2003-03-19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 19, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
NORMAN HIMES
ROY URRICO
JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
LEWIS STONE
CHARLES ABBATE
ALLAN BRYANT
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2003 TYPE II SALLY KELLY AGENT: DAVID KELLY
PROPERTY OWNER: SALLY KELLY ZONE: WR-3A, CEA LOCATION: 8 ROCKYSHORE
ROAD APPLICANT HAS REPLACED A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING DOCK
WITH A NEW “U” SHAPED CRIB DOCK (641 SQ. FT.). APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES
TO CONSTRUCT A SUNDECK (945 SQ. FT.). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE 20-FOOT
MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF. SPR 9-2003 ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/12/2003 TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-3
LOT SIZE: 0.89 ACRES SECTION 179-5-050 (A6)
MATT FULLER & DAVE KELLY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2003, Sally Kelly, Meeting Date: March 19, 2003 “Project
Location: 8 Rocky Shore Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has replaced a pre-
existing nonconforming dock with a new 641 sq. ft. “U” shaped crib dock. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 3.4 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement for
docks of the Docks and Moorings regulations per § 179-5-050(A6). Criteria for considering an
Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant
would be permitted to keep the dock in the existing location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 3.4 feet
of relief from the 20-foot minimum setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to
moderate relative to the Ordinance (17%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 9-2003: 03/25/03, construction of a 945 sq. ft.
boathouse/sundeck pending this application (replaces SP 57-2002). SP 57-2002: 12/17/02, never
reviewed because of an advertising error. BP 2002-855: 10/28/02, construction of a 661 sq. ft.
dock. BP 2002-854: 10/24/02, demolition of boathouse and dock. Staff comments: Minimal
impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The neighbors to the immediate northeast,
which are most effected by the new dock, have submitted a letter in support of this application.
SEQR Status: Type II”
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March
12, 2003 Project Name: Kelly, Sally Owner: Sally Kelly ID Number: QBY-03-AV-8a County
Project#: Mar03-32 Current Zoning: WR-3A, CEA Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant has replaced a pre-existing nonconforming dock with a new “U”
shaped crib dock (641 sq. ft.). Applicant also proposes to construct a sundeck (945 sq. ft. ).
Relief requested from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement. Site Location: 8
Rockyshore Road Tax Map Number(s): 239.15-1-3 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
requests approval of already constructed a 614 sq. ft. u-shaped dock. The information
submitted indicates that the finger of the u-shaped slip was existing non-conforming. The
northern finger was to be resurfaced and not replaced, however during resurfacing the
contractor did replace the cribbing causing the replacement to be new construction required to
meet the 20 ft. setback. The applicant therefore is applying for a variance. The applicant
indicated the northern finger is 17 ft. from the property line and requested 3 ft. of relief. The
applicant had previously applied for site plan approval for the improvement of the proposed
construction of 945 square feet. Staff does not identify an impact on County resources. Staff
recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
Signed by Bennett Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 3/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Would you like to identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. KELLY-Yes. Thanks. I’m Dave Kelly, husband of the property owner, and Matt Fuller is
the attorney for guidance.
MR. FULLER-From Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Very well. Is there anything you’d like to add to the application?
MR. KELLY-Well, I’m sorry for the lengthy responses here. I didn’t know you were going to
read them all. I would have made them shorter. I’ve just brought along with me a couple of
surveys that people could review if they wanted to. An initial survey at the time of purchase in
November of 2000, as read on the application, that shows that pretty much the entire structure
was in the 20 foot setback zone, and actually 5.4 feet of it was encroaching on the neighbors to
the north, and then the other, the second survey there is a later survey done in June of 2002. It
shows the similar, same structure, but gives a little bit more detail to the topography of the land,
which is quite a steep slope at the shoreline, and then the third survey is one recently, after the
problems were discovered, and the need for the variance was found, and that showed that the
encroachment is just the northeast corner of the existing pier, and it’s 3.4 feet, but the “U”
shaped crib dock is now centrally located in the 100 foot property line. I’ve also enclosed a
more updated picture of the completed dock. I just wanted to stress that, you know, I spent a
lot of time with Staff members here and at Lake George Park, and I was trying to dot all the “I’s
and cross all the T’s and I took it upon myself to do all the paperwork because I realized the
importance of doing it right, and I didn’t want to put all that onto the builder, and short of
building the dock myself, I put a lot of effort into trying to make sure this was done right.
