2003-06-18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 18, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
NORMAN HIMES
CHARLES ABBATE
ALLAN BRYANT
ROY URRICO
JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
LEWIS STONE
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-SUSAN HEMINGWAY
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II STEWART’S SHOPS AGENT: N/A
OWNER: STEWART’S SHOPS ZONING: NC-1A LOCATION: 977 STATE ROUTE 149
APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF CURRENT SINGLE FUEL ISLAND WITH A 24
FT. BY 32 FT. CANOPY TO A DOUBLE FUEL ISLAND WITH A 20 FT. BY 46 FT. CANOPY.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE NC-1A ZONE
AND THOSE OF THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR
35-1989 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 266.03-1-11 LOT SIZE:
1.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-060C
BRANDON MEYERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have a tabling motion from the previous time we heard this.
“MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2003 STEWART’S SHOP, Introduced by
Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
977 State Route 149. This tabling action is being commenced for several reasons: One, for the
applicant to discuss with the powers that be the possibility of a feasible alternative, which is
part of our criteria, and also to allow for a full Board compliment which would unlock our
present non action status.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2003, Stewart’s Shops, Meeting Date: June 18, 2003
“Project Location: 977 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
expansion of the current single fuel island, with a 24’ x 32’ canopy, to a double fuel island, with
a 20’ x 46’ canopy. Relief Required: Applicant requests 36.38 feet of relief from the 75-foot
minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone for State Route 149, §179-4-
060(C). Additionally, the applicant requests 14.29 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front
setback requirement for the State Route 9L frontage and 11.38 feet of relief from the 50-foot
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
minimum front setback requirement for the State Route 149 frontage of the Schedule of Area
and Bulk Requirements for the NC-1A Zone, §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-345: 05/30/03, septic alteration. AV 18-2003: tabled 03/19/03,
tabling motion offered by chairman being the poll of the board was 2-3 for approval. BP 2002-
742: 09/17/02, 900 sq. ft. commercial alteration of existing structure. BP 2001-513: 07/17/01, septic
alteration.
BP 93118: 04/21/93, septic alteration. SP 35-89: 06/22/89, convenience shop with a self-service
covered gasoline island. Staff comments: Criteria considerations:
1) Might it be interpreted no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood or no
detriment to the nearby properties will occur?
2) Might it be interpreted feasible alternatives are lacking due to the site constraints?
3) Might the combined relief being sought be interpreted as substantial relative to the ordinance
(Travel Corridor Overlay Zone setback: 48.5%, Route 9L front setback: 40%, Route 149 front
setback: 29.5%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the site constraints?”
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Would you like to come forward please? Identify yourself for the
record if you would.
MR. MEYERS-Good evening. My name’s Brandon Meyers. I’m with Stewart’s Ice Cream.
After our last meeting in March, I really went back and pressed the State on getting me a good
plan, which the Staff had asked me, and you had asked me to determine what that limit of right
of way would be based on their anticipated taking. That right of way limit that’s on your site
plan is as good as we can get from the State, and I feel pretty confident about it. They were
pretty confident also. Based on that, then we kind of took another look at the whole site plan,
and what we ended up with is about two feet of green space between the proposed taking line
and the edge of our pavement, and that was with three islands, the 20 by 60 canopy, and I just
looked at it, and I told our gas department that I really thought it was too tight. I mean, I wasn’t
comfortable with that little thin strip of green space. We really couldn’t keep a good buffer, but
the travel and circulation didn’t really work as well either. So I said to them, can we live with
two islands, go to two islands. So after thinking about it and going through it, the benefit here
we thought would still be very large for our customers, because two islands, in parallel, is still a
heck of a lot better than two islands in series, and that’s what this is all about. We’re just simply
trying to deal with peak usage here, and seasonal times of the year that’s huge. We’re also
trying to do a little bit better with the day to day circulation on the lot as well. So this is what
we’ve come up with. We felt the benefit is significant to our customers to do the two islands, to
go down to a 20 by 46 canopy. We’re very confident with being able to maintain a buffer in the
front. There’s a healthy 10 feet between that new taking line. There’s about 20 feet now prior to
that. That gives us adequate circulation. A lot of the comments that you had discussed with me
and Staff had mentioned were about, well, how much has it really improved. Well, we think
now the improvement interior is significant. You know, it never occurred to me at that last
meeting, before that last meeting, to look into that 75 foot overlay, and it was mentioned, a
couple of comments were, was this self-created, and it speaks to that pretty seriously. So I went
back and I took the file and I went through it and I couldn’t find a single thing in our file, when
we were approved in ’89, that referenced that 75 foot Travel Corridor. We went for DOH, DOT,
and Planning Board, and we were definitely not in front of the Zoning Board. So, I can tell you
quite honestly, I can’t find any evidence that we were even aware of this at that time. So it
wasn’t an issue for us to consider. Now, even though we have a septic system on site. We have
a stormwater management area behind us, if we had known that, we definitely could have
moved this a little bit more, not maybe a lot, but a little bit, but we weren’t aware of that, and I
want to bring that to your attention. The other thing is this, and I want to go through it. We
can’t move our building, and that’s the practical difficulty here. We just can’t shove this
building back because it’s existing. The space between the sidewalk and the first island, you
notice that that first fuel island is exactly proposed in the same location, and that’s because, if a
car’s parked fueling at that first pump, we really need to maintain enough width to have
another car pass between the building and that vehicle, and that’s very critical to the circulation
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
across the lot. So, holding that as an absolute, now we’ve got a 24 foot spacing between the
islands. Now we’ve got a location defined here. We’ve narrowed this canopy down to, I mean,
length and width, as minimal as we could make it, 20 by 46, and that brings us to where we are
to say that we really have looked at the options here, and this is the absolute minimum relief
here that we’re asking for, and that allows us to make it all work. Now in the process of that
second look, I just wanted to mention, as you can see on the plan, and again trying to address
concerns about circulation, we’ve looked at this, an area behind the building for parking, and
for say a vehicle, again, with a boat, a small camper, etc. We don’t want to make it a truck stop
and we deliberately aren’t going to make it a truck stop, but we really can create an area here
that’s very functional, addresses your concerns, and when we wrap this all up, as a package of
improvements on the property, we really think we have a nice plan here that has a great benefit
for our customer, and we hope that you do, too. So, just to conclude this, we do have a nice
buffer area of landscaping that we can use to plant evergreens and deciduous shrubs and a
couple of trees. I think that speaks to, you know, creating a better atmosphere and we’re
sensitive to the neighborhood character. We are near a commercial zone. We don’t believe this
is self-created, for the reasons I’ve stated, and the other point is we didn’t anticipate this
parallel. Even though we think in parallel, we really never anticipate the end parallel concept
would be such a benefit. So that’s, those are really my main points, and, thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-Could you clarify exactly how this proposal differs from the one that we tabled, as
far as overall relief?
MR. MEYERS-Yes. In terms of the dimensional differences? Okay. Well, we do have, we have,
originally we were asking for front setback of 23 feet. Now our setback would be 35 feet. So,
the difference there is quite a bit. It’s 12 feet of difference.
MR. HAYES-That’s from the Travel Corridor Overlay?
MR. MEYERS-That’s the, no. That’s the 50 foot setback. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MEYERS-So it was 23 before, 23.3, and it’s 35.7 now, that we’re proposing, and the second
issue is the Travel Corridor, we were in here for March for 26.25 feet, and now we’re actually
back from it 38.62. I don’t know if you’re concerned about green space. There is a little bit less.
There’s still 64% green space. Part of that is the area behind the building, the increase in
blacktop. We still have 22 spaces. The total blacktop went from 18. Now it’s 23,000 square feet,
but as far as the dimensions go, we were set back 23, and we went to 35. Then we were set back
before 26, and now we’re back 38 from the 75 foot.
MR. HAYES-Does anybody have any questions for the applicant?
MR. HIMES-Just one, Mr. Chairman. On your map, which this is very helpful, what you’ve
done this time around, by the way. I thank you for it. The lines indicating the, where the
Department of Transportation’s right of way is, and the existing property line, then there’s a
heavy line further in towards 149 that isn’t identified. I’m just curious. What is that? Do you
follow the one I’m speaking about, if you’re looking at the?
MR. MEYERS-So we have the right of way line that’s in my yellow. Then we have the existing
property line, existing right of way line. That next line is supposed to represent the edge of
shoulder, I believe.
MR. HIMES-Is that it? Okay.
MR. MEYERS-Of the proposed modifications.
MR. HIMES-And then there’s another line.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. MEYERS-And that’s the white line. I think that’s what that’s supposed to represent.
MR. HIMES-The heavy line?
MR. MEYERS-Right. Exactly, and then you see the dotted lines, that’s the existing shoulder.
MR. HIMES-Okay. The painted line on the (lost words).
MR. MEYERS-Exactly. We tried to show everything at once.
MR. HIMES-Okay, and I just wanted to ask Staff a quick question here. The right of way is
depicted on here as inside of the property line. We’re using the property line, of course, for the
setbacks and so on. Is there anything that we need to take into consideration there, in terms of
our thinking, that the right of way as depicted on here is actually a few feet inside the property
line.
MR. FRANK-Relative to the Travel Corridor Overlay setback, it’s.
MR. HIMES-No, just what they’re taking for the adjusted Department of Transportation right of
way line, which is.
MR. FRANK-Well, they may be moving the right of way, but they don’t propose to utilize
anything inside of the existing property line. I believe that’s correct.
MR. HIMES-Because it is inside the property line, the right of way line.
MR. FRANK-That’s what he has depicted on his plans. I agree.
MR. HIMES-Well, we don’t need to be concerned about that, technicality.
MR. FRANK-Well, again, I think as Mr. Meyers had expressed, the State doesn’t have any plans
to do anything within the existing property line, and correct me if I’m wrong.
MR. MEYERS-That’s right. I mean, it looks like it’s, I won’t say green space, but certainly
there’s no proposed pavement or other structures.
MR. HIMES-No, but they did put the right of way there.
MR. MEYERS-Right.
MR. HIMES-And I’m not expecting you may have the answer either as to why they did it there,
and it’s right in front of us, and yet we’re going with the property line which is to the other side
of it, you know, towards 149. I just wanted to be sure, for the record, that we are aware of that
and acknowledge that in our thinking. That’s all the questions I have. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry, I didn’t catch your last name again.
MR. MEYERS-Meyers, Brandon Meyers.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Meyers, I think you’ve had an outstanding presentation, well
prepared. However, if I were to say to you that what you’re seeking may be interpreted by
some individuals as quite substantial, particularly relative to the Ordinance and the Travel
Corridor Overlay, how would you respond to that?
MR. MEYERS-Well, I think if I were sitting in your shoes, I would look at the green space, I
would look at what do I have available here for a green buffer. I think, in my mind, that’s what
I would look at, and I would respond to you that it’s adequate to do at least some screening so
that there’s not a direct view, a direct open line, into the site. I think that’s pretty important,
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
and I think without that, it would change my perception of their request dramatically. So my
case here is that we, even with the future anticipated taking, which who knows when that
would occur, there’s a very substantial and a very solid green strip here that can be very nicely
landscaped, breaks up those views, and, which really changes your perception in terms of how
commercial does it really look, you know, does it look straight commercial or can we break it up
with some vertical elements of green, and, you know, being a few properly selected trees.
MR. ABBATE-Do you consider your request substantial?
MR. MEYERS-It that context of what we have here, I think we’re, I would say no. If we were
five feet less in terms of green space, then I would really look at it and say, you know, does this
make sense.
MR. ABBATE-And you’re firm on your conviction that the 20 by 46 canopy is an absolute
minimum?
MR. MEYERS-I am, and we’ve tried a number of different ways, too, over the years.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MEYERS-You’re welcome.
MR. BRYANT-Relative to that, the positioning of the aisles, you mentioned something about
having one aisle next to another, as opposed to having the two aisles in a series, it would affect
the traffic flow or your ability to serve your customers. Do you have some more data relative to
that? I mean, what are we talking about, really?
MR. MEYERS-Well, I think that, I don’t really have any data. Hopefully there’s, some of you
have been up there or live up near there have seen it during those busy times, because that’s
really the best evidence right there, but as far as what I can say is, I’ve talked to a lot of people,
you know, certainly our store management, our personnel there, our district manager, people in
the community I’ve spoken to just say it’s very, very congested.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but you still have, in other words, what I’m thinking of in the
back of my, and maybe I’m all wet, okay, it appears to me that if these two islands were in
series, as opposed to being the way they’re laid out here, that you would ask for very, very little
relief, you know, than what you’re asking tonight. I think what Mr. Abbate is saying about
substantial, he’s talking about the percentage of relief that you’re requesting and what’s
available. So, by putting these two aisles in series, you’d still have the same number of service
areas, but you wouldn’t necessarily need that amount of relief.
MR. MEYERS-Correct, but the reason we’re asking for them in parallel is because the in series
just doesn’t work, and I think, you know, the way, I might be wrong about this, but this Travel
Corridor, my understanding is that the whole point of it is to bring to the attention of the
community what are future improvements planned for the highway, and that’s why we were
asked, the first pre-scoping meeting we had with the Town, go to talk to DOT and find out
what’s going on here, which took a lot of calls to make that happen, but I think that’s the point
of that Overlay District, what is really planned for this section of road, and really it isn’t much.
Their widening is so minimal.
MR. BRYANT-It’s not much today, but it might be 10 years from now.
MR. MEYERS-Well, but that’s what this does represent, though, this represents the future.
MR. BRYANT-The other question that I had is relative, and I know that one application really
has no bearing on the other application, but I don’t know, if my mind is correct, this Getty
application was similar, and it was requesting, I don’t know, do you remember the Getty
application at all?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. FRANK-To a certain degree. They need a similar relief, and they did get that approved.
MR. BRYANT-Was it approved, or was it?
MR. FRANK-It was approved. They just never followed up on their application.
MR. URRICO-They made some changes, but that had to do with the rear septic system, and also
the extra opening on Ridge Road. We asked them to limit that so they had one on Ridge Road
and one on 149. This is very similar to that application.
