfactory, we can condition it on.
MR. THOMAS-Well, we won’t say anything and they’ll have to bring it into compliance, or come
back.
MR. STONE-It’s in the Staff Notes, though, that’s the only thing. The plan as submitted is 74%,
right, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-So we’ve got to address it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. What’s the distance between the storage building and that back property
line, where that overhang was?
MR. LEO-See where it goes down about halfway and then jogs out?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. What’s the smallest?
MR. LEO-The smallest is, I believe, two and a half feet.
MR. BROWN-2.1.
MR. THOMAS-2.1, I haven’t got it on my print.
MR. BROWN-It’s on the survey map.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-I take that back. I’ve got 2.3 on one and 2.1 on the other, on one corner. Are there
any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak
in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RANDY WINSLOW
MR. WINSLOW-My name’s Randy Winslow. I live at 60 Main Street, which is the easterly side of
Mr. Aronson’s property, and he told me, when he put in this fire lane, that he had to have a fire lane
on all four sides, accessibility of his building, for one, and if he puts a parking lot in where he’s
proposing it, I believe, which is on the easterly side of his building, all of his runoff will be in my
yard, because I am downhill from him, and I feel that some kind of, I don’t mind if he has a parking
lot, as long as he has some correct drainage, and he’s going to put his snow somewhere where it
doesn’t block my view or melt into my driveway, and he brings his fence up to Code, that’s between
his land and mine.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. There’s a picket fence there now.
MR. WINSLOW-That’s illegal, according to your Town book right here.
MR. THOMAS-But it’s been there for a while.
MR. WINSLOW-It’s not a picket fence, either. It is a solid, five-foot tall stockade fence.
MR. THOMAS-It’s a stockade fence?
MR. WINSLOW-There is no picket, and it goes beyond his front, architectural front door. The
height is too high.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. He’s got 30 feet too tall, 30 feet of length that’s too tall, and it’s supposed to
be open after that point, as a picket or a, you know, open fence, and it’s also going to cause my
driveway to get no sun in the winter, and I would have nothing but ice, because it goes right on my
driveway, all the way down through, six inches from it, and as it is right now, when the wind blows,
the dust comes across there like a storm. So I just have concerns that I would like, you know, I don’t
mind Mr. Aronson having his business and making his money, just as long as, you know, if he’s got
crushed stones out there with those trucks going in and out, where’s that dust going?
MR. THOMAS-In the air.
MR. WINSLOW-And then onto my antique motorcycles and my car, and my friend’s cars. I’ve
already lost a really nice looking neighborhood. When I bought three years ago, there was a beautiful
yard out there. Now it’s crushed stones, fence, and, you know, a big building with a silver roof that
shines over into my back yard so I can’t go out in the back yard after three o’clock in the afternoon,
because the sun comes off it so hard that it’s just like a magnifying glass in your eyes. So, I’ve
addressed what I needed to say, and thank you for your time.
MR. THOMAS-Before you go, you talked about the fence, the dust, the water runoff and the roof?
MR. WINSLOW-Yes, and also the fire lane, that if he puts the fence up across the back of his
building, he will not have four sides access to his building for fire, and that’s what he told me the
reason he put that stone road around there was, for fire access, and I’d hate to see him lose his whole
building because he couldn’t get in there. I think maybe there should be a way that you could leave
that back portion there open, if you could, if Mr. Fish agrees. I certainly don’t have any problem
with it, so that, if there’s a fire, he can get in there, and I seem to be the only neighbor here that has
anything to say about anything.
MR. THOMAS-As far as that access road on your side, that gets him to one side. Second Street gets
him on to the other side.
MR. WINSLOW-Right. That still leaves the back of the building, and he could lose a lot back there.
I don’t mind if they leave that fence there. I don’t see any other neighbors complaining about it. Mr.
Fish seems to think that the fence where it is, is fine, or he would be here complaining about it. It’s
still a good buffer. There’s nobody that’s going to ever live in that house that’s there. It’s
abandoned. It’s not livable.
MR. THOMAS-The only access that I can see that they can’t get to is the very back of the storage
and cooler, according to his print here.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. WINSLOW-Right. I was just concerned that his building could go up, and him not be able to
get there. I understand Mr. Aronson does need to make a living.
MR. THOMAS-Have you seen this print?
MR. WINSLOW-I know exactly where the line is out there. I’ve checked the surveyor marks and
stuff.
MR. THOMAS-As far as I can see, they have access to all four sides of that building. Coming in the
access road on your side, right around to the back.
MR. STONE-They just can’t drive around behind it.
MR. THOMAS-They can’t drive around behind the building, but, I mean, there’s.
MR. HAYES-Well, Dave Hatin gave his okay on the accessibility anyway. He signed off on that
already.
MR. WINSLOW-Okay, then that’s fine then. That was just one thing I was concerned with, that he
would lose that portion of his
MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. So the fire lane access has been taken care of.
MR. WINSLOW-Right. That’s fine with me, as long as it’s not like a road where people are driving
down through it, back and forth, back and forth, with dust flying, and the fence being dropped down
to the height.
MR. STONE-Well, the fact that they can’t go around the back is going to minimize the amount of
circular traffic.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. As far as the other things there, the dust control and the water runoff, I think
the Planning Board will take care of that. The roof reflection, I don’t know.
MR. WINSLOW-I don’t think there’s much you can do about that, but, it’s just an inconvenience,
because I used to spend a lot of time out in that back yard out there.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but you should be able to use your back yard, and not have to, you know.
MR. WINSLOW-When I moved in there, there was all flowers and there was fruit trees out there,
and little bird houses and a picket fence.
MR. STONE-With the other house that was there.
MR. WINSLOW-With the house that he had purchased.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because this other map, the survey map that I’m looking at is dated 1992. It
still shows the lands formerly of Randolph and Helen Whittemore.
MR. WINSLOW-Yes, right.
MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s all gone because.
MR. WINSLOW-That’s where the parking lot is going to be.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, actually in the front there, there going to probably bring that in to grass,
to come up with the.
MR. WINSLOW-You still have to get in and out of it.
MR. THOMAS-It’s just the access road.
MR. WINSLOW-Right, that isn’t the problem.
MR. THOMAS-No, but out in front there, where it says stone now, they’re probably going to have
to make that into grass, .to comply with the permeability. So, on that, it would be the northeast
corner of the building, right there where the Corinth.
MR. WINSLOW-What I’m worried about is my property value dropping so hard that I’ll never get
out of there. I spent every dime I had to buy my home. I just want to make sure that it’s as nice as it
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
can be. I don’t mind him making his living, but, I mean, when I moved in there, there was a nice
little old antique house sitting there, with grass and a beautiful little tree on the front, and nice
neighbors that didn’t lie to me or anything. So that’s about all I have to say. Thank you for your
time.
MR. STONE-Do you still have the property across the street where your employees park?
MR. ARONSON-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak?
MR. ARONSON-As far as any noncompliance that we have, Craig can address it to me at any time.
Any time he’s ever come before, we’ve always done what he asked. I think he could agree with that,
and usually very promptly. So if there’s anything that’s not in compliance that we don’t know about
that you can tell us, come and see me. We’ll get the chainsaw out.
DON DANIELS
MR. DANIELS-I’m Don Daniels. I own some properties across the street from Ben’s. The only
comments that I wanted to make, I know this is kind of a difficult situation, because of Ben
attempting to buy the house there on that property. Jim had told me, Jim Fish had told me a couple
of years ago he had a deal with Ben, and he was going to sell them that, and I thought the deal was
going through.
MR. STONE-So did we.
MR. DANIELS-Right. So, but Jim had told me, and Ben building the new building and everything, I
guess Jim had gotten into a variety of questions that came up about the house. Possibly a relative
wanted to have him keep the house because they might want to live there. Then there was a question
about his signage, if he was to sell the property to Ben, taking part of that property away, his sign
might have to be moved or if he wanted to put a new sign up there, it would have to be built closer
to his other building. So there was a bunch of questions that came up on Jim’s side, and
consequently the building was built and you folks have to deal with it now. I think it’s a nice
building, and Ben’s been a good person in the community and employs a lot of people. So that’s my
comments.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of or against this application? Is
there any additional correspondence?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I have a letter dated September 29, 1999, from Double A Provisions, “To
Whom It May Concern: We propose the following: We will install a fence along our back property
line and plant shrubs along said fence, similar to Dunkin Donuts. The rear door will be moved to
the west side of the building for a fire exit. If necessary, Mr. James Fish has agreed to have legal
papers drawn up stating he will not allow any construction on the stated area of Mr. Fish’s property.
We hope this matter can be amicably settled at this time. Sincerely, Ben Aronson” And I have public
comment received at the Town October 19, 1999, “Mr. Aronson has greatly improved the looks of
our street. Too bad we can’t say the same about other properties on Main Street. No one seems to
do anything about them. So we say let Mr. Aronson have what he wants. He deserves it. Thank
you. Savino J. & Donna D’Angelico” And I think that’s it.
MR. STONE-In the letter that Mr. Fish wrote to you, saying that he’s not going to give you any land.
That’s what he’s saying, but he didn’t say, I wish he had, that he has no objection to the fence being
there, though. He should have put that.
MR. ARONSON-He gave us a notarized paper that he and his wife both signed, giving us 50 feet, an
extra 50 feet, and it was deemed that it was not legal by the Town lawyer. So, he really, we’ve got this
piece of paper, and it’s still.
MR. STONE-Okay. No, I’m only saying, Mr. Aronson, that it would have been nice if he’d said, I
have no objection to the fence, that’s all. I haven’t got a problem with this. Don’t get me wrong.
I’m just saying, it’s always nice when we hear, we heard Mr. Winslow, and he has a valid point.
We’ve heard a man who is in favor. It’s nice if the adjacent property owner says okay. I’m not going
to sell it to him, but I don’t have any objection to the fence.
MR. ARONSON-We had that piece of paper. We gave it to you the last meeting.
MR. STONE-That he has no objection to a fence on the property line?
MR. ARONSON-That’s right. That’s correct.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Do you want to read the Town of Queensbury Staff Notes in there.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 83-1999, Double A Provisions, Meeting Date: October 20,
1999, tabled Sept. 15, 1999 “Project Location: Main Street Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant has constructed an addition to an existing dry goods storage facility and is requesting
setback relief. Also, the applicant proposes construction of an additional parking area and requests
permeability relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 22.9 feet of relief from the 25 foot
minimum rear setback requirement as well as 4% relief from the maximum 70% impermeable
requirement of the CR-15 zone, § 179-24. Further, since the CR-15/SR-1A zone line runs along the
southerly property lines, a 50 foot buffer is required from the commercial use and the residential
zone line. The applicant is requesting 50 feet of relief from the buffer requirement. By definition, a
buffer zone is a natural area, undisturbed, inhabited with natural vegetation to sufficiently screen
adjoining uses or zones. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the addition.