Unfortunately, towards the very end of the dock building process, this problem occurred with
the failed under structure of the end of the crib, and that brings us to where we are today.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anything you’d like to add? You’re just a co-pilot for trouble.
MR. FULLER-I think he summed it up.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. FULLER-It was just an unfortunate error.
MR. HAYES-All right. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Then I will
open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN MATTHEWS
MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, resident of Queensbury and neighbor of the applicant. I
would like to speak in favor of this. I also agree with Dave that he just has had an unfortunate
situation with the dock coming apart underneath and find that observing his new structure
from our property there’s absolutely no objection whatsoever as far as the visual impact or I can
visualize what it would look like with a boathouse and sundeck on it, and have absolutely no
objections with that either.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the
application? Anyone opposed? Correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-We do have one piece of correspondence. It’s a letter from David and Mary
Carol White, addressed to Mr. Frank. It says “We are neighbors of the Kellys, just to the north
of their property. The Kellys have kept us apprised as to what they are doing to enhance and
relocate their dock. We are in total accord and approve of what they are trying to accomplish.
What a wonderful improvement. We had the opportunity to see their dock yesterday at the
lake and we both agreed it looked much better than the dilapidated structure that was there
before. Please consider this letter as indicative of our endorsement of their project.”
MR. HAYES-That’s it?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. HAYES-I’ll therefore close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I guess it’s time to talk about it with members of the Board. I’ll start right off with
Roy.
MR. URRICO-Normally, a situation like this, we like to have the application come before us
before the work is done, but I understand what happened here, and I think if I were to look at
this as if you were coming to us directly, I wouldn’t have a problem with this application
whatsoever. Taking it according to the criteria we have to use to consider an Area Variance, I
think there are very definite positives in your favor, including the benefit to you, which would
allow you to keep the dock in the existing location, rather than moving it, obviously. Feasible
alternatives, I don’t think you really have any. As far as the relief, if you were coming to us
brand new, I don’t think I would have a problem with 3.4 feet of relief and then given the
circumstances in which this was discovered, I think certainly you have made a good case for
yourself, and we’ve heard from your neighbors. They seem to be in favor of it, and the only
problem I could see is that this difficulty was self-created, but when you compare it to what was
there before, I think it’s a positive self-creation. So, I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in favor of it. I think that you’ve increased the, you
know, essentially when you’re on the waterfront, people are talking about when they’re sitting
on their dock how far they’re away from the next dock over, and you’ve got almost 40 feet
between docks now, you know, minus the three feet that you’re a little bit too close there. I
don’t think there was any intent on your part to screw up a design or anything like that. So I
would basically be in favor of granting the relief. You know, it’s a definite improvement over
what you had there before.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with my fellow Board members, and I’d like to
also add that the information you provided in the criteria questions was very helpful. It wasn’t
wordy. It wasn’t hot air. Everything in here is relevant. So you didn’t need to apologize. I
think you did a great job with it, but I’m also in favor for the reasons already given. I’d support
the application. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically echo what’s been said. You know, if this were a brand new
project, then I would certainly move it 3.4 feet to the south, but given the circumstances,
especially, it’s certainly an improvement over the pre-existing condition, and things that
happened beyond your control. So I think it’s reasonable in this case, the benefit certainly falls
towards the applicant, and I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I essentially agree. Everything about this application is moving
forward in support of the Code, except for the 3.4 feet of relief, and I don’t think that’s
consequential or any real negative impact on the neighborhood or community. I think you’ve
provided us with good reasons to why this happened, and why it resulted, but I think this falls
easily in favor of the applicant on the balancing test that we’re provided. So I’m in favor.