MR. BRYANT-You don’t remember, Chuck, the amount of relief?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t remember that. I know there was some.
MR. BRYANT-We’re talking about 50% here.
MR. MC NULTY-I know we talked Getty down from what they originally wanted.
MR. HAYES-Right. My recollection is it wasn’t 50%.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think it was somewhat less.
MR. HIMES-I think that the relief that they needed along the roads was withdrawn completely
when they came back the second or third time, and it was mainly in back, the septic system was
going to be in the back.
MR. HAYES-If not it was minimal.
MR. HIMES-They pulled in and there was no relief requested on 149, and I don’t think on Ridge
either. They have a quarter of a mile, and this runs along there.
MR. BRYANT-As I recall, that canopy was changed specifically because of that Travel Corridor
Overlay area, okay, and they came back two or three times. It sticks in my mind.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. They did, we did have them stretch it out. Speaking to your question
about the series pumps versus parallel, I can tell you from experience at Cumberland Farms,
what we did at Route 9 and Kendricks Road, it makes one big difference on convenience for
customers and traffic through if you can get the pumps into parallel. The applicant’s right.
That’s a major difference.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but I know that there are other, and I’m, not necessarily in the Town, but
you go like to certain Hess Stations, for example, you know, they’ll have the parallel islands, but
they’ll also be in series. So that you can go, you know, if you can’t get into this one, you can go
right up in the front and you get your gas.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, well, I think the problem the applicant’s got with this one is if he’s in
series, then he’s got to have additional room for cars to drive around. Otherwise, the pump
that’s in front does you no good if it’s blocked by the one in the back, and that’s why the
parallel set up works so much better is you don’t have anybody blocking in front. If they go in
the store and shop for ten minutes, and leave their car at the pump, it’s not bothering anyone
else.
MR. MEYERS-Exactly, who’s behind them, exactly, and the other thing I want to address, you
mentioned 10 years from now, I have a letter tonight with me from DOT, and they did follow
up in writing, and they were very confident, they can’t guarantee this right of way line, okay,
and they’re honest about that, but what he told me in the letter was if there’s anything
additional needed beyond this, and again, he felt pretty confident about it, they could
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
accomplish it with an easement versus another taking. So, I think that should give you some,
you know, address, well, what if, we’ve tried to address those what if’s here, and, you know,
even though we’re talking what’s on our property, there’s a good solid 20 feet here of green
space from the edge of the shoulder, at the narrowest point, you know, if I put a scale on this,
about 20 feet. So there’s a nice transition space here between our paving on the inside and the
edge of this future highway.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Meyers, I have a question for you. The access to the bathroom will be from
the outside?
MR. MEYERS-No. Inside.
MR. URRICO-The inside, and those three spaces in the rear then will be intended for
employees?
MR. MEYERS-Well, I think that’s what our thought is, move the dumpster and put two
employee spaces there. Again, it relieves important parking for customers.
MR. URRICO-So there will be no public traffic flow in the back as far as you can see?
MR. MEYERS-Right, and that’s why we want that access for security inside the store versus
outside, so we can keep our eye on what’s going on.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application?
Please come forward Mr. Salvador.
MR. ABBATE-Did I catch it right, this is in favor?
MR. HAYES-In favor of the application.
MR. ABBATE-In favor. Nice to see you, Mr. Salvador.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, as much as I would like to hear Mr. Salvador speak in favor of this
application, my assistant here has noted that the public hearing was closed in March.
MR. HAYES-I’ll re-open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. Thank you. A couple of points. The applicant has mentioned
that, back in 1979, there was no understanding of the 75 foot Transportation Corridor setback
requirement. He’s absolutely right. That subject is a recent invention, and appears in our
Zoning Ordinance, and I can remember this issue being discussed at length in our
Comprehensive Planning Committee work in the middle 1990’s. If you examine the Zoning
Ordinance, you’ll find that it’s really not a treatment of a corridor. On Route 149, there are only
two spots that they talk about this. It’s the intersection of Bay Road and 149 and Ridge Road
and 149. I mean, the DOT just finished improving a part of 149 and the Martindale farm, barn is
within a few feet of that road. It doesn’t look like the issue is that serious, and I agree, trying to
access these gasoline pumps in series is, it’s useless. Parallel is the only effective way. So I
would ask you to be in favor of this application as it’s presented. I think the applicant has done
the best they can in view of the restrictions in the Zoning Ordinance.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the
application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Then I’ll close the public hearing, and I’ll poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I guess I’ll start with Allan.
MR. BRYANT-Actually, I don’t know. I don’t know how I feel. I have a tendency, only because
I know that, again, the two applications are not related, but I was here for the first two Getty
discussions, and that TCO was a critical issue, and they did come back and change their design
to accommodate the issue. I’d like to hear what the other Board members have to say, but I’m
leaning towards the negative on this application.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Meyers, in defense of his application, is, was
impressive, and it’s certainly well prepared. That coupled with the public comments, which
were rather rational to me, sway me to moving for approval of the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I as expressed in the last meeting, feel that this intersection is
prospectively one of the most sensitive we’ve got around here, to be so called developed with
what’s going to happen across the street, both ways, across 149 and the big, by comparison,
huge thing that Getty may be implementing, but it was mainly in connection with the safety,
and that was my problems with Getty also, and they had the room and so forth to
accommodate, and they did so, and here there’s a lot less room, and I look at the drawing that
we have here, and as much as I say, hooray for the Travel Corridor Overlay, I know there’s
another place, the logging supply right down the next piece of property, which is fairly close to
the road, too, and so on, and as Mr. Salvador had mentioned, where they’ve already done a lot
of work. Anyway, the thing is I, as I think that even if the State were to come along and use up
all the right of way that they have designated on this map, they would come very, very close to
the vegetation by the pumps there, but probably still would be reasonably safe, traffic wise, and
that’s my major objection. As far as the aesthetics and so forth, the impact there is I think
something that we can’t, there’s just no feasible way to deal with it as far as I can see, so I am
concerned and I worry about this, but I can’t see holding this business’s feet to the fire for what
I see now is a remote possibility that there would be any safety hazards in connection with
Ridge Road and 149, and I also believe, too, that for the business and the customers and so on,
that the parallel, they’re probably going to have more pumps there. So there’s still going to be
some series in each island. I imagine that this has got to be a bit of an improvement. So, I think
I would be in favor of the application now, with the revisions that Stewart’s has done a very
good job in making, trying to meet us halfway or more. So, thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’d also be in favor. I’ll agree that if you add up some of the relief that
we’re asked to give, you can argue that it’s somewhat substantial, but I think the applicant’s
done the best job they can of designing something that will work for them, and I think it will
give them some benefit, but I think it will equally give the public some benefit because if they
stay with a pump configuration there at that station, it tends to back up traffic, it can be a traffic
hazard eventually, especially as traffic increases at that intersection. So I think there’s not only a
benefit to Stewart’s, but also benefit to the general public for them to do this, and for that reason
I’d be in favor.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Well, I would be in favor. The one that we accepted on Route 9, I noticed, I
thought there might be a problem there, but the traffic just goes in and out, and that’s a much
more heavily traveled route, and so I don’t see any problem here with this. I would be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I was in favor of it the first time it came forward, and I haven’t changed my
mind. I think this is a better plan than the first one. Basically we have a business that applied
before there was any Travel Overlay, and you designed this business based on the existing
regulations at the time. Since then, the business has thrived. You need some space to
accommodate congestion there, and I think you’ve come up with the best plan you can, under
the circumstances, and I realize it’s coming close to the Travel Overlay, but there’s still a buffer
between that and what any potential property the State might grab. I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. As this application was presented to us earlier, I was opposed to the
relief that was put forth at that time. I remain so, more or less on the grounds that I believe that
the position of the canopy that close to 149 and Ridge Road, in an area that is one of the few
areas left to be preserved from a rural perspective I think would undermine the continuance of
that. I think, cumulatively, the relief that’s being requested, the Travel Corridor Overlay, the
front setback, there’s several here. I think this is an opportunity to not have a structure out
close to the road in an area that’s unique in character. I think it would take away from that
intersection. I’m also concerned by the fact that, while the applicant has made representations,
that the State doesn’t have any intention of doing anything drastic here. I’ve grown up in
Queensbury and seen areas that were relatively almost out in the woods become major
thoroughfares, including Ridge Road to some extent, and I would be concerned that, in the
future, the improvements that could happen at this intersection and may have to happen at this
intersection, could ultimately exemplify the relief that we’re granting by having this canopy so
close to the road. While I certainly sympathize with Stewart’s desires to improve the traffic
flow of their pumps, I think that’s always a good idea to keep trying to change your business in
ways that serve the public. I think in this particular case the cumulative relief that we’re asking
the Code to make up for the placement of a station and pumps in a spot that I think is not
necessarily advantageous to the community, the immediate community in that area. So I would
be opposed, but, having said that, I believe that there is enough votes for an approval. So I
would ask for somebody to make a motion. Mr. Himes?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2003 STEWART’S SHOP, Introduced
by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
977 State Route 149. The applicant proposes expansion of the current single fuel island with a
24 foot by 32 foot canopy to a double fuel island with a 20 foot by 46 foot canopy. The relief
required. The applicant requests 36.38 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback
requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone for State Route 149, Paragraph 179-4-060 (C).
Additionally, the applicant requests 14.29 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback
requirement of the State Route 9L frontage and 11.38 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum
front setback requirement for the State Route 149 frontage on the Schedule of Area and Bulk
Requirements for the Neighborhood Commercial 1A zone, 179-4-030. The criteria we examined
whether there would be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood
or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, and I don’t think that there’ll be that kind of
a result here because Stewart’s is there now, and they’re making a few minor changes. I don’t
think there’ll be any effects to the neighboring properties, and another criteria is whether the
benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other means feasible, and really, from
a practical standpoint, I think the majority of us up here feel that that could not be done, except
to maybe eliminate the proposal in its entirety, and is the Area Variance substantial? And I
think that, as I’ve said, that it’s moderate to substantial, I think in terms of the strict figures.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
However, we’ve got to recognize, too, the configuration of this lot, the location of the building,
the site where it’s at, a busy intersection, and what is being done is leaving some green space
between what is proposed and the, even up to the new Department of Transportation right of
way indicator, which will help some of the aesthetics in terms of driving on any of these roads.
Will the proposed variance have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district? I don’t think there’s going to be much change, if you want to
look at physical as being the safety matter. There probably is going to be possibly a little bit
more traffic coming in and out of Stewart’s, and at this point in time, they’re really the only site
at the four corners where there is any substantial amount of traffic. There’s another small gas
station across the street, which at the current time is Getty. Is the difficulty self-created?
Certainly in connection with just making the request by wanting to augment the gas station
islands could be considered self-created. However, the matter of increasing the business is a
factor that we need to consider, and I don’t think that there’s a severe impact because of the self-
created part of it. So, in conclusion, I suggest that we approve the application as submitted.
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is carried.
MR. MEYERS-Thank you very much.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2003 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE II ACTION KENNETH & DIANA
KAMBAR AGENT: MICHAEL S. BORGOS, MULLER & MULLER OWNER: KENNETH
& DIANA KAMBAR ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 27 HANNEFORD ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING 1,540
SQ. FT. SEASONAL DWELLING TO BECOME A 3,977 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING WITH A 3-CAR ATTACHED GARAGE (EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO
BE DEMOLISHED). APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.
CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2001-659; BP 2002-143; BP 2002-466; AV 8-2002 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: 4/9/03 & APA TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES
SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-010 A, E PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REHEARING
AT JUNE 18, 2003 MEETING
MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HAYES-This variance was denied previously. Tonight’s discussion is simply a
determination of the applicant and/or his agent will be permitted to present a full application
for a variance in the future. That type of activity or action requires a unanimous vote by the
Board to proceed. So, having said that, Mr. Borgos?
MR. BORGOS-For the record, Michael Borgos for the applicant. I think that’s precisely right,
and I’ll keep my comments very brief, because tonight we’re here before the Board requesting
procedural relief, as Mr. Chairman just pointed out, we do need a unanimous vote in order to
appear on next week’s agenda where we’re currently scheduled, and if the Board will recall, I
was here last month, and the Board unanimously approved scheduling the two consecutive
meetings, and we thank you for that. Going back historically to the April 16 meeting, when
th
this application was heard, there were only six Board members present that evening. The
applicant deserves to have seven members hear this and that’s why we’re here tonight
primarily is to enable the applicant to do that. We have some feasible alternatives to discuss
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
with the Board that probably weren’t presented the last application. I wasn’t present that
evening. So I can’t speak to it except to review the minutes, and I see that Mr. Abbate pointed
out that there were probably things that could have been discussed, and we’d like the
opportunity to present those. Following that meeting, in reviewing those minutes, we also
noticed there was some confusion on the Board it seemed and it seemed like a lot of the Board
members were sitting on the fence with regard to the application, probably due to a lack of
information being presented. We’d like to rectify that, answer all the questions that we can
possibly do, and give the applicant a full hearing again. We discussed it with Staff and with
Counsel for the Town and we determined that this procedural request at this point was the best
way to handle the matter. So tonight we do ask for the consideration of the Board to keep us on
the agenda for next week, and we ask that it be unanimous if we could.
MR. HAYES-Okay. There really is nothing to discuss.
MR. BRYANT-I have a couple of questions.
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. BRYANT-Do you object to that?
MR. HAYES-No.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I wasn’t here so it was probably my fault, but normally, I didn’t see the
minutes in the package, and I’m just wondering why the applicant, normally he’s given the
opportunity to withdraw. What happened there?
MR. BORGOS-If I may address that, the minutes reflect the conversation regarding that. There
was a request from the applicant to table it, but the motion had been made, and there was really
discussion about Roberts Rules of Order, and that’s what we talked to Town Counsel about,
and we thought that the best way to deal with it was just to make the request to the Board to re-
hear the application and it would eliminate any discussion about those issues, about whether
the motion could have been withdrawn and then the motion to table presented, and.
MR. BRYANT-But normally, the question that I’m asking, maybe I didn’t make it clear, but
normally as a Board, it’s our character, what we normally do, we give the applicant the
opportunity to table it, if it looks negative.
MR. HAYES-Or if there’s any indecision about information or those kind of things.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Then we give them the opportunity, I didn’t read the minutes.
MR. URRICO-What happened that night is that when the Board was polled, not everybody had
made a decision about how they were going to vote, and it was viewed as most of the panel
being in favor of it. So that’s, the motion was drawn based on those of us that had spoken out.
The rest that didn’t make their opinion known had not indicated which way they were going to
vote. So that was not known until the vote was taken.
MR. HAYES-I think that’s an accurate depiction.
MR. BRYANT-I’ve got just one other question, relative to this presentation, I get the feeling, or
you just stated it in your presentation, but it’s really implied in the package that your client is
entitled to a seven Board, by what statute, I want, a seven member Board. I don’t.
MR. BORGOS-We’re requesting that it be unanimous because that is the only way we’ll be on
the agenda next week.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. BRYANT-No, no, no, but basically it’s based on the premise that there were only six
members here the night it was heard, and therefore he’s entitled to seven, and I didn’t find that
in the statute.
MR. BORGOS-Let me amend my statement, then. I didn’t mean to convey to that you. You’re
correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, because the six Board members is still a legitimate vote.
MR. BORGOS-That’s sufficient. Right.
MR. BRYANT-That’s the only thing.
MR. BORGOS-It segways into your first question, really, with regards to the Board’s tradition of
offering a tabling motion, and that’s what he would have requested. In fact, that’s what he did,
as reflected in the motion, or in the minutes, but that came about after the motion had already
been made for the reasons that Mr. Urrico just stated.
MR. ABBATE-Jaime, I have a point of order, if I may, please.
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. ABBATE-There can be absolutely no discussions, absolutely none, regarding this
application until there is a motion by the Board to re-hear it, and that has to be unanimous. We
are going far outside of the bounds. It’s quite clear. The law claims, re-hearing, any discussions
regarding the intent, applicability or content of a previous determination or ruling by the Board
can only be re-visited after a motion to do so has been unanimously passed by the Board.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with that.
MR. HAYES-I understand that.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with that, but I want to know what I’m voting on. That’s all.
MR. HAYES-I think you’re entitled to.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s all.
MR. HAYES-I guess my point here is that we, we’re not re-visiting any of the facts of the case
which have to do with the relief that’s requested or all the parts of that test. I think that Allan
had a question as to how we ended up with a denial or the lack of a tabling, and I think what
indirectly happens on rare occasion with the Board, sometimes when we don’t have a full
embodiment and there’s not a clear motion, three yes votes means a denial if we don’t get four
yes votes, and sometimes that can cause some problematic situations. That does not necessarily
have any implication here because six votes is still a quorum here, or six members is still a legal
quorum, and we’re entitled, as Mr. Bryant pointed out, to proceed.
MR. BORGOS-That’s absolutely correct, and tonight’s vote, all we’re looking for is the
opportunity to be heard next week. If the outcome of that vote is a denial again, that’s
something that we can accept, but what we need to have is the opportunity to get to that step.
So tonight’s vote is not for or against the application. It’s just to entitle us to come back next
week.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess that summarizes where we’re at. Well, I guess we need to, I will,
not to say which way I’m going to vote, but I’ll just make the motion, and if we don’t get a
unanimous vote, then that’s, that’ll resolve that issue. Does everyone understand what I’m
doing?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. HIMES-Could I just volunteer?
MR. HAYES-Certainly, Norm.
MR. HIMES-If feels like, between a rock and a hard place here in that I wasn’t at that meeting,
either, and I would be likely to abstain. I may feel one way or the other about the application,
having read the minutes, but the matter of the voting I would feel kind of funny doing it, not
having been here, not being part of the original group which we have a differently constituted
group here now, and how that effects things, legally, I don’t know, but anyway how that might
affect what you’re going to do, Jaime.
MR. HAYES-I think that’s a very good question. I would ask Bruce, a unanimous vote, does
that mean unanimous vote of people that are present or the unanimous vote that requires seven
yes votes?
MR. FRANK-I think it’s a unanimous vote of those present. So if someone wants to recuse
themselves because they don’t feel comfortable, because they weren’t here at the previous
meeting, I think that’s fine. Again, a quorum is four. So if you end up with at least four
members on this Board, before you take that vote, I believe that that’s what, with the.
MR. BRYANT-But, Mr. Chairman, what I don’t understand, and maybe I’m missing the point,
that happens a lot, you’ll know that when you start to get up in years, ask Mr. Abbate. What I
don’t understand, really, is why we’re even entertaining revisiting this if the Board already
voted on it.
MR. ABBATE-He’s right.
MR. BRYANT-I mean, is there something that we should know to make this an exceptional
case? I mean, what is the basis to reevaluate that? I don’t understand.
MR. HAYES-I can explain that. Essentially, procedurally, it’s the applicant’s right to make this
appeal to us for a re-hearing. Okay. That does not mean that we have to agree with what he
does. We’re not being compelled to do it. It’s just procedurally correct.
MR. BRYANT-Procedurally, an applicant, if he’s denied, can come before the Board and request
that the whole thing be re-heard for no legitimate reason. We ought to get Mr. Salvador up
here, and Mr. Salvador would be able to explain it all.
MR. HAYES-Be careful what you wish for.
MR. BRYANT-No, no, I just want to understand the premise, the total premise, because in the
time that I’ve been on the Board, it’s never happened.
MR. HAYES-True.
MR. MC NULTY-If you’re going to go to a vote shortly, I’ve got a few comments I’d like to
make because I also was not here at the meeting that they acted on this, but I do have some
definite opinions to explain why I’m probably going to vote the way I’m going to vote. I did
look at the minutes, and there’s several things. One thing is the applicant’s attorney, in his
letter of May 14, seems to clearly say that if a re-hearing is denied, they intend to file an Article
th
78, and if a re-hearing is approved, and we subsequently deny their request, he’s going to file an
Article 78. I don’t like to be put under that kind of pressure, for one thing.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that has no bearing on whether we hear the case or not.
MR. MC NULTY-We’ve already addressed some of my thoughts. The argument appears to be
that the applicant’s entitled to be heard by a full Board, and that argument’s without grounds.
State law governing towns now says that a Zoning Board of Appeals has a maximum of five
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
members, and this Board has seven only because it had seven before that change in the law was
made, but across most of the State, the maximum number that would hear a Zoning Board issue
would be five members. So certainly there’s no entitlement to be heard by seven. Beyond that,
it strikes me, given Counsel’s promise of an Article 78 if the applicants don’t get what they
want, that rather than wasting our time, it seems prudent to go ahead and get that Article 78 out
of the way. I see nothing in the minutes of the meeting to indicate that the applicant did not
receive a fair hearing. The applicants had ample opportunity to present their case. It was
heard. An attempt to approve was made, which was less prejudicial than what a motion to
deny would have been. So, I, personally, feel that they’ve had an adequate hearing, and unless
somebody has something to convince me otherwise, I’m probably going to vote no.
MR. HAYES-Do you want to speak?
MR. URRICO-Can I?
MR. HAYES-Absolutely.
MR. URRICO-Having been one of the people that voted to deny the application, I was here, but
I do feel there were exceptional circumstances that night. Usually the way the Board proceeds
here is that the Board members are polled first, and that gives the applicant an idea, and the
Board, a chance to see which way the vote is going, and therefore proceed accordingly. I think
many times the applicant sees the Board not voting in favor of their application, so they then
have the opportunity to withdraw it or have it tabled. In this case that was not done, as far as I
can tell because it looked like the application was going to be approved, and it wasn’t until the
vote was taken that the applicant actually saw that it was going to be denied, and at that point,
he didn’t have the opportunity any longer to either withdraw it or table it. So, I think there
were exceptional circumstances that night, and in all fairness, my opinion is that it should be re-
heard.
MR. ABBATE-Can I have a chance at this, too, Mr. Chairman?
MR. HAYES-Why not?
MR. ABBATE-I’d like to go on the record as stating and making it quite clear, and I would like
to address this to Town Counsel that this Board is out of order. In accordance with the law.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak about the motion?
MRS. HUNT-Well, I was here, and it seemed to me that before we took the vote, there was
discussion that maybe a motion could be made to table it, and then there was this confusion
about whether we could have another motion when we had the other one on the floor. So I just
think it was unusual. I’d never seen anything like that.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BORGOS-May I respond to Mr. McNulty’s comments?
MR. HAYES-Traditionally, Mr. Borgos, we don’t, once we go into saying what we feel about a
thing, we don’t get into interviewing the thing. So, what I’m going to do is I’m going to, for a
procedural, to immediately get to the procedure that’s involved with this, I’m going to make a
motion which, if not unanimous is defeated, that we re-hear Area Variance No. 57-2003,
Kenneth and Diana Kambar.
MOTION TO REHEAR AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2003 KENNETH & DIANA KAMBAR
AT THE NEXT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, OR WHENEVER IT IS PROPERLY
SLATED FOR HEARING, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Joyce Hunt:
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
ABSTAINED: Mr. Himes
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is denied.
MR. BORGOS-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. BORGOS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II MICHAEL P. INGLESTON AGENT:
N/A OWNER: MICHAEL P. INGLESTON ZONING: HC-INT LOCATION: 302 BAY
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 492 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 885 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE
FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/11/03 TAX MAP
NO. 302.8-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030
MICHAEL INGLESTON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2003, Michael P. Ingleston, Meeting Date: June 18, 2003
“Project Location: 302 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
demolition of a 492 sq. ft. garage and construction of a new 885 sq. ft. garage. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 35 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement
(Homer Ave frontage), of the HC-Int Zone, §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): BP 89-935: 11/30/89, demolition of garage. Staff comments: Criteria
considerations:
1) Might it be interpreted no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood or no
detriment to the nearby properties will occur being the proposed garage will be compliant in all
respects with the exception of the front setback, which is proposed to be the same as the existing
setback?
2) Might it appear no feasible alternatives exist for the proposed garage due to the corner
property being in the HC-Int Zone with front and rear setback requirements of 50 and 25 feet.
3) Relative to the ordinance, might 35 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback
requirement be interpreted as moderate to substantial (70%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the setback requirements designed for the HC-
Int Zone, when the use is residential for the pre-existing nonconforming parcel (dwelling built
in 1960; zone changed from residential to light industrial 1982, to the current zoning in 2002)?”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11,
2003 “Project Name: Ingleston, Michael P. Owner: Michael P. Ingleston ID Number: QBY-
03-AV-45 County Project#: Jun03-29 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 492 ft. garage and construction
of a new 885 sq. ft. garage. Relief requested from the front setback requirements. Site Location:
302 Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.8-1-18 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
proposes to remove an existing 492 sq. ft. garage and replace it with an 885 sq. ft. garage. The
new garage would be located 15’ from the front property line where 50’ is required. The
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
information submitted indicate the new garage will be in the same location as the original
garage and would allow the applicant to keep a useable back yard with the flowerbeds. Staff
does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County
Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, 06/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please introduce yourself for the record.
MR. INGLESTON-My name is Michael Ingleston. I live at 302 Bay Road, Queensbury.
MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to your application?
MR. INGLESTON-I just would like to ask the Board to approve this variance, because I’m
trying to put a new garage exactly where the old garage is, as far as the front, and being no
foundation underneath the existing garage, it’s not really safe, and actually it’s going to cost me
more money to build a new garage, because if I could save this one, I would be able to save
some money and restructure this one, but there’s no foundation underneath it. So it’s basically
out of the question to do that, and the other three sides of the garage are within Code. It’s just
that I’m asking to put the front of the garage exactly where the old garage is today. That’s all.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant?
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Ingleston, how are you this evening?
MR. INGLESTON-Good.
MR. ABBATE-Good. Glad to hear that. I am somewhat elated in that you have come before
this Board with a proposition, rather than coming to this Board and saying that I have already
demolished and have reconstructed and I then would like a variance. So, my congratulations.
MR. INGLESTON-Well, I was told that I couldn’t do that.
MR. ABBATE-Well, it you had, I’m sure you’d have had a different response from me, but I
look at the application and I try to place myself in the applicant’s position. What would I do if I
were the applicant under this set of circumstances, and based upon his request, how would I
respond. I’m going to make a statement, and you tell me whether it’s true or false. I don’t
know, basically, of any other way you could do this and still achieve the goals that you’re
expected to achieve, and by the way, I think your goals are, as far as I’m concerned, acceptable.
I don’t have a problem with it, but is there perhaps another way in which to achieve your goals
and objectives, other than going from a 492 square foot garage, and construction of a new 885
square foot? I don’t know. It’s an honest question to you.
MR. INGLESTON-Well, I have three vehicles. One is an older car, and I have a motorcycle. So I
would like to be able to, right now they are all, except the motorcycle, out in the weather,
because the garage is unusable, and I would like to be able to store those inside and use that on
a daily basis.
MR. ABBATE-So this is really a commonsense approach to attempting to cover your
investment, so to speak?
MR. INGLESTON-Yes. We live in the Northeast.
MR. ABBATE-For sure. All right. Thank you very much, sir.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. URRICO-Just for a matter of the record, would it be conceivable to be able to move it back
from where it’s currently located?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. INGLESTON-My yard is 94 feet wide, and I have a large circular flowerbed that my wife
sitting behind me owns, right behind that garage, and it is on the plot plan, and if I move the
garage back, I have a lot of perennials that we invested a lot of money in and a lot of time that
have to become history, and I would like to be able to maintain that flowerbed, because there
used to be a pool where that flowerbed was. I took the pool out and made it into a flowerbed
for my wife, and I would like to keep that correspondence the same as it was.
MR. ABBATE-And still maintain a happy marriage.
MR. INGLESTON-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone
opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And I will begin to poll the Board members. This time I will start with Chuck.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ingleston, as I said earlier, I am pleased that you
come before the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to commencement of any kind of action
requesting permission. I think that tells me t hat you’re not, you don’t consider yourself above
the law. You are requesting permission and it also indicates to me that you are a citizen in the
Town of Queensbury that believes in the rules and regulations and the laws of the place in
which you reside. I think your request is a reasonable request. If I had the vehicles that you
have, I certainly would want to have them covered. This is the Northeast, and no one can deny
that we have some very severe weather, and we all reach a point in life where, if we can make
ourselves as comfortable as possible within reason, we would like to do it, and I think this is a
reasonable attempt to help save what you have invested, and Mrs. Ingleston has these huge
flowerbeds, and it would be a shame to disrupt those, based upon all the work that she puts
into it, and also maintain a successful marriage, so I would be favorably for your application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with some, most of what Chuck has just said,
and I think when you look at the Highway Intensive, Highway Commercial Intensive, if it were
just residential, you’d probably be only looking for something like five feet, but when I was
there I noticed, too, that, you know, the garage seems to be very close, when you read the
figures here, but it must be the pavement ends a little bit before the property line, because there
was a vehicle parked in front of your garage. It seemed to have plenty of room between its rear
bumper and the street, and again, it should be pointed out that your driveway opens up on
Homer Avenue, not on Bay Road, which is what your address is, so that the impact or any
problems on the count of traffic right there at the corner I don’t think are a factor. So I would
support your application. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I think it’s a reasonable request, especially considering the neighborhood.
You’ve already got a structure there. You’re not coming any further forward towards the road.
It leave you a decent piece of green space behind it. So the benefit to you is clear, which is one
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
of our considerations. I can’t see any real detriment to the neighborhood. You’re basically
replacing what’s there, although what you’re putting in is a little larger, but it’s still in the same
general area. I think if anything it’s going to enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. So I
can’t really see any down side. I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Well, I have to agree with what’s been said. I don’t see any negatives, and I would
be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think if you look at the criteria, I think that there is a feasible alternative in
moving it back, but that is only presented as a possible solution, not one that would necessarily
be a better one. There would not be a change to the neighborhood. This would be maintained
in the exact same location as the older garage, and the request seems substantial because of
zoning changes in that area, and it really doesn’t reflect the use or the real status of the
neighborhood there. So I don’t think that should come into play here. Even though it seems
substantial, it really is not, and some of the difficulty is not self-created, but created by the zone
itself. So, I think on balance I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I think the difficulty is created by the fact that you have two front yards,
basically, and that’s what makes the difficulty. The fact that you’re putting the new garage in
the place, the same place. You’re not looking for any additional relief, I think that’s a plus. I
just have one question, and that’s relative to the, one of the doors is 16 feet wide. You’re talking
about cars, you’ve got a couple of cars, and I know it’s Highway Commercial, and across the
street you’ve got a business and the guy has got a business in his garage, and you can do that.
Is that the intention down the road?
MR. INGLESTON-No. My wife has a problem with perception, and I’d like to keep the cars
intact. That’s the only reason.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand. So her car’s going to go in the 16 foot wide door?
MR. INGLESTON-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Yes, I’m in favor of it.
MR. INGLESTON-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I certainly agree. I think that this difficulty, in the broadest
sense, is not self-created. The applicant is replacing the garage exactly where it exists, and this
is a zoning distinction, properly made by the Town to the development in that area, but it
certainly should not be held against the applicant in this particular case. So, for the reasons
stated by the rest of the Board members, I’m in favor. Having said that, would someone like to
make a motion?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I would. Mr. Chairman, for selfish reasons, I’d like to make a motion to
approve this, that would relief some of my apprehension from the previous application, and I’ll
be able to sleep tonight.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2003 MICHAEL P. INGLESTON,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
302 Bay Road. Mr. Ingleston proposes demolition of a 492 square foot garage and construction
of a new 885 square foot garage. Mr. Ingleston also requests 35 feet of relief from the 50 foot
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
minimum front setback requirement Homer Avenue frontage of the HC-Int. zone Section 179-4-
030. The relief required. Mr. Ingleston has requested 885 square feet from the 492 square feet.
The benefit to the applicant, to me is obvious, but I’ll state it. We have some severe northeasters
up here in the northeastern part of the United States, and Mr. Ingleston merely is attempting to
protect some of his investments, some of his assets, which is a reasonable one. Feasible
alternatives, I, in my opinion, do not believe there are any reasonable or fair alternatives that
Mr. Ingleston can turn to which would still meet his goals and objectives. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance? In my opinion, no, and I base it on the fact that, based on
the history, my experience on the Zoning Board of Appeals, this is a rather reasonable request.
Effects on the neighborhood, in my opinion it would improve the effects on the neighborhood.
Is this difficulty self-created? Well, most of the things we do in life are self-created. Perhaps
this is, but I believe that there are some mitigating circumstances, configuration of the property,
the way it’s zoned, and the fact that Mrs. Ingleston has a beautiful set of flower beds out there
would be indeed a crime to disturb. So, Mr. Chairman, based upon that, I move that we
approve Area Variance No. 45-2003.
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NOES
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is carried and the variance is approved. Thank you for coming.
MR. INGLESTON-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II JOHN A. & ELAINE G. HERSEY
AGENT: N/A OWNER: JOHN A. & ELAINE G. HERSEY ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION:
27 LYNNFIELD DRIVE, WESTLAND SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A 310 SQ.
FT. MASTER BEDROOM ADDITION AND AN 8 FT. BY 18 FT. COVERED PORCH. SEEKS
RELIEF FROM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-
52 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030
JOHN & ELAINE HERSEY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2003, John A. & Elaine G. Hersey, Meeting Date: June
18, 2003 “Project Location: 27 Lynnfield Drive, Westland Subdivision Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 310 sq. ft. addition and an 8’ x 18’
porch to the front of the existing structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8.75 feet of
relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement and 4.02 feet of relief from the 20-
foot minimum side setback requirement of the SFR-1A Zone, per §179-4-030. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: Criteria considerations:
1) Might it be interpreted no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood and no
detriment to the nearby properties will occur, as the applicant claims the neighbors are in favor
of the proposal?
2) Even though there appears to be ample area to add the desired addition to the rear of the
dwelling, the applicant claims this would require a major reworking of the internal floor plan,
which would well exceed the budgeted cost for the project. Therefore, might it appear no
feasible alternatives exist?
3) Relative to the ordinance, might 8.75 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback
requirement be interpreted as minimal to moderate (29.2%) and 4.02 feet of relief from the 20-
foot minimum side setback requirement be interpreted as minimal to moderate (20.1%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
5) Even though the applicant has explained the need for the expansion of the dwelling, might
the difficulty be interpreted as self-created?”
MR. MC NULTY-And there’s no County.
MR. HAYES-Thank you very much. Please identify yourselves for the record.
MR. HERSEY-John Hersey.
MRS. HERSEY-Elaine Hersey.
MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to your application?
MR. HERSEY-No. That pretty much summarizes it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for the Herseys?
MR. ABBATE-I’m overwhelmed. I’d like the term “curb appeal” and “no vista impact”, that
completely, well, anyway, I think you did a nice job on it.
MR. HERSEY-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BRYANT-I do have a question. Relative to your statement, when you talk about feasible
alternatives, and you indicate that you can’t do anything in the back. With the data that we
have here, you don’t really show us what’s in the back of the house, as far as what is the layout
of the back of the house? Why can’t you put a bedroom on the back? I mean, I see where the
septic tank is, that you have this area on the right hand side. My house is just the opposite. On
the right hand side in the back, I have a kitchen. So I can’t really put a bedroom there. It’s kind
of weird. On the left hand side, I can’t put a bedroom there, that’s where a bedroom is. I could
probably add another bedroom on, but I can’t, because that’s where the septic tank is. So, if you
had told me ahead of time, what the layout was of the interior of the house, I would make that
determination for myself.
MR. HERSEY-I understand. That’s me being cheap, but the architect, not having the full plans
on, essentially where the septic tank is now, there is a screened porch. Obviously we can’t enter
a bedroom through a screened porch, and as with your house, the entire back of our existing
house is kitchen.
MR. BRYANT-So what does that porch go into?
MR. HERSEY-Basically a small den.
MR. BRYANT-Again, I’m trying to visualize it. My perspective, if you’ve got a small den there,
why can’t you add a bedroom there?
MR. HERSEY-We use that as, that’s our entertainment room. It’s very small, too. It’s only 10 by
10. There’s no closet.
MR. BRYANT-But you extend on to that back porch, I’m just searching for feasible alternatives.
You extend onto that back porch, without interfering with the septic, how wide is that porch? It
looked like about eight feet to me.
MR. HERSEY-Yes. I believe it might even be 10.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m visually impaired. So I have difficulty telling what the distance is.
So, you have 10 feet, and how big is the den? I mean, can’t you convert that to a bedroom, the
same master bedroom configuration that you want?
MR. HERSEY-You could. Traffic flow wise, to me it just doesn’t work, having a bedroom right
off a kitchen. There’s not a lot of privacy there, and it’s small, and plus I don’t want to lose that
screen porch.
MR. BRYANT-You understand what I’m driving at, though? Really, you haven’t given me the
data to determine for myself that what they’re saying is correct that you don’t have a feasible
alternative. So I have to, in my own mind, based on the layout, assume that there is a feasible
alternative. You could build back here.
MR. HERSEY-So the data being, you’d want to see the actual configuration, or plan of the back
of the house?
MR. BRYANT-I mean, it would have been beneficial. It would have made up my mind one way
or another. You’re saying there is none, and I’m saying maybe there is, but we don’t know that.
We can’t verify that. That’s my question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-And that is a question. I mean, is there any other questions for the applicant at this
time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of
the application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And I’ll poll the Board members. I believe it’s time to start with Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel much the same as what Al was speaking of. I
would like to see a drawing that shows first floor, second floor. All I can see here is a master
bedroom, a bathroom and something called office area, and then some other things, a couple of
closets, something I don’t even know what it is here, whether it’s a stairway or something, but
really kind of an incomplete layout. I mean, I’m certainly sympathetic with your reasons for
your request, and I know that all of the houses on your side of the street line up pretty well, and
so, you know, I kind of agree with what Al was groping for, and I feel that I would not want to
go further on this without more complete information on the first floor, second floor, and even a
basement if you have one, and that’s all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Not to take the Chairman’s prerogative, but it sounds to me like we
may possibly be headed towards a tabling, and to that end, I’ll tell you where I’m at right now
on this. I’ll agree, it would help me to have more information on the layout of the house and
just how impractical it would be to put an addition on the rear. My general reaction, looking at
the proposal and trying to envision what it would look like in the neighborhood this afternoon,
it struck me that it would stick out more towards the street than the other houses on the street.
Enough that I’m inclined to deny it if it were presented to me as it is now tonight. Basically, on
that premise, I can understand the benefit to you, and the desire to expand the house, and I can
understand certainly if it’s not practical to go on the back side without spending lots of money
then it makes a lot more sense to try the front, but nevertheless it strikes me that it’s going to
stick out enough that it’s going to, I guess affect the character of the neighborhood in that sense.
So, as it stands now, I’d be opposed. Some more information might tend to sway me.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with the comments that have been made. I would like more
information, and I did notice, when I went there today, that it would stick out. It would be, it
wouldn’t be consistent with the rest of the homes. So I would like more persuasive argument
that it was the only way you could go.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Well, I guess it wouldn’t hurt to have more information, but I have to say I sort of
traveled around that road a couple of times today trying to figure out if there was any
consistent line of houses, and I couldn’t determine that, and I don’t know that eight feet, 8.75
feet, is going to make much of a difference one way or the other. We didn’t hear from a
neighbor, so I have to assume that the four feet of relief from the side, the minimum side
setback, is not being questioned, and so, you know, I think I have enough information to go
with today, but if the rest of the panel feels that you need more information, I can see no reason
not to request that.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I’m sorry I opened up a can of worms. My first impression, one of the criteria is
the effect on the neighborhood, and as I looked around your neighborhood, it didn’t appear to
me that it was consistent with the other houses in the neighborhood, with that extension in the
front, that “L” shaped thing. Knowing what your circumstances are and your family is growing
and what have you, you need the extra bedroom, having gone through that, my kids are all in
college now so it doesn’t matter to me anymore, but one of the things that really makes it for me
is whether or not there is or is not a feasible alternative. We all should have the availability to
expand if our family expands, okay, but in my view right now, I can’t make that determination.
Whether, you saw a couple of other applications. They made statements. Their attorneys made
statements, or the applicant made a statement, but we’re supposed to believe it because they
made the statement, and I like to see it in black and white. So, without that information, I
would have to vote no.
MR. HAYES-I will take that as a suggestion to table?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, that’s my suggestion.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Very good.
MR. BRYANT-I’d like to see the layout. Show me that there is no feasible alternative, and that
may be the clincher.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. Hersey, I have reviewed your application, and I have
come to some sort of a conclusion. I suspect a favorable conclusion, but I would respectfully
request that perhaps the both of you take the path of least resistance and table it, and come back
with a new proposal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I won’t belabor the issue any longer. Essentially, I think the
predominance of the Board’s feeling is you need to present a little more information to proceed
on the application.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2003 JOHN A. & ELAINE G. HERSEY,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes:
27 Lynnfield Drive. For 60 days. They will need to have their application back in by that time.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Your application is tabled for 60 days.
MR. HERSEY-Okay. Thanks.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II GALUSHA & SONS, INC. OWNER:
CHARLES E. MOORE ZONING: HC-MOD LOCATION: 10 MONTRAY ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 12.5 FT. BY 16 FT. ATTACHED SHED.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE REAR SETBACK AND BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS.
CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-021; BP 2003-028 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/11/03
TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-50 LOT SIZE: 0.49 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030
JOE PORTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2003, Galusha & Sons, Inc., Meeting Date: June 18, 2003
“Project Location: 10 Montray Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has removed
468 sq. ft. of the dwelling and an 8’x 8’ shed and proposes construction of a 12.5’ x 16’ attached
shed to the back of the dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15.7 feet of relief from
the 25-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the HC-Mod Zone, §179-4-030. Additionally,
the applicant requests 50 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum buffer requirement between a
single-family residential and commercial use, per §179-8-050. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2003-028: pending, 200 sq. ft. storage shed addition.
BP 2003-021: 01/27/03, septic alteration.
BP 92-220: 05/13/92, septic alteration.
Staff comments: Note: the relief requested in this application is directly related to the
construction of the retaining wall, which is part of the site development for the Home Depot.
Criteria considerations:
1) Being the Home Depot project directly resulted in the relief being requested, might it be
interpreted no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood and no detriment to the
nearby properties will occur?
2) Even though the front and rear setback requirements for a corner lot in the HC-Mod Zone are
greater than that of most residential zones (50 and 25 feet), a compliant area to place a detached
shed does exist. Therefore, might constructing a detached shed in a compliant location be
interpreted as a feasible alternative?
3) Relative to the ordinance, might 15.7 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum rear setback
requirement be interpreted as moderate (62.8%), and might 50 feet of relief from the 50-foot
minimum buffer requirement be interpreted as substantial (100%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the construction of the retaining wall, which is
part of the site development for the Home Depot?”
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11,
2003 Project Name: Galusha & Sons, Inc. Owner: Charles E. Moore ID Number: QBY-AV-
03-47 County Project#: Jun03-25 Current Zoning: HC-Mod Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 12.5 ft. by 16 ft. attached shed. Relief
requested from the rear setback and buffering requirements. Site Location: 10 Montray Tax
Map Number(s): 296.17-1-50 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct
an 8’ x 8’ shed in a similar location as an existing shed that was removed. The applicant
proposes to locate the shed 1.6’ away from the property line where 20’ is required. The
information submitted doe not clarify the reasons why the applicant can not locate the shed in a
compliant location. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends
no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by
Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board, 6/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Would you like to introduce yourself for the record, please.
MR. PORTER-My name’s Joe Porter with Galusha and Sons, and that pretty much sums it up.
The problem started with the retaining wall, and to get (lost words) setbacks, and there’s (lost
word) that goes in in back of the retaining wall that holds the wall in place, and to comply with
OSHA standards, with a one on one slope, the height of the retaining wall, we had to go back
and that made the building, the shed somewhat fragile as far as falling. That’s why we had to
take it down, and the owner was receptive that we put another one back up. Are we going to
change it, change the building? No. If anything, we’re getting a little bit more setback, because
at the time, and I’ve got some copies, I don’t know if you people had or not. At the time the
shed was there, it was right on the property line, and what we propose to do is to move it back
so it’s flush with the existing building, which would leave about nine feet setback, which, as I
said before, there wasn’t any before, and the owner is, the owner of the property is (lost words).
We propose putting a separate shed away from the building, and he wants it back in place.
That’s pretty much where we’re at.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant?
MR. URRICO-So you’re working for Home Depot and you’re putting up the retaining wall, and
that’s where the problem?
MR. PORTER-Right. We were with the site developers. Right, and part of the, there’s different
types of retaining walls to put in there, and this was less impact. There was different types
where they have underpinning, and being that the house is right there, you’d have to drill into
the soil, which makes it unstable. So we went into a geo-grid, but we still had to give, you
know, with the proper lay back so you could keep the people in there to work, and there’s a, the
pinch point where that wall, you see where the wall radius is about where the hydrant is, that is
a critical point, and that’s the point where we had to obtain up on top to get the lay back, which
reflected the building being not stable.
MR. BRYANT-So basically, the way I understand it, the new shed is actually going to be further
away from the property line than the old building, that’s taken down?
MR. PORTER-That’s right. The existing building , there’s a picture of it right there, it comes
right out where the fence is, and the fence is the property line. The new building, or new shed,
will be back in away from the property about nine feet, actually about 9.7. So instead of going
back, it’s going to pretty much butt right up parallel to what’s there and come right out. So it
would be a little more setback than what you had before.
MR. HIMES-It looked like there was a little shed or something added on to the end that was
new construction?
MR. PORTER-That’s something they had there before. They just added on beyond that. It was
like a walk through or something, and then some kind of like a setting room.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. HIMES-Yes. Okay.
MR. ABBATE-And you have an acre. This is single residence one acre. Correct?
MR. PORTER-I believe so.
MR. ABBATE-It is. I’m just trying to get it on the record, that’s all, SR-1A.
MR. FRANK-The zoning is Highway Commercial Moderate.
MR. HAYES-It was re-zoned based on the project. Right, for Home Depot.
MR. ABBATE-It’s not on the application.
MR. PORTER-I’m not sure that it was re-zoned for Home Depot. It was changed, that’s why we
couldn’t put it back. It didn’t meet the requirements regardless.
MR. FRANK-I don’t think it was changed. It was either Highway Commercial Intensive or
Highway Commercial Moderate before.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for Mr. Porter?
MR. ABBATE-No, thank you.
MR. HAYES-How does it feel to be on that side of the, for those of you who didn’t know, Mr.
Porter was a former member of the ZBA.
MR. ABBATE-Then I don’t dare to ask any questions.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone
that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I’ll begin to poll the Board members. I believe it’s time to start with Chuck
McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any problem with this. It makes sense that it’s necessary to re-store
a shed for this house. Normally I would have a major problem with cutting in to a 50 foot
buffer, but I don’t know how we did it, but there’s no buffer there anyway. So, there’s nothing
to cut into. I can’t see that there’s anything that would be changed by not allowing the 50 foot
buffer variance in this particular case. Given that, I think the benefit to the applicant is obvious.
I don’t think there’s going to be any detriment to the neighborhood. So I’ll be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with the comments made. I don’t see any alternative. I think it’s a
reasonable request, and also I think the proposed addition is smaller than what would be
removed. So I would be in favor.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. The character of the neighborhood appears to be in flux
at the moment. So I’m not sure that it changes it one way or the other, given what’s taken place
there, and the request does not seem to be substantial in relation to that, nor will I think it will
have any adverse effects on the neighborhood, and the situation is not self-created by the
property owner. It was created by the building of the property, and maybe an unspecified
property line as well. So, I think all considerations being made, I think I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I like the application in so much that the new shed is going to be further away
from the property line than the old shed, but Staff makes a point that if you had a detached
shed, you could still put the detached shed in a compliant location. I’m just wondering where
that compliant location is, relative to the property and all the buffers that are required. Can you
show me where that is?
MR. FRANK-Relative to the setbacks, not to the buffer requirement. That’s incorrect as far as
relative to the buffer requirement. I don’t think there is any feasible locations.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with what’s been said by the other Board members, and I’d be in favor of
it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. The application is well prepared. You did your
homework. We’re delighted. You have all the necessary information that we could possibly
need, and, to me, more importantly, is that this is a proposal. This has not already been
constructed, coming before us, and the asking, as you, a former ZBA member, I’m sure can
appreciate. Again, you heard me in my previous comments. I like to place myself, if I can, in
the position of the project applicant and what would I do. Quite frankly, I would do exactly
what you’re doing, and so, based upon that, I believe it’s a reasonable request. It’s a fair
request, and I’m in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-I have nothing further to add. I agree with my fellow Board members and would
support the application. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I agree similarly. I think, all things considered, the benefit to the
applicant outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood. Certainly this property was impacted
by the Home Depot development, and I certainly agree with Chuck, too, that I guess the only
real buffer there is a height buffer. I mean, the impact is not dramatic because they’re not on the
same level. So in a way there’s some preservation of privacy there, more sound barrier,
whatever could be obtained has been obtained somewhat. So I’m in favor, for the same reasons
that the rest of the Board has set forth. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2003 GALUSHA & SONS LLC,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
10 Montray Road. The applicant has removed 468 square feet of a building and an 8 by 8 shed
and proposes construction of a 12.5 by 16 foot attached shed to the back of the dwelling. Relief
Required. Applicant requests 15.7 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum rear setback
requirements of the HC-Mod zone, Section 179-4-030. Additionally, the applicant requests 50
feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum buffer requirement between a Single Family Residential
and Commercial use per Section 179-8-050. Parcel History, Building Permit 2003-028 pending
200 square foot storage shed addition. Building Permit 2003-021 1/27/03 septic alteration.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
Building Permit 92-220 5/13/92 Septic alteration. The Home Depot project directly resulted in
the relief being requested, and it does not seem that it will affect the character of the
neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties.
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II RICHARD C. HILL OWNER: RICHARD
C. HILL ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 12 LILAC LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED 30 FT. BY 40 FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM THE MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2002-673
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/11/03 APA TAX MAP NO. 308.5-1-12 LOT SIZE: 1.24
ACRES SECTION: 179-5-020(D)
RICHARD HILL, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2003, Richard C. Hill, Meeting Date: June 18, 2003
“Project Location: 12 Lilac Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 30’ x 40’ detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 300 sq. ft. of
relief from the 900 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for garages in a residential zone, per §179-
5-020(D). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2002-673: 08/13/02, construction of a 1776 sq. ft. single-family dwelling.
Staff comments:
Criteria considerations:
1) Might it be interpreted a change will occur in the character of the neighborhood being no
other garages of the size proposed currently exists in the immediate neighborhood? However,
might it also be interpreted no detriment to the nearby properties will occur, especially from a
visual aspect, being the location proposed for the garage is surrounded by numerous trees (with
the exception of the west end, which is open to the adjacent property)?
2) Might constructing a compliant 900 sq. ft. garage and a compliant 300 sq. ft. accessory
structure (500 sq. ft. allowed by code in this zone) be interpreted as a feasible alternative?
3) Relative to the ordinance, might 300 sq. ft. of relief from the 900 sq. ft. maximum size
requirement be interpreted as minimal to moderate (33.3%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) Might the difficulty be interpreted as self-created?”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11,
2003 Project Name: Hill, Richard C. Owner: Richard C. Hill ID Number: QBY-AV-03-48
County Project#: Jun03-28 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a detached 30 ft. by 40 ft. garage. Relief
requested from the maximum size requirements. Site Location: 12 Lilac Lane Tax Map
Number(s): 308.5-1-12 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct 30’ x
40’ sq. ft. detached garage associated with an existing dwelling. The applicant requests relief
from the 900 sq. ft. maximum size allowed for a garage. The information submitted with the
application indicates the garage will be used to store yard equipment and vehicles. The
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
applicant has indicated the zoning allows for a 900 sq. ft. garage plus a 500 sq. ft. storage shed.
Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact.
County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll,
Warren County Planning Board 6/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anything you’d like to add to your application, sir?
MR. HILL-Not presently, no.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. BRYANT-I do have a question.
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Hill, one of the things that Staff points out is that you do have a feasible
alternative in that you can build a compliant garage, and then a 300 square foot shed, okay. I
notice in your application you say that you could build 900 and then a 500, and you say that’s
not practical. Well, I understand that because that’s 200 square feet more than what you’re
asking for in the garage. So what is the difference between building a 900 square foot garage for
the 300 square foot shed, versus a 1200 square foot garage?
MR. HILL-Well, it’s my understanding in the Town of Queensbury that vehicles can’t be stored
within a storage shed. Only in a garage.
MR. BRYANT-What kind of vehicles?
MR. HILL-Registered motor vehicles.
MR. BRYANT-How many registered motor vehicles are you going to put in garages?
MR. HILL-I have my truck. I have two cars, and I also want, I’m a member of the Adirondack
Motor Enthusiasts, and I have a race car, which is usually trailered, which I like to keep inside.
Also, you know, keeping my wife’s car out of the snow so that she can just get in the car and go
to work, rather than letting it run out there for who knows how long in the morning after I
leave for work.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s about all the questions I have.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions?
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Hill, would you be charitable to me and go over that again, what you just
said to my fellow Board member here. Why is it, I’d like you to say it a little slower because, at
my age I have to take things a little slow.
MR. HILL-Sure. Well, I have three vehicles, and I also have a race car which is on a trailer. I’d
like to keep them all inside the same building.
MR. ABBATE-And that’s four vehicles?
MR. HILL-It would be a total of four. We also have ATV’s.
MR. ABBATE-How many ATV’s do you have?
MR. HILL-We have two of those.
MR. ABBATE-Now we have a total of six vehicles, methods of transportation.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. HILL-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-An ATV is not a method of transportation. It’s a motor bike.
MR. HAYES-It’s not a registered vehicle.
MR. BRYANT-It’s not a registered vehicle. It’s like a go cart.
MR. HILL-They’re registered vehicles, but they’re not rated for street use.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right, and you’re also a member of this organization.
MR. HILL-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-What organization?
MR. HILL-Adirondack Motor Enthusiasts.
MR. ABBATE-And how does that impact the construction of this detached 30 by 40 garage?
MR. HILL-I keep my race car on a trailer, and I’d like to keep it inside the garage, out of the
weather and the elements.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s reasonable. How many vehicles can you get in? You keep your,
that particular vehicle in the garage to protect it because it’s valuable. I understand that. In
addition to that one vehicle, how many other of the vehicles can you put into that 30 by 40
garage?
MR. HILL-I’d like to think I can keep them all inside.
MR. ABBATE-They will all go inside.
MR. HILL-I would like to think so. I know myself that in the basement, the basement’s pretty
big, and then all of a sudden it starts filling up with things and there’s not a whole lot of floor
space left.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a problem with it. I just needed, just wanted to make sure I
understood it, because I don’t like to make a decision based on facts I’m not aware of. So I
appreciate your patience with me. Thank you very much.
MR. URRICO-Where do you store all those vehicles now?
MR. HILL-Currently they’re just outside.
MR. URRICO-All of them?
MR. HILL-Yes. I just built my house this past winter. We just finished it, and the idea was to
have a detached garage, you know, to keep in the aesthetics of our house. It’s going to be sided
the same vinyl siding that the house has.
MR. URRICO-So how many of those vehicles would you be able to get into a 900 square foot?
MR. HILL-Well, as I said, with other items that end up in a garage, I’d be lucky to get two of
them in there.
MR. URRICO-Thank you.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there
anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Opposed? Mr. Salvador?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. Historically, you should know that at one time
the Code allowed only a 600 square foot detached garage, and this subject came, again, before
the Comprehensive Planning Committee because there was a parade of variance requests before
this Board for relief from the 600 square foot requirement. So the thinking was, well, if we go to
900, that will eliminate all these variance requests. Well, of course what’s happened is we’re up
ticking the variance request and we’re going from 900 now to 1200. Twelve hundred square
feet is half the area of this room we’re sitting in. Half of this room. I really think you’ve got to
come to grips with this detached garage limitation of 900 square feet in a residential area.
That’s why I’m sitting here.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I have a question for Staff. What’s the minimum size house that’s
permitted in the Town of Queensbury right now?
MR. FRANK-Eight hundred square feet.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Eight hundred square feet is the minimum square feet?
MR. FRANK-You have to have at least 800 square foot.
MR. ABBATE-So based on 1200 square foot, he could have a house and a half.
MR. FRANK-Remember, it’s a minimum requirement. You can’t build a house smaller than 800
square feet without relief.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m just trying to rationalize what Mr. Salvador said.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Anyone else opposed to
the application? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. One piece of correspondence, from Jerome J. Pearl and Helen J. Pearl.
They live at 9 Lilac Lane, and they say, “We are in receipt of your “Public Hearing Notice” of
June 11, 2003, pertaining to Mr. Richard C. Hill, and his request for a variance (Area Variance
No. 48-2003, Type II). We have reviewed the variance forms of the property. We live on the
corner of Lilac Lane and Twin Mountain Rd., and therefore are right across the road from Mr.
Hill. We are of the opinion that a variance should not be granted because the structure seems to
be too large for the property, and is too close to the road. If the building was placed to the rear
of the property or even on line with the south side of the house it might not be so objectionable.
This building doesn’t appear to be an appropriate place for a garage of this size on this size
property. Mr. Hill may not always be living there, and we may not always be living here, but
for the neighborhood in general, and for future homeowners here, we request that you not
grant a variance on this project. Sincerely yours, Jerome J. Pearl and Helen J. Pearl”
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Any further correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. HAYES-I will close the public hearing.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I’ll poll the Board. I believe it’s Joyce’s turn to lead us off.
MRS. HUNT-The letter mentioned about it being too close, but there’s no need for a variance on
that, is there? I mean, they’re compliant with the setback.
MR. HAYES-He’s not requesting that relief.
MRS. HUNT-No.
MR. HAYES-So, better not be.
MRS. HUNT-I don’t know, you know, looking at the property, it seems like a large garage, but
it won’t be that visible from the street, and I suppose if you wanted to have those two entrances,
it would be difficult to do with a 900 square foot building. So I guess I would be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I think in this case, being out of sight is not being out of mind. The criteria here
certainly suggests that the character of the neighborhood may not change because the tree line
would block the view. I’m not sure that’s the case. We have a neighbor that’s already made a
mention that it would change the character of the neighborhood. So I’m not sure where I come
on that particular point in the criteria, but as far as some of the others, I have some definite
opinions, and I think, you’re starting with nothing and you’re asking for 1200 feet, and 900 feet
is what’s requested, and I think that’s a lot of relief, in my opinion, from where you’re starting
from. If you’re willing to maybe adjust that somewhat I might reconsider, but on that point, I
really think the garage is way too big. The rules are pretty specific about that, and the relief is
therefore, although it says moderate here, 33 and a third percent is still 300 feet is a good size,
good chunk added on to what the regulations say you can have. I do feel it might have an
adverse effect on the neighborhood and that this is definitely self-created on your part. So I
would not be in favor of it, as it stands now.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I agree, somewhat, with what’s been said, but primarily because there really is a
feasible alternative, and that is to build a compliant structure. You have the property to do that,
and even with the number of vehicles that you have, the registered vehicles could still fit in the
900 square foot garage. So, for that reason, because there is a feasible alternative, I would be
opposed to the application.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hill, I believe in what’s called a proportionality.
You have a home that is 1,776 square foot. It’s a single family dwelling, and you are requesting
a 1200 square foot garage, which is almost 80% the size of your home. It is not unreasonable for
individuals to come before this Board and say, look, I don’t have a garage. We have two
vehicles. My wife and I work, you know, and this is the northeast, we’d like to really build a
garage to put vehicles in, two vehicles. That’s reasonable. I don’t have a problem with that, but
where would we end up if individuals came before us, we approve this, and individuals came
before us and said, you know, ZBA members, I’ve got to have about a 2,000 square foot garage
because I’ve got four registered vehicles, myself, my wife, my son and my daughter, plus I’ve
got this and this. I really would like to put it into storage. Where do we end? It’s my belief, sir,
that this is an unreasonable request, and as such, I would not go for a motion of approval.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have, always on these garage things, in the past
we’ve approved some. Normally it’s lots that are significantly larger than yours, but I think
that, you know, I have trouble with this 900 square foot garage and a 500 square foot storage
facility, you know, having to keep the two separate. I also recognize that anyone such as in
your case that has the vehicles, extra vehicles and so on, they don’t have a place to put them
that is legal, say in the garage, then where are they? They’re sitting out there in the yard, and in
some areas they’re this way and that way and it looks terrible. So, I’m, myself sympathetic to
requests for larger garages. I do, however, agree with much of what’s been said here, and the
positioning of the garage, where you have it on the lot, maybe is to save having a long driveway
or something perhaps. I would wonder if it would be possible if you could re-think your plan,
and it is, not only from the letter, which I think the woman said she was across the street from
you, but I think the garage is a little bit close to your neighbor to the west, it seems to me in my
recollection. So in the fall and the rest, your building would be quite evident from the
neighbor’s viewpoints, I think, because of the size of your lot. So I, as sympathetic as I am,
would probably say that I would not support the application as submitted, but I would like to
see some compromise made in connection with where you’re positioning it and so on, maybe to
make it a little better application than it is now. That’s all I have. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m in general agreement with what’s been said. I guess there’s two or three
things that strike me. One, as I’ve mentioned before at other meetings, the Town just recently
re-codified it’s zoning regulations, and this issue of garage size had come up before that, and
very consciously, the people that were working on the zoning left the limit for garages at 900
square feet. That says a lot to me. It says that they looked at it, they thought about it, and they
said, no, 900 is enough. So I need to see some really compelling reasons to agree to something
larger than that. I know there’s a lot of people out there that have vehicles like you do, but it
also strikes me that if you’re getting into that number of vehicles, tractors, whatever, and that
size garage, then maybe a residential area is not an appropriate area for them as well, but given
the zoning limit on 900 square feet for a garage that was recently reviewed, given that there are
some alternatives, including a shed so you could actually come up with more square footage
than what you’re asking for, but in two structures, I just can’t see my way clear to approve
something like this. So I’ll be opposed.
MR. HAYES-Thank you, Chuck. Well, Mr. Hill, you were here for the original, or the second
case we had tonight, which was discussion about tabling, if you don’t have the votes. My poll
indicates I don’t think you have the votes for an approval tonight. Traditionally we have
allowed applicants one opportunity to amend their application based on the tabling motion and
come back, or I can allow this to proceed to a vote. That would be your choice.
MR. HILL-You can leave it on the table.
MR. HAYES-All right. We’ll table it for 60 days, and if you want to amend your application to
change the amount of relief that you’re requesting or the overall proposal, at that time, you can
come back without having to go for a complete new application. So, does everyone agree with
that?
MR. ABBATE-Sure.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2003 RICHARD C. HILL, Introduced by
Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes:
12 Lilac Lane. For 60 days.
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
MR. HAYES-Your application is tabled for 60 days.
MR. HILL-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II HENSSGEN HARDWARE CORP.,
RONALD SHAW AGENT: JAMES R. SECOR, PE; MSK ENGINEERING OWNER: RED
SQUIRREL, LLC ZONING: LI LOCATION: 43 EVERTTS AVENUE OR 38 EVERTTS
AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 50 SQ. FT. BY 50 SQ. FT. PRE-
ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP
80-75, BP 85-035 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/11/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.12-1-45 LOT
SIZE: 1.14 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030
JIM SECOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2003, Henssgen Hardware Corp., Ronald Shaw, Meeting
Date: June 18, 2003 “Project Location: 43 Evertts Ave. or 38 Everrts Ave. Description of
Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 50’ x 50’ pre-engineered metal building addition to the
existing building. Relief Required: Applicant requests 22.3 feet of relief from the 30-foot
minimum side setback requirement of the LI Zone, §179-4-030. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 85-035: demolition of pole barn.
BP 80-075: new commercial building.
Staff comments:
Criteria considerations:
1) Might it be interpreted no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood and no
detriment to the nearby properties will occur?
2) It appears sufficient space exists to construct the addition in a compliant location; however, to
minimize the visibility of the addition and to maximize the separation distance of the addition
from the residential use to the south, the location proposed might be interpreted as a more
sensible location. Additionally, the applicant claims the functionality of the facility is more
desirable with the location of the addition as proposed. Therefore, might it be interpreted there
are no feasible alternatives?
3) Relative to the ordinance, might 22.3 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum side setback
requirement be interpreted as moderate to substantial (74.3%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the applicant’s desire to locate the addition in the
most logical location for their own and their residential neighbor’s benefit?”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11,
2003 Project Name: Henssgen Hardware Corp. Owner: Ronald Shaw ID Number: QBY-AV-
03-49 County Project#: Jun03-27 Current Zoning: LI Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 50 ft. by 50 ft. pre-engineered metal building
addition to existing building. Relief requested from the side setback requirements. Side yard
setback: 30’ is required; 7.7’ is proposed. Site Location: 43 Evertts Avenue or 38 Evertts
Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 302.12-1-45 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
to construct a 2,500 sq. ft. addition to an existing 4,600 sq. ft. building for Henssgen Hardware.
The addition will be located 7.7’ from the side property line where 20’ is proposed. The
addition will be metal and be consistent with the existing building, that is an existing non-
conforming. Staff does not identify any impact on county resources. Staff recommends no
county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by
Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 6/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Would you like to introduce yourself, please.
MR. SECOR-Yes. My name is Jim Secor, MSK Engineering. Ron Shaw, the owner of Henssgen,
hopefully, was going to try to attend tonight, but he had a problem, a family problem he had to
attend to tonight. So he couldn’t make it. So he sends his apologies back to the Board.
MR. HAYES-Have you got anything you’d like to add to the application or modify for us?
MR. SECOR-Yes, if the Board wouldn’t mind, just a couple of minor things that I did overlook
on the application, as far as the feasibility and the use of the existing facility. Presently, right
now, this is the existing facility for Henssgen. The office space is here. More or less shipping
and packaging is here, and this is a storage area. The reason for the addition to be attached at
this location was that these two warehouses, the existing and this, are meant to be tied together,
integrally, into the facility. The other issue, right now they’ve got an exposed loading dock at
this location, and it ramps down and it goes into an overhead door here. By allowing us to do
this construction at this location, we’re going to be able to overbuild that existing dock area, and
allow that to be tied in to give them still a loading dock, but then also to give it, it would allow
us to cover it. As part of the project also is we’re going to re-side this section of the facility to
match the new addition. If anybody’s really familiar with it, the facility right now, the siding is
deteriorating, and there’s some old windows, and some other problems with it, and they want
to dress that site up. Also, the dumpster areas now are staggered in this location. We’re going
to be able to conceal those and hide those away from the street as well as the adjoining
residential areas by the addition and putting them back here, and there’s three storage trailers
on the property now that are very visible, located here and here. They’re gone as soon as this
project’s allowed. Presently, the setback is approximately seven feet. Ours is going to be wider
than that, based on that layout, and there is dense screening around three sides of the facility.
By allowing us to tuck it back here, we’d give it additional screening from the existing building
structure. I’ve got some photos here of the screening around the perimeter if anybody wants to
take a look at it, and the elevations we supplied to the Board. Again, this is the main view. This
is that loading dock we were discussing. This gives them great access for overhead door access,
and this whole section will be re-sided to match that new addition.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. URRICO-Was there any consideration given to any other alternative locations?
MR. SECOR-We did look at trying to move the building out farther into the property. That
destroyed the use of the existing loading dock area, and would force the owner to re-build it,
which would be at least $10,000 because there’s no way to depress it. We’d have to build it up.
Plus, it’s not going to allow them, if he went to the full 30 foot setback, he can’t integrate those
two warehouse facilities very well. You only like to have an overlap of less than approximately
20 feet, and what we’ve got now, utilizing the loading dock, the access between those two
facilities are on the Duke side of the building, or the overhead doors.
MR. URRICO-And it couldn’t have been attached to the other end of the building?
MR. SECOR-The front section now? If we picked it up and stuck it right here, this berm area,
and it’s now a landscaped area, but it was a pre-existing mound system for the septic disposal
area. We now have difficulty getting trucks back in and around into that loading dock. That’s
one of the big problems with the site.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. URRICO-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. HIMES-One, if I could. This is probably answered, but the side setback, is that going to
encroach additionally from what your building is now?
MR. SECOR-No, it’s going to be farther out. It’s going to be longer dimensions. Yes.
MR. HIMES-Just longer, but still the same distance from the side as the original building.
MR. SECOR-Well, it’s going to be a little wider. The building doesn’t parallel with this property
line with Duke. There’s a slight angle to it. So at this point it’s 7.7 feet, which is the closest
encroachment, or the widest encroachment to the existing building will be approximately 10
feet in the back corner.
MR. HIMES-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-On the drawing, the building appears to jut out just a little bit more than the
existing building in both directions.
MR. BRYANT-That’s the gutter.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Let me ask one question that just popped into my mind here. Would I be correct
in my assumption that your request for this 50 by 50 structure is a direct result of growth in
business?
MR. SECOR-Definitely.
MR. ABBATE-So you’re basically saying that your business has been successful and that this
request that you are submitting to the Zoning Board of Appeals would help to, is a business
requirement and would help to stabilize your organization?
MR. SECOR-Definitely. Right now they’ve maxed out those three storage trailers, which they
lease, which look like crap and they’re a pain for them to use because they have to go out in the
elements to get at them. This facility is going to allow them to triple that ability. They have, I
don’t know if anybody owns horses here, they got into equestrian paraphernalia, as well as the
hardware business a few years ago, and that’s taken off like gangbusters, and also they do have
a large volume of hardware wholesale businesses that require stock to be pre-set, ready for
shipment, which is where they’re having some large problems that they can’t fulfill a lot of
those obligations because they don’t have that warehouse capability at this time.
MR. ABBATE-So this would not only support your new growth, but would encourage
additional growth as well?
MR. SECOR-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-I have a question. What is the height? It appears that the addition is noticeably
higher than the existing facility.
MR. SECOR-I believe it’s, I believe that was, I think we’re about six feet higher in the front
section here. Two reasons, one’s proper access for those overhead doors, but also, this building,
it’s too low for the wrap storage that they’re using. This is going to allow them to increase by
30% their warehouse capabilities.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, for the record, their application, they’re proposing a 20 foot height,
even though the maximum requirement is 40 feet. So they’re well below the maximum
requirement.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there anybody else that has any questions for the applicant at this time?
If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the
application? Anyone opposed to the application? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Would you like to come forward?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHARLANN HURLEY
MS. HURLEY-My name is Charlann Hurley and I live on 32 Patton Drive, and in relation to the
building, I’m kind of across the street and kitty corner. From the middle of Patton Drive you
can probably see the location, but my question tonight was, I wasn’t sure what side the addition
was going to go on, and because I really couldn’t see.
MR. SECOR-This is the existing building. That’s the CWC facility, and we’re going in the back.
MS. HURLEY-So you’re going this way?
MR. SECOR-Yes. Of course these dumpsters now would be taken out. This is now gone. The
addition goes out in this direction here, towards the CWC facility, parallel to the.
MR. HAYES-It’s essentially in the rear.
MS. HURLEY-So it’s on the left side of the building in the rear?
MR. SECOR-It would be directly in the rear of the building.
MS. HURLEY-Directly in the rear of the building.
MR. SECOR-Yes.
MS. HURLEY-Okay. As to the height, was it going to be higher than?
MR. SECOR-Slightly higher, approximately six feet higher.
MR. HAYES-Six feet.
MS. HURLEY-Because my concern with the building now, you’re right, it’s pretty rough
looking, and it kind of, it’s added on to, and I didn’t think it would be good to increase that
ragtag appearance any more.
MR. SECOR-Yes. The intention, this may help you to understand a little bit better. This would
be looking at, this is the front, and this is would be our addition. So you can see that we’re
trying to clean up that siding.
MS. HURLEY-Right.
MR. SECOR-So to give you an idea, we’d be looking at replacing siding at this location all the
way back. These, these used to be old overhead doors, at the infill. These would be gone and
you’d have one straight shot to it. The only thing we do have is the doors and there’s a window
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
here, another door here that, I believe it’s back here. That’ll be left, and the other thing we’re
going to look at doing is that light fixture is gone. We’re looking at a cut off type fixture that is
a shoebox style, which is going to not allow this light wash, and you won’t even see the lamp.
It’s going to be gone. So it’s definitely going to clean up the overall facility.
MS. HURLEY-Is there any plans to do any landscaping any closer to the building to hide the
depth of it? Because when you look at it straight on, it’s very small, kind of unobtrusive, and
then you look at it from the side, and it’s very deep already.
MR. SECOR-There was no intention to do that, mainly because the parking is in this location.
We wanted to save the green space that’s already here now, and the plantings, of course, and
this also allows for tractor trailer trucks to be able to get back into this loading dock area. So,
no, there wasn’t any plans for any additional plantings up in this area.
MS. HURLEY-Okay. How about color of the building, the proposed site?
MR. SECOR-That would be the siding, and that’s going to be the trim. The trim would be that
green that I’ve indicated on the print.
MS. HURLEY-And that would be here?
MR. SECOR-Yes. It’s similar to, a little bit more brown than what you see in here, hopefully to
try to blend into that brick veneer that they use in the front.
MS. HURLEY-Any plans to upgrade the parking lot?
MR. SECOR-No, not at this time.
MS. HURLEY-Okay. I think you’ve answered my questions. I appreciate it.
MR. SECOR-Okay. Do any of the Board members want to see the colors while I have that out?
MR. HAYES-I think that’s all right.
MR. SECOR-Okay.
MR. HAYES-I guess, how do you feel?
MS. HURLEY-It’s not the best looking place right now. I think that those are good steps. I’m a
little concerned as to how far back it’s going to be, the visual impact. If you’re coming down
Evertt headed toward Quaker Road, you can really get a visual impact of how deep the
building actually is, and that would be my only concern. Looking straight on at the building,
like I said, it’s pretty small, and unobtrusive, really, but those are my concerns, anyway, I
appreciate your time. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak concerning this
application? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I’ll begin polling the Board. It’s time to start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Yes. Thanks. I think, overall, I’d probably be in favor of the application, but I do
want to make some points. I think, first I think the removal of the trailers would be certainly
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
something that would brighten up and clean up the property somewhat, and I think, even
though it’s not the purview of this Board, I would suggest that some vegetation be added that
would sort of restrict the view, because you are in the middle of a neighborhood, and I think
one of the criteria that we are asked to look at is will any change occur in the character of the
neighborhood, and as you’ve added on there, to me it seems like there has been a change from
what you first started with to what it is now, and now you’re adding another building on to the
back of it that rises up slightly, and I think you owe it to your neighbors to do something about
that and improve the site lines. As far as the benefit to the applicant, obviously the benefit is
good for everybody. You’re a thriving business, and everything seems to be pointing towards
growth, and I think this would help. This would definitely help, and so you definitely would
achieve a benefit to that. The request is substantial statistically, but reality comes to play here,
and I think when we look at the side setback, you’re not really intruding on your neighbor any
more than you are now. There was no correspondence from that neighbor indicating that they
were upset about it, they were concerned about it even. So I think we’re okay there. As far as
physical or environmental effects, I don’t see anything there, and the difficulty is somewhat self
created, because of your growth. You need space. So I think it weighs in favor of it, but again, I
would emphasize that there would, I think some additional trees, some little additional
screening would probably make your neighbors happier, and I think it would look nicer.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I’m in favor of it. I’ll tell you why, a couple of reasons. First off, the positioning
of the building, you’re really not asking for more relief than you already have. As far as your
feasible alternatives, Staff indicates that you have feasible alternatives. You can place the
building in a compliant location, but looking at what I perceive is your traffic flow and your
delivery and the use of your loading dock, any place you put the building in a compliant
location is going to interfere with that flow. Additionally, it defeats the purpose of the addition
because then your people to go from the factory to the warehouse are going to have to put on
their coat in the winter and so forth and so on. So, I think your feasible alternatives are limited,
and the fact that you’re going to improve on the appearance of the balance of the building I
think is a plus. So, overall, I’m in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I also am in favor of the application. I am delighted that we have a
business that is experiencing good growth. I think all of us in Town have a responsibility to do
everything that we can possibly do, within reason, to encourage this kind of growth. I think
your application is a reasonable request. I also found it quite refreshing that the public came
forward to raise some questions and you, sir, had the patience to explain in detail to the public
what your plans are. I find that very refreshing, and I will support your application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be quick. I’m in favor of the application. I agree
with what has been said so far by my fellow Board members entirely, and I have nothing
further to add. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m also in favor. I think, obviously there’s some benefit to the applicant if he
could put this where he would like to put it, but I think the points that they’ve made, too, as far
as screening the bulk of the addition behind the main building, and keeping it as far away as
possible from the residential areas also has good points. So all told, I think the benefit clearly
outweighs any detriment. I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I’d also be in favor. I agree with what has been said, and I would vote for it.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I essentially agree with the rest of the Board members. I think that a
good plan has been developed here. I think with the improvements in the aesthetics to the
building itself and the removal of the trailers, the placement of the dumpsters, several other site
oriented things that, and the benefit to the applicant of the efficiencies that have been pointed
out, I think that, on balance, I think this is a proposal that I can live with. I don’t see any
dramatic negative impacts on the neighborhood. In fact, some of the site improvements could
be positive, in my mind, in an overall sense, including the lighting. So I’m in favor of the
application. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2003 HENSSGEN HARDWARE
CORP., Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
43 Everts Avenue or 38 Everts Avenue. The applicant proposes construction of a 50 by 50 pre-
engineered metal building addition to the existing building. The relief required. He’s
requesting 22.3 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Light
Industrial zone 179-4-030. Primarily I’m moving that we approve the variance based on the fact
that there’ll be no apparent change to the character of the neighborhood. In fact, the
renovations to the existing building will enhance the appearance of the overall building. I
believe that there are also no feasible alternatives, and, with this in mind, I just move that we
accept the application.
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
MR. HAYES-Was there a contingency about removing the storage trailers?
MR. BRYANT-There was no contingency.
MR. FRANK-Well, the applicant made that offer.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So are we making it contingent on that?
MR. HAYES-No. He put it in his application, so that he’ll have to do that.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Motion is carried.
MR. SECOR-Great. Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-Next on the agenda is we’re going to grant Mr. Salvador 15 minutes to speak.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, after Mr. Salvador speaks, we have quite a few.
MR. HAYES-Yes. I have them right here, seven minutes to approve. That’s why I’ve limited his
comments to 15 minutes.
MR. MC NULTY-And I have some corrections to those minutes, when we get to them.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t have that on my agenda.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Salvador? Well, Mr. Salvador requested a limited amount of time.
MR. BRYANT-Well, he’s got to wait like everybody else, 60 days, or whatever it is.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. SALVADOR-This has been going on since February.
MR. HAYES-Please introduce yourself.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I requested a couple of minutes to address the
Board. Before I speak about the subject I really want to talk about tonight, I’d like to go back to
Area Variance No. 57-2003, wherein the applicant requested, in accordance with Town law
Section 267 A, Paragraph 12, requested a re-hearing. Now, I understand what Town law says,
but this Board is not in the business of enforcing or interpreting Town law. You are in business
of interpreting Zoning Administrator’s determinations as they are made relative to the Town’s
new Zoning Ordinance. Now nowhere in this Zoning Ordinance does it talk about the privilege
of an applicant with regard to 267A Paragraph 12 of Town law, and it should. So that everyone
knows that there is a privilege of appeal. You can’t tell that from this document.
MR. ABBATE-Can I address that for a second, please?
MR. HAYES-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Salvador, it is not the Town who is making the determination. It is
New York State DOS local government Planning/Zoning law guide for Town law, Page 14,
Paragraph 12, which makes it quite clear, and it was quoted quite accurately, in the Staff notes
tonight, that we may not re-hear or even discuss.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m not talking about the content of the basis for appeal. I’m talking about
the fact that it doesn’t appear in the Zoning Ordinance under the Section entitled
Administrator.
MR. HAYES-To allow for that procedure.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. So everyone. I paid $25 for this document, and it’s not complete. That’s
all.
MR. URRICO-You should ask for your money back.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point. Ask for your money back. That’s very good, Roy.
MR. FRANK-Are you referring to the re-hearing? You’re not referring to appeals, correct?
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. SALVADOR-No. There’s an Article in the Zoning Ordinance entitled Administration. I
would think that this subject, Section 267A, Section 12, would be covered in this, where an
applicant, there’s an appeals procedure. There’s a step wise.
MR. MC NULTY-But this wasn’t an appeal. It was a request for a re-hearing.
MR. SALVADOR-Re-hearing. I’m sorry. It’s a re-hearing.
MR. FRANK-Because the appeals section is covered in the Code.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but this specific re-hearing issue, a form of appeal, if you will.
MR. BRYANT-Why should we even allow an applicant, once he’s had the opportunity to have
his application heard and voted on, why should we even allow the applicant the opportunity to
come back with exactly the same application? That doesn’t make any sense.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. SALVADOR-Because the legislature has given we applicants the privilege of requesting a
re-hearing. That’s all, and it should be provided.
MR. BRYANT-What is the logic, though, behind that?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, you’d have to ask the legislature that.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I haven’t seen the legislature report that says that that’s accurate.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, they say here, Town law Section 267A 12.
MR. ABBATE-That’s accurate.
MR. SALVADOR-The legislature has given the people the right of requesting a re-hearing, and
there’s a basis for it.
MR. BRYANT-What is the basis?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, it says here any discussions regarding the intent, applicability or
content of a previous determination or ruling by the Board can only be re-visited after a motion
to do so has been unanimously passed by the Board.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t understand the logic behind that.
MR. FRANK-Well, could I offer something? Possibly that there was some content that there
was a concern over or there was something not made clear by the applicant at the time, and I
don’t want to talk about the specifics of the Kambar case, because I don’t think I should be, but
there was something that he should have done at the time. I mean, there was concern about the
garage. I mean, two people thought that that wasn’t correct, and they actually made that
remark in their comments. Well, he didn’t need any relief for a garage, and so he had a lawyer
appear before the Board a second time to represent himself better. He probably should have
done that initially, but he didn’t, and in hindsight, you know, what can you say. So maybe
that’s part of the logic behind being re-heard. There could be certain circumstances that
happened during the initial hearing that, you know, may be different once it’s re-heard.
MR. SALVADOR-A good case can be made, a good case can be made that if those people take
an Article 78, and they hadn’t gone through this request for a re-hearing.
MR. HAYES-They wouldn’t have exhausted their remedies.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, you know, it really hurts me to say this, but I think that the gentleman has a
point. I think that, in our Town, we should, in fact, address re-hearings. I think he’s right. Mr.
Salvador is right.
MR. HAYES-Well, the other point is, and it’s only my opinion, but if it’s provided for in State
law, we have no business, we can’t legislate. I mean, we’ve got to state, we cannot super
legislate rules or laws that don’t exist.
MR. FRANK-And for the Board’s benefit, something that was brought to my attention, and
since I’ve only been with the Town two years, this determination that significantly different to
be re-heard. That is not part of the Town law that’s stated. That was something that was made
locally by this municipality. So an applicant wouldn’t keep coming back with the same
application over and over again. So I don’t believe that Section of the Town law says it has to be
significantly different to be re-heard.
MR. SALVADOR-No. I don’t know. That should be checked, but I was always under the
impression that you could come back with, if you were denied a variance request, you could
come back to the Board, after one year, with the exact same application. That’s a privilege you
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
have, but you had to wait one year. Now that’s not specified in here. That was my
understanding. I haven’t checked Town law. I don’t know.
MR. HAYES-Mine as well. That was my understanding as well, originally. We had, it was one
year you could come back, but we had lived with a rule for a long time that stated that to come
back within a year it had to be substantially different.
MR. SALVADOR-That was my understanding.
MR. HAYES-And voted to be substantially different. Yes. You’re right.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, anyway, this whole section on administration has changed dramatically
from the last Code we had, with regard to appeals of Zoning Administrator’s determinations,
omissions has been left out. It used to be you could appeal a Zoning Administrator’s omission,
okay. He sits on it. He doesn’t make a determination. What are you supposed to do, wait
forever? But if he omitted to make it, you could appeal that. Now you can’t, according to this.
They struck it out. Nice, huh? They Salvador proofed it. That’s what they call it.
MR. ABBATE-And, Mr. Salvador, there are no provisions for that yearly, but once the Board has
made a motion, whether it was for or against a particular thing, we cannot, by law, re-visit that,
no matter what the applicant says or threatens to do, unless a motion is passed, and it must be
approved unanimously.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I see that, and I don’t have Town law in front of me, but I trust that this
is properly quoted here. My point is it should be in here.
MR. ABBATE-I agree with you. Yes, I think, no, I think, you know what, you’re absolutely
right.
MR. SALVADOR-You said that twice tonight.
MR. ABBATE-I did, because that’s how firm I feel about it. I think that we’ve been remiss, and I
think we should make available to every individual.
MR. HAYES-Not we, the Town Board. We don’t write the Code.
MR. ABBATE-And I think that the Town Board should make available this particular provision
because it is critical.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely critical.
MR. SALVADOR-And I maintain, while you’re at it, take a whole look at this Administration
Section, and it should conform to Town law. People don’t have Town law at home. Some of us
do, but a lot of people don’t, but they can avail themselves to the Zoning Ordinance, and if it’s a
requirement of Town law, it should be in here.
MR. ABBATE-Well, wouldn’t that be more properly addressed to the Town Board rather than
the Zoning Board of Appeals? We have no authority to write Town law.
MR. SALVADOR-No, but if you see a problem, you can make recommendations.
MR. ABBATE-Everything I’m saying is on the record. Everything we’re saying is on the record.
Right?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but it’s got to be, you know, somebody types it. It gets buried.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. ABBATE-Don’t push it.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s got to be brought to somebody’s attention.
MR. ABBATE-Don’t push it, John. Let it go.
MR. SALVADOR-Now the real reason I came here tonight. Again, I addressed a letter to Mr.
Stone of February 21, to which he’s promised me repeatedly to prepare an answer, and I have
st
not received an answer yet. It deals with the zoning district maps, the zoning maps and zoning
district boundaries, and that Section of the Zoning Ordinance that requires the ZBA, let me find
it, Zoning Districts shall be construed to extend into the water to the boundaries of the Town
line, and this zoning map does not have the Town line on it, and it’s supposed to have. The
reason it’s supposed to have is it’s supposed to have zoning district boundaries, and this map
color codes zoning districts, but the boundaries are not on here, and they’re supposed to be.
MR. BRYANT-How come he has a colored one and we don’t.
MR. SALVADOR-Because I paid $10 for it.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s on their website. Pull it off the Town’s website. Get it free.
MR. SALVADOR-Another thing, to show you how confusing this is, I think I showed you this
once before. I would have to conclude, from looking at this document, that our underwater
land is not zoned. There are two blues on here. One is one acre Waterfront Residential. The
other one is three acre, but our underwater land is not in any one of these two color codes. So
could I safely assume that we’re outside the zoning powers of the Town.
MR. HAYES-I don’t think you could safely assume anything, but I guess.
MR. SALVADOR-But we’ve got to get to this issue, all joking aside, we grieved our assessment
this year. We grieved our assessment, and one of the three criteria for grieving an assessment is
that the Assessor has illegally assessed us, and that’s one of our claims. Now if the Assessor
doesn’t know where the boundaries are, she can’t do her work.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but, John, that’s not an issue to be addressed before the ZBA.
MR. SALVADOR-The issue before the ZBA is that, in the event that none of the above rules are
applicable, or in the event that further clarification or definition is considered necessary or
appropriate, it doesn’t say by whom, the location of a district boundary shall be determined by
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. HAYES-Not to stonewall you, Mr. Salvador, but your communications with Mr. Stone and
his pursuit of your answer, I don’t think it would be proper for myself in particular to intervene
on those discussions.
MR. BRYANT-We’re at a disadvantage, because you communicated with Lew, but I haven’t
seen that letter. Where’s that letter?
MR. SALVADOR-I copied all of you folks with that letter.
MR. HAYES-I guess the point is, though, you requested from him an answer. I was here at the
last meeting when he said he.
MR. ABBATE-We did. We received it.
MR. HAYES-He said he was going to give you an answer, and I guess we’re going to have to
rely on the fact that he’ll have to, or you’ll just keep coming back.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
MR. SALVADOR-Would you expedite it for me?
MR. HAYES-I’d be happy to write a memo. Does anyone else have any other questions for Mr.
Salvador? Is that all your business tonight, Mr. Salvador?
MR. SALVADOR-You’re meeting next week?
MR. ABBATE-God willing.
MR. SALVADOR-I’ll attend next week’s meeting.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I really wish you would. I think you’ll find it quite exciting.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stone, is he planning to be in attendance?
MR. HAYES-I presume so, yes, let’s hope so.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. All right. So this is just a warm up.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Thank you very much for coming. Okay. Gentlemen, we have some
housekeeping to take care of now. We need to approve some minutes. We can do this
relatively quickly. I will read to you who was present, and then I’ll make a motion to approve
those minutes, and please vote if you were here, not abstain.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
January 15, 2003: NONE
MR. HAYES-For January 15, those present were Stone, McNulty, Abbate, Urrico, Himes,
th
Bryant, and Underwood.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 15 ZBA MINUTES, Introduced by Paul Hayes
TH
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hunt
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
January 22, 2003: NONE
MR. HAYES-Okay. For January 22, those present were Stone, McNulty, Hayes, Bryant,
nd
Himes, Abbate and Urrico.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 22 ZBA MINUTES, Introduced by Paul Hayes
ND
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hunt
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Before I go to the next one, Chuck, do you want to tell me what ones you intend to
alter?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Let’s see, February 26.
th
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-March 19, March 26, and April 16.
ththth
MR. HAYES-Okay.
February 19, 2003: NONE
MR. HAYES-Okay. This is for February 19. Those present were Hayes, McNulty, Himes,
th
Abbate, Urrico, Bryant, and Hunt.
MOTION TO APPROVE FEBRUARY 19, 2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, would you like to make a motion to alter or
change the minutes of the February 26, 2003?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’d like to note some changes anyway.
February 26, 2003: Page 12, line 37, indicates Public Hearing Opened, and that actually should
appear about five lines above, at line 32; Page 26, line 48, another Public Hearing Opened like
that; Page 23, line 14 and Page 33, line 40, s/b Himes and Stone absent as well as Mr. Hayes
MR. MC NULTY-Now this is the first time I’ve paid attention to this. I’m not sure how often
this Public Hearing Opened is appearing after the fact, but the hearing was opened, and at that
point, I was temporary Chair of that meeting, and I had asked for anybody in favor of, anybody
opposed, any correspondence, and then the statement, Public Hearing Opened came in the
minutes.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-So it should be a little bit above that. In the same minutes on Page 26, line 48,
there’s another Public Hearing Opened line like that, which, if the public hearing had been
opened at that point, should have been a few lines earlier, but in fact on that issue the public
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
hearing was opened at the previous meeting and left open. So it was not opened again at that
point. It was just a continuation.
MR. HAYES-So noted.
MR. MC NULTY-On Page 23, line 14, and also on Page 33, line 40, both those lines show only
Mr. Hayes absent. These were lines indicating a vote, where they’ve indicated number of
AYES, number of NOES, and then below that, the line that said who was absent. On those two
lines it showed only Mr. Hayes absent when Mr. Himes and Mr. Stone were also absent.
MR. HIMES-Which ones, Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Page 23, line 14, Page 33, line 40.
MR. HIMES-I mean of what dates are you speaking?
MR. HAYES-Right now we’re talking about the 26 of February.
th
MR. HIMES-I don’t think I missed any meetings except for April 16, out of those listings.
th
MR. HAYES-It does not show you there for the 26.
th
MR. URRICO-It shows you as absent.
MR. HIMES-I’m sorry I was sick once during the winter. I don’t remember which meeting.
Yes, okay, I’m sorry.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and most of the votes show you absent. It just those two lines on the
votes that omitted you and Mr. Stone. That’s all I’ve got for that.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Does everyone understand the changes in the minutes that Mr. McNulty
has proposed?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right then considering that fact, I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 2003 MEETING OF THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
March 19, 2003: Page 14, line 17, “disturbing the shoreline more off balances is any detriment”
s/b “disturbing the shoreline more than balances any detriment”
MR. HAYES-Chuck, would you like to make any changes to the minutes for the March 19
th
meeting?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I have one clarification I’d like to put in that. On Page 14, line 17, that
line reads “disturbing the shoreline more off balance is any detriment”, and I believe what I
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
probably was saying at that point was disturbing the shoreline more than balances any
detriment. So I’d like to change “off balance is” to “than balances”.
MR. HAYES-Does everyone understand the changes that Mr. McNulty has proposed for the
March 19 minutes?
th
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Therefore, I will make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MARCH 19, 2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
March 26, 2003: Page 57, line 38, “may have made an arbitrary decision, although we call ours
arbitrary”, s/b “may have had made an arbitrary decision although he called ours arbitrary”
MR. HAYES-Mr. McNulty, as Secretary, would you like to change or offer some changes to the
March 26, 2003 minutes?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I have one change on those. On Page 57, line 38. It reads, “may have
made an arbitrary decision, although we call ours arbitrary”, and I believe what that should
have read was “may have had made an arbitrary decision although he called ours arbitrary. So
change we called to he called.
MR. HAYES-Does everyone understand the proposed changes to the minutes?
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Therefore, I would like to make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MARCH 26, 2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt
April 16, 2003: Page 2, line 18, Page 7, line 51, and Page 15, line 9, McNulty referenced as
Secretary, was not at the meeting that night
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Secretary, would you like to make any modifications to the April
16, 2003 ZBA minutes?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Even though I was not present, or because I was not present. Page 2,
line 18, Page 7, line 51, and Page 15, line 9 all reference me as the speaker, and I was not at the
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
meeting. Their response where the Secretary read something into the record, and they’ve got
my name on the front end of it, rather than the person that was being the Secretary that night.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Does everyone understand the changes that the Secretary has requested in
the minutes?
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Therefore, I move that we approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE APRIL 16, 2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty
MR. HAYES-Okay. Gentlemen, if there’s no other further business before the Board, I will
adjourn the meeting.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, before you close the meeting, I just want to thank the Secretary for
making those changes, and this just emphasizes the fact that we need to have support Staff here
following along. We just can’t listen to the tapes and make these accurate minutes, and there’s
going to be problems, and I pushed to have somebody here, and that’s why Sue’s here tonight,
but thank you for pointing these things out because it just re-emphasizes the fact that we’ve got
to have a support Staff person here. There’s just too much going on in this meeting for one
person to follow up with.
MR. BRYANT-How are the minutes transcribed? Are they transcribed by an individual or are
they?
MR. FRANK-By an individual. She’s listening to what takes place and she’s typing away, but
she refers to her own notes while she’s doing it, and this is a reflection of what happens when
you don’t have your own notes to reflect back on, you’re going to make these kind of errors,
and ten years down the road, if Mr. McNulty was commented on making these comments and
he wasn’t even there, it’s not fair to him or anybody else. So I think it’s imperative that
someone from support Staff be here.
MR. ABBATE-I didn’t realize we dealt with a standard of fairness.
MR. FRANK-Regardless, accuracy is what we’re looking for.
MR. HAYES-Before I adjourn the meeting, I think we should make a motion.
MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAKES A REQUEST THAT A
SECOND PERSON IS PROVIDED FOR THE MEETING TO TAKE NOTES AND TO
RECORD THE MEETINGS FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, TO INCREASE THE ACCURACY,
BECAUSE THIS OBVIOUSLY COULD BECOME A VERY ONEROUS PROCESS, AND,
TWO ITS ACTUALLY RELATIVELY INCONVENIENT TO HAVE YOU (REFERS TO CODE
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, BRUCE FRANK) TRY AND DO YOUR JOB AND TAKE VOTES,
TOO, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/18/03)
Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. BRYANT-I think some of the problem is since we went to these bogus microphones. Okay.
I don’t think, right now you probably are not picking up my voice correctly. You’ve got to
really speak right into it. You’ve got to have your mouth right up against it. I don’t know what
I want my mouth up against this microphone.
MR. FRANK-Well, it’s a good point, and there’s been some debate over returning to the wired
mics. I mean, there’s a lot of pros and cons.
MR. BRYANT-They were a lot more effective. It might have been a pain in the neck, but when
somebody spoke into the microphone, you could be back here and it would pick it up.
MR. FRANK-These are voice activated. So if the mechanism, that voice activated goes wrong,
you won’t be picked up. Did you close the meeting, Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Yes. The meeting is closed.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman
49