2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests 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 difficulty may be
interpreted as self-created. However, the applicant had anticipated purchasing additional lands to
alleviate this difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Use Variance
18-1997 res. 5/21/97 wholesale meat distribution Area Variance No. 19-1997 res. 7/30/97
setback relief Site Plan Review 22-1997 res. 7/30/97 warehouse addition & site improvements
Staff comments: Previously, this project was reviewed and approved by both the Planning and
Zoning Boards with the understanding, which was made a condition of the approvals granted, that
the applicant had purchased additional lands from Fish. Apparently, the applicant has not been able
to secure the title to the properties, which were previously believed to have been conveyed. All
previous approvals were conditioned upon the transfer of the Fish property and the same to be
consolidated with the existing Aronson properties. The applicant has agreed to construct and
maintain a 6-foot stockade fence along the property line/zone line as well as provide and maintain
landscaping along the line. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? Lets talk about it, then. Bob, we’ll
start with you this time.
MR. MC NALLY-I take this as a learning lesson. We passed this originally, in the mistaken belief
that you would acquire title to the property or had acquired title to the property behind you, and I
don’t think that will happen again, that we will take someone’s word at it, but I think you had the
beset of intentions in this. I have no sense whatsoever that you, Mr. Aronson, were trying to pull a
fast one, if you will. I think maybe the Fishes weren’t straight with you, and you’re the innocent
victim of this, but you built your building, in reliance upon that variance, and I think it would be a
great injustice to force you to take it down or to change the property. So when I look at the factors,
you should be permitted to maintain your addition. I don’t see any feasible alternatives, but I do see
your suggestions of a stockade fence, vegetation and the like as ameliorating the problem. The relief
is substantial, but on balance, I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t see it as self-created. So I
would be in favor of it. Now, you’ll fix the permeability problem. I’m just talking about the 50 foot
buffer requirement.
MR. ARONSON-If this gets re-zoned, there’s no buffer needed anyway, correct?
MR. MC NALLY-If what gets re-zoned?
MR. STEC-The area.
MR. HAYES-We really can’t deal with that at this point, though.
MR. ARONSON-I understand that. That’s in the future. Correct?
MR. MC NALLY-Right. Someday maybe.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck?
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. MC NULTY-I guess I will go along with this. If the Fish property had an inhabited house on it,
I would have a real problem with it. If there weren’t other properties along the same general area
that have got some kind of a similar fence, a very narrow buffer and your proposal weren’t there, I’d
have a problem with it, but given the circumstances, and understanding how you got where you’re at,
your proposal strikes me as being as reasonable as it can be with the situation. I’m happy with this.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-I agree with Chuck and Bob. I think that the situation that we’re in is not the fault of the
applicant, but someone he tried to enter into a land purchase agreement with, and having said that, I
agree that it would be wrong to have him tear down the addition, and I don’t think that the
community would gain anything by doing that. So I don’t think there are feasible alternatives, and
the benefit to the applicant is pretty clear. The relief is substantial, and buffer zones, you know,
they’re there for a reason. However, there’s ample example, in this part of Town, where alternatives
to the traditional buffer zone have been employed, and based on that, I don’t think there’s a negative
impact on the community to ask to tear down the addition. So, with that said, I’m in favor.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-I’m just sorry that Mr. Aronson had to go through all of this, because obviously he
operated in good faith. We operated in good faith. We granted a variance and we thought it was
behind us. We looked at the building and we looked at the construction and the enhancement of the
property, and every time I drove by, I’ve driven by there, I’ve said, gee, it looks nice. It’ll be better
when he gets it all done, but it looks very nice. Having said all that, I have no problem with this
thing. I am troubled by the fact that we’re forced to grant this, but the force is reasonable force, and
I have, certainly the benefit to the applicant versus all the detriment to the community, as we all talk
about it, is very much in favor of the applicant, and I certainly will vote to approve.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Good faith. I mean, it’s a phrase that Bob used, everybody used, and I think it’s the
case in this particular circumstance. I think that Mr. Aronson went forward with this project in good
faith, and I think he comes to this Board with clean hands. So I think that has to be considered in
this balancing test which we’re charged with. There’s no doubt that the relief is substantial, but in
this particular case, I think it’s warranted. I think the options are limited, based on the fact that the
addition is already constructed. I know, in the past, Mr. Aronson told us he would tear down that
house to the east, when, in fact, the tenant moved out, and that’s exactly what happened. So there’s
been several representations made to this panel in the past, and they’ve all been complied with.
MR. ARONSON-We follow through on all our commitments.
MR. HAYES-So I don’t have a problem with the application based on the circumstances, and
balancing that into the test.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. Mr. Aronson has always been up
front with us. We’ve never had to question him about what he wanted to do, and I’m just sorry, like
the other Board members, that Mr. Fish didn’t come through with the contract as provided, and Mr.
McNally is right. This Board won’t be passing anymore variances unless the person has a deed in
hand.
MR. STONE-A good deed in hand.
MR. THOMAS-A good deed in hand. Before taking contract purchases a sign of good faith, but I
think this little lesson here showed us that that’s not always true, but as far as the building, Mr.
Aronson did exactly what he said he was going to do, and I think that Mr. Aronson also stated that
he will bring the permeability into compliance with the zoning code, and he will also be putting a
fence along the back property line with plantings on it, and I would also like to address Mr.
Winslow’s comments in his, or what he said there was to bring the fence into compliance, the dust
control, the water runoff and the roof reflection. I really don’t know what can be done with that
roof reflection, if it could be painted a green, or somehow take the shine off it, I really don’t know.
As far as the fence, bring it into compliance, well, that’s Mr. Brown’s, that’s his territory. Dust
control and water runoff, I would ask the Planning Board to look at this also, to take that into
consideration for Mr. Winslow.
MR. ARONSON-We complied with the Town’s request on Second Street. We put a drywell in
ourselves there, at considerable expense, to control the water runoff down Second Street down
toward the Fish property. It’s worked quite well. I wouldn’t object to doing that in front, but I have
one problem with it. Where are they going to put the road?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. STONE-That’s a good question.
MR. ARONSON-So, I mean, it would be redundant to go spend three, four thousand dollars for a
drywell at this point, until they tell us where they’re going to be, or wherever they want to put the
drywell in. I think it might be a little of the government’s expense to put that drywell in the front.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, there’s got to be some way you can control the water from running
on to Mr. Winslow’s property, like a berm or something like that, along the property line.
MR. ARONSON-That will be there. A berm will be there, that’s part of the site plan that we’re
going to, you already proposed.
MR. THOMAS-But it was a concern Mr. Winslow had, and it’s a valid concern.
MR. ARONSON-Definitely.
MR. THOMAS-But the Planning Board will look at that and take care of that, as you said, in the
planning process. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1999 DOUBLE A PROVISIONS,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
64 Main Street. The applicant has constructed an addition to an existing dry good storage facility and
is requesting setback relief. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 22.9 feet of relief from the 25
foot minimum rear setback requirement. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting relief from the 50
foot buffer zone requirements associated with the CR-15 bordering with the SR-1A zone lines.
Specifically, the applicant is requesting 50 feet of relief from the buffer zone requirement. Criteria
for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: The benefit to the
applicant would be that they would be permitted to maintain an already constructed addition.
Feasible alternatives. I believe the feasible alternatives are limited based on the fact that a purchase
sale agreement between Mr. Aronson, the applicant, and Mr. Fish the immediate neighbor, has fallen
through, and that the addition is already constructed. Is the relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? I believe that it is. 22.9 feet of relief on a 20-foot minimum is substantial, as is the
buffer zone. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that the effects on the
neighborhood or community are minor. I believe that, in this particular case, Broad Street is a
transitional area, and that as Mr. Aronson has pointed out, that there are numerous examples of
businesses directly abutting residential property in the neighborhood, and that this is a change that’s
liable to continue. So I believe it represents a continuation of an existing character of the
neighborhood, not necessarily a negative change either. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe that
it’s self-created, only in that obviously, the land agreement was not finalized to the point of this
application, and/or the variances that were approved being satisfied. So, on balance, considering the
unique nature of this entire transaction, and the unique nature of the property on Broad Street, I
think falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval. The approval of the variance is
contingent on the construction on the property line of a stockade fence and substantial screening,
material consistent with other projects that have been approved or developed on Broad Street. I
would say that it should be year round permanent landscaping, at least six feet high initially, and
maintained accordingly. The stockade fence should be at least six feet, and vegetation to start at least
four feet, across the whole back, right up to the property line.
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. ARONSON-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-1999 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA ROGER EPWORTH OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 60 BEAN ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 215 SQ. FT.
DECK AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
COUNTY PLANNING 10/13/99 TAX MAP NO. 152-1-9 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES
SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79
ROGER EPWORTH, PRESENT
MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 6 October 1999
Project Name: Epworth, Roger Owner: Same ID #: QBYAV90-1999 County Project #: Oct99-
24 Current Zoning: Residential Community: Queensbury Description: The applicant proposes to
construct a 215 square foot open cedar deck and seeks relief from the shoreline setback
requirements. Tax Map No.: 152-1-9 Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s drawing is included
with the summaries. The applicant is proposing a deck on a non-lake side portion of the building.
Some of the deck will be visible from the water. However, the deck is further removed from the
water than is the existing building footprint. Given the scale and scope of the deck, Staff does not
identify any issues with County resources, so long as the project remains a deck and is not enclosed.
Staff therefore is recommending No County Impact with the stipulation that the deck not be
enclosed. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact, with the stipulation the
deck remains a deck, and is not enclosed at a future date.” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County
Planning Board.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 95-1999, Roger Epworth, Meeting Date: October 20, 1999
“Project Location: 60 Bean Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a
215 sf deck and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 24 feet of relief from the
50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Additionally, since
the existing residence does not meet the setback requirements, relief for the expansion of a non-
conforming structure is requested. 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 an additional outdoor leisure area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include relocation to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to
the Ordinance?: 24 feet of relief from the 50-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to
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, as there appears to be a compliant location available.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc): BP 99-605 10/4/99 interior alterations
BP 98-698 11/5/98 septic alterations Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be
anticipated as a result of this action. The 215 sf foot deck appears to be in character with the home
and property, however, it does not comply with the current shoreline setback requirement. SEQR
Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Epworth, is there anything else you want to tell us about, talk about?
MR. EPWORTH-I’d like to introduce my builder, Sean Fitzpatrick. He put the deck together. The
only thing else, two of you, I guess, showed up to see the deck. I did bring a picture of it along, if
you’d like to have that picture.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, we’ll take it. Can we keep it for the file?
MR. EPWORTH-Sure.
MR. FITZPATRICK-I don’t know if you can see in that picture or not, but the house is
approximately seven or eight feet off of the water. The deck is as far back as possible as it could be
for a front entranceway. In fact, it’s three inches beyond the door.
MR. THOMAS-Is that replacing a door that was there?
MR. FITZPATRICK-No. There was a cement stoop there about five to six foot wide, and we
pulled that out of there because it was falling apart.
MR. THOMAS-How many square feet was that stoop? Was it six foot wide?
MR. FITZPATRICK-Probably four foot deep.
MR. THOMAS-So about 24, 25 square feet?
MR. FITZPATRICK-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Did you get a building permit for it?
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. FITZPATRICK-For the deck?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. FITZPATRICK-Right now, yes. We didn’t get it when we got it, no.
MR. MC NALLY-So you got it after the fact.
MR. EPWORTH-Well, we were modifying the house to move in. We’ve had it many years, and it’s
sort of one of these things where you start modifying a house. It grew. We weren’t going to modify
it that much, and we were basically going to change it to an all year live-in house. So it sort of grew
and grew. As you start cutting in to an old house, you start finding things that are wrong, and so it
did sort of just, was going to be moderate changes, and it grew to larger changes.
MR. FITZPATRICK-Basically it started out as a one-bedroom remodel. The far back room, Mr.
Stone here saw the back has a slighter higher pitched roof there. We started out with that and just
kept progressing, and it was a case where the house was falling apart before.
MR. MC NALLY-Are you a regular builder in this area? Where are you from?
MR. FITZPATRICK-Saratoga area.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re from the Saratoga area. I take it you’re becoming familiar with our zoning
code.
MR. FITZPATRICK-Well, I will be soon.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? No? All right. I’ll open the
public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing
to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Is there any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STEC-Yes. I have a Town of Queensbury Record of Telephone Conversation, dated October
20, 1999, at 3:30 p.m., Laura Moore, Town of Queensbury, and Bruce Smith, a Bean Road neighbor,
subject: Roger Epworth, “Mr. Smith is an adjacent neighbor and has no problem with the
construction of a deck”, and another Record of Telephone Conversation, dated October 20, 3:15
th
p.m., between Laura Moore and Miss McAffey, Bean Road resident, subject: Roger Epworth, “Miss
McAffey is an adjacent neighbor to Roger Epworth, and has no problem with the construction of the
deck.” And that’s all the correspondence I have.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. McAffey would be on the east side, and Bruce Smith, he’s on the west side of
the property. All right. All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? Okay. Well, lets talk about it, then.
I’ll start with Chuck this time.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I don’t see any problem with this. It, obviously, is closer to the lake than is
allowed, but the house is also closer to the lake. It’s an open deck, and as long as it’s not enclosed,
there’s no roof over it, it strikes me that it’s an attractive addition, and I don’t think it presents much
of a visual impact from the lake. So I’m incline to approve it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan?
MR. STEC-I agree with Chuck. I think that, while it is, you know, the amount of relief sought is
about 50%, 48% to be exact, I guess, it is further away from the lake than the house is, at its closest
point, and it’s about as low to the ground a deck as I’ve seen built on the lake, and as long as it’s not
enclosed or covered with a roof, I’ve got no problem with it at all.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, let me make the speech, and somebody else has made the speech. We don’t like
things built prior to getting a variance, or even particularly a building permit. Having said that, and
being one who is always first in line when it comes to defending the lake, obviously, I don’t like the
house where it is, but that’s not Mr. Epworth’s problem. The house has been there. It’s been there a
long time. It’s a well-maintained house. It’s going to be even better. The deck is as unobtrusive as, I
think Mr. Stec said, a deck can be. It’s low. It’s going to stay that way. It’s not going to be enclosed.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
We may even say that in the motion when we get there. Obviously, it’s too close to the lake per our
Waterfront zoning, 1A, Waterfront 1A zoning, but having said that, I think it’s a good project, and I
would vote to approve it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. It’s pretty much all been said. Basically, the deck is right on the ground. It
represents minimal visual impact. It’s made out of natural materials. It does seem to service the two
entry doors in a natural fashion, and if the shoreline setback czar is okay with that encroachment,
then it’s okay with me, too. So, I’m in favor.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree with the comments of the other Board members. The relief is substantial.
This is an after the fact which is something we don’t always approve, but the effects on the
neighborhood or community are minimal, given the low impact of this particular deck. So I would
vote in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members, that, even though this is an after the
fact, and this seems to be the minimum to build, for what the applicant needs, and there is no
objection from the neighbors, and like Jaime says, the lake czar says it’s okay. So I would have no
problem with it, either. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion, but I need to find something
in here, expansion of a nonconforming structure.
MR. STONE-It’s not 50%. Is it considered nonconforming?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because the setback is nonconforming.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-179-79, isn’t it?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, it is.
MR. MC NALLY-Can we make a motion?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Go ahead and make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-1999 ROGER EPWORTH,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
60 Bean Road. The applicant has constructed a 215 square foot deck, and seeks retroactive setback
relief, and also retroactive relief from the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Specifically, the
applicant requests 24 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, the
WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, and since the existing residence does not now meet the setback
requirements, relief is also requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure pursuant to Section
179-79. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to maintain and utilize an
additional outdoor leisure area. In addition, this takes the place of an existing concrete step, which is
a natural entranceway into the home, and the existing wooden structure replaces that structure, and
expands upon it. Feasible alternatives may include relocation or demolition of the existing structure.
The relief, 24 feet from the 50-foot requirement, may be interpreted as substantial, and I’d take it that
way. However, given the low impact on the community, the fact that the deck is low to the ground,
and not easily observable from adjacent properties or the lake, there’ll be nominal, if any effects,
upon the neighborhood. The difficulty is definitely self-created, but on balance, the factors weigh in
favor of the applicant, and therefore I move the approval of the variance. I would add that this
approval is conditioned, of course, on the fact that this deck is not to be enclosed, or otherwise
improved with the addition of any permanent structures, per the request of the Warren County
Planning.
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-It just should be noted, as Mr. Epworth pointed out to me, that the deck is made of
cedar and not pressure treated lumber. So it will have even less of an impact on the lake than it
might be if it were pressure treated.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. FITZPATRICK--Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-And you do have your building permit, right?
MR. FITZPATRICK-Yes.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-1999 TYPE II WR-1A JEFFREY L. MAC PHERSON
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 54 BARDIN DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A POLE BARN 50 FT. BY 14 FT. TO BE USED FOR VEHICLE
STORAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FOR A SECOND GARAGE. TAX MAP NO. 142-2-1
LOT SIZE: 0.70 ACRES SECTION 179-7, 179-16
JEFFREY MAC PHERSON, PRESENT
MR. STEC-I see nothing from the County.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 91-1999, Jeffrey L. Mac Pherson, Meeting Date: October 20,
1999 “Project Location: 54 Bardin Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a pole barn structure for RV storage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 450
square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum for garages and to allow construction of a
second garage. Relief is requested from the definitions; § 179-7. 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 an additional storage structure. 2. Feasible
alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: Requesting a second garage and creating a total square footage 50% above the
allowable threshold may be interpreted as moderate. 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.): None applicable Staff comments:
Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Based on the drawings
submitted with this application, the nature of construction of the proposed “garage” appears to be
specifically for the shelter of a recreational vehicle. It does not appear that this building will be
considered for other uses. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Mac Pherson. I’m looking at the drawing here, and how high is this
above grade? I see eleven, eight, and then four, six.
MR. MAC PHERSON-I was told by the codes that I couldn’t go beyond 16 foot on the peak.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. MAC PHERSON-And it’ll be below that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. MAC PHERSON-The motor home itself is 11 foot 10. So I plan to put on a planned truss
roof. So I have to keep the bottom of the truss at least 11 foot 10.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So your truss won’t be any more than four foot high?
MR. MAC PHERSON-That’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. BROWN-The plans that you have are for a 22-foot wide building. When you narrow it down,
the height of the truss is going to decrease significantly. You’re seeing a four, six dimension. It’s
probably going to be closer to the two, four dimension he’s got there on the plan.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I see a four, twelve on the 22 foot 10.
MR. BROWN-Right. It’s still going to be that pitch, but the building’s going to be narrower.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s down to 13, 2.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-A pole barn. It has sides?
MR. MAC PHERSON-No.
MR. STONE-This will be open. The sides of the vehicle will be exposed?
MR. MAC PHERSON-That’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-The pool building seems to have a garage door on it.
MR. MAC PHERSON-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Is that used as a garage?
MR. MAC PHERSON-It’s for our lawnmower.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-It’s 50 foot long and 14 foot wide. So that’s 700 square feet.
MR. STONE-And the garage is, it’s got to be 600.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there 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. STEC-No
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-I have some concerns, but no questions.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Let’s see. This time we start with Dan. What do you think?
MR. STEC-Compared to other variance requests in the past, I think this one is fairly modest.
Garages has been a funny thing. We’ve talked about making a recommendation to the Town Board,
and I know the Town Board is working in conjunction with other members of this Board and the
Planning Staff to look at our zoning code. I’m not overly concerned with going over 900 square feet.
I think, in this particular case, the lot size is adequate. We’ve wrestled with RV storage before, and
we’ve suggested this kind of thing. In the past, I think we were inclined for something that was, I
think, the same square footage, but there was a large public outcry from neighbors. I’m not hearing
that tonight. So, you know, looking at the criteria, there’s a clear benefit to the applicant. I guess a
feasible alternative would be to say a second structure is not something that we think is a good
alternative, but I’m not inclined to go that way. The relief is moderate, but, again, we’ve considered
garage variances before. I don’t anticipate any negative impact on the community in this case, and I t
think that it is, it’s clearly in the interest to want to protect your R V from the elements. So, you
know, I don’t see any real reason to not approve. I’m inclined to vote yes.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-I have several concerns, which I’m not sure how they will effect my final vote, but I
must state that, one, I think that there’s too many buildings on the property. You’ve got three
buildings already, plus the pool. So there’s four structures on the property, and the building at the
end of the pool is a very substantial building. I don’t know the square footage because I don’t have it
on my thing, but, do you have it?
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-No.
MR. STONE-But it’s a fairly substantial building. The fact that it has a garage door, that’s why I
asked you about it, a garage door suggests a garage. The fact that you have a mower in there, that’s
fine, but it’s still another building. I’m also concerned by the fact that we recently had an applicant
before us who wanted to build, as a part of a home, a storage building, I don’t want to call it garage,
because it could get into all kinds of things, but basically a garage, to put an RV in. it was going to be
a very high building, and in our judgement, it was not called for by the Zoning Ordinance, and we
denied the application. I recognize that RV’s are a growing thing. I mean, we’re getting more people
with RV’s. Obviously, they have, for most people, they are only used on a limited basis, and they
have to be stored somewhere, but I’m just concerned that we’re putting another structure up which is
a garage, and that makes it a second garage, and it’s even larger than the first garage that you have on
the property. Yes, the first garage could be larger. It could be 900 square feet, and it’s, what did we
say, 600, 650 square feet, but we’re building a second garage built bigger than the first garage, and I’m
troubled by it. I hear Mr. Stec’s point of view, and I will listen to the rest of the people, but I just
needed to say that, and I will listen to see where I come out on the thing. I don’t think it’s a, this
isn’t the largest variance we’re ever going to grant, but I do think we have to think about it for the
future, having just turned down this other applicant. Having said that, I’ll listen to the others.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, in this particular case, I agree with Mr. Stone. As I came on to this property, I
had a sense that there was a garage. There was another building next to the pool that was more than
a pump house, if you will. It was another substantial building with a garage door on it, and coupling
that with the fact that the applicant is proposing a pole barn construction in a residential
neighborhood with no sides, a building that, in light of that construction, is going to amount to a
50% variance in the overall square footage, the overall square footage for a garage is, I think,
cumulatively, and on balance, I think it’s too much, in this particular case. I think, you know, Dan
pointed out that we are talking, there is constructive talk now about possibly modifying our garage
code, but at this particular time, it stands at 900 square feet, and we’ve made other applicants comply
with that requirement, and to grant a variance that’s 50% over the allowed relief for what amounts to
a fourth building on a piece of property is too much for me, and I would be against this particular
variance.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-This is another one where I was torn. In some sense, I don’t think that the
proposed pole barn is going to really have any substantial effect on the neighborhood. However, I
also think that the Town has instituted a policy of one garage, 900 square feet, for the purposes of
maintaining a certain level of congestion, a certain level of utility concentration of use on the
property, and for better or for worse, whether or not we agree with it, that is what the rule is. The
other Board member’s comments saying this is a pretty well congested piece of property is well
taken. So I am torn. On the one hand, it overreaches, yet on the other hand, I don’t know,
ultimately what the bottom line’s going to be. I’d like to think about this for a minute.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m about in the same boat. I’m torn on this. When I visited the property, I
looked at it. The motor home wasn’t there. I tried to envision what the motor home would look like
just sitting there parked.
MR. STONE-Big.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, big, and what the difference would be if there were a pole barn around it, but
I guess like a lot of the other Board members, I’m bothered by the number of structures on the
property. I’m also constrained by the fact that the Zoning Ordinance does say one garage, and that
was put there for a reason, and I guess my conclusion is a pole barn, although I can see the benefit
for the applicant, is, in my mind, going to make it look more congested and worse than just having
the RV parked there by itself. So, I think I’m going to be inclined to say no.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’m like the other Board members. I’ve had a chance to kick this around
in my mind. This is a pole barn with open sides. It’s not an enclosed building, as the garage is, okay.
In the first application we had tonight, the applicant stated that a car would probably be the second
biggest purchase, or the second most valuable thing that a person would own behind a house. I
believe that these RV’s cost probably more than most houses, and I don’t think that the applicant
would like to park this RV off his premises out of his sight to store it, in the wintertime or when he’s
not using it. Off site storage, for an expensive vehicle like that, it plays on your mind. Is it going to
be all right? Is anybody going to break into it? Is anybody going to steal anything off it? I have a
vehicle that’s not similar to this, but it’s in the same circumstance that I keep my eye on year round.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
As far as congesting the property, I think because it’s an open building, and it’s not enclosed, I think
that it won’t congest the property as much as most people think it will. As long as Mr. MacPherson
keeps the building at a 16 foot height, to me, this pole barn really isn’t a, it wouldn’t be a second
garage, per se, but even though it is, because it doesn’t have a garage door on it, it’s not enclosed. It’s
a pole barn. It’s storage for a recreational vehicle, which are becoming more and more popular, as
someone mentioned before. So, I would be inclined to vote yes on this, on this particular piece of
property, for this particular pole barn, but if the property was smaller and more congested, I would
have a problem with it, but being the size of the property it is, 228 feet along Bardin Road, and being
probably an average of about 130 feet wide, I don’t think this 700 square foot structure would really
impact it, and we haven’t heard anything from any of the neighbors saying that they wouldn’t like to
see it next to them. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion.
MR. STONE-It sounds like there’s a business opportunity in Town to store RV’s.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I think whoever started that might go broke, because like I said, I’ll tell you,
if I had one like that, as expensive as they are, I wouldn’t want that thing out of my sight. So, would
someone like to make a motion, one way or the other?
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-1999 JEFFREY L. MAC PHERSON,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
54 Bardin Lane. The applicant proposes the construction of a pole barn structure for R V storage.
Specifically, the applicant requests 450 square foot of relief from the 900 square foot maximum for
garages, and the allowance of construction of a second garage. Relief is requested from the
definitions, 179-7. The criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town
Law: The benefit to the applicant. Obviously, the applicant would be permitted to construct and
utilize an additional storage structure. Feasible alternatives, if, in fact, the RV is to be stored on the
premises under some kind of cover, feasible alternatives appear to be limited. Is the relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance? Requesting a second garage and creating a total square footage 50% above
the allowable threshold is interpreted as moderate to substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or
community are probably moderate in that this will be the fourth building on this property, and by far
the largest building on this property, and I think there will be at least moderate effects on the
neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? Obviously, the difficulty is interpreted as self-created.
Mr. MacPherson does not have to have an RV. It doesn’t say he shouldn’t, doesn’t have to have one,
and certainly doesn’t have to put it under cover.
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
MR. THOMAS-I’m sorry, it’s been denied.
MR. MAC PHERSON-Okay. Thank you for your time.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Sorry about that.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DONNA HURLEY CHARLES
WILKISON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 54 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY ADDITION, GARAGE AND DECK.
RELIEF FROM SHORELINE SETBACK AND SIDE YARD SETBACK IS
REQUESTED. ALSO, RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE IS REQUESTED. CROSS REF. SPR 41-99 CROSS REF. TOWN BOARD
SEPTIC VARIANCE 10/18/99 TAX MAP NO. 45-3-10 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES
SECTION 179-16, 179-79
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. STEC-And we don’t have County.
MR. THOMAS-No.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 76-1999, Donna Hurley Charles Wilkison, Meeting Date:
October 20, 1999 “Project Location: 54 Reardon Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of an 820 sf two story addition, a deck and a 576 sf free standing
garage and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11.32 feet of relief from the 50
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and both 1.56 feet and 0.56 feet of relief from the 12
foot minimum side setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Further, since the existing
structure does not meet the current setback requirements, relief for the expansion of a non-
conforming structure is requested. The proposed expansion is in excess of the allowable 50 percent
increase for non-conforming structures. The proposed 756 sf addition equates to a 67 percent
expansion. A 504 sf addition would conform to the allowable percentage per § 179-79. Criteria for
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition and garage. 2 Feasible
alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a downsized deck to a more compliant location. 3.
Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The dimensional side line relief may be
interpreted as minimal. The shoreline setback relief, 11.32 feet, may be interpreted as moderate. 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.): Board of
Health Septic Variance pending 10/18/99 Site Plan Review pending 10/26/99 Staff comments:
Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the side line setback requests
may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, the shoreline request may be interpreted as moderate.
The proposed expansion significantly exceeds the allowable 50 percent for non-conforming
structures, however, the Floor Area Ratio has been maintained. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Is that it?
MR. STEC-Yes. I’ll note for the record, there is an approved sewage disposal variance from the
Town Board resolution no. 55.99, dated 18 October 1999.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. O’Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor, for the purposes of your
record, from the firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing the applicants this evening. What I
have passed out to you is a two sheet blow up, if you will, of the actual impingement’s or
infringements of the areas that we’re looking for the sideline setback variances, and the lakeshore
setback variances. I believe that the applicant had filed a copy of the map with the application, and
what I did was have it enhanced by Tom Nace, by having him draw the envelope, if you will, with the
required setbacks, with the broken line, and showing you exactly where we are differing from those
broken lines with what we propose. For the purpose of your record, I have given up, next to Mr.
McNulty, a copy of the tax map, if anybody wants to take a look at it, to see the size of the lot in
comparison to the other neighborhood lots. This is a fairly good-sized lot for that neighborhood. It
has some extra depth to it. We’re not talking about going beyond the 22% of building that you’re
allowed for this type of lot. In fact, we’re less than that. The calculations that were done with the
application may be a little bit incorrect, and I have corrected them. It shows that we would be
allowed to have up to 1670 square feet of addition, and we’re talking about 1426 square feet. The
difference before, and I’m not sure. I think that the applicant had scaled out the size of the building,
and instead of taking actual measurements. Just for your file, I’ll give you a copy of this. The actual
size of the building is 207 square feet less than what’s permitted for this, and I say the building, I say
the combination of the freestanding garage, the shed, discounting the shed is 100 feet, but if you
don’t count (lost words), the full amount of the shed is included. It’s still 207 feet less than what’s
permitted. This is a two bedroom house, and the applicant’s propose to have it be a two bedroom
house when it’s all said and done. We went through a long presentation last night with Tom Nace,
with regard to the septic. We have in fact, as part of this project, improved our septic system, and
probably improved the potential impact on the neighborhood because of our septic system. We are
putting a septic system in that is better spaced from the other septic system. We’re putting an
improved system in that functions to a higher degree of efficiency than the present steel tank that’s in
there. We are not, and somebody raised it and I’ll answer it before it gets raised here if it does
tonight. We’re not increasing anything at all on this particular area. There are that number of septic
systems there. There’ll be that number of septic systems when we’re all said and done. All we’ve
done is made our system more efficient and probably better located with relationship to the other
particular properties that are nearby. I’ve got some photos of the property. Those are clearly our
property that’s in the box. This shows our property, or doesn’t show our property. Our property is
a little bit to the west, looking at our property. We don’t propose taking any of the trees down that
are out near the lake and between us and there lake. There is probably a requirement that we’re
going to take one tree down that’s to the east of the property, I call it the east. This is the property
that we have, with a line shown at the front line of our existing building. It will be the front line of
our proposed building, and what we are asking for is a 12 foot deck beyond that, and if you take a
look at that, looking to the north, the building to the south of us projects about 12 feet, and then
there’s a deck that projects beyond that. Our total project would be less than that, when we’re said
and done. This is another picture that shows, again, the property. They show pretty much what, if
there’s any view impingement or not. I don’t believe there’s any view impingement by what we
propose. This shows the south side of the property. There is an existing deck that’s shown on the
map as being an existing deck. What we hope to do is to put a deck in front of that, and come
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
around to the front of the property. This shows the north side of the property, and that shows the
piece that juts out along the side. Basically, what we are going to do, if you take a look back at the
pictures showing the front of the building, is we are going to renovate this property. We’re not going
to simply tear it down. We’re going to preserve the first floor, and take the roof off above the first
floor and build a second floor above it. So, if you take a look at the sketch that we gave you, either
on the big map or on the little map, by going to a second floor, above the existing building, this
portion of the building, which is that little jut out, does not comply with the 12 foot requirement. I
believe, at this end it’s 6.88 from the property line, and at that end it’s 7.08 from the property line.
So we’re asking for relief of from five to six feet or, it depends on whether you round it off or not.
For the second floor of the building, as it sits above this area, this is on the north boundary line. The
back of the building, or the back of the addition, we hope to carry the line straight out for both the
addition to the house, new construction I think it’s 192 feet there, and the porch. The back corner of
the porch will be 11.44 from the boundary line as opposed to 12. That’s why I showed (lost words).
If you come toward the front of the building, it gets a little bit less, the encroachment, it’s 11.80. So
in this particular section, you’re talking about .20 of a foot to .56 of a foot for encroachment, simply
so we can maintain a straight line as we come off the property. What we’re asking for in sideline
setback variance for that particular piece there, we’re asking for a sideline setback for the second
floor above the piece that projects out into the side yard, and then if you come down to the south
side of the property, we are asking for a sideline setback for a portion of the new deck, but in
honesty, we probably could give that up. If you take a look at the old deck, the old deck, and we
have that picture (lost words) the old deck has a tree in the corner. So we can attach. We hope not
to take this tree down. So we can attach to that deck at the inside corner. It’s probably easier to look
at it on the piece that I did mark up.
MR. STONE-You’re talking this piece right here?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-Where it says 10.56.
MR. HAYES-And that’s where the door is, it’s going to stay there?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, there’s a door there, and there will be a door off the front of the house.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a foot and a half that we had asked for. The deck on the front is an
encroachment on the lakeshore requirement, 50 feet, and we’re asking for a 12-foot encroachment.
Basically, if you have a place at the lake, you’d like to have a deck that you can go out and sit on and
enjoy the view of the lake. If you take a look at the photos, there’s some trees out there that
probably make this deck not very obvious to anyone on the lake. It has very little impact. If you
take a look at our view to the south, we don’t have a view unless we get out a little bit from our
house, because the other fellow’s house projects out beyond ours already, and his deck projects a
little bit beyond ours, to the north. I apologize, but I look at the shore, probably, as running east and
west.
MR. STONE-Well, you’re saying, facing the lake, from your house, the north side is the right side?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I look upon that probably as being the east.
MR. STONE-Yes, I understand.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have a couple sketches of the floor plan. If you have a concern and you have
a desire, you can take a look. This does show the deck, and the second floor is the master bedroom,
a second bedroom and a bathroom. (Lost words) part of the variance part, is this two car garage
(lost words). You have the elevations, I think, in your packet. So basically that’s it, and I can go back
to the actual distances that we’re talking about. On that 10-foot portion on the south side toward the
front of the house, we’re looking for relief from 6.12 feet to 4.92 feet. On the back portion of that
side of the house, we’re looking for relief from .20 feet to .56 feet, and on the 12-foot deck we’re
looking for relief of 11.32 feet.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. O’Connor?
MR. STEC-The deck won’t be covered or enclosed? It’s just going to be a deck with a rail?
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. O'CONNOR-It will be an open deck, pretty much like the neighbor’s deck to the north of us.
There is a small sketch with an open railing on it.
MR. STEC-Okay.
MR. STONE-It seemed to me, when I drove out on the property, that everybody uses the back of
your property as their driveway.
MR. O'CONNOR-Two of the adjoining owners to the north do use that. As I look the deed, it’s
supposed to be along the five foot next to the boundary, but in actuality, the driveway.
MR. STONE-That’s where I was confused, it’s like a common driveway, but it’s your land.
MR. O'CONNOR-The surveyor has marked it here. It’s supposed to be a common driveway, five
feet on our side of the property line, and then five feet on the other side, but by use, everybody is
coming this way.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think Mr. Seeley comes in, he comes into his property here, and this goes down,
this is a private driveway down to, I think, Donohue’s property. Everybody seems to have gotten
along with the driveways. The same thing in back of my house. You can go up and look at my
house, I’ve got a 30-foot shed where the driveway’s supposed to be. It was put there a long time ago.
There’s a great deal, if you’ve been to the property, there’s a great deal of elevation difference, I think
the photos show it. That’s also part of the reason for having the deck. If you didn’t have the deck,
it’s a cumbersome type thing to get out to the level of the ground. It would take away much of the
enjoyment of the use of the property. Part of the whole situation here is that if we were going to try
and make this conform, we would have to give up the first floor. I think the first floor has
approximately 720 square feet of usable space, and if you use a minimum construction cost of about
$60 a square foot, you’d be talking a throw away here of $43,200, plus the cost of demolition, to start
with, plus the cost of, I’ve got the reconstruction. So you’re talking $53,000 throw away, to move
that back 12 feet, so that we could put a deck on that would be usable, a reasonable deck. A 12-foot
wide deck is not overly ambitious. That’s what we propose.
MR. STONE-The only problem, it’ll come up later, the only problem I have is it’s encroaching on
the 50 feet, and we had one tonight, yes, but it was a very specific, very different situation. We’ll see
where it goes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think what makes this unique, and I understand what you’re talking about. If I
was talking about new construction, I wouldn’t be asking for the relief.
MR. STONE-Of course not.
MR. O'CONNOR-But I’m trying to preserve the 720 square feet of usable space, not throw it away.
Why do you throw away $50,000 of construction if you have no impact? I mean, the most, as I see
the mapping of the property, there’s very little impact. We’re not going out as far as the people next
to us. So even to the person to this side, is looking through us to get out, we’re not going to block
anymore than what’s there.
MR. STONE-But the Code does call for 50 feet or the average of the two, the houses on either side,
whichever is greater, as I remember the Code. Doesn’t it, Craig? If they’re both 60 feet, you’ve got
to be 60 feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if that’s true on 50-foot wide lots. I think it’s when you get into a
wider lot.
MR. BROWN-No, I think the shoreline is the same. The sides and the rear change with the width.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We can’t change our building, basically.
MR. STONE-We understand.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know the average of the two. Probably I would think the average of the
two is going to be less than 50 feet, because the one next door to us is obviously less than 50 feet,
and I’m not sure what the fellow to the other side, but he’s about the same.
MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask the applicant how long they’ve owned the home?
MR. O'CONNOR-I believe nine years.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. MC NALLY-And the house portion closest to the lake, did that used to be an open porch that
was later enclosed, that you know of? It’s always been enclosed?
MS. HURLEY-Not since I’ve lived there, which has been 15 years (lost words) I’ve only owned it,
it’s always been enclosed.
MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant or Mr. O’Connor? The right-of-way that’s on
the deed here says it’s five feet to the south of the northerly boundary line.
MR. WILKISON-Right.
MR. THOMAS-And five feet to the north of the northerly boundary line.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s up here. This is the northerly boundary line. If you look at the bigger
map, it’s shown in a hatch mark right there.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it shows above it the property line also in a hatch mark.
MR. THOMAS-Is that supposed to be the common driveway for the houses down, the one on the
lake and there’s one behind it?
MR. O'CONNOR-I believe it is, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but they use the driveway now that goes through the property to get over
there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-This drywell is going to be in the middle of the driveway? There’s a drywell on this
plan I’m looking at, and the septic system, is this going to be under area that is driven over?
MR. O'CONNOR-If it is, we will have a travel top on it. This is now an Elgin type septic system,
which is different than the original septic system proposed, and the thought is we may be able to
push that off of the area that needs to be used for driveway. It’s going to be a force main from here
up. I don’t know of any separation distance between the distribution box and the septic tank. So
you’d probably eliminate this piece right in here, and have that one go over there, but if it’s not
moved over there, there will be a travel top on it, which allows you to travel on it. It’s a thicker
concrete.
MR. STONE-Where is Elgin, you’ll have to help me. Are you talking a Wisconsin type, a mound
system?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. It’s a specific design. It utilizes an artificial medium, which speeds up the
bacteria use, or bacteria that’s in the septic system itself, and that’s in the leach bed area. There’s a
filter fabric that’s put underneath it, and the idea is that much of this action takes place in that (lost
words) which does not need to be maintained, and that the product evaporates as opposed to goes
into the soil, when it’s all said and done. It’s supposedly a much higher efficiency type septic system.
MR. STONE-A current distribution field also is evaporation, too. I mean, it goes in, but it also
evaporates on the surface.
MR. THOMAS-I notice on the plot plan that the surrounding houses have wells. Does this house
use lake water?
MR. WILKISON-No, this house has a well.
MR. THOMAS-I can’t find it.
MR. WILKISON-It’s down by the lake.
MR. STONE-I see a pump house.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, I see a pump house.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. We had to go back to the Town Board and locate other wells.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. STONE-There’s a “W” on that one. Okay. So that pump is straddling the property line.
Another complication.
MR. O'CONNOR-We actually located seven different wells. Seven different wells and seven
different septic systems.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for Mr. O’Connor or the applicants? 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
TOM HEINSELMAN
MR. HEINSELMAN-Good evening. My name is Tom Heinselman, and I’m the next door
neighbor, which I thought was to the south side, but after listening to that presentation, I’m not sure
whether I’m north or south.
MR. STONE-You’re, on your side, there’s a north arrow there right there.
MR. HEINSELMAN-Well, I’m not privy to that diagram, and quite frankly, I can’t see it from here.
MR. MC NALLY-As you face the home from the lake, which side are you on?
MR. HEINSELMAN-As you face the home, I’m on the right side. I believe I’m south. This is really
my first go around with any of this type of stuff, relative to variance, and I guess I’ve learned an
awful lot in the last few days. I did, in fact, come here and have an opportunity to speak on Monday,
relative to the septic system that Mr. O’Connor just spoke about. I would like to make several
corrections, however. One of the things that he said was that there were seven wells and seven
septic systems, and this new system will be the minimum setback of 100 feet from all of them. That
is totally incorrect, and the reason they had to apply for a variance was because it did not meet a 100-
foot setback. My well, supposedly, will be 100 feet from the septic system. My concern on Monday,
again, this is not the time or the place or the forum, was that if the aquifer, in fact, becomes
contaminated, it could, in fact, have an impact on all the wells in that area, and that is our drinking
water. So we have, certainly, a concern about that. As I learn more and more about this whole
process, I’m intrigued by it, because I find that, although I’m not opposed to anything that they do
that is within the Code of the Town, as a matter of fact, I support it, because I think anything they do
to their home will certainly enhance our neighborhood, but you have to actually visualize where we
are, in terms of the number of homes that are in this little, tiny cluster, and we talk about common
driveways, etc. My driveway, which is not a common driveway, is part of that horseshoe, if you’re
familiar. I don’t know what drawing you have in front of you. Again, I’m not privy to those things,
nor did I see any of the pictures, but we do not, necessarily, have common driveways. I’m concerned
about several issues. Number One is the fact that, when I bought my land, I knew that I had a small
piece of property, and I knew that there were going to be some physical limitations as to how I could
proceed with any further development, with anything that I chose to do in the future. I know that
we plan to stay here throughout our retirement years, and certainly we’re, at some point in time,
going to want to make some improvements to our house, but when I did buy this piece of property
and realized there were physical constraints relative to the size of it, and, quite frankly, mine is a little
larger, I think, than my neighbor’s, because the majority of those homes are 50 foot lots. I think
when you begin to expand beyond the Code, and ask for variance, I think you have a serious impact
on the residents around you. Now, again, I’m not sure where they plan to do what it is that they’re
doing, other than go upstairs, and I totally concur that that’s the best thing to do, and I certainly
wouldn’t want them to change that plan. My concern is the setback on my side. When we went
through this variance proceeding on Monday night, the 10-foot necessary setback that was required
for the septic system was changed to two feet, somehow. So now we have a septic system that’s two
feet instead of the setback of 10 feet, and we’re also looking at a setback for, obviously, a deck, which
I defer to the lake czar because he realizes how important protecting the integrity of the lake is, and
myself being a newcomer to lakes, I think I have a new found interest in preserving whatever
integrity there is left in any of the lakes. Now, when you have these small properties, you have to
realize that you have certain limitations, and I think the analogy that I drew for Mr. Wilkison was the
fact that we all want bigger and better, and I happen to drive a Jeep, and I said to him, I’d love to
have a Cadillac, but I can’t afford a Cadillac, so I drive a Jeep, and so if you have a limited amount of
property, there’s only so much you can do on that property, which conforms to Code, and I think
that any time you try to go beyond that, what’s permitted, I think you run into some difficulties in
ascertaining good relationships in a small cluster area like we have. The other thing, and I think it’s
important, is that when you begin to look at winter approaching, and I know that they want to put in
a nice garage, and I would love to have a garage, too, but as you know how this driveway parking
area is, it’s an unknown to me what they plan on doing with their snow. Because last year, when the
area was plowed out, I think the majority of snow was either pushed in the area where they’re going
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
to put their garage, or it was pushed onto my driveway. So I really don’t know what’s going to
happen in terms of that snow, and I think that’s going to be a concern, also. I don’t know what’s
projected for the side where we’re talking about a right-of-way, and probably in a, I think you
mentioned a five foot right-of-way, probably that doesn’t sound like a whole lot, but if you take a
small portion of that away, because of building or decks or whatever else is proposed in there, I think
that’s an encroachment on people’s rights that live in there. Lastly, I don’t really, again, want to
severe relationships or ties with these people, because I think they’re wonderful, wonderful people,
and I love to have them for neighbors, but I do feel that I have to make my feelings known relative
to what I think is important in protecting the land that we own, and the land that our family will use,
you know, hopefully for generations to come. We still have young children, and we hope that some
day when we’re done with the place, that those kids will grow up and bring their families there. So
we certainly don’t want to create negative opinions relative to our relationship, but I think it’s
important that we look seriously at what the impact of building larger structures on smaller lots really
has in terms of lake value, because again, it’s lakefront property. I think it’s very salable property,
and I think it’s something that we have to very seriously consider before we start granting variances.
Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition?
PAT SEELEY
MR. SEELEY-My name is Pat Seeley. I live next door to the neighbor on the other side. I really
don’t have too much of a problem with what they want to do with the building itself, but I’ve been
there since 1981. I’ve seen what the snow buildup is. I’ve had to deal with it. I’m the one that
usually takes care of the driveway as you’ve seen going down, sanding it and things like that. The
biggest concerns, once again, are the buildup of the snow and putting this garage there. Have no
place to put it. What happens is toward the springtime, the snow builds up back, back, back, and
what happens is, we have to get a running start. If you don’t have four-wheel drive, you need a
running start to get up this driveway. Now it becomes a traffic hazard, once you get up to the top,
because you can’t stop, otherwise you come right back down. So, that’s really the only concerns that
I have, in regard to the project here, is this garage being put there. Plus it floods so heavily there, the
runoff even getting worse than it is now, going into the lake even heavier than what it is. I think
that’s just about it, other than the house. The house is fine, but the garage is a major concern.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak in opposition? One more
time? Is there any correspondence?
MR. STEC-I don’t think so, no, no correspondence.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Would you like to respond to the comments made, Mr. O’Connor?
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I would respond, first, to Mr. Seeley’s comments. I think somebody
indicated, when we started this, that we are going to also go through a site plan review. That’s the
first that I’m aware of that we’ve got some concerns with the snow removal or places of putting
snow, but I really think that that’s an issue that’s related to the two sideline setbacks that we’re talking
about or the lakeshore encroachment. The garage is in full compliance, and can be built with or
without a variance. We think that there is, I’m not trying to slough off the argument, but we think
that, with some of the trees that are going to come down, to accommodate this septic system, there’s
new area in here that snow can be stored at, and we can show that to Mr. Seeley and see if he
concurs with us or doesn’t concur with us. As to the runoff, there is runoff, which is also a site plan
review. We’re not going to increase it in any way by what we’re proposing to do. In fact, what we’re
going to try and do is berm it a little bit so that it’s slowed down, so that it doesn’t run directly from
Reardon Road directly down into the lake, without interfering with the existing driveways or the
right-of-ways that are there. We basically are going up, and maybe everybody doesn’t understand this
or whatever, but the major request here is for the relief for the deck, an open, slotted deck that’ll
have an open floor. This is already here. This footprint’s here. All we’re going to do is build above
the footprint. So we aren’t changing grade. We aren’t changing anything. We can also talk about,
and we will at site plan review, roof drip edge trenches, which will help with some of the runoff and
perhaps even prevent some of the runoff that is presently there. We collected the runoff off the
garage and put it into the ground in the roof trenches, which is the typical way of doing it, or with
gutters, that should improve the runoff of that particular area there. Here, we’re talking less than a
foot, and here it’s still less than a foot. Those two setbacks. We basically, and the neighbor to the
south that spoke, I get confused as to his concerns, but we’ve withdrawn the request for the sideline
setback of a foot or a foot and a half as to the deck, as it goes to his property. There was a lot of
discussion last night about the septic system and about what impact it would have. The engineering
professional’s opinion, and the opinion of everybody else was that we were improving the situation
in the neighborhood. You could speculate forever that we weren’t improving the neighborhood, but
we aren’t adding a septic system to it, and I didn’t mean to infer that everybody is within 100 foot, or
that we wouldn’t have been to the Town Board. In fact, I think his septic system right now is 35 feet
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
from our existing, his well is 35 feet from our existing septic system. It’ll be 100 feet, with an
improved system, after we’re done. There were seven, and I think there were only two with less than
100 feet, that you don’t have the well there, but well location D and well location F are the only two
that are less than 100 feet. One is 92 feet and one is 61 feet. The 61 feet is already 45 feet closer, is
within 45 feet of the septic system. The 92 feet, unfortunately, is within 35 feet of the septic system.
What we’re proposing here as an improved septic system, which I know is not before you, but we are
improving the septic system effect in that particular neighborhood, by going to the improved system,
and by doing a lot of juggling. We had a different system. We had a longer leach field, but going to
the more expensive Elgin system, we were able to shorten the system and put this system in here.
This is not an inexpensive system to try and accommodate this business. So if I looked at the various
standards that you typically hold us to, I really didn’t see where we had any significant impacts. I
haven’t heard anybody say that we have any significant impacts of any nature, and as I said, we’re
trying to save a throw away of $50,000. I think that’s a very conservative figure at $60 a square foot,
by allowing us to have a house with a deck on it, and not have to throw away the first floor of the
deck, or the first floor of the existing house that’s reusable. The other thing which we would also
mention, and maybe haven’t mentioned, is we don’t want to, or wouldn’t want to, move the house
further back, because what we’re trying to do is get access to the back of the house by ramp, as
opposed to stairs, and if we have this spacing between the area of the garage and the back of the
house here, we can accommodate that with a ramp that probably will be something like a one foot
incline on a one foot lineal length. So there are some constraints here that are practical, that have
more effect on us than they do upon the neighboring properties, and we aren’t asking for anything
different than this particular fellow has. We’re further away from the lake than he is, and I’m not
sure where Mr. Heinselman is, because we didn’t have that on the survey. So that’s basically what
our request is.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That Elgin absorption system on the southern property line, how far is it off
there? Is that the two feet we’re talking about? Because on the copy you gave us, it doesn’t show a
distance that it was cut off.
MR. O'CONNOR-It is two feet.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-In the back here it’s two feet.
MR. THOMAS-The outside of it, in the absorption field, because that was one of Mr. Heinselman’s
concerns, it went from ten feet to two feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right. It also went from 35 feet to 100 feet.
MR. THOMAS-From his well.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. THOMAS-The deck sideline was another one of Mr. Heinselman’s, but you’ve taken that.
You’re going to bring that into compliance.
MR. O'CONNOR-We withdraw that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Snow removal you’ve already addressed.
MR. O'CONNOR-Snow removal we’ve addressed. I hope we’ll be able to address it further and
satisfy Mr. Seeley that there’s no issue.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and one other thing that Mr. Heinselman mentioned was the right-of-way.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not a right-of-way that serves his property, and we actually, we, my client,
actually gives up some of its own property to accommodate the other people.
MR. THOMAS-And that’s going to continue?
MR. O'CONNOR-As far as I know. My suggestion would be that they’d be better off cleaning it up.
They thought not, but also, you know, this house has probably been there maybe, I don’t know how
long Mr. Seeley’s own it, 40, 50 years as it presently is, in its present condition. Their driveway might
have been there that long, too. There might be some rights there. There might be some vested
rights, and everybody has gotten along, to the point that they don’t need additional issues.
MR. THOMAS-Because this looks like one of those things there where a family clustered a bunch of
houses, and as they passed through the generation, they sold them off to different people.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. O'CONNOR-I haven’t seen the title so I can’t tell you, Mr. Thomas, if that’s true, but I know
there’s one right around the corner.
MR. STONE-A question of Mr. Heinselman. How far back are is your house from the lake? The
furthest constructed point?
MR. HEINSELMAN-I have no idea, but it does set back further than any other house along the, as
far as you can see on either side.
MR. STONE-Because that, in a sense, does come into play, possibly, in granting a variance, if he’s
further back than 50 feet. I don’t know what the one to the north is.
MR. THOMAS-Except the guy to the north is still 10 feet, he’s 10 feet above us. We’re between
him. I mean, if we project out at all, what we would do is block Mr. Heinselman’s view of the
neighbor property, not of anything else.
MR. STONE-Okay. You think the one to the north is only 16 feet?
MR. O'CONNOR-The house is six feet plus. We’ve measured it. The deck is 10 feet. So there’s 16
feet there, beyond our house, and we’re talking about.
MR. STONE-How far is it from the shoreline?
MR. O'CONNOR-You’ve got to add 16 feet to the south right here.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Because we’re behind that, and our deck will be four feet behind it at the very
most conservative distance.
MR. STONE-But only in terms if we were to grant the variance, if the one to the north is, let’s say 20
feet, and Mr. Heinselman was 100 feet, it’s not, but that would be 60 feet minimum that we’re
granting relief from. That’s the only point that I’m trying to make, according to 179-16. That’s why
I asked the question. Actually, it should be on the drawing.
MR. O'CONNOR-The shoreline goes in, as it goes north, or it goes south.
MR. STONE-Well, I don’t know. I’m only saying, in terms of, there’s always the possibility that we
haven’t really considered that much, but it’s true in granting relief, that we need to know what the
other properties are, and there’s no indication of the other home on this drawing, nor of the one to
the north, actually.
MR. O'CONNOR-(Lost words) would be to allow us to build a deck at a 38 foot setback. The
amount of the relief, I can’t tell you that exactly.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s a minimum of 12 feet, that you’re asking for. I’m only saying that it could be
more, but we don’t know that.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have one picture that shows this house, it looks like this house is not too far
from ours, but I don’t know if that makes any, I’ll show it to you, but this thing does go back in.
MR. STONE-All I’m saying, it’s a measure of the quantity, that’s all, the average of the two.
MR. STEC-It’s the average of the two.
MR. THOMAS-So if it was 80 feet, and the other one was 20.
MR. STEC-Right, if the one was 20, the other one would have to be 80.
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s your 50, I agree, but if it’s 100. I’m sure it’s not.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you take a look at that photo, it would not be.
MR. STONE-I just want to be sure that we’re all.
MR. STEC-Right. No, I’m sure it’s probably 50. The average won’t be more than 50. It’s not that
substantial a difference.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-All right. I closed the public hearing. Are there anymore questions for the applicant
or Mr. O’Connor?
ROGER BOOR
MR. BOOR-Can I ask one question?
MR. THOMAS-Go ahead.
MR. BOOR-My name’s Roger Boor. Under Site Plan Review, is that when drainage issues would be
addressed?
MR. THOMAS-Runoff, drainage, lighting, noise, whatever. That’s where it goes is the Planning
Board. We’re just concerned with the setbacks, the sideline setbacks. Let’s see, if there’s no other
questions for the applicant or Mr. O’Connor, we’ll talk about it, and we’ll start with Lew.
MR. STONE-Well, there are two concerns that I have. The side setback, as far as I’m concerned, is
a non-issue. It’s obviously a very small lot. We have heard nobody objecting, and Mr. Heinselman
did object to the south, and you’re going to take care of that. The one to the north is not a huge
thing. There are two things that come into play. One is just maybe the increase in the size of the
home. I’m on record, when it comes to lake property, a number of cases where, and I may be the
only one who voted that way, but we have seen an increase in the size of homes on very small lots,
particularly Rockhurst on Lake George, which is one that comes to mind, and I have been very
consistent in voting these down, because I think we’re making houses bigger and bigger on small lots,
and you end up getting a wall, either viewed from the lake or even from the land. You have a wall
situation. That’s one thing. The other thing, of course, is the setback from the lake. Fifty-foot is the
minimum per Code. We have some wonderful water bodies in Queensbury. I think they form a very
valuable asset to the community, whether they’re Lake George, Glen Lake, or the Hudson River. I
certainly recognize the desire, on the part of the applicants, to get closer to the lake. I know I live on
a lake, but I don’t understand Mr. O’Connor’s reference to, if they can’t put a deck on it, we’re
throwing away the first floor. I don’t understand that at all. It’s going to be there. It’s going to be
fixed. So it’s not a throw away. You say we’re going to throw away $50,000 in construction cost, or
$60,000, if you can’t put a deck on it. I don’t buy quite the logic that says, without a deck, the ground
floor is worthless. It’s still a ground floor. It’s still livable, and it provides whatever the ground floor
is providing now. Eleven feet, or 11.2 feet of relief on 50 feet is a sizeable amount of relief,
anywhere, particularly when it comes to a lake. We see Glen Lake becoming more and more a year
round home lake. Glen Lake started out many years ago, and, Mr. O’Connor, you know as well as
anybody, it was a summer lake. Most of the homes on the lake were people who drove up from
either Glens Falls, I mean, I guess it was a long way in those days to go up to Glen Lake, but it was a
summer place. We had small camps and small cottages. People lived there on weekends, maybe a
couple of months in the summer, and they disappeared. Now, we’re making it more and more a year
round community, and it’s wonderful to be on a lake year round. As I say, I certainly understand
that, but the more we build, the more we encroach upon the lake itself, the more damage we’re likely
to do to the asset that has drawn the people there in the first place, the asset that has made people
want to live in Queensbury on a year round basis, and I am just reluctant to grant that much relief, as
far as the shoreline setback is concerned. I am consistent. I believe tonight was a very different
situation, and I don’t want it to be considered that it was a breech of what I normally say, the one we
had earlier, but this is approximately 20 some percent of relief, or 11 feet. That’s a lot of relief, and
I’m inclined to say no.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, first of all, I agree with Lew in the fact that the dimensional relief, as far as
sideline setbacks, is really inconsequential, and I think coupling that with the fact that the applicant is
taking the relief on the southern side, the Heinselman side away. I think the dimensional relief, as far
as sideline setbacks, is really a moot point. Then my analysis would go more to what is actually being
attempted here, and what are the motivations, as far as the necessity of the lake encroachment, and I
think what I would disagree with Mr. Stone is that if the applicants had just purchased this home or
were in the process or contract purchasers, in this circumstance, they would be coming in with a
knowledge of the existing footprints, the existing limitations of the property, but Queensbury is a
Town of citizens that are using their properties in a way that they want to, hopefully, if they don’t
damage their neighbors. These particular applicants have been there for nine years. They are
expanding in a home that they’ve been at for nine years, or attempting to expand upon a home that
they’ve been in nine years. I agree that Glen Lake, we’ve had a number of applications, many of
which have CEA implications, but in this particular case, I don’t think the 12 foot of an open deck is
overly ambitious or a stretch, and when I look at the house immediately to the north, I see that exact
scenario, and it’s a logical scenario. I mean, 12 feet is a minimal amount of open deckage to enjoy
the lake and to enjoy this particular piece of property. I mean, when I came on the property, it was,
when I looked at it, it came right to mind that that needed a deck. The question is, what’s acceptable,
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
what’s not acceptable. Is 12 foot acceptable? Is 20 foot acceptable? I would say absolutely not, but
12 feet, to me, is a minimal amount of deckage, in a spot that it appears to be perfectly natural. The
other thing is that I understand that moving the whole house back 12 feet, so that we could have a
deck and be in compliance with the shoreline setbacks, would amount to giving up on the first floor,
which is where the $50,000 of construction costs occur. I think some of the objections or problems,
not necessarily objections, but problems that the neighbors have been pointed out I think can be and
will be addressed at site plan review, and the fact that like all or many of the applications that we get
for nonconforming structure additions, that this septic system is going to be upgraded substantially,
probably more than we know even, in reality, based on some of the experiences we’ve had with
antiquated systems. I think that that has to be weighed as a positive, you know, in the process. So,
on balance, being that this is an exact footprint, outside of the deck, it’s an exact footprint of what’s
being proposed, there’s no hard structure being proposed in addition, it’s close, but I’m in favor of
the application.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got a couple of questions. How long has the 50-foot setback been around?
MR. STONE-Almost, exactly two years.
MR. MC NALLY-Before two years there was no setback requirement?
MR. STONE-Yes, it was 75.
MR. MC NALLY-And how long was that around?
MR. STONE-Since ’91? I don’t know.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think it was ’92.
MR. MC NALLY-The other thing is, what’s this site plan review? Why does this have to go to site
plan review?
MR. THOMAS-Because it’s in a Critical Environmental Area.
MR. MC NALLY-So it’s going to go anyway?
MR. THOMAS-It’s got to go to the Planning Board anyway.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I’ll ditto the side setback. It’s an insignificant amount. No one cares. I
don’t, personally, have a problem with the 50% expansion of nonconforming use or granting them
the 50% expansion, under 179-79. These are improvements that are going basically upward, on an
existing footprint. So, from my perspective.
MR. O'CONNOR-Except for a small portion at the back.
MR. MC NALLY-Primarily, I said.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-But primarily this is an improvement of an older building which needs
improvements and it will be an improvement to our area. So, in that regard, I think there will be
minimal impact from this property. The shoreline setback is more problematic. When I went out to
the house, this rear section is, in my mind, clearly an addition that was put on at some time and
enclosed, and as much as I understand that a deck is just a few scraps of wood, no major big deal in
most people’s minds, as you’ve planned it now, it’s elevated. It’s providing a height for view of the
lake, which is all well and good, but by providing height for view, you’re also going to make it more
visible, and I think if it’s screened along the base, as the adjoining property owner’s deck is, that 10 or
12 feet below the deck is certainly going to be quite visible from the lake. There’s alternatives that
are available. It can be done at ground level. I’m not saying we’d approve it, but certainly that would
be something that would be less of an impact upon Glen Lake, and I know that the next door
neighbor’s got one closer to the lake, but that’s something we can’t control. The application before
us, of course, is the only thing we’re addressing, but there are alternatives. You can have steps
coming down from the side deck, onto that deck below that. You can re-structure it, if you want. I
don’t see how you can’t take off the enclosed porch and use the deck there. From my looking at
four floor plans, you’ve got ample room for a kitchen. You’ve got ample room for a living room and
dining area, and I don’t understand how there can be a $50,000 loss, and I don’t accept that, simply
because you don’t have a deck hanging off the back. So I would approve, in large part, this entire
application, with the exception of the deck.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I basically echo what Bob said. I’ve got no problem with the side setbacks. When
I looked at this, I did have a problem with the deck in front. I did wonder how the neighbors were
going to react to the garage, but we’re not being asked to give any variance on the garage. So that’s
out of the story. So, yes, I would agree with Bob. I’d approve the side setbacks. I have a problem
with the deck.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan?
MR. STEC-Well, I think the direction that the Board is going echoes my sentiments. I don’t have
any problem at all with the side setback sought on the north side, and the south side’s been
withdrawn, and I agree with the rest of the Board. I’m not overly concerned with exceeding 50% for
the nonconforming structure, mostly because the size of the original house is so small. If we were
talking about something that was 4,000 square feet, and wanting to add 67% over that, I think that’s
really the intent there. So a 756 square foot addition doesn’t bother me. It also doesn’t bother me
that it’s to the rear or non-lake side of the house, but where I get a little, or where I guess most of my
concern would be, is the deck, but I think Jaime was really fishing right around the right area. How
much is reasonable? But I think Bob raises a good point, that we’re not really looking at something
that’s flush at the contour, at the base of the house. It’s really starting up there, at the tops of those
lower story windows. So I do think that you have to be concerned, is it going to be visible from the
lake. Now, clearly, I don’t think it’ll be as visible as the neighbor to the north, and in the interest of
compromise or fairness, because we’ve seen a lot of these kinds of variances on Glen Lake before,
recently, I’d be willing to entertain the idea of a compromise on the deck, involving some sort of
assurances or requirements to either provide or not eliminate or some sort of vegetative screen,
rather than a lattice screen, because I think the lattice screen would really scream to the eye from the
lake, and I think that is really the concern here is the view of the deck from the lake, but all that said,
yes, you know, a shrub thing might really cut down on the visual impact, and I think that’s what
we’re addressing here. So if the Board would want to entertain that as a compromise, I’d be
comfortable with that, but, all said, if I have a concern, it is the deck, but I think that there’s room to
strike a balance with the deck, but everything else, I’m comfortable with.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. It seems to be the deck is the big hang up here.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment, and I’m just trying to think along the same
lines of a compromise. The problem I have with saying, put the deck where the porch is, which may
have been enclosed at one time or another, is that throws the whole floor plan off, particularly in the
second floor, because we were going to go up over that 12 feet or whatever it is, eight feet porch.
We’re going to go up in a box style along the floor print of that to the second floor, and have that as
part of the second floor. So if you end up with just, if you take that eight feet, and that’s what you’re
talking about, a width of eight feet and say, okay, try and make your deck out of that and go back to
the original house where you’re going up, we’ve lost eight feet in our second floor, which means the
whole house gets shoved back, or it would have to get shoved back, and then you’ve got to change
some of the floor plan, the internal floor plan, and the practical effect of that is a lot different than
trying to come up with a plan that you think is properly screened.
MR. STONE-I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say.
MR. HAYES-He’s talking about cutting this back here, and having the deck be there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Bob’s suggestion was that we get a deck by not going to a second story, over this
portion of the building. We could have our deck here, in front of the old house. The problem is
then you lose eight to ten feet in your second floor.
MR. HAYES-I wonder if there’s any way it can be engineered so the deck’s on ground level or
something, where the floor’s going to come out.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, part of the problem there is that the ground level is about eight, ten feet
below the floor level of this. You’ve got somebody who’s handicapped, then you’re going to end up
using three feet for a step going down, or if you’ve got stairs going down, you’re going to go into
your 12 foot deck. You’re going to have nine feet left on the deck. I don’t mean to argue, but the
guy next door, I don’t see a great deal of visibility with 12 foot of deck up there. If you want to open
it and not have it enclosed.
MR. STEC-I’d be comfortable with shrubs in front of the bottom of the deck.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you see my point on the second floor? We tried to move this thing back. We
tried to move it back so that the house starts at this point.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. STONE-I’m saying.
MR. O'CONNOR-Don’t have a deck.
MR. STONE-That’s what I’m saying. The other guys are saying. I’m saying here that the house can
end here. Bob suggested, I thought, that that deck.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m not suggesting or telling you what to do. I’m just suggesting that there are
alternatives which perhaps the applicant may be able to consider and find acceptable. It’s just that
the 10, the 12 feet sticking up in the air toward the lake, even though the next door neighbor’s got
one like that, I mean, I don’t see my role here, basically, as, you know, he’s got it, therefore the other
guy can have it. It’s to lessen the impact on the lake to the extent we can, and that is now what we’re
being faced with, period.
MR. O'CONNOR-Would it make a difference, Bob, if this deck were three feet lower than the side
deck, and you ramped it down from the second deck?
MR. STEC-That would be an improvement. I mean, you’re cutting down the angle. It’s lower. It’s
going to be harder to see from the lake. The lower, the closer to the ground it is, the better.
MR. THOMAS-But then again, too, Dan was saying, like we did for the new house over there, put
plantings in front of it that grows up.
MR. STEC-So that you don’t have to worry about looking into a lattice or looking into a foundation.
MR. THOMAS-You’re not looking in to those two windows that are on the bottom there.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we did that with Kellogg.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s the name I was trying to think of was Kellogg, and we did the same thing
with them.
MR. STEC-That’s right.
MR. THOMAS-Had them put plantings in there, because the deck, in fact, they’re the ones that
came up with it, because they had a walk out basement there, because of the terrain.
MR. MC NALLY-I think I could find that acceptable, with a reduction in height.
MR. STEC-Reduction in height with shrubs.
MR. THOMAS-Bring it down three feet, like Mr. O’Connor said, so that it minimizes the step from
the first deck to the new deck, and put plantings in front of it, so it hides under the deck there.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s an acceptable compromise to their requirements.
MR. O'CONNOR-Otherwise the house footprint gets really difficult to figure out where we’re at,
because if you approve the excess of the 50%, but we’re got to use 12 foot of the base of that 50%
for decking or 10 foot or something like that for decking. I don’t know where the other part of the
house goes in the back.
MR. MC NALLY-We’re just concerned how the front of that house looks. I’m sure it’s going to be
lovely, don’t get me wrong.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Chairman, we would stipulate that the proposed deck in the front
would abide by the setback requirement on the south side of the line, and would be three feet lower
in elevation than the existing deck that’s on the south side of the building, and we would agree that
the base of the deck, as it’s exposed to the lake, would be shrubbed, something.
MR. STONE-Up to at least the floor level.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think that’ll look more awkward than anything, but, I mean, it would be
decent, at least four foot high shrubs, two feet on center, appropriately landscaped. So that it looks
natural.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s fine.
MR. THOMAS-How about the setback from the lake?
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. MC NALLY-That’s the setback you’re talking about, isn’t it?
MR. STONE-It’s still going to be 11 feet, it’s still going to be 38 feet from the lake.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. To throw my two cents in, I don’t have any problem with the compromises
made, nor with the side setbacks, because it’s really existing there. The only other question I have,
that I didn’t ask before, was that storage, up on top of the hill, by Reardon Road, is that a garage
now?
MR. WILKISON-A long time ago I guess it used to be.
MISS HURLEY-Not since I’ve lived there.
MR. THOMAS-I don’t remember if that had a garage door on it or not. To me, that would appear
as a second garage, so I would ask that that garage door be taken off, and some other kind of door
put in there, because that garage door is what makes it a garage. So if you took that door off and put
something else on there, then it would be constituted as a storage building. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a boat storage building.
MR. STEC-Just don’t call it an R V storage.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, it’s a boat storage building. It can have a garage door on it. You can have a
boat storage building and a two-car garage. If you’ve got a working garage door, and you want them
to go out and spend $175 or $250 dollars to frame it in and put another door in? If it’s a compliance
issue, we will comply.
MR. STONE-Stipulate that nothing but boats go in there.
MR. O'CONNOR-They don’t park cars in it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, like I say, it looks like a garage, it looks like a second garage on the
property.
MR. O'CONNOR-The next map you see will have boat storage on it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Does anyone have anymore questions for the applicants or Mr.
O’Connor? If not, I’ll ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1999 DONNA HURLEY
CHARLES WILKISON, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Paul Hayes:
54 Reardon Road. The applicant proposes the construction of an 820 square foot two story addition,
a deck and a 576 square foot freestanding garage, and seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant
requests 11.32 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement. This motion
is also to approve 4.92 to 5.12 feet of relief on the north side of the structure for a projection on the
north side of the building, as depicted on a drawing submitted this evening. This motion is also to
approve a variance on the north side, in the rear of the structure closest to Reardon Road, as
depicted on said drawing, where new construction and porch is set forth, providing for a .20 to a .56
feet of relief along that section. My motion is also to approve an expansion of a nonconforming
structure, to a total of 1802 square feet for the primary structure, which is an increase of 805 square
feet over the existing. The proposed expansion is in excess of the allowable 50% increase for
nonconforming structures. The reasons for approval is, the benefit to the applicant is that they wold
be permitted to construct a desired addition and garage, and make improvements to an older
structure, such as would improve the area. The feasible alternatives may include a downsized deck to
a more compliant location, or modification of the existing structure. Is the relief substantial relative
to the Ordinance? The dimensional side line relief is interpreted as minimal, and is in fact minimal.
This motion is also to approve shoreline setback relief of 11.32 feet, which while interpreted as
moderate, given the nature of the surrounding buildings and the conditions which the applicants
have stipulated to, the effects will be minimal in the neighborhood itself. The difficulty is not created
by the applicants, and this approval is contingent upon the deck on the side closest to the lake being
three feet lower than as depicted on the application, and also contingent upon the area beneath the
deck being screened by vegetation, two feet on center, a minimum of four feet tall to start, and
maintained in such a condition as to screen the deck from the lower portion. For these reasons, I
move the approval of the application.
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-It’s a five to one, you have an approval.
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you for working with us.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you.
MR. WILKISON-Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ve got a couple of other things to do before we can leave tonight. The
first thing we’ve got to do is have a new Secretary. Would anyone like to nominate someone for the
position of Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals? This does not have to be approved by the
Town Board, only elected among us.
MOTION TO NOMINATE DANIEL STEC FOR POSITION OF SECRETARY OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert McNally:
This position runs to the end of December 1999. At the end of the year, in the January meeting, a
new election will take place for a Chairman and a Secretary.
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Stec
MR. STONE-I have a question of my colleagues. That young woman that I was talking to is the new
Land Use person for LGA, and if she had spoken, I would have recused myself. Would you
understand that?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, I would.
MR. STONE-Because I’m the Vice President of the organization. I’m on the Executive Committee.
Because I think we need a presence at all meetings, and we haven’t had it, because we’ve become
more of a Staff driven organization, with some of the fortune that we’ve had lately.
MR. THOMAS-There is an item on the agenda for the Planning Board for an Forest Enterprises,
Inc. The applicant proposes a 31-lot subdivision. The first phase will contain 14 lots, with lot sizes
10,000 feet plus or minus. Now, if we remember back to Inspiration Point, on the Corinth Road,
those are the ones that need variances for anything they do. What I was going to do was to give a
note or send a letter to the Planning Board suggesting that the lots be bigger than 10,000 square feet,
which is 100 by 100, which Inspiration Point has, because every time anybody wants to do anything,
they have to be in here for a variance. So, do I have an approval from the majority of the Board to
send some kind of note, letter, memo?
MR. MC NALLY-Sure.
MR. STONE-You’re going to suggest that, but the developer can build on a 100 square foot. We
know that, or 10,000 square foot.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s in an SFR-1 Acre area.
MR. STONE-It is, then how are they going to get a subdivision?
MR. THOMAS-That’s what they’re in there for.
MR. STONE-How many acres is the property, Craig, do you know?
MR. THOMAS-It’s a 31-lot subdivision. Lot size is 14.47 acres, and 11.35 acres.
MR. HAYES-Where is it?
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
MR. BROWN-You know where Adirondack Animal Hospital is on Ridge Road? It’s a little further,
it’s almost across from Bonnie’s.
MR. THOMAS-Opposite Meadow Drive.
MR. STONE-Where the Bike Shop is.
MR. THOMAS-So you’re talking 15 and 11. That’s 26 acres. Well, it’s 26 acres and it’s a 31-lot
subdivision.
MR. HAYES-They must be bigger than 100 by 100, then.
MR. STONE-Is there wetlands in there?
MR. THOMAS-Definitely.
MR. MC NALLY-The other thing we had with that property on Corinth Road was the configuration
of the lots. That one fellow, for instance, he had like no backyard, no front yard, it was an extremely
long. So they tried to piece these things in order to make as many fit as possible.
MR. THOMAS-Maximize their returns.
MR. STONE-I think the point you want to make to these people is that here’s an opportunity to
make the lots reasonable sized so that improvements can go in.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I would like to get a list of the variances we’ve had over that, but I think that
would be asking too much of Staff to cough those up. Or would it be fairly easy, to come up with a
list of the variances over at Inspiration Park for swimming pools, garages, front porches and stuff
like that.
MR. BROWN-Your wish is my command.
MR. THOMAS-Last but not least, we have notes to do.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
July 21, 1999: NONE
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING, JULY
21, 1999, OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AS TYPED,
Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally
July 28, 1999: NONE
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES AS TYPED FOR THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING, JULY 28, 1999,
Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
August 18, 1999: NONE
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST
REGULAR MEETING, AUGUST 18, 1999, AS TYPED, Introduced by Chris Thomas who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/99)
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
August 25, 1999: NONE
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING, AUGUST 25, 1999, AS TYPED, Introduced by Chris
Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-I see on these notes here, the Hewitt’s Garden Center reminds me of something that
was said in that meeting, for Hewitt’s. They wanted the trees along the front of the building, like
they had in Saratoga. Do you remember that?
MR. BROWN-In the right-of-way?
MR. THOMAS-On the right-of-way, yes. There are no trees in the front of the building in Hewitt’s
in Saratoga. I go by there.
MR. HAYES-Are you sure they weren’t talking about Clifton Park, because that’s what they do. I’ve
seen that store.
MR. THOMAS-I haven’t seen that one, but I specifically remember them saying Saratoga, but it may
have been Clifton Park.
MR. STONE-Yes, he probably misspoke.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Does anyone else have anything for the good of the Board? If not, I’ll
make a motion to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
57