Would anybody like to make a motion?
MR. URRICO-I’ll take it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2003 SALLY KELLY, Introduced by Roy
Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
8 Rockyshore Road. The applicant has replaced a pre-existing, nonconforming dock with a new
641 square foot U shaped crib dock. The applicant, in doing so, is requesting 3.4 feet of relief
from the 20 foot side setback requirement for docks of the Docks and Moorings Regulations per
179-5-050(A6). As discussed earlier, the benefit to the applicant would be to keep the dock in
the existing location. Feasible alternatives do seem to be limited. The relief is interpreted as
minimal to moderate, 3.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum setback, which is 17%.
Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result, and neighbors have spoken
out in favor of this, and the difficulty has been determined to be somewhat self-created, but I
make a motion that we accept this application.
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, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is carried and the variance is approved. Thanks for coming.
MR. KELLY-Thanks, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2003 TYPE II J & D MARINA LLC – CASTAWAY MARINA
AGENT: JOHN P. MATTHEWS PROPERTY OWNER: J & D MARINA LLC ZONE: WR-
1A LOCATION: ROUTE 9L – WARNER BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF A 3,840 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING SHOWROOM. ADDITION WILL BE USED
AS A SHOP AND PARTS BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK AND
PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 3/12/2003 TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-25 THROUGH 29 LOT SIZES: 2.83 TOTAL
ACRES SECTION 179-4-030
JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2003, J & D Marina LLC – Castaway Marina, Meeting
Date: March 19, 2003 “Project Location: Route 9L, Warner Bay Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,840 sq. ft. addition to the existing showroom to
be used as a shop and parts building. Relief Required: Applicant seeks 15 feet of relief from
the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement and 21.5% of relief from the 65% minimum
permeability requirement of the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant
would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred location. 2. Feasible
alternatives: The desired addition would not meet the required 20-foot separation distance
from the existing boat storage building if constructed at a 30-foot front setback. Therefore,
feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
15 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as
moderate relative to the Ordinance. 21.5% of relief from the 65% minimum requirement may be
interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood
or community: Minimal negative effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of
this action. Moderate positive effects on the community may be anticipated as a result of this
action as the parts and service building will be relocated to an area well away from the lake
relative to its current location. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be
attributed to the existing showroom’s close proximity to the front property line. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 93-494: 08/30/93, alterations to building. BP 98-684:
12/02/98, septic alteration. Staff comments: Minimal negative effects may be anticipated as a
result of this action. Additionally, minimal negative effects may be anticipated as a result of the
proposed 2.2% decrease in permeability for the site. Staff recommends considering the positive
effects of locating the new shop and parts building 144 feet from the lake (currently 27 feet from
the lake) when compared with any negative effects resulting from granting the of the relief
sought. SEQR Status: Type: II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March
12, 2003 “Project Name: J & D Marina LLC – Castaway Marina Property Owner: J & D Marina
LLC ID Number: QBY-03-AV-12a County Project#: Mar03-30 Current Zoning: WR-1A
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,840 sq.
ft. addition to existing showroom. Addition will be used as a shop and parts building. Relief
requested from the setback and permeability requirements. Site Location: Route 9L – Warner
Bay Tax Map Number(s): 240.5-1-25-29 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to
construct a 3,840 sq. ft. addition on to the existing 24,000 sq. ft. showroom of Castaway Marina.
The existing and the proposed building are 15’ from the front property line where 30’ is
required. The applicant has indicated that the addition will be used for shop and parts building
as located closer to the Boat Storage. The existing shop is close to the lake. The applicant has
indicated there will be a catch basin installed to accommodate the new construction. Staff does
not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County
Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennett Driscoll, Warren
County Planning Board 3/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Matthews?
MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, owner of Castaway Marina. I’ve owned the Marina for five
years, going on our sixth year now, and it’s been my dream and plan over these five years to be
able to move our shop location to a spot which is not as close to the lake. This is a situation that
we had to deal with, since I bought the property, in lieu of the fact that it was a pre-existing
building and this is where the shop has been for years. It’s a single bay shop. We’re able to
bring one boat in at a time to work during inclement weather, and during our spring and fall
periods, and for winter work it sometimes would be very beneficial to be able to have more
than one boat in the shop at the time, so that if parts are needed and what not we’re not moving
boats out into the weather and shoveling the snow off them and moving them back in again.
My main concern is to get the building and the washing of the boats and the changing of oil and
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
what not away from the shoreline of the lake. I know that there are several marinas that are all
very close to the lake, and we all have our chores in maintaining a clean site, and this I think
will be a very big improvement to the area and to our ability to perform a necessary service to
the community. My reason for locating the shop in its position is that it will fit very nicely in
this unused parcel of land adjacent to our existing showroom, and with the utilization of a
retaining wall, I can utilize the upper level on a level platform with our storage building and
enable us to drive around the storage building in a counterclockwise fashion as we do now, and
not interfere with any structures whatsoever. I mean, it really is in a spot that doesn’t interfere
with anything else on the property. I also, in conjunction with this, am planning on building a
boat washing station, which has been asked of us by the Lake George Park Commission and the
powers to be with the lake. This is something that is in need in the community for transient
boats to come in the area that are dirty and have zebra mussels and/or milfoil attached to them.
We need a spot where people can come and be able to pressure wash these vessels and have the
effluent discharged properly, and this spot will adequately support this type of boat washing
arrangement. I’m open for questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question regarding your washing station. Does that involve
detergents, or is that strictly pressure wash?
MR. MATTHEWS-Pressure washing, basically, hot water, yes.
MR. HIMES-One other. I’m trying to visualize the, I’m looking at the permeability. Up in back
there, is that going to tend to go, runoff in the direction away from the shore?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. HIMES-I thought that.
MR. MATTHEWS-What my plan is for the drainage area that we propose to use between the
existing storage rack building and the shop will go into a drywell catch basin and then go into a
design leach field which will be along the back side of the paved area, under the unpaved
gravel fill area for drainage.
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-My only other question would be, you know, when you design that, when
they do site plan review for that, I know that you’re basically built on bedrock up there, as most
of Seelye Road is coming in there, and I think that that’s a concern as to, you know, the volume
of boat washing that’s going to go on, you know, whether you’re going to totally saturate and
run out, you know, I don’t know what your capacity is up there.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I’ve had an engineer do the design work for me on this, based on the
100 year storms and what not for the catch basin and a daily flow of water based on a certain
size hose running for so many hours a day, and with the number of boats that we are going to
be washing, we found that there was going to be absolutely no problem, and in using a pressure
washer, they use a lot less water than you would normally use from a hose with a stream.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I’ve got one. Your shop now is close to the lake.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-And you’re moving that operation away. What are your plans for that
building?
MR. MATTHEWS-What my plans are for that building is to move the pre-existing public
bathrooms, which are now located in like sheds that are outside even closer to the lake, into this
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
building, I would like to have a single bathroom for public use, and then a men’s room with a
shower and a lady’s room and a shower for our dock tenant use. The public bathroom will be
open to the public during our working hours and the private bathrooms will be open to our
dock tenants with a key or swipe card or what have you, as they are now, and the balance of
that area I would like to make into a rec room for the dock tenants where they can have a picnic
or the kids can play games and stuff like that, during inclement weather.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Good. So it’s not going to be an additional, spare shop or whatever?
MR. MATTHEWS-It’s not going to be an additional shop or whatnot. We may, my plans are to
leave the existing garage door that’s there, so that, if in the event we are delivering a ski boat,
we can back it in there on a bad day and go through the workings of it with the customer before
we launch it and put it in the water, that sort of thing, but not a shop. All the cleaning supplies
and all the grease and oil and what not will be moved up top.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you have permanent live aboards, you know, basically using dock
space there in the summertime?
MR. MATTHEWS-No, no permanent live aboards. We have weekend live aboards, night
people, and actually most of our tenants are relatively local and they will come up on a evening
or come up for the weekend. Most people that come for the weekend will leave the premises
and go out to the island, and actually, most of the people use the facilities on their boat, but, I
mean, we have to have them for a service.
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 the application? Please come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARY ELLEN MERRIGAN
MRS. MERRIGAN-My name is Mary Ellen Merrigan. I am a neighbor of the Marina. I live in
the last house on Seelye Road, to the right of the road. So I’m up on the hill, not next to this but
on the other side. Okay. I found that all of John’s points, I thought they were very accurate. I
think he runs a very good operation. I’m in support of the operation, for what he proposes to
do. The only issue that I wanted to raise tonight, in that how it effects me, is the issue of noise
and light, and I would think that it could be easily addressed by additional plantings of
evergreen trees along the buffer line. So I would ask to consider that, because the road that
would be used to bring trailers and boats up the hill to get to this thing would be along the
buffer line. So there would be some additional noise and light, I would anticipate, from the
additional traffic coming up that road, but I think it could be absorbed by some additional
plantings. Several years ago, when Jean Hoffman owned the Marina, and she paved that road,
we experienced a real increase from headlights from cars and noise of people getting in and out
of vehicles, and the Town had her plant evergreens going up the hill, and that brought us quite
a bit of relief, but there’s no line like that on the flat part of the top. So if that line were
continued, we would get more relief from the additional headlights or noise. Okay. Thank you.
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-Yes. We have three pieces of correspondence. One is a note from Richard R.
Jones and Lynn W. Jones, and they say “John Matthews of Castaway Marina is requesting a
zoning variance to construct an addition to his existing showroom on Route 9L – Warner Bay.
As residents of the area and one that drives by his establishment every day, we feel that John
Matthews has beautified the area that he purchased and has improved this site. This proposal
will enable him to move his existing repair shop away from the lake front. This we believe
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
could only be an asset to the whole surrounding area. John’s concern for the lake is important
to him. We have known John for many years and we are sure that he will only benefit the area
by doing this improvement. I would request that the variance be approved.” And we have a
letter from Christopher Navitsky, the Lake George Waterkeeper. He says, “I’ve reviewed the
application for the variance request for the above referenced project and would like to offer the
following comments for the record: 1. I have a question about the existence of any stormwater
management controls on the site. If none exist, I would recommend the Zoning Board of
Appeals place a condition on the approval, if granted, under Section 179-14-020 which states the
Board, ‘may impose conditions similar to those provided for site plan review to protect the best
interest of the surrounding property the neighborhood and the town as a whole.’ I would
recommend the condition that the applicant shall install stormwater management for the
proposed structure and provide improvements to the existing on-site stormwater management.
The majority of the site is paved and is on a steep slope where runoff flows directly into the
lake. Improvements can be relatively minor in nature such as the installation of an asphalt
berm to direct runoff from flowing down the interior drives and ramp directly into the lake and
direct to a minor surface basin to allow runoff to infiltrate. 2. I would like to find more
information on the proposed wash area with catch basin. Where does the captured runoff flow?
Is there a dry well and what is the capacity or will it be piped? It is my opinion the facility
should be improved in the area of stormwater management to protect the water quality of Lake
George. The time for these improvements is when the applicant is requesting relief from the
Town’s ordinance to improve the facility for business purposes and when construction will be
on going at the site. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.” And we have a
letter from Harold Kirkpatrick, M.D. He says, “The recent application by J. and D. Marina-
Castaways brings to mind a previous agreement by this Marina that a 50 foot green area would
be kept between my property line on the north, and their boat storage area. This has not been
done and I would like this agreement made by a previous owner of the marina enforced. When
this area is checked, you will find that boats are being stored right up to my line and some
debris has been pushed over the property line. Let me know when someone is free to check
this, and I will accompany them to the area. Thank you.”
MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there a letter there from the Park Commission?
MR. MC NULTY-I didn’t find one.
MR. HAYES-If you have a copy, John, that would be fine.
MR. MC NULTY-It may be buried here somewhere.
MR. HAYES-He may have a copy which.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s probably buried here somewhere. That may be it there. Okay. We do
have a letter from the Park Commission, signed by Michael P. White. He says, “Thank you for
contacting the Commission about your plans for building and reorganizing operations at
Castaway Marina. As we understand your project, it would involve construction and
remodeling of buildings to relocate the existing repair and boat servicing operation upland to
new facilities near the current boat show room. This would have the benefit of removing the
area for handling of machine shop lubricants and waste and boat clean discharges away from
the lake to new and improved facilities with improved treatment methods. The project will
make it possible for floor drains from the repair shop to be directed to appropriate treatment
facilities and for a new boat washing de-musseling area with appropriate treatment to be
designed and constructed. Since the project plans do not increase or alter the number or kind of
recreational activities or boats berthed, no modification to the marina permit for the facility is
required. This determination may change if the project plans change so please be sure to
contact us in that eventuality. Through the Zebra Mussel Task Force and other outreach efforts,
the Commission has worked collaboratively with marina operators, marine trade associations
and other groups to address environmental issues related to marina operations and to promote
awareness of the threat to the lake from zebra mussels, Eurasian water milfoil and other
invasive animals and plants. To this end the Commission has established the Zebra Mussel
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
Prevention Participating Business Program which knits together participating marinas,
businesses, and government offices into a public information, inspection and referral program
to ensure that boaters are aware of zebra mussel threat, know how to inspect their equipment,
and have access to washing and de-musseling services. We are pleased that Castaway Marina
participates on all these levels as a point of information, inspection and if necessary, cleaning.
Prospects for improved boat washing/de-musseling facilities offer obvious environmental
benefits. The Commission has consistently supported marina modification projects which
improve environmental protection since they offer the win-win of business investment/jobs and
better environmental controls. Although we have not reviewed the specific plans, the project
incorporates conceptual elements to make the marina a better operation from the standpoint of
protecting the lake and would result in improved facilities for protection against nuisance
aquatic species. The Commission has always seen such as fulfilling important environmental
and community goals.”
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Would you like to come back up to the mic, Mr. Matthews. Is there
anything you’d like to comment on, as far as testimony during the public record?
MR. MATTHEWS-I would like to comment on the letter from Dr. Kirkpatrick. I have been there
for almost six years. This will be my sixth season starting right now, and I have never met the
man. He has never approached me about any of his accusations, and, as of today, it was the
first that I knew about any kind of a buffer. When I bought the property, I researched, or had
my attorneys research, the necessary open permits and what not, and nothing along that was
found. So I would be more than glad to talk to him about, I mean, since I’ve been there, I’ve
done nothing but remove junk that was, in fact, pushed on other people’s property, and I will
do everything in my power to make it look better.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. How about your neighbor, now, the comment on the plantings for the
headlights?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, in the area that she’s suggesting, the lot is 100 feet wide, it is my lot.
It’s woods. It’s a wooded, heavily wooded lot, and, yes, we could add some plantings up at
that line. What benefit they would be and how well they would grow in the wooded area
leaves some inspection, or something to check out, but I know that the hedge that was planted
all the way up the driveway, the hemlocks that they put in there, have grown quite big and
have filled in nicely, and they do go about halfway up that existing buffer to the top of the hill.
So that leaves just a short distance where we do park our boats that would be necessary to plant
some, and I see no objection to that. I mean, I’ve got, I built a berm that goes down through the
woods where I dumped some mulch and sludge and what not when I did some dredging in the
lake, which I had a permit for, and on that berm there would be plenty of soil to plant some
more bushes. So, hopefully they will grow.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Is there any questions for the applicant at this time? No
questions? Then I guess it’s time to talk about it. We’ll stay right in order and start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Basically, I tentatively would be in favor of it. I think it’s going to be
an improvement over the conditions that you presently have with servicing the boats right
down on the water, and I think moving it up on the hill and, you know, I think when you go to
site plan review they’re going to probably scrutinize that as far as where your runoff water is
going to go to. So it’s not just going to run down the bank and into the ditch and back down
into the lake, if that’s the case. I basically would be in favor of it. I think, too, that they will
address the concerns over the runoff because of the permeability issue on the property, and you
may have to end up putting in some, you know, minor traps up and down the hill there, just to
keep it all from straight into the lake. So I guess I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m also, I think, tend to be in favor of the application.
I think the variance setback, in connection with the front setback on the road is of little impact
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
because of the bank and you’re up on top there, and the topography is such that I don’t see that
to be anything but a technical matter with the Code there, and the matter of the permeability, in
total it’s a lot, you know, it’s a lot of non-permeable surface in something that’s almost three
acres, but the increase, as a result of what you’re doing, is like two percent or something, a very,
very modest amount of that, and in fact, again, as you indicated, that anything coming off,
runoff from that would tend to go in the other direction, as far as the permeability factor is
concerned. That helps it also, and I think this comes up for site plan review, doesn’t it?
MR. FRANK-It does.
MR. HIMES-So we don’t need to get into any engineering or any of the rest of this. So, to
conclude, I would be in favor of the application. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, bottom line, I guess I’m in favor also. I would really prefer not to see
more of the building right on 9L there, because I think it may turn out to look a little bit
massive, but as Staff has indicated, I think there’s some very positive effects in getting that
operation moved back away from the lake. So, as a balancing, I think the benefit both to the
community and to the applicant outweighs any detrimental effects. So I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, this is a good project. I think it’s going to be a benefit to the community. I
think it’s going to be a benefit to that area. I’m satisfied that the criteria are being met. I think
the only questions I had were the front setback and the permeability, but I’m really satisfied as
to how you reached that point, and what you need to create in order to accomplish that, and so
I’m in favor of the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I essentially agree. As I look at the plan, my general impression was
that it was well thought out. It certainly was done with several important aspects of your
operation balanced with the site and the effects on the neighborhood or community, and that’s
always a good thing in our minds. I think you generally have positive neighborhood support,
including several comments that they perceive your operation to be, having improved the site
there, and that’s also very positive in our minds, and I think largely, I think any relief that we’re
granting here is going to be overshadowed, as Chuck said, by the positive impacts of removing
your maintenance operation away from the lake, and I’m sure you’re careful, but things do
happen. That’s just part of having that type of operation. So I think, on balance, based on the
criteria that we’re provided for, I think this is an application I would be in favor of. Having said
that, Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2003 J & D MARINA LLC –
CASTAWAY MARINA, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Roy Urrico:
Route 9L – Warner Bay. The applicant proposes construction of a 3,840 square foot addition to
the existing showroom to be used as a shop and parts building. The applicant seeks 15 feet of
relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement and a 21.5% of relief from the 65%
minimum permeability requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-4-030. The benefit to the applicant
would be that they could proceed with the construction of the desired addition in the preferred
location. Feasible alternatives, I believe there may be alternatives, but not feasible or practical
as we can see, the objectives you have are good and this is what’s necessary. Is the relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance? 15 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback
requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance, but again, