2000-02-23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PAUL HAYES
CHARLES ABBATE
ALLAN BRYANT
ROBERT MC NALLY
CHARLES MC NULTY
MEMBERS ABSENT
LEWIS STONE
NORMAN HIMES
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CEA KEVIN & MARYBETH
MASCHEWSKI OWNER: JAMES AND ROSEMARY DAVIDSON 73 ASSEMBLY
POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO
EXISTING SEASONAL HOUSE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FROM
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 12-2000 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO. 6-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION 179-16
KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, PRESENT
MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to your application?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. To add to it? No. I believe, Craig, you just handed out, the revised 11
by 17.
MR. HAYES-I see that the glass is reduced.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I took a row out, yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. HAYES-One of the other Board members had a little concern about something else. Perhaps
the overall height.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I had a problem with the overall cumulative impact.
MR. HAYES-Essentially, the side yard setbacks have remained unchanged. You’ve reduced the
impact from the lake with the glass.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes.
MR. HAYES-And the height of the roof, I’m assuming is the same as it was?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, actually I dropped it by three feet.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Originally, I was in here last week, and we were looking for relief from 31 feet,
from the required 28 to 31. So three feet. I reduced the walls upstairs, and spec’d it down to 28.
Today I went out and actually measured, and in red pen I measured 28 foot 10 inches. That’s
existing. I could live with the 28. I mean, if you want me to pull the height variance out of my
application, I could live with the 28. If you’re feeling generous, 28’ 10” would be nice, but I could
live with the 28, which is the zoning height, and I did reduce the one row of windows and as far as
I’m concerned at this point, the only thing I’m in front of you folks for is the side yards, the right and
left side yards.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. HAYES-And possibly the height variance, you’re hoping to get that, I guess.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. If I could get 10 inches. Right now the upstairs walls are four feet high.
So I couldn’t get eight footers because the height restriction doesn’t allow it, and I originally had six
and a half foot walls in there.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess he’s outlined the changes that he’s made. We can talk about it in an
abbreviated way, hopefully. Why don’t we start with Chuck tonight.
MR. MC NULTY-All right. Getting rid of the height variance and the reduced glass, I guess I could
go along with it, on the basis of the compromises that the applicant has made.
MR. HAYES-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I think the lowering of the height, loss of glass, significantly reduces the impact on
the lake. This shows a good faith effort on the part of the applicant to accommodate their variance
application to meet some of the underlying rationales of the Code. The side setback’s not a problem
since the existing structure is basically the same side setback, and they’re just asking an extension
along two sides. It’s an insignificant amount, in my opinion, and the front setback on the lake,
they’re going to be at least 55 feet back either way, and looking at the row of houses up and down
the lake on either side of them, it’s certainly a reasonable solution that they’ve proposed. I’m in favor
of it.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Maschewski was willing to work with the Board. Obviously, he put in a lot of
work over the last seven days to modify this huge project. It’s a beautiful home. There’s no question
about it, and you have significantly reduced any kind of an adverse impact, and as far as I’m
concerned, I don’t have any problems with it.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Are you asking for the 10 inches or are you not asking for the 10 inches at this point?
Because I think at the last meeting my objection was, I wasn’t clear how the two buildings were going
to connect, and I think their neighbors objection was that he could see over your current, your
existing building. If you put a building in that was three feet higher, he wouldn’t be able to see down
the lake, and none of the drawings really show that. So I just, you know, the 10 inches I really have
no problem with the 10 inches as long as it’s the same height, and as far as the other setbacks are
concerned, I didn’t have a problem with it last week.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I guess that is up for question. I mean, I can live with 28. I can live with 28. I
don’t want to buck the system, and I’m here on good faith of getting it to 28. I just measured, for
my own piece of mind, and throw it on the drawing, what the existing elevation was.
MR. BRYANT-And that was one of the questions that was asked last time.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Actually twice. I hate not having an answer for it. So I’ve provided it.
MR. BRYANT-I really have no problem with it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess I let me feelings be known last time. I think in certain circumstances
along the lake we’re concerned with visual impact, but I, personally, based on the compromises that
the application, or the applicant has made, do not have a problem with granting one foot of relief on
the height variance either. If that’s going to perfect or drastically improve the upstairs of the
proposed new camp, I don’t have a problem with one foot. I think that’s minimum relief. The rest I
think Bob covered very well. I think the side setback relief is really a logical continuance of where
you’re already at now. So, I don’t think that impacts your neighborhood, and overall it looks like a
fairly well laid out plan. I think it would be an improvement in the neighborhood. I would be happy
if it was next to me, and therefore, I’m okay with the application, including the 10 inches of relief, or
one foot of relief. So considering that, is there anybody up here with a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2000 KEVIN & MARYBETH
MASCHEWSKI, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
Abbate:
As amended this evening. 73 Assembly Point Road. The applicant proposes construction of an
addition and seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests 13.8 feet and 9 feet of relief
from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement, as set forth in their application, and 11.5 feet of
relief from the 66.5 foot average shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16.
Fifty feet is the minimum setback requirement from the shoreline, or the average setback on the
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
houses on the adjoining lots, whichever is greater. Further, relief from the Section 179-79, expansion
of a nonconforming structure, is also requested. The benefit to the applicant is obvious. They’d be
permitted to modernize their existing home that they were going to purchase, and to add the addition
on to it in accordance with their plans. There were feasible alternatives, which included downsizing
the addition, so that the floor area requirement variance was not necessary, and so that the height
was not as extreme as the initial application initially stated it would be. They’ve come back and
they’ve amended their application in order to meet some of these feasible alternatives. So the relief,
then, is not substantial relative to the Ordinance, and the effects on the neighborhood would be
minimal, in my opinion. I, therefore, move the approval of this variance. That the house can be 28
feet 10 inches high.
Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes Mr. Stone
MR. MC NALLY-Enjoy your new home.
MR. HAYES-Yes, thank you.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2000 TYPE II WR-1A, CEA MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON
OWNER: MICHAEL CHRYS 115 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD (KNOX ROAD)
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,400 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF, RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND THE MAXIMUM GARAGE SIZE
REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.14 LOT SIZE: 1.00 ACRES SECTION 179-16. 179-7
MARYBETH SLEVIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MS. SLEVIN-Good evening. My name is Marybeth Slevin, counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Dawson. They
had to be out of town this evening, for a previous engagement, but they asked me to appear on their
behalf, so that they could attempt to move the application forward.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there any additional correspondence?
MR. BROWN-Yes. There should be authorization to act, new drawings, which I think you guys
have already got, but no additional public comment or correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Just the revised plan.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-They moved the house back?
MS. SLEVIN-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-120 feet from one corner, 100 feet from the other?
MS. SLEVIN-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And there’s an elevation here, a 30 foot height?
MS. SLEVIN-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-What was the original one?
MS. SLEVIN-The original was 34. So they’ve reduced it by four feet, and that’s really the substance
of the changes.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I remember suggesting to that effect.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MS. SLEVIN-They took it to heart.
MR. HAYES-Well, the original was 34. All right. Okay. Well, I guess that’s really the changes.
There’s nothing further you’d like to add to the application?
MS. SLEVIN-There really isn’t, except that Mr. and Mrs. Dawson did attempt in good faith to
respond to the Board’s comments. We believe that these are the changes to the extent practicable
with the land. Pushing the house any further back would begin to create problems with the driveway
coming in to the garage, and that would probably be really an impact on the neighbor that we don’t
really want to impose. So that we looked at the drawing. We looked at how far it could be moved
back, and this was really the best that they could do. Similarly, the reduction in the height was the
greatest that they could make to come within compliance with the Ordinance, but still maintain the
structural integrity of the roof system for the slopes that are required for snow loads and things of
that nature.
MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions of the applicant’s agent at this time? Okay. Let’s talk
about it. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-We’ve always been sensitive about lakefront setbacks, and very strict in terms of
applying the Ordinance with respect to shorelines. In this case, we have property which requires a
minimum of 50 feet setback, and the applicant’s proposing 100 and 120 feet, which, while not as
much as the average of the adjoining lots, is just about the furthest they can push this property back,
given the unique shape and the narrowness in the very center of the property, in this case, and also
because of the two adjoining properties are very large and very setback. It’s kind of unusual along
Assembly Point Road in that particular location. So I’d be in favor of the setback relief, and I’m very
pleased that they also reduced the height of the structure. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. and Mrs. Dawson have done what they indicated to us that they were going to
do, and that is to modify the position of the home. I don’t think we could ask anything more than
what they have already done. Otherwise it would create somewhat of a problem, physically, and it
would be, I think, unreasonable, on our part. So the other question to ask, then, is this structure
appropriate. Does it meet the necessary requirements. In my opinion, it does, and I’ll support it.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I’m very pleased with the changes, and I think I would support it.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I kind of feel like the rest of the Board. I’d really prefer to see a house that was
totally conforming, but recognizing the difficulties of the lot, and the nature of some of the other
homes in the area, the home’s plan seems to fit with what else is there. So I guess I could go along
with it.
MR. HAYES-I tend to agree with my other Board members. I think so far tonight it’s been relatively
easy sledding. We’ve asked for concessions and we’ve gotten them. The relief that’s requested past
that point has been relatively minor, two feet of relief from the height requirement is not something,
in my mind, that represents a potential problem for the neighborhood or the surrounding area. I
think, in this particular case, every attempt has been made to place this home as far away from the
lake as practically possible, and we certainly don’t expect people to go beyond that, if we can help it,
and I also don’t believe, in this particular case, that it’s a self-created difficulty, because the lot is
uniquely shaped, based on the jut out of the neighbor’s property there. So, as my other Board
members have pointed out, I’m in favor, and I think it’s a good project. It’s a compliment to the
neighborhood. Considering that, is there a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2000 MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
115 Assembly Point Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a single family dwelling and
seeks relief from the setback, height and maximum garage size requirements. The applicant requests
two feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement, as well as relief from the 120 foot
average shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Specifically, with respect
to the shoreline setback, the applicant requests 20 feet of relief on the one corner of the property, as
shown on the drawing submitted this evening. The other corner of the property does meet the 120
foot setback, and I presume that the setback would vary along the distance from that 120 to 100 foot
setback. Fifty feet is the minimum required setback, or the average setback of the houses on the two
adjoining lots, whichever is greater, that, of course, is 120 feet. Further, a 1,080 square foot garage is
proposed, requiring 180 square feet of relief from the maximum allowable 900 square feet for a
private garage, per Section 179-7. The applicant would, of course, be permitted to construct the
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
desired home in the preferred location. It’s an upscale neighborhood, and it’s an upscale piece of
property. The feasible alternatives include a scaled down proposal, which has been submitted this
evening. The relief is not substantial to the Ordinance. One hundred and eighty feet in addition to
the nine hundred square feet that’s allowed under the Ordinance is not unusual, given the large size
of the house, and the exclusive nature of this neighborhood. I also don’t think it’s a problem
because it’s to the rear of the property. It’s actually behind the house. So it’s not going to have any
significant visual impact on the neighborhood. The house also is large, such that two feet of the
height relief is not going to significantly impact upon the neighborhood either. It’s supposed to be
an Adirondack style log type home, which requires a somewhat steeper roof, and because of that,
architecturally and aesthetically, it’s in a preferred height at 30 feet. The setback relief requested of
20 feet on the one corner from the 120 foot average is reasonable, given the fact that this property
actually narrows, kind of like a wasp’s waist, in the center of the property, such that you can’t put the
house any further back unless you go on someone else’s property. The applicant’s been very
reasonable, and they’ve acted in good faith in moving the property back as we requested. I don’t see
any effect on the neighborhood and I don’t see it as self-created. Therefore, I move the approval.
Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MS. SLEVIN-Thank you.
MR. MC NALLY-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 11-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 MARK B. SATTLER
OWNER: GEORGE ROOP 438 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES ONE
ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN AND A 9 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO. 111-4-2 LOT SIZE: 1.11
ACRES SECTION 140
MARK SATTLER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 11-2000, Mark B. Sattler, Meeting Date: February 23, 2000
“Project Location: 438 Dix Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has placed one
additional wall sign on the building and two additional signs, totaling 25 sf, to an existing free
standing sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief to display an additional wall sign. Tenants
within a business complex are allowed one wall sign, per §140-6,B.,(3),(d),[4],[b]. Also the applicant
requests 7 sf of relief from the 50 sf maximum allowable square footage for a freestanding sign, per
§140-6,B.,(3),[2],[a]. The applicant proposes two additional signs to be placed below the existing
approved 32 sf sign. The 16 square foot sign could be permitted without variance approval.
Therefore the request for relief should only address the 9 sf sign and the additional wall sign.
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit
to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the excess signage and have additional
visual recognition. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include smaller additions to
the freestanding sign and perhaps one large wall sign visible from both desired streets. 3. Is this
relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 7 square feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement
may be interpreted as minimal to moderate while the request for a second wall sign in a business
complex 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 appears to be self-created. Parcel History
(construction, site plan, variance, etc.):
Site Plan Review 29-99 restaurant approved
Sign Permit 99-3434 free standing sign 11/19/99
Sign Permit 99-3444 two wall signs 12/21/99 amended; one approved
Sign Permit 99-3441 additional signs on existing free standing pending
Sign Variance 46-92 5/27/92 advertise business names on FS sign Staff Comments: Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Business complex sign regulations are
specific when addressing size and number of signs. One wall sign per occupant is allowed. This
property presents a unique circumstance in that one tenant requests visibility from two streets.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
Common practice is to have all necessary approvals prior to sign installation. SEQRA Status: Type:
Unlisted”
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Sattler, is there anything you’d like to add to the application or clarify
for us?
MR. SATTLER-No.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-What’s your relationship to Ally’s Place?
MR. SATTLER-I’m the nickel & dime guy who’s got the headaches. I own the place. I rent from
Mr. George Roop, but Ally’s Place is mine. I own it.
MR. MC NALLY-And in the Staff Notes they indicate that on December 21 of ’99, the sign permit
st
was amended, so that you only put up one sign, instead of two wall signs? Is that right?
MR. SATTLER-That’s my general understanding.
MR. MC NALLY-Did you file for the permit after the signs were up? How did it happen, Craig?
MR. HAYES-In December.
MR. MC NALLY-Back in December.
MR. BROWN-Originally, sign permit 3444 was submitted for two wall signs. I informed Mr. Sattler
that he needed a variance to do that. I suggested that maybe he amend that application so he could
get one sign up while he applies for a variance to get the second sign. We amended it. He was
approved for one wall sign.
MR. MC NALLY-When did the second sign go up, though? There are two signs up there now.
MR. SATTLER-Yes. There’s two signs up there right now. We’ve opened up the first of the year,
and the place would be out of business if the sign wasn’t up.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but when was the sign put up? That’s the question?
MR. MC NALLY-Craig’s telling us that you came in for a permit. You were told just one sign. My
question, how was it that two signs made it up there on the wall?
MR. SATTLER-We put up two signs. I have a gourmet chef over there. The exact date when the
sign was up, I don’t know. It’s been a whirlwind trying to open this place up, and there’s a lot of
pieces to the jigsaw and the puzzle to make this thing happen internally, in terms of quality food and
trying to keep customers happy. I don’t know the exact date. It’s been recently. Without the sign,
the place would go out of business. I’ve got a breakfast, lunch and a dinner special, and I’ve been
advertising on the radio to let people know we’re alive and we’re there and that it’s a new place.
MR. HAYES-I guess maybe my question would be, when you went to Craig and he informed you of
the Code and the Statute and the specific Section that was involved, and you amended your petition,
but you put the second sign up anyway, I mean, did you always intend to put the second sign up or, I
guess, I understand the necessity, and we’ll certainly deal with that, but I think we’re trying to deal
with the methodology of deciding to put the second sign up.
MR. SATTLER-I’ve been trying to understand the methodology how the Town of Queensbury
works. I’m still a little confused on that, to be honest with you. I’m trying to do everything by the
book and do it right. Trying to keep everybody happy. I’m not sure if I answered your question
directly. Maybe you could ask it again.
MR. HAYES-Well, I guess what I’m confused by is, he told you you couldn’t have two signs, and
that’s why you amended your petition, but yet you put two up, and that kind of contradicts trying to
work, going by the book, in my mind.
MR. SATTLER-It does, but if the signs weren’t up, we’d be out of business. I’ve had the place there
for eight months. Nothing was there. I finally got all the equipment and everything ready and we
opened up January 1. So now I’m going into a year of paying rent, business expenditures,
st
equipment, payroll salary, inventory. Without the sign up, the customers won’t know the breakfast,
lunch, and dinner specials, and we’ve tried to speed up the process and I’ve tried to understand the
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
process, and the methodology, how the Town of Queensbury works. From December and from
November, and prior to that, it was a financial necessity. If the sign wasn’t up, I’d be out of business.
MR. MC NALLY-Did you open the first of this year or the first of last year?
MR. SATTLER-The first of this year. This is our eighth week of being there.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. You say you need the signs to show your specials? Are you talking about
the signs that are on the free standing pole?
MR. SATTLER-Yes, whether it’s a meat butcher special or whether it’s a breakfast, dinner or lunch
special.
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got two wall signs up there. We’ve all been there, okay. We’ve checked it
out. One’s, I see from your application, it says the two signs on the building, we need to face east
and west. So you want to get the traffic coming from Hudson Falls to Glens Falls, and the traffic
coming from Glens Falls to Hudson Falls.
MR. SATTLER-Right, from six to seven a.m., I’ve stood out there and I’ve counted approximately
three and four hundred cars that go by there, usually heading into Glens Falls at that time.
MR. MC NALLY-Wouldn’t you agree that the wall signs facing in each direction are duplicated by
the free standing signs that are facing the same directions? Cars going both directions can see the
free standing one, right?
MR. SATTLER-No. I’ve had a lot of people say that they didn’t even know that the place was there,
and I bought two neon signs that I plug inside by the windows, and from both directions, people, a
number of people have asked me why I haven’t moved the neon open signs from inside the building
further away from each other, because when they come from both directions, into or out of Glens
Falls, they couldn’t see it. So, with the sign on there, people will know that I’m there.
MR. BRYANT-With regard to the wall sign, wouldn’t it have been more practical to, the building has
got a curvature in the front of it. Wouldn’t it be more practical to put one wall sign, a larger wall
sign, right over your door, so it would be visible from both sides? I mean, the wall sign does
absolutely nothing if you’re going from Glens Falls, into Hudson Falls, you see the freestanding sign.
You really don’t see the wall signs unless you’re stopped there at the light. Wouldn’t one wall sign
over your door in the center have visibility from both streets?
MR. SATTLER-I think it would look that way, but because of the curvature of it, it’s not like a 90
degree square corner, because the building is shaped on a curve, so I don’t think people would be
able to see it, unless they’re at the red light and they stop and they turn their heads and see.
MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions? At this time I’d like to open the public hearing. Is
there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Charles?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Mr. Sattler, my comments initially are not going to reflect on you. So
understand that. Okay. This is another example of the Zoning Board of Appeals having to take
action as a result of a default approval. Now I understand that General Municipal Law provides this
kind of thing, but I am, Mr. Chairman, very uncomfortable when this committee receives
applications which require scrutinizing, and as a result of reaching this point, the individual applicant
reaches this point, again, not referring to you, personally, as a result of default. So I’m not
comfortable with all of these defaults that we are receiving. Now, addressing you, understand, this
has nothing to do with you, do you understand that?
MR. SATTLER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. My question to you, basically, is this. In Paragraph Two, the question was,
What effect would this variance have on the character of the neighborhood, and the safety, health
and welfare of the community? And you answered, it would enhance the health, the safety, and the
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
welfare of the community. Would you be kind enough to explain that to me, how your business
enhances the health, safety, and welfare of the community?
MR. SATTLER-I opened up Ally’s Place in an attempt to provide gourmet quality food, and we’re
trying to sell it primarily to the commercial businesses like the Airport, Valcour, Glens Falls Cement,
hopefully Finch Pruyn. Most of these folks have about a half an hour for lunch. They don’t have
time to go to a fine dining restaurant and wait an hour and a half in a restaurant. It would be nice,
but most of these people don’t have that kind of time. They may have the money, but they don’t
have the time. So the type of gourmet sandwiches, French dip au jus, chicken cordon bleus, quarrys,
you know, we make the beef right out of the oven, turkey breast right out of the oven. It enhances
the health and the well being of the community. Because I offer something that’s top quality
gourmet food, and hopefully you can get it in about 10 minutes, and that’s why I put that down.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, I mean, you have that kind of faith in your business, that’s fantastic.
MR. SATTLER-But it really depends on the customer. It really doesn’t matter what I think. It’s
what the customer wants, and hopefully I can do that.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you’re convinced that it does provide these things for the community.
MR. SATTLER-I’d like to think so, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Sattler, how many businesses are in that complex?
MR. SATTLER-There’s a dental. He makes dentures. George makes the ice.
MR. BRYANT-He’s on the Dix Avenue side?
MR. SATTLER-Yes. It’s all in the same building.
MR. BRYANT-His area is on the Dix side?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, it’s Hess Ventures.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-What makes you think that he won’t want that type of signage on both sides of the
street? On both sides of the building?
MR. SATTLER-I’m not sure if I understand your question.
MR. BRYANT-Well, you’re asking for, you have two signs up in the front, so that you can address
Dix Avenue and Queensbury Avenue.
MR. SATTLER-Right.
MR. BRYANT-What makes you think that he won’t want the same benefit?
MR. SATTLER-Well, he owns the place. So I figured if he didn’t want me to do it, he would have
told me a long time ago.
MR. BRYANT-When it comes to the free standing sign, I think that’s the largest attraction, and as I
drive back and forth, up and down Dix Avenue, I see that before I see the signs on the building. I
would be in favor of the two additional signs on the free standing sign before I would the additional
wall sign. That’s all I have to say.
MR. HAYES-Chuck.
MR. MC NULTY-If I’m understanding this correctly, the applicant would be in compliance if he had
one wall sign, and he could be in compliance with his sign number one, under the existing free
standing sign, that’s a sign number two that kicks him over into a variance. As has already been kind
of mentioned, I have a problem, when we have a complex that’s got several businesses, whether it’s
two businesses or more, and one applicant comes in and wants additional signs, because I think,
down the road somewhere, there is the potential for the other businesses in that building to say, we
want equal treatment, and it would only be fair to give them equal treatment. So there’s a potential
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
for a lot of additional signs being requested of this Board. With the curve front on the building, it
strikes me that one strategically placed wall sign should be able to do the same job as two, and I think
the one additional sign under the freestanding sign should be able to do the job on the freestanding
sign. So I guess I’m inclined to be opposed to the request.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got an existing 32 foot freestanding sign. I have no problem with the sign
below that that you’re asking for, 16 square feet more, for your specials. That gives you a total of 48
square feet, and below that you’ve got this little, and actually very well nicely done sign, “Hot Dogs 3
for 99”. I’m not sure how that jives with a quality food service. Don’t get me wrong. I’m saying it’s
only an additional seven square feet, and to be honest with you, it’s an attractive sign. I don’t have a
problem with it because it’s minimal relief that you’ve asked for. With respect to the wall sign,
though, to be perfectly honest with you, I didn’t really see that sign, unless I was at the light, or right
in front of your building actually stopped in your parking lot. I did notice the freestanding sign
coming from both directions, but we, again, have always tried to kind of limit the number of signs in
the community, because every business, if they had their druthers, would have 50 signs that would be
at least the size of whatever exterior surface of their business that might be. So the effect on the
community, by allowing additional signs, I think it would be detrimental, unless there were unusual
circumstances. Apparently, our zoning department told you you could only have one sign, and you
put up two. I understand the need for a business starting off to do well, and I wish you the best of
luck, but you’ve got that curve in the front of your building, and it can be seen from both
Queensbury and Dix, for people who are right there, and I think the freestanding sign is pretty clear I
both directions that you are there. So I would be in favor of the freestanding sign additions that
you’ve suggested, but I don’t think I would, I would not be in favor of the two wall signs where
they’re posted. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I tend to agree with Bob’s remarks. Being the owner of other small micro
business enterprises in the community, I know that signage is very important, if not critical, and I
think your point is well taken, including a certain amount of frustration, but the Town elected
officials have set up a Code, and approved it, that it’s fairly restrictive, and it’s our job to maintain
that to the best of our ability outside of dire need or minimal relief, and in this particular case, I think
that your freestanding sign and the need for the additional one is warranted. I think I totally agree.
You need the visibility from that high speed traffic lane, and I think it’s a justified addition. I’m
totally in agreement, but in order to continue to protect what has traditionally been a tightly enforced
Code, I think that I agree with Bob. I think one sign on the curvature portion of your business could
suffice, in this particular circumstance. I think you do need to advertise. You do need to get the
word out on your business, and I think we can help you with the freestanding sign. Because it is a
tasteful sign. It’s attractive. When I came upon it, I had no problem with it at first glance, and that’s
usually what I go with. So, I have no problem granting some relief in this circumstance, if you’re
willing to compromise and give something back. That’s how I feel. I guess, how do you feel about
that? Obviously, you want it all, and I understand that.
MR. SATTLER-Yes. That’s not how life is. If I understand the Board correctly, at issue here is on
the curvature of the building, with the two separate signs?
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. SATTLER-You’re saying take one of them down and just put one up.
MR. HAYES-Well, I think that there’s some fertile ground for you to get some relief, if you
compromise in that area, but I can’t speak for everyone on the Board.
MR. SATTLER-So, I take one down, and just use one of those signs, and put it in the middle, or put
one in the middle?
MR. HAYES-Wherever you want.
MR. MC NALLY-Put it where you see fit, sir.
MR. HAYES-It’s your business.
MR. MC NALLY-But one of the options is to put it on the curvature where it’s visible from both
places.
MR. MC NULTY-When I looked at it, I came down Queensbury Avenue from the airport, and it
struck me at that time that a wall sign right over the door, right in the middle, would have been much
better for me coming from Queensbury Avenue, because you’re kind of coming edge on to the sign
that’s in the front of the freestanding sign.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. HAYES-You understand that the implications of granting relief also have to do with the
precedents that are being set, going forward.
MR. SATTLER-Yes. You could be setting a Pandora’s Box and everyone would want to have
something, and I understand that. If you come on Queensbury Avenue, I agree with you. If you go
on Dix Avenue, I don’t think a lot of people would see it. I think the road on Dix Avenue is much
more heavily traveled than Queensbury, but, you know, the main thing to me is having the specials
where people know what it is there for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and the meat butcher special. So
if everybody’s happy with that, I can live with that. On the curvature part of the wall, I’ll just take
one down and leave the other up, if that’s going to make everybody happy, then I’ll do that.
MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Let’s talk about it, I guess
I’m referring to his amended.
MR. BRYANT-I would be in favor of that, the freestanding sign and the wall sign.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-If Mr. Sattler is willing to make that compromise, I wouldn’t have any problems with
that.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess is there a motion out there?
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, a Sign Variance is an Unlisted action. You have to do a SEQRA
finding, first.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess we need to do an Environmental Assessment Short Form, as it applies
to Sign Variance No. 11-2000, Mark B. Sattler. Question A “Does the Action exceed any Type I
threshold in 6NYCRR?”
MR. MC NALLY-No.
MR. HAYES-No. “Will the Action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6
NYCRR?” No. “Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: 1.
Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste
production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. MC NALLY-No.
MR. HAYES-Number Two, “Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historical or other natural or
cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” I would say no, okay. “Vegetation,
fish, shellfish, wildlife species significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. MC NALLY-No.
MR. HAYES-Number Four “A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change
in use or intensity of use of land or natural resources?”
MR. MC NALLY-No.
MR. HAYES-No. Number Five, “Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?” I would say no. Six, “Long term, Short Term, cumulative or
other effects not identified in C1 through C5?” No. Number Seven, “Other impacts”. I don’t
believe that there are any. Part B, “Will the project have an impact on the environmental
characteristics that cause the establishment of a CEA?” I don’t believe it’s in a CEA. “Is there or is
there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts” I don’t think so.
It’s a Sign Variance. So, I guess that we just make a motion to approve the, it’ll have no impact.
Okay.
MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess we need a motion, now, on the application.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 11-2000 MARK B. SATTLER, Introduced
by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
438 Dix Avenue. The applicant has placed one wall sign on a building and requests permission to
place two additional signs totaling 25 square feet on an existing freestanding sign. Specifically,
applicant requests seven square foot of relief from the fifty foot maximum allowable square footage
for a freestanding sign, per Section 140-6B(3)(2)(a). The applicant proposes two additional signs to
be placed below the existing approved 32 foot square sign. The benefit to the applicant, the
applicant is going to be permitted to maintain excess signage and have additional visual recognition.
Feasible alternatives may include smaller additions to the freestanding sign that would meet the same
square footage requirement. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Seven square feet of relief
from the 50 square foot can be interpreted as being minimal, in this instance. Effects on the
neighborhood or community, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated because of
this action. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be interpreted as being self-created, but
also can be seen as a business necessity. I move adoption of this variance. This relief is only for the
freestanding sign. One of the wall signs will come down and one can stay up.
Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
rd
MR. HAYES-Before we move forward, Mr. Sattler, you understand the motion and its implications?
MR. SATTLER-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions on the motion?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, just a clarification. This is only for the freestanding sign. Is that
correct?
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Because it started off, we mentioned the wall sign.
MR. MC NALLY-Right. Why don’t we make it clear.
MR. ABBATE-I think that’s a good idea.
MR. BRYANT-Make it clear that it’s only the freestanding sign.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Sattler, you’re withdrawing your variance application for a second wall sign, is
that not correct?
MR. SATTLER-I understand the Board correctly. Take one of the wall signs down, and one can stay
up.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s effectively what you’re going to have to do. Because we’re going to only
approve your freestanding sign, I think.
MR. SATTLER-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Those modifications should be made to the motion.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Thanks for your time.
MR. MC NALLY-Good luck to you. Where is Lewis?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, where is, what happened to Lewis, he’s next on the agenda.
MR. HAYES-Did I skip one? Mr. Lewis withdrew his application, I believe.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that what happened?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So Lewis withdrew. All right.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 13-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A MICHAEL A. KAIDAS
OWNER: MICHAEL AND SUSAN KAIDAS 43 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES RELOCATION OF EXISTING 50 SQ. FT. SIGN DUE TO THE RECENT
INSTALLATION OF THE BIKE PATH BRIDGE WHICH NOW BLOCKS THE
VISIBILITY OF THE SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-1.3 LOT SIZE: 1.84
ACRES SECTION 140
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 13-2000, Michael A. Kaidas, Meeting Date: February 23, 2000
“Project Location: 43 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has relocated a
50 sf sign into the Quaker Road right of way and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance to maintain it
at this location. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief to maintain a 50 sf free-standing sign in
violation of the Sign Ordinance, §140-6,B.,(1),(a). Criteria for considering a Sign Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to maintain the sign with preferred visibility. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include relocation of the sign onto the property in a compliant location. 3. Is this
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Approximately (-10) feet of relief from the 15 foot
requirement may be interpreted as extreme. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be attributed to the recent construction of the Warren
County Bike Trail Bridge across Quaker Road which obstructed the visibility of the “old” sign when
travelling East to West on Quaker Road. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Sign Permit 89-1244 12/14/89 50 sf free-standing sign ( middle of property)
Sign Variance 132-92 12/17/92 allow maintenance of 2 free-standing
nd
sign in business complex
Staff Comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action.
Allowing the placement of a permanent free-standing sign within the County right of way for Quaker
Road requires approvals from the Department of Public Works. The applicant has apparently
secured the necessary county approvals, however, the local, Town impacts should be considered
when diverging so significantly from the purpose and intent of the Town Sign Ordinance. Common
practice is to secure all necessary approvals prior to installation. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted”
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Chairman, I may have a conflict. So I’m going to sit this one out. I wasn’t
aware that Mr. O’Connor would be here tonight. I’ll withdraw. That leaves you with four.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Mr. O’Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I
didn’t necessarily anticipate that I’d speak for Michael, but I’ve represented Michael for a number of
years, and he asked that I speak with regard to the application. I don’t mean to make light of the
application or little of the application, but it is one that you will probably never see again if you sit
here another 20 years. This is unique, solely on the basis of how it came about. The County did
something next to Mr. Kaidas’ property that no individual adjoining owner would be allowed to do.
They built a bike path with a bridge abutment, passed the common property line. It totally ignored
what we call the travel corridor setback of 75 feet, and it basically built a wall along the east side of
his property, totally blocking the visibility of his property, if you’re traveling in a westerly direction on
Quaker Road. I’ve known about this since, I think Mike wrote a letter back in October. I think last
summer he was talking to Fred Champagne, talking to Nick Caimano, talking to Ron Montesi, about,
you screwed up my property entirely, what are you going to do about, and the response was, we’ll
take care of it. Don’t worry about it. The signs that you’re talking about here are signs that services
businesses that use the easterly driveway. It’s not something where you’d combine them and put
them with the other freestanding sign that’s on the other end of the property, or else you’d confuse
the internal traffic that’s on the site itself. I’m not even sure, and I said to Craig beforehand, the
jurisdiction of the Board. Because you’re talking about giving Town approval to permit a sign that’s
in County property. I mean, you’re talking about a setback from, what, you’re talking about a sign
that’s on the property that you’re supposedly measuring your setback from. The County’s
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
recognized this problem, and the County did issue a permit that allowed Mr. Kaidas, in fact, allowed
Mr. Kaidas, without bond, which is kind of unusual when you’re working on a County Highway
project, to relocate the sign. My understanding is that they may even reimburse him for the cost of
relocating the sign, because they realize that they did something here that, typically, you wouldn’t do
to an adjoining owner. You totally blocked off the visibility of his property. When I asked the
question why they did it, they saved $350,000 on the bridge. They had to put a post or a carrying
post, if you will, on the north side of Quaker Road, because they were also spanning Halfway Brook,
which runs parallel to Quaker Road, and if you take a look at that construction over there, if they had
done the same thing on this side of the road, it probably would have not made the sign moving
required, but for them to put another post on this side, they would have had to put another span of
the bridge in, and I was told it was $350,000. So they took a short cut, or tried to save some taxpayer
dollars, and had a disastrous effect upon an individual that adjoins their property. So I don’t think
you’re ever going to see the County do this again, and I don’t think you’re going to see anybody
that’s totally blocked. There’s nobody on Quaker Road that has their adjoining owner that has built a
wall 20 feet high beyond the adjoining property line, and that’s the basis for asking for relief, if we’re
asking for relief. Because again, I think the sign is in the County highway, and the County has
jurisdiction over what goes in that highway, at least that’s my understanding, and Craig has maybe a
little different understanding, or doesn’t necessarily totally agree with me, but the County didn’t get
any setback requirements or any setback variances when they built their abutments, and for them to
allow the sign on the property in their property, to me it’s the same thing as their constructing of the
abutment. We could get into some very nice technical arguments about off premises signs then and
perhaps, I’m not sure how that would get resolved, and again, I didn’t mean to make light of it, and I
don’t mean to, it’s certainly important to Mr. Kaidas, but I don’t know if you’re in a position where
you could even find the County if the sign sat there, and it’s on the County property with a County
permit, but I think it would be nice to clear the issue and not have a problem that’s going to bother
Mr. Kaidas in the future, and that’s the reason that he made the request that he made. I don’t know
of any alternatives.
MR. HAYES-I think in this particular case, jurisdiction aside, you’re here for an application to the
Town of Queensbury, and we should entertain it as such, on its merits, and we’ll let the jurisdictional
issue go to wherever it goes, but on this particular case, we’ll entertain it on its merits, as far as the
Town Ordinance. So, are there any questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. O’Connor, help me to understand. They built a bike path. You got a permit
from the County to move your sign. You moved your sign, and now we’re looking for some kind of
variance?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Mike can address that better than I can, but basically, if you have a
freestanding sign,, it’s supposed to be set back 15 feet from the County Highway property line.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. What went into the decision to move the sign to where it is right now?
Because, quite frankly, it’s still not very visible. Why didn’t you move it closer to the driveway? The
drawing that we have don’t really, they show the driveway. They don’t show the division between
your property and Key Bank. It doesn’t really show the division. So why isn’t the sign closer the
driveway?
MICHAEL KAIDAS
MR. KAIDAS-Closer to the driveway? It’s against the driveway. It had to be away so that tractor
trailers wouldn’t take it down when they turned the corner.
MR. BRYANT-How far is your property beyond the driveway, toward Key Bank?
MR. KAIDAS-The sign is probably on the property line. Key Bank? I own Key Bank building.
MR. BRYANT-Why isn’t that sign on?
MR. KAIDAS-Because when we first built the property, when we first laid the property out, we
brought in proposed plans, and the Town wanted two driveways, one for Key Bank’s entrance only,
and the second one, which is the one that’s closest to the bicycle trail, for an entrance and exit, exit
for Key Bank, entrance and exit for the medical building. Okay. So it’s two separate entrances. If
we pushed it on to the other side, I think you would end up with an accident, if it was on the other
side of the driveway. I think people would try to turn into Key Bank, and then it would be a total
disaster. The reason it was moved, you asked that, I was promised in the very beginning, by people
like Ron Montesi, that we would have a meeting before the bicycle bridge was finalized. I read in the
newspaper that it had been finalized. I had never been called, never been contacted. I called Lou
Tessier, he said he didn’t know anything about it. So he said call Fred Champagne. I called Fred
Champagne. I had a meeting. I just gave Michael a list of names that were there. There was a whole
series of people. They were there. Bill Remington finally said, well, there’s nothing I can do about it.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
We already signed a contract. Then I asked him about the gas line and water line, or the gas line and
the sewer line, and they didn’t know anything about it, and that postponed it for a year, and in that
year I called Fred Champagne probably 30 times, and he kept saying it was being taken care of . The
first time I heard that I needed a variance was about a week before the sign, or two weeks before I
put the sign up. This gentleman over here called me and said, I think you need a variance, and I
walked down and said, I don’t care. You can have me arrested. Do whatever you’d like. I’m going
to move the sign, because Fred Champagne said it was taken care of. I believe that was our
conversation. Wasn’t it?
MR. BROWN-In essence.
MR. KAIDAS-Basically, because I was going to lose tenants. I had both my tenants tell me
something had to be done. So I moved it. I filed the application. I don’t know what else I could
have done. I could have gone up like Zayre’s, could have had a sign up 70 feet in the air. Then I’d
need a variance for that. So, I assumed this was the easiest way. There was no, I didn’t believe I
needed a variance. I had County permit. They handed me a piece of paper saying, put it up.
MR. BRYANT-From a visual perspective, even driving up and down Quaker now, coming from
Hudson Falls , your sign is really not visible until you’re just to the bridge.
MR. KAIDAS-I agree. It used to be visible all the way down to the corner of Quaker and Bay.
MR. BRYANT-But I can see the Key Bank sign way, well beyond the bridge.
MR. KAIDAS-Well, I have to be careful that I don’t block that sign. I sat there, and that was the
lesser of all evils. Sure, they were proposing that I hang it on the bridge. That was what was said by
Fred Champagne and Lou Tessier. That would have been interesting, but I would have still been
waiting for somebody to make a decision. I apologize about, you know, nobody ever told me I
needed a permit. He was the first one.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions before I open the public hearing? Okay. Is there
anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Opposed? Correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-None.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. O'CONNOR-He did have the County permit that was suggested that was required.
MR. HAYES-I have a question, Mr. Kaidas. You’re a businessman in the community, and certainly
the rationale behind signs and the need for them is well understood, but at this time you’re minus 10
feet from the setback. Is there any possibility that you would consider at least moving that back to
the property line?
MR. KAIDAS-That’s where it was. If you look, I put the picture in there. You can see where the
post was. Where the original sign was, it was condemned by the County bicycle trail.
MR. HAYES-When you said minus 10 feet, that means he’s 10 feet over the property line then.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-The abutment actually goes beyond the property line.
MR. HAYES-I’m aware of that.
MR. O'CONNOR-So if you went to the property line, it would not be visible. It’s tough right now
coming west. If you put it back, you’d see even less of it.
MR. HAYES-I’m aware of that.
MR. O'CONNOR-And you’d probably see less of it going east.
MR. HAYES-I understand the rationale, why you tried to put it there.
MR. KAIDAS-I would say fine. I’d move it back, but then I don’t think my insurance company
would even cover all the accidents.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think you’d have the visibility.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. HAYES-Clearly moving it back is going to reduce the visibility, and I’m not trying to make a
case that it isn’t, in this particular case, and I don’t disagree with you the fact that this is an entirely un
self-created difficulty. I mean, it’s a huge blockage and there’s a lot of obstruction from view.
There’s no doubt. I don’t think there’s any arguing that.
MR. O'CONNOR-I can kind of go back to when they widened Route 9. I did most of the signs on
Route 9. If you know from the City limits up past Miller Hill, every one of those people came in and
got a variance. Because what happened was when they re-did that portion of Route 9, no one
complied with the 15 feet.
MR. HAYES-Well, I think that’s true, Mr. O’Connor, but I’m not sure that, and we have granted
signs in the County right-of-way here. We’ve granted that relief, but we’ve never granted relief
outside of the actual property of the applicant.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve never seen the County give a permit for a sign. I’ve seen the County say
people can use it for parking, people can use it for driveway crossings. I’ve never seen them give a
permit for a sign.
MR. HAYES-Wasn’t Hewitt’s sign in the County right-of-way?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. HAYES-No, it wasn’t?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. MC NULTY-It was in the setback.
MR. HAYES-The TCO, yes, essentially.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Craig. Since they’ve got a County permit for that sign, how
does that effect this jurisdiction?
MR. BROWN-Well, I think Mr. O’Connor brings up an interesting point. Does the Zoning Board
have jurisdiction over what happens in County property? I don’t know if I have that answer. I don’t
think so, but I don’t have a definitive answer for you.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re submitting to your jurisdiction, basically, by being here.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. HAYES-That was my point.
MR. O'CONNOR-I agree with Mr. Hayes on that. The technicalities of life we could argue forever.
The property owner, he was told he ought to come and get the Town approval. I represented Mike
on the site plans that we did for this thing, other applications he’s done, and he’s always tried to
comply with whatever the requirements are, and we tried to cooperate if possible, where necessary,
and we’ve compromised on the things we’ve wanted, like when we talked about the two driveways
when we got the permits for the buildings that we got. We tried to do it above board, and that’s
basically why he’s here.
MR. HAYES-There’s no question they’re well maintained pieces of property, and I don’t think that’s
the point I’m making. I guess minus 10 feet of relief is still substantial. I mean, I think you can
understand that. It’s a balancing test.
MR. KAIDAS-I don’t believe that this Board would have ever approved them filling in right up to
the highway. They would have said, put a pillar up and go back 30, 40 feet the way it’s supposed to,
or 75 feet. Because it’s a structure. So by the same token. They’ve forced you into a situation.
MR. ABBATE-Merit. My comments are going to be based on merit. Here we have a gentleman
who has a business who had a sign placed, advertising that business. All of a sudden, or maybe
perhaps not all of a sudden, we have this bicycle path coming across the highway, and now
interfering with the display, at least in one direction, of the particular sign. I’m not going to talk
about jurisdiction. I’m going to talk about merit. The bottom line, in my opinion, is this, that you
have merit, sir, and you are asking, if I’m correct, you wanted to place your sign 14 feet from Quaker
Road and 14 feet from the driveway. Am I right on that? Okay, and based upon the unique
circumstances of the construction of this bicycle, this beautiful bicycle path and what have you, and
the impact on your business, it’s my opinion that there is merit that we approve your request, strictly
based on merit. That’s it.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I don’t necessarily agree. I think that the condition does warrant something, but I
have in the back of my mind, is there a possibility of combining the sign with the Key Bank sign? Is
there something else that can be done to resolve this? Because frankly, the solution in my view, if I
were the property owner, is really not acceptable, because I still don’t see it when I’m traveling west
on Quaker Road. Is there something else that can be done?
MR. KAIDAS-I think that if I did that I would create a real traffic problem, because Key Bank has
one entrance in, because they have to drive around to go through their ATM. If I put the other sign
on top of Key Bank’s sign, and spend whatever it costs to do it, I don’t believe the people that were
going to the eye center, I mean, half of those people are visually handicapped to begin with, or the
kitchen business are going to find the right driveway. They’re going to come in the wrong driveway
every time, and there’s going to be one awful mess. Because right now it’s separated. It shows it as
separate. I mean, I don’t see how it would work. That was why we divided it up in the beginning.
MR. O'CONNOR-Both businesses, for the most part, aren’t impulse businesses. What we need is
good identification when people are looking for the business, and I think the sign does serve that
purpose. It’s not the best sign in the world, but it’s adequate for that purpose.
MR. BRYANT-But on that sign you have two businesses listed.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t understand why we couldn’t have three listed, in the larger sign.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re trying to direct them out of the bank traffic, though, and out of the bank
parking lot.
MR. BRYANT-I’d just like to hear what the rest of the Board has to say.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I guess typically I’m torn. I would rather not see the sign there, but on the
other hand, I’d rather not see any freestanding signs down Quaker Road. I’d rather see the whole
thing set up with wall signs, and have it be a nice parkway, and that’s long gone with all the things
that have happened and all the variances that have occurred. I think that’s partly what some of the
other Board members may have been thinking about. It would be much nicer if all those signs
weren’t out there and this one wasn’t out there, but I think basically that’s what we’re looking at is
that’s the choice. I’ll agree with the applicant. I’m not sure there’s any other good place for a
freestanding sign, other than where he’s got it right now, given the circumstances. So I think we’re
looking at the choice of, do we let him have a freestanding sign there or do we tell him, basically, he
can’t have a freestanding sign period, because set back where it belongs, according to the Ordinance,
it’s going to be totally ineffectual. I could be persuaded either way, but I guess given the
circumstances I’d be inclined to approve a variance, in so far as we are able to approve a variance,
and I think there’s going to be a significant legal question there. I think we’ve addressed this before
about whether or not we can give somebody permission to have a building built across their lot line,
and the answer’s always been, no, we can’t. We can only give a variance up to the lot line, and in this
case, the sign’s beyond the lot line. So I’m not sure what weight our approval will have, but I’d be
willing to go along with approval, I guess.
MR. HAYES-Well, like my other Board members, I’m terribly torn on this application. I sense, and
actually agree with the applicant’s rage, if you will, at the manner in which it was handled. I do
believe that the impact on his property, and in particular this sign, is more than significant. It’s
dramatic. On the other hand, the relief that’s requested is similarly dramatic. I would say in the
cumulative sense, even with the alarm of minus 10 feet of relief, that I would agree with Chuck in
this circumstance. I believe that it was the County’s action that caused the problem, and I believe
that by asking for relief, asking for compliance with the Sign Ordinance in this circumstance is
tantamount to precluding Mr. Kaidas from having a sign all together. Where I’m torn, and again I
understand the lack of practicality, and the balancing test, I would have no problem at all granting the
relief in this particular circumstance, if the relief could be modified whatsoever, but, I mean, you
don’t feel that there’s any modification possible that would meet your needs?
MR. KAIDAS-Well, the County even suggested it put it on the other side of the bridge. I mean,
what good would that be?
MR. BRYANT-Is that your property?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. KAIDAS-No.
MR. BRYANT-That might be the solution, to allow two signs, one on each side of the bridge. Mr.
Chairman, I don’t disagree that this is a serious circumstance, not caused by the owner, okay. It was
not caused by the owner. It was caused by the County, but even when you travel east bound on
Quaker Road, the sign sticks out like a sore thumb. I mean, it’s out further than any other sign on
the road. It’s visibly, it’s almost to the point where it’s offensive, you know. It’s way out in the
street.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the back of the sign, though, is about at the beginning of the abutment.
There isn’t room.
MR. BRYANT-From the other side it’s fine.
MR. O'CONNOR-But I mean even looking east, it lines up with the back of the abutment. If you
set it back in at all, to some degree, it’s going to be behind the abutment.
MR. BRYANT-But there’s no other sign on Quaker Road that’s that far out.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s no other abutment.
MR. BRYANT-That’s true. I’m not arguing with that.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I don’t mean that as a facetious answer, but it’s there because of the
abutment. I think it sets back, maybe I’m wrong, but on this permit, it shows 20 feet from the
pavement back. The sign exists, and then there’s 10 feet back from the sign to the common property
line.
MR. ABBATE-I guess the other, I said merit. Maybe I should have included something else. Is not
a citizen entitled to relief?
MR. HAYES-That’s kind of a different question, though. It’s a taking what’s happened. That’s not
really our issue.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a tough taking question, because in actuality they didn’t take anything on his
property. They utilized their own property. It would be a tough case for taking. Don’t quote me. It
would be very tough taking case. I mean, a municipality can do with its property a lot of different
things than individuals can do. It’s not consequential taking. It’s not where they took two feet of his
property, and as a consequence he had to move something. They’ve totally utilized their own
property. I think they really didn’t, maybe it was worth the $350,000. I don’t know. It’s an
unfortunate result of trying to make something that was as inexpensive as they could.
MR. HAYES-Well, I guess that would put me on the fence. If there’s no softening of the relief
requested, I guess I would be, I’m not sure that I would go with an approval variance, and I know at
this time it doesn’t sound to me like Allan, that you’re on board, and we only have four people. I
guess the question is, would you like to table until the full Board is here next month?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and maybe in the meantime you can find out whether or not you have
jurisdiction.
MR. BRYANT-That’s a good idea.
MR. MC NULTY-The other thing that might help in that time is if the applicant could take a serious
look and see if there’s any other possibility for a sign that would accomplish the same thing. As
somebody mentioned, your businesses really aren’t spur of the minute businesses. Your sign’s more
for telling people where you are so they can find you after they’ve heard an advertisement, read an
advertisement or already made the decision to come see one of those businesses.
MR. KAIDAS-When Quaker Road did not have a bicycle trail, this Board and the Planning Board,
both were adamant about the identification of the two driveways with the signage. If you go back
and look in your records, they both were involved in that, because they wanted them separate. They
did not want the bank to get fouled up with the traffic coming in and out of Quaker Road. Also
Warren County’s Board was concerned about it.
MR. HAYES-But you’ll agree, Mr. Kaidas, that a lot has changed here, and we’re agreeing with you
that a lot has changed here.
MR. KAIDAS-The change has been not better for traffic. It’s worse. So the signage, to me, this is
the lesser of two evils.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. HAYES-I guess what I’m saying is in the cumulative sense I think that the idea of what’s best
now versus what was best then has changed to your benefit. I mean, if I’m reading the rest of the
Board, I feel that a lot of relief is possible, or at least a lot of flexibility that’s in mind, but you’re not
there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Take a look at the sign, too, because I don’t think, typically, what you’re saying
can you move it back, can you make it a little less nonconforming, then it becomes invisible.
MR. HAYES-I guess we’re talking about feasible alternatives, whether it’s hanging it on the Key
Bank sign or some form of relief that’s less than minus 10 feet.
MR. BRYANT-Sure. Maybe that sign needs to be bigger, to accommodate the three. Maybe you
need something to direct the driveway, something a little bit more creative.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re also trying to do this as a unfunded, we’re hopeful that we’re going to get
some reimbursement, but we have no idea, so far. It took them a long time to come up with even a
permit. We haven’t had a great deal of volunteers of people following through on saying, we’re going
to take care of this, and if you go into reconstructing the two signs, you’re talking about significant
money. You’re talking about $7,500, $10,000 very easily on those signs. This was a simpler way of
doing it, to be truthful.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ll make the motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 13-2000 MICHAEL A. KAIDAS, Introduced
by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
For either a change in the application and/or a full compliment of Board members for its
consideration.
Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOSEPH & NANCY POLONSKY
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING NEWLY CONSTRUCTED DECK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM
THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. AV 5-1998 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-18 LOT
SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOSEPH POLONSKY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2000, Joseph & Nancy Polonsky, Meeting Date: February
23, 2000 “Project Location: Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
constructed an open deck closer to the lake than a previous variance allowed and seeks relief to
maintain the deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests to maintain a 34.9 foot shoreline setback in
lieu of the 45 foot setback granted as part of AV5-98. Also, since the existing structure does not
comply with 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 additional outdoor
recreation area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller proposal. 3.
Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: An additional 10.1 feet of relief from the 45
foot setback previously granted 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. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Area Variance 5-1998 2/18/98 setbacks and FAR relief
Building Permit 98-380-temp. c/o - 10/13/99 - 2670 sf single family dwelling
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
Staff Comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
low, near ground level deck may present a more significant impact with the construction of a railing
as necessary per New York State building code, ( 18 inches to final grade ). The shoreline setback
relief was specifically defined in the recent 1998 variance. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. HAYES-The County?
MR. MC NULTY-Let me see.
MR. BROWN-All the County applications were default approvals.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I don’t see anything in here.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Very good. Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, and with me tonight is the property
owner, Joe Polonsky. To a large extent, we’re throwing ourselves on the mercy of the Board
tonight. This is an unanticipated and unfortunate situation. When Joe was here to get a variance for
the reconstruction of the house, to begin with, he and his wife bought the house in 1985. They’ve
lived there as a summer residence since that time. They’ve now removed it and reconstructed it after
they received a variance into a year round house. They’re in the process of selling their home in
Allenville, and this will be their full time residence. When the variance was granted, the relief that
was requested was 45 feet because it was expected, anticipated and planned that the house would
built on grade, and the only thing that would be built out at this point would be a concrete pad for a
patio that would be on grade to walk out to the property. Somehow when the house was
constructed, it was built three and a half feet above grade and the reason for the deck is to just get
down to the grade. Joe explains to me that, as part of the project, he had to get a permit from the
APA to change the sea wall on what would be the west side of the property, and perhaps something
happened with the surveyors between the new grade of the land, because of the seawall and the fill
up there, but whatever happened, when they got done with the house and re-graded the property, it
was three and a half feet off the ground, and to get out from the door to the lakefront of the house,
they had to build a deck. This was not something that Joe and Nancy were looking forward to, and
in fact, in order to maintain the character of the neighborhood and the character of the house, if you
will, they spent $6,000 and built a mahogany deck, $6,000 that they didn’t anticipate and weren’t
looking forward to spending, but they had no choice. They certainly should have come in here and
asked for a variance at that time, before they built anything, but unfortunately, according to Joe, they
were instructed by their architect and their builder that it was “no big deal”, and the Town wasn’t
going to care, and they had to get to grade, and it was just putting a deck where it was supposed to
be, the patio. Obviously legally, that’s bad advice, and they built it without getting approval, and
they’re apologetic, and they’re here. What happened was when they got done and submitted an as-
built for their CO, it went to Craig and Craig looked at it, and said, gee, you didn’t comply with the
45 feet. When I calculated this to request the variance, I’ve asked for 10 and a half feet, and that is
measuring from the seawall behind the deck, the boathouse. So that’s sort of artificially close to the
house, just because the boathouse comes in from the shore, and if you measured it on the eastern
side of the deck, it would probably be at 45 feet or close to it, but nevertheless, Craig is correct.
That’s the way to measure it from the nearest point, but the relief, if you will, is not 10 and a half feet
for the whole length of the deck. Is there anything else that I’ve missed, Joe, anything you’d like to
add?
MR. POLONSKY-One of the reasons that we wanted a deck is that my wife is handicapped. She’s
got two bad hips. She’s due for surgery on one. The other one they don’t know what they can do,
and if we had to put a narrow, after talking to Craig, after I found out I was in violation, we looked at
all of the options, and I feel it would have been a hazard for her getting in and out of the house. So
that’s why we’re here. Otherwise I might have, I don’t know what I would have done.
MR. LAPPER-Also, I just want to point out on their plans, they would have done an eight foot
patio, to make this as small as they could, or reasonably could. The width of the deck is six feet. So
this is not a big deck for putting chairs and having a party. It’s a landing, if you will, to come out
from the doors and go down the steps. That was the intention. I think that’s it for now, for us.
MR. HAYES-That’s what the measurement is, is six feet to the first step?
MR. POLONSKY-Right.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant or Mr. Lapper? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MILFORD LESTER
MR. LESTER-My name is Milford Lester. I’m not an adjacent property owner. I’m two houses,
three houses away, but that is a pretty close knit group up there. I see absolutely nothing wrong with
the way they’ve built the deck, and it seems like the best solution to a situation. I see no adverse
effect for allowing a variance for the few feet of setback. We’re all pretty much hemmed in by the
road and the lake. He built the house as close as he could to be in conformance with the footprint of
the previous house.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in favor of the application? Anyone
opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I see no correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Chuck, we’re back to you.
MR. MC NULTY-Great. Well, I don’t know. I can understand the need from the applicant’s point
of view, and I can appreciate that he built a quality deck instead of just tacking something on. At the
same time, he’s already gotten a variance for setback, and whether it was deliberate or negligence or
just plain carelessness, violating that variance, I think it’s asking a lot for this Board to come back and
say, well, we just decided we wanted more so we took more. I don’t know. I hate to say I’m torn
again, but I’m torn again. I’d like to hear what the Board members think before I make up my mind.
MR. HAYES-Well, that’s certainly reasonable.
MR. LAPPER-Could I just respond to that comment?
MR. HAYES-Sure. I see how you could interpret this as we wanted more and we took more, and
what Joe is attempting to assure you is that he had to spend money that he didn’t anticipate, and that
he would have preferred to be on grade. That would have opened up the lawn area, and this was
just, it wasn’t something that he did. It wasn’t something that he told the contractors, gee, let’s set
the house three and a half feet higher, although I could understand that other people have done that.
He feels it’s unfortunate and realizes it’s wrong, but this is just the only way that can fix it that’s
reasonable.
MR. POLONSKY-At the time we were here for the original variance, if I knew that the layout was
going to be three and a half feet from ground level, I would have had a deck shown in that footprint.
I would have asked for the variance for the deck at that time, but we really expected, and we really
wanted, to step right down into a patio, and that’s what we were expecting and that’s what we were
looking forward to, until we came up one morning and there it was.
MR. HAYES-I have a question for Mr. Polonsky. Exactly, when you asked for the relief in ’85, the
house that was there before this one, did you go on the exact footprint, or are you closer to the lake?
MR. LAPPER-I have a plan that shows that, and the old steps that went out were actually 35 feet
from the lake. So part of it was what the variance granted, but they moved it back, and this is
actually no closer to the lake than what it was previously.
MR. POLONSKY-Also, Mr. Hayes, this house was just built this year.
MR. LAPPER-This is where the stairs were, which says that it’s 35 feet to the existing steps.
MR. HAYES-This was the existing structure at that time?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I think that’s dated May of ’98. So this was most likely presented at the time of
the variance.
MR. HAYES-How much did you enlarge the overall dwelling, as it was at that time?
MR. POLONSKY-Maybe by 100 square feet.
MR. HAYES-So very little then.
MR. POLONSKY-Very little.
MR. LAPPER-I have a survey from when they purchased the property in ’85, which is there, and this
is what was done in ’99 for the as built, which is by comparison.
MR. HAYES-It looks like a little more than 100, but.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. LAPPER-I don’t know about the second story, in terms of what it was versus, you’re right. The
footprint was there, but Joe can explain that. What the Chairman is pointing out is that if you
compare the two, the footprint of the new one looks like it’s more than 100 feet.
MR. POLONSKY-This here was a porch here, and this is actually what we, I don’t know how many
square feet. This was the only part we were, that we added.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I guess my point here, cumulatively, is when they granted that
relief, what were the conditions, in the overall balancing test, that they granted that relief, considering
in this case you’re asking, in a way, for us to reconsider that.
MR. POLONSKY-Actually, the old porch was closer to the lake than what my deck is, I believe.
MR. HAYES-It looks like it’s roughly the same, but, yes. One of the things that concerns me, Mr.
Polonsky, is that it looks like the deck and the landing area that you’ve constructed is significantly
wider than the one that was there, than if it was truly for ingress and egress, that it wouldn’t have the
width.
MR. POLONSKY-All right. Let me explain. On each end of the house, we have ingress and egress.
It’s not a center door.
MR. HAYES-I was there. I understand why you did it, but as far as visual impact. Are there any
other questions for the applicant? I guess we were going through our individual opinions. So we’re
at Bob now.
MR. MC NALLY-I’d have to say it’s probably the loveliest deck, in terms of wood, that I’ve seen in a
long time. You don’t see too many mahogany decks covered with snow in this area. We are charged
with weighing five factors in deciding whether to grant the variance, and they include the benefit to
the applicant, feasible alternatives, whether relief is substantial, the effect on the neighborhood,
whether the difficulty is self-created. I understand that people who live on the lake would like
additional recreational areas, or places where they can sit in close proximity to the lake, and that
would certainly be a benefit to you, but this is new construction, and the necessity for a deck, and the
proximity of that deck to the lake should have been anticipated in planning and going forward with
that construction. The feasible alternatives could include a smaller proposal, but we’re talking about
retroactive relief, since this deck is already built. So I suppose that’s really not a realistic alternative.
It could also have been, though, bringing the ground level up to the level of the entrance, so that, in
accordance with your original plan, you could simply walk out onto a level area. Do I think that the
relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance? You’re asking for 10 feet of relief from a 45 foot
setback that was granted in 1998, and is already shorter in distance than the normal shoreline setback
would be, and I think that that is a substantial request. The effects on the neighborhood, though, is
the thing that gets me the most, I think. Don’t get me wrong. You may well be an innocent victim,
but sometimes we have to make a difficult decision. You say your architect and your contractor told
you don’t worry about it, the Town’s not going to do anything.
MR. POLONSKY-They didn’t say it that way.
MR. MC NALLY-It came across that way. Don’t get me wrong. I’m summarizing.
MR. POLONSKY-Okay. At the time they said we have to build a deck, and it was just a matter of
size and everything else, and I didn’t anticipate any problems, and also I’d like to say one more thing.
That’s not a recreation area. Because you couldn’t see it. When you get down off of that deck, I
think we’ve got a 12 by 10 patio, and that’s what we originally wanted was a patio. The patio was
installed. It’s there, and that’s our recreation area. We didn’t build the deck to sit on. As a matter of
fact, I don’t want to sit on the deck because it’s going to block our view from the lake if you’re sitting
inside the house with chairs there.
MR. MC NALLY-You see, when I say the effect on the community, though, and your architect and
contractor, you’re not the first person to have commented to the effect that contractors say these
things, that nothing will be done.
MR. POLONSKY-And I’d like to also say that, one, I’m not an architect. I’m not a contractor. I
wouldn’t know how to drive a nail, if had be, and I just signed the contract and put it in their hands.
It was a sorry thing I did, but I did it.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s tough precedent, but with the cost of this deck, you have relief that you can
get from that architect and contractor who should have known better than to go the way they did,
but the fifth factor is whether the difficulty is self-created, and with all due respect, I think I
absolutely have to say it is. The entrance isn’t at ground level, but you’ve proposed it to be at ground
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
level, and the house is built and it’s not at ground level, and that fact is something that, theoretically,
would be within their control. You received a variance. We said you had to go no closer than 45
feet, and you went closer than 45 feet, and it was built anyway, even though, probably, your architect
and contractor knew that you couldn’t go closer than 45 feet. Everyone on the lake wants to get as
close as they can. When you build a house, you want to build it as close to the lake as you can, and
just to keep encroaching on the lake with something doesn’t sit well with me. I sympathize with it,
but I don’t think I could be in favor of the variance.
MR. HAYES-Charles.
MR. ABBATE-Well, up to this point, I have to agree with what my fellow Board members have
stated. Mr. Lapper probably said it right at the very beginning, that he and his client are throwing
themselves at the mercy of the Board. I think there’s an implication right there that a mistake was
made. I don’t have anything else to say on this.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Actually I like the deck, it’s a nice deck.
MR. POLONSKY-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-But I also agree with the balance of the Board members. It’s unfortunate that you
were put in that position. It’s hard to see how a contractor could make a three foot error in grade
that would cause the need for the deck, and I understand it’s not recreational, but I guess I would go
along with the variance as proposed, under the circumstances.
MR. HAYES-I just have one question for Craig, before I give my opinion. Grade, by definition, is it
possible for the applicant to re-work the grade so that it would be at ground level? Would that be
permissible in this circumstance? I realize that, I mean, as a remedy?
MR. BROWN-I’m not sure.
MR. HAYES-It’s three foot above grade at this time.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. MC NULTY-Could he have hauled dirt in and filled in, rather than building the deck?
MR. BROWN-Absolutely.
MR. LAPPER-That probably would have required a permit from the APA because of filling that
close to the lake.
MR. HAYES-In the CEA.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, not that that couldn’t have been requested. I guess from the applicant’s
standpoint, they viewed this as the simplest and most minimal way to deal with this, and obviously,
what we’re hearing from the Board is that you feel that there may be some other alternatives, but
something has to be done, because they can’t have a doorway three and a half feet off the ground
and have a CO for that. So there’s a Code issue, and I understand that many people abuse the
system. I haven’t known Joe long. I don’t believe that he and his wife planned this all along so that
they could get the deck. They’re elderly retired people, and they’re just trying to come up with
something that works, and that’s why they built such a lovely deck. The neighbors, one of the
neighbors spoke and spoke on behalf of other neighbors that they’re not offended by this, that it’s a
nice visual addition. The reason that I started saying that we’re throwing ourselves on the mercy of
the Board is that, obviously, this is not a situation that anyone looks forward to. Certainly, they
should have come here when they realized there was a problem, but it’s just not something that they
were advised, and here we are. So it’s a question of what should be done, and I think that, of all of
the solutions, cutting it down, hauling in dirt, putting in, you know, brick pavers or doing something,
stairs rather than the deck, I’m just not sure that that’s going to make any visual difference to
somebody in a boat, traveling on the lake, or to their neighbors who are really pretty far away from
this. So it just seems like they did something reasonable, under the circumstances, but nevertheless,
we realize that you have to deal with precedent, and that you’re concerned, but they feel that they’ve
done the right thing, under the circumstances. So it’s a question of, if you’re not comfortable with
this variance request, then they have to have some means of egress. What are you suggesting?
MR. POLONSKY-As far as the grade, when we planned the grade, I put in a brand new seawall,
which was, you know it cost a few pennies, and if I knew that we had to build the grade up, I would
have put the seawall another two feet, two and a half feet. I expected this house, in my heart to be
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
ground, just about ground level, and unfortunately, I depend, as I said, I’m not a contractor, I don’t
know, and as far as the building and everything, I thought I was doing right to get this grading, the
proper grading, but there is a brand new seawall there. The seawall did come up, I would say, from
the original seawall, the old seawall came up another two and a half to three feet from the original
seawall that was there, just to try to get that grading. If we try to grade it now, it’s all going to run
downhill. The water’s going to run back into the house, and we’re going to have water in our
basement, and I’m sorry it happened and I put myself at your mercy.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Lapper, who was the architect and contractor?
MR. POLONSKY-The architect was from New York. His name was, that fellow was Greg Brown,
the architect was Steven Evanusa.
MR. MC NALLY-Down in the City.
MR. POLONSKY-He has a home in Diamond Point, and he has an office. That was another
problem I had. That’s why I don’t have the architect here today. When he started, it was supposed
to be a full time proposition on my house, until the house was completed. In the meantime, he took
a job in New York City. I don’t know how often he got up here, but he got up, he didn’t get here
that much. So I had nobody really to rely on.
MR. HAYES-I guess, like other Board members, I’m torn here, in this particular circumstance. It’s
been a tough night overall for applications certainly. On one hand, the fact that your architect and
your contractor told you not to worry about the consequences of the grading, when you already had
a variance to encroach into the CEA, or the setback on my end offends my sensibilities, really.
Because obviously there should be additional, if not a heavy level of scrutiny when you’ve been
granted a variance to do it. On the other hand, you, sir, or that deck do not offend my sensibilities.
So, it’s a difficult question. I believe you, as you’ve come here, and I think it was an honest mistake,
and the deck is attractive. There’s no arguing it in my opinion, but you understand the difficulty
when we’re asked to grant the variance on a variance kind of variance squared. It’s a tough gig. So,
in this particular circumstance, without going any further than that, there’s five of us, and you have
two noes. So, at this particular time, I think you would probably want to open it up for further
consideration, for tabling, Jon, I guess, and maybe investigate alternatives in that time. Unless you
want a motion tonight.
MR. LAPPER-I guess before we ask for it to be tabled, I’d just ask if any of the Board members
have been swayed by any discussions since they’ve voiced their opinion? If the answer is no, then
we’ll table it and consider it with a full Board.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? Do you have an external elevation that shows
the door to be at ground level, the original construction? I mean, because that would be a sure fire
way to see whether it was an architectural contractor mistake or whether it was Mr. Polonsky’s
design.
MR. BROWN-Take a look at it if you want to. It calls for a flagstone deck on the shore side of the
house.
MR. BRYANT-You have a flagstone deck below?
MR. POLONSKY-Below the deck, there’s a flagstone patio, 12 by, I’m saying 10.
MR. HAYES-It’s kind of a substantial error, I would say.
MR. POLONSKY-Unfortunately, when they were putting the basement in, we didn’t get the grading
until way after the house was almost done. They didn’t bring any fill in, and I didn’t realize, and I
wasn’t there at the time of the basement going up and the framing going up.
MR. MC NULTY-At this point, I’m leaning on a no. I’m kind of looking at it, it was an error. I
don’t think it was deliberate, but I think it’s an error on the part of the architect and/or the builder,
and given the circumstances, I’m not sure we, as a Board should feel that we have to correct the error
of the architect.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with that, but on the same token, there still has to be a solution somewhere.
The question is, what is the solution? Eventually, when they come up with a solution, whatever that
solution is, you’re going to have to address it.
MR. MC NULTY-We may or may not, depending on what the solution is that they come up with,
but I think the first answer, in my opinion, the first place for them to seek the solution is back to the
architect and/or the builder.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. HAYES-I’m going to go on the record, that based on seeing the plans as depicted being at
ground level, that I think that feasible alternatives fall in favor of the applicant, and I’m going to be in
favor of the application at that time, in the cumulative sense, but, even saying that, at this particular
time, unless you want a motion.
MR. LAPPER-Unless Bob was swayed by looking at the plans.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m even more dissuaded.
MR. LAPPER-Why? Was there something that you saw?
MR. MC NALLY-Well, I mean, the plans are very clear. I mean, there was a knowledge of the
setback, and that the plans should have been developed with a patio right outside the door, and
somewhere along the line someone said, it would be nice to have a deck, and then a flagstone patio
beyond that, instead of the way it was originally planned.
MR. POLONSKY-Bob, I swear I did not plan it that way. I did not want it that way. I’m sure the
builder doesn’t give a darn. I’m sure the architect doesn’t give a darn.
MR. MC NALLY-He may shortly. Mr. Lapper, I’m sure, could advise you otherwise, but with all
due respect, all right, I find it difficult granting an after the fact variance where a variance has already
been issued on this very same issue, and I think it’s difficult precedent, and you may bear the
consequences, but it’s not something I’m very happy with. I’m not happy with this variance
application.
MR. LAPPER-We hear you, and we will ask for it to be tabled, but I just want to respond quickly.
What I heard Joe say was that they cleared the whole area. They poured the foundation. They built
the house, and they didn’t go back to backfill until the house was built. So it was sitting there, and
whether the contractor saved money by not bringing in fill, I mean, they couldn’t have just filled in
front of the house without a permit, I believe, because it’s too close to the lake, but this was
something that was apparently not discovered or if it was discovered by the builder, it wasn’t
something that was communicated to Joe. So it wasn’t until the house was up, and they went to
backfill it and said, gee, now you’ve got a problem. Now it’s going to cost you some money to build
a deck. It’s just what we’ve heard on the record is that it’s not something that he preferred. It wasn’t
the case of building some recreation area. It’s a way to get down. It’s just a practical egress to get
down to the flagstone patio, which is their recreation area.
MR. MC NALLY-But it’s more than a way to get down to the patio area. That is a deck. It can
accommodate tables and chairs. It’s a large, relaxation area attached to a flagstone. I mean, it’s one
big area closer to the lake.
MR. LAPPER-But are you punishing him because they violated the regulations and asking them to
come back and build something that’s less attractive to the neighborhood?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m not changing at all. I’m just saying that I would not approve a variance. He
created these own circumstances himself, or his architect or contractor did.
MR. LAPPER-But with all due respect, by not approving the variance, would the result be that if all
they do is put some stairs down, that it’s just not going to look as attractive, so that even though, I
mean, in terms of the neighborhood, not in terms of them, that it just may be a way of, it would be
less of a variance, it would be less change from the Ordinance, but it just may not be as attractive
overall.
MR. MC NALLY-That would be one factor, the aesthetics, certainly, that I think I took into account
by commenting how attractive that deck is, but on balance, given the facts and circumstances of this
application, I can’t see it.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. We understand it’s a precedent issue. It’s unfortunate, and we’re going on the
record saying that it wasn’t something that Joe wanted to do. He didn’t do it on purpose. This was
a practical solution and we’ll ask for this to be tabled and hope that the full Board can grant it. So
the lovely deck doesn’t have to be changed, and if that’s not the case, obviously, some modification
will have to be proposed to do something that’s less of a variance.
MR. MC NALLY-A comment about the seawall. You built that seawall up, sir?
MR. POLONSKY-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-You raised it and elevated it.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. POLONSKY-To get ground level.
MR. MC NALLY-To get ground level. In other words, you raised it to the existing ground level, or
you raised it above what was the ground level then, and then filled it?
MR. POLONSKY-It went out this way, and then it dropped, into a, I can’t explain it. It was just a
depression which was ugly. I’ll put it to you that way, and it was washing out in there all the time.
MR. MC NALLY-Were you able to fill down by the seawall, raise the elevation there to fill in those
gaps and those holes?
MR. POLONSKY-I don’t follow you.
MR. LAPPER-At the lakefront, you built up the seawall and then you filled in right behind there. So
your permit allowed you to fill in right up to the.
MR. POLONSKY-What we used is basically what they took out of the basement.
MR. LAPPER-But, yes, they did have a permit to fill up to the lake.
MR. HAYES-I’m going to make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2000 JOSEPH & NANCY POLONSKY,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Tabled in lieu of the investigation of feasible alternatives, and/or the additional compliment of Board
members. That we table the application until the 26 of April.
th
Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
rd
MR. HAYES-Would you like this to be tabled for the first or second meeting of next month.
MR. LAPPER-If it’s not offensive to the Board, what Joe has just asked me is to request that it be
tabled until April, only because he’s not going to be back in the area, but if that’s not acceptable, we’ll
be back next month.
MR. HAYES-I don’t have any problem with that. Obviously, it’s wintertime up there. Could we get
them on for the first meeting of April?
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. POLONSKY-Can we get it the following week?
MR. HAYES-Sure, if there is a second meeting, right? That would be the 26.
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-We’ll see you then.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, this is not something that I look forward to, coming and asking for an
after the fact approval, and neither does my client, and we’re sorry to be here under these
circumstances. We’re just trying to work out the best thing for everybody.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. POLONSKY-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2000 TYPE II HC-1A AMERADA HESS CORPORATION
STORE NO. 32486 OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 527 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING 225 SQ. FT. ACCESSORY STORAGE
BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL
CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE SETBACKS AS WELL AS SETBACK AND
PERMEABILITY RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HC-1A ZONE.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO. 72-3-18 LOT SIZE: 0.52
ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-28
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2000, Amerada Hess Corporation, Meeting Date: February
23, 2000 “Project Location: 527 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
constructed a 250 sf accessory storage shed and seeks setback, and permeability relief as well as relief
from the Travel Corridor Overlay zone requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 43.58
feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone,
§179-28. Further, the applicant requests 34.58 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback
requirement and 3.3% relief from the 70% maximum allowable impermeable area requirement of the
HC-1A zone, §179-23. 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 continue
to utilize an additional storage area on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives
may include a similarly sized building addition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
ordinance?: 43.58 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum Travel Corridor setback requirement
together with 34.58 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement may be
interpreted as substantial. The requested 3.3% relief from the 70% maximum impermeable area
requirement may be interpreted as minimal to 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,
however, the placement of any accessory structure or an addition to the existing building would
require some form of relief due to the pre-existing configuration of this lot. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 28-1996 - 4/24/96 gas island canopy
TCO setback Staff Comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this
action. Placement of this “temporary” (no foundation) shed in the proposed location has not
generated any documented public opposition. The proposed location appears to “split the
difference” between the required front setbacks in order to maintain separation from the residential
neighborhood to the North and separation from a regional arterial highway; Aviation Road to the
South. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. O’Connor, nice to have you back.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the firm of Little &
O’Connor, and I represent Amerada Hess, who is the owner and applicant for this particular
application. We represented Hess once before on this site, and I don’t know if you reported in your
history. There was a Sign Variance granted that allowed us the freestanding sign. This was an older
gas station that they refurbished, and they utilized the existing building at the time that they
refurbished the site. They, then, came in and got a variance for the canopy. I came along later and
got a variance for the freestanding sign, and for a combination of wall signs on the site and on the
canopy. When this was constructed, or when this was being constructed, it went through those type
of applications. It also went through site plan review. They had some type of temporary storage
facility on the site. I think it was one of those trailer type, box type of things that they had there.
When they tried to clean up the site at the very end, somebody said, we need that same amount of
storage. Let’s put an attractive building on, and what they did is they built this 12 by 20 foot building
back here, or had it brought to the site. I’m not sure if it was built or not. I’ve only seen the outside
of it. It’s a substantial decent building. It’s on skids, and basically what it is is storage for the
Blimpy’s sandwich shop. They do their paper products. They do not do any oil products or
petroleum products of any nature there, but they use it for storage for the Blimpy’s. I’ve talked to
the site manager, and they say that they need that storage space in order to operate the business on
the site. I think Craig first brought this to their attention some time this past summer or this late fall,
and because of a lot of different problems getting people together and everything else, we’ve looked
at a lot of different alternatives, or tried to look at a lot of different alternatives, and we really haven’t
come up with anything that’s feasible. Any place that you place this 12 by 20 on this site is going to
require a variance of some nature. I think probably the best showing of the whole site, this is a pretty
good depiction of the property lines.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, we have that.
MR. O'CONNOR-You have no back yard. You have three fronts. We specifically have tried to
place this where we would be asking for the least relief that we could ask for, and still accommodate
having a 12 by 20 foot storage shed on the site. I initially, and I will tell you this, tried to locate it
here, next to the building, and thought that that might be a compromise, because the building was
already that close to the back property line, and we’d say that it would be a continuation of the
existing line. That created two problems. One, the building code required substantial construction if
you’re going to use this wood storage shed as an attachment to the concrete block building, and it
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
didn’t seem to be practical. The other problem I got into, when I got into discussions with the
operator who actually is the site manager, is they need every parking spot that they’ve got on site.
She says that when she goes to the bank in the summer, to make her deposit, and she comes back to
the site, the site’s busy enough sometimes, she can’t find a parking spot. She has to wait for a
customer to leave, and then find a place to park on the site. They’ve tried to do this in an attractive
manner, and I know everybody scurries about and does things differently. When they decided to
take the old storage building, or the old cargo type storage off, they thought they’d dress this up and
they took some of the shrubbery off of the back of the building, and put it around this to dress it up.
That was some suggestion that one of the neighbors had on one of the site plans. It wasn’t a
requirement, I don’t think, of the prior site plan. When that was brought to our attention, I brought
it to their attention, they replaced it. I had thought they hadn’t already replaced it, and I was going to
have to add it to one of the drawings, but once I said, hey, we talked about that when we were talking
to Harry Troelstra who lives down the street from here, and they’ve gone and they put the shrubbery
back in there. I think you’ve seen their other site that we’re involved with, down on Dix and Quaker.
I mean, they’ve tried to do an attractive job with their sites. This particular location requires three
variances, if you will. One is a variance from the 75 foot travel overlay, corridor overlay. If you
actually look at the maps, though, you will see that, from a practical point of view, you really don’t
notice that because the property line is back here. That’s the 31 foot measurement. If you actually
go out to the travel corridor, or go out to the roadway, you’re in excess of 75 feet. So we are asking
for the variance, but from a practical point of view, it’s not something that’s going to stand out to
anybody. It’s not something that really is significant, even though you’re talking about a difference in
footage. The travel corridor overlay, as I understand it, is area that’s preserved for future expansion,
so that the idea of planting is that if the Town does decide they’re going to put more lanes in or
something like that, somebody hasn’t built something permanent that sticks into that area that would
create a problem when they go to relocate the lanes. This is a temporary shed at best. It’s on skids.
It’s not a permanent structure. I mean, it’s not a real big deal type structure. It wouldn’t create a
problem, even if it had to be moved, but the likelihood of them changing this, after they just
reconstructed that bridge, in our lifetime, I don’t think is too great. Maybe it, maybe not. The other
Area Variance the we require is from the back line, and because it’s on a multiple street frontage, we
don’t call it the back line. We call it a second front. School Street goes along through here, is
considered a front yard, it’s not considered a back yard, even though for all practical purposes it has
the appearance of a back yard, and there, because it’s a back yard, or a front yard, you’re supposed to
have 50 feet. Again, if you take a look at where the actual road is, the road begins along this side of
the building. This is open area, that’s owned by the municipality but not actually part of the travel
way of the road. So, if you measure the 15 feet to our property line, yes, we require a variance, but if
you actually measure to the travel way, I don’t know if you do require a variance. So, again, you’d
have very little impact, or very insignificant impact. The other variance that we require is because
we’re taking out 240 some feet. We’ve changed the permeability of the site. On the prior site plan,
we had a variance that allowed us to go to, I think it was 72.7, and with this configuration, we go to
73.7. So we have one percent additional non-permeable space on the site space on the site, although
I think Craig has written it so that it looks like we’re asking for a variance of 3.3. We already have a
variance of 2.2.
MR. BROWN-Right, not an additional three, but a total of three over the requirement.
MR. O'CONNOR-Over, right, the total will be 3.3. So, again, I don’t know if that’s consequential.
If you took a look at the structure itself, it’s set on gravel. I think they have stone dust underneath it.
They put stone dust underneath it over here. That’s what they would do there, and it’s on two skids.
So you may have an area above it that’s kind of like an open porch, as far as drainage goes. It’s not
going to create a site problem. I’m not sure if we’re going to have to go through site plan. If we do
get the variance, we may have to go back for site plan.
MR. BRYANT-Are you going to just move that exist structure, or are you going to build a new
structure?
MR. O'CONNOR-Move the existing.
MR. BRYANT-You’re going to move the existing.
MR. ABBATE-And there’s no foundation there.
MR. O'CONNOR-No. It’s on a, from what I could see when I looked at it, it’s on like stone dust,
two six by six skids, built in to the bottom of the structure.
MR. BRYANT-The existing structure doesn’t have a variance now, at this point?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, it does not.
MR. BRYANT-Why are you moving it?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. O'CONNOR-To try and bring it into compliance, and make it more complying. If we left it
over, it looks like when they stuck it on the site, they didn’t put it all the way on the site. That’s
partially across the Town line in the back. So the idea was to try, and this is part of what we’ve been
juggling, between myself, somebody down toward Albany and somebody in New Jersey, is how do
we make it more compliant, can we find storage place some place else on the site where we would be
asking for less variance, and we really haven’t come up with anything different than this. We’ve
changed this location a couple of times, mainly the last couple of changes have been to try to
accommodate the existing parking, and the existing, I think there’s a light post and an air post there.
MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? At
this time, I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the
application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t believe so, no.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I guess it’s time to talk about it. Allan, we’re down to you.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. O’Connor, from a visual perspective, and I’m a regular customer at that gas
station, but from a visual perspective, where the existing storage is is really not that bad, but I never
really paid attention to it from the other side, from Schoolhouse Road. I don’t know how bad it
looks from that side, but from, as you’re driving to the gas station, you almost don’t notice it.
MR. O'CONNOR-In all honesty, from the other side it doesn’t look that bad because it’s hard to
distinguish on this site your property lines. Your property lines are not visible as to where the street
boundaries are. So it looks like on the other side it’s set back quite a ways into our site. In actuality,
by survey, it’s not.
MR. BRYANT-Have there been any complaints or anything from the neighborhood and
Schoolhouse?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. BRYANT-From the configuration of the property, and for what you’re asking, I really have no
problem with the setback requirements. Actually, the building still doesn’t, it’s still way back, when
you look at your pumps and that sort of thing, from your diagram, your pumps stick out a lot further
than the building, but in reality, I don’t have a problem where the existing structure is now. I mean,
there may be some other logistical problems, so I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Yes. The rear property owner might, but.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the Town.
MR. HAYES-Is it the Town?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it’s the Town.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Maybe they do.
MR. BRYANT-That’s why I asked.
MR. BROWN-I didn’t say it didn’t look nice. I said it didn’t meet the rules.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck.
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t think I have any problem with this. When I look at it, I think it comes
down to a question, do we allow a storage shed or a do we not allow a storage shed, because if a
storage shed’s going to be allowed, it’s going to have to have a variance of some sort, and I will agree,
it strikes me that where it is, it’s not bad now. I think somewhere in that general location is the best
choice that can be made, if you’re going to have a storage shed there, and given the fact that there’s
other structures on this property that are into the Travel Corridor already, like the gasoline canopy, I
have no problem with it.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. HAYES-Charles?
MR. ABBATE-I agree. I don’t see any problem. Counsel indicates he wants to move the building
more into compliance and the portion of the storage building, at the present time, according to the
plans, do extend over the boundary line, and so consequently, to avoid any controversy or legal
problems, they propose re-location of the storage building, it makes sense. It’s, first of all, there’s not
going to be any permanent foundation. Correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. My understanding is they will just move the building. I don’t know that, but
my understanding is that that’s what they’re going to do. Would that make a difference to you?
MR. ABBATE-Would it make a difference to me? I’d have to think about that. If there were a
permanent foundation, this is a storage building, no, because approval is based upon the location, not
the structure of it. No, it wouldn’t. I don’t have a problem with it. Not at all.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I agree with my other Board members. I think in this particular
circumstance, as Chuck pointed out, in regard to the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, this temporary
structure versus the overall expense involved with the canopy and stuff, I mean, clearly if there’s a
need for improvement on the road, the canopy’s already further out than that, and I also agree with
Counsel’s proposition that, with the recent improvements in that entire area, which were quite
expensive, that I doubt that there’s imminent changes as far as expansion of further travel lanes in
that case. There was a lot of work done there, and this plan incorporated a lot of that work at that
time, or after that time. So the dimensional relief from the rear, I believe, is inconsequential. I drove
around there, and like Allan, I am a frequent patron of this particular Hess Station, and it never
occurred to me that there was a building there until it was brought it up on the thing. So I know that
from an aesthetic point of view from around that entire project, I don’t think that it represents a
detriment to the neighborhood, or something that would be objectionable. The permeability relief is
certainly modest at 3.3%, and it is a gas station, and I think there’s going to be more pavement with a
gas station, because we’re talking about cars, and the overall site is going to tend to be pushing the
envelope on permeability, by definition, and I think that the Hess stores in our area, and the ones
that I’ve had experiences with do make a day to day effort to maintain good sites, and maintaining
good sites, I think sometimes storage buildings for things that go along with those is a natural
extension of that. I don’t believe, in this particular case, that the difficulty is totally self-created
because of the uniqueness of the lot. I think the placement of the shed where it is is a logical one,
based on an effort by the applicant, or the applicant’s agent, to put this where it’s, you know, least
objectionable or having the least impact on the neighborhood. So we’re asked for three points of
relief, but in this particular case, I think the effects on the neighborhood are very negligible, and I
think in balancing all the criteria, I think I would be in favor of the application. Having said there, is
there a motion out there?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2000 AMERADA HESS
CORPORATION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Charles McNulty:
527 Aviation Road. Store No. 32486. The applicant has constructed a 250 square foot accessory
storage shed and seeks setback, permeability relief, as well as relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay
Zone requirements. He has requested the following relief, 43.58 feet of relief from the 75 foot
minimum setback requirements of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, Section 179-28. Further, the
applicant also requests 34.58 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement, and
3.3% relief from the 70% maximum allowable impermeable area requirements of the HC-1A zone,
Section 179-23. If we approve this thing, which I’m suggesting we do, the benefit to the applicant
would be that he would be allowed to maintain and continue to utilize additional storage, which, as
he indicated, is required, in view of several of the other requirements of that little store that they have
next door there. Now there are feasible alternatives. Possible feasible alternatives may include a
similar size building condition, but I’m not so sure that that would be appropriate at this time. Is this
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 43.58 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum Travel
Corridor Overlay setback requirement, together with the 34.58 feet relief from the 50 foot minimum
front setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial. The request of 3.3% relief from the
70% maximum impermeable area required may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. Again, as we
discussed here, the negligible effects on the neighborhood or community, there were no objections
to this proposal, no public objections, and is this difficulty self-created? Well, it may be interpreted
as self-created, however, the placement of any accessory structure or any addition to the existing
building would require some form of relief, due to the pre-existing configuration of the lot. So, in
view of this, I recommend that this Board approve Area Variance No. 15-2000.
Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. On Kaidas, and I didn’t realize until somebody else talked
about the calendars and schedules, can we make that the second week in April as well? Okay. I
don’t think I’ll be here for your March meeting. I guess my question would be, with Kaidas, is it
going to help to bring in some of the supervisors or something, County people? I don’t know.
MR. HAYES-How do you feel about that?
MR. ABBATE-State the question again, Counselor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Is it going to help to bring in some of the County people that actually created the
problem? Or does that complicate the issue?
MR. ABBATE-No. As far as I’m concerned, I think it would be appropriate, in my opinion, to bring
in some of the folks. If you recall, earlier, I mentioned merit, and I mentioned relief, and this was a
roundabout way of saying, you know, something should be done about this, and those who are, who
were responsible, are responsible for this configuration of this bridge and the current events right
now probably should be asked to come to this meeting and explain in some detail what this is all
about. That’s my opinion.
MR. HAYES-You think they’ll go on the record, Mr. O’Connor?
MR. O'CONNOR-That may be difficult. I’ll tell you, my first involvement in it, I got cc’d as a very
irate taxpayer letter to the County Board of Supervisors, and if this is the way they’re going to treat
their taxpayers, I mean, completely blocking off everything. I just, I’ve known Michael for years, and
I’ve represented him in a lot of different things and I tried to stay away from it because of your little
comment. I wear more than one hat, and sometimes I purposely stay away from things, and I hope
that I would not, because I thought the County was just going to relocate the sign. That’s what I
told, I said to Montesi. I said, you screwed it up. I said, you go relocate the sign. Take your County
workforce, go down there, dig a hole in the ground and build the guy a sign that he can see his
property, and I never even thought about Town permits or something, and I think basically that’s
what they ended up doing. They gave him a permit to build it on County property. They haven’t
straightened out yet, probably the County workforce doesn’t have somebody that can go and relocate
the sign. So now they’ve got to argue about whether or not they’re going to repay him, or pay him
for having Signs of Progress, or whoever did the sign location, but that’s County property.
MR. ABBATE-And again, is this not another case of approval by default?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, everything on the County Board, 67 applications the other night.
MR. ABBATE-So I go back to my original concern, that this Board, you know, is being presented
with proposals that applicant’s have submitted to us which have been approved by default, which I
think we’re on dangerous ground, quite frankly, but that’s my opinion.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, you’re required to do it.
MR. ABBATE-I know we’re required to do it.
MR. O'CONNOR-And actually, the County impact, I think they have agreements which they’ve
started to work intermunicipal agreements between the Town and the County to get some of those
things off the County agenda that never should have been on the County agenda, like the one two
family neighborhood setback issues, but they’re supposed to say what impact it has on the County
facility only, not, and a County facility in the sense of County property, if you hold them right to the
General Municipal Law. Sometimes they wander around quite a bit from that, they’re supposed to
be the guardians of the, you can now make presentations to that Board because I argued with them
so hard. They do not hold a public meeting. They do not allow applicants to make a presentation to
their Board, that’s not a public hearing, and I sat and listened to them make determinations on totally
wrong understandings. Because somebody didn’t have an in-depth understanding of the application,
and argued with them, Chet South was the Chairman, a long time ago, and argued with them hard,
before they allowed the applicant to make a statement. They won’t allow an opponent to make a
statement at their meetings. You can submit written opposition if you have opposition to an
application. I mean, the County Planning Board, you have to understand how they operate. It’s a
little different than our Town Planning Board. It’s certainly a lot different than the way you have an
open meeting here. I mean, they’re in a different ballgame, and you go to Saratoga County, it’s even
different, and you go to Washington County, you’re lucky to find out where the meeting is.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/23/00)
MR. ABBATE-So you’re advocating open meetings.
MR. O'CONNOR-I advocate open meetings. Why make judgements in the dark? Everybody’s not
going to agree on everything all the time. The poor guy with the deck, what impact does that have?
If you can be above all the scenario of the fact that somebody screwed up, and made a mistake, if
there’s no intent to it, why can’t you lift yourself above it, judge it from the way you would have
judged the application in the first instance, and say, we’re balancing the impact of what he does
against his neighbors, and if it has no impact on those neighbors, and I honestly think some of those
distances are very arbitrary, I really have a hard time saying that a court would sustain you. I really
do.
MR. ABBATE-So you support the theory of merit?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. If you get into an Area Variance, and I get into philosophical discussions all
the time, Use is a different thing. Use is a different ballgame. Use you have to be able to meet the
burdens of proof that are much stronger than Area Variance, but once you have a legitimate issue
with the area dimensional requirement, my understanding is the burden of proof shifts. You’re
supposed to justify the dimensional requirement the municipality has arbitrarily picked, if there’s a
reason for ignoring it. You can take a look at Andersen, take a look at any of those people. There’s
still a burden, but it’s not an overcoming burden.
MR. HAYES-Fortunately, Mike, we’re blessed with the idea that we don’t have to do that in our
spare time. You might have to, but. I’d like to adjourn this meeting.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Paul Hayes, Vice Chairman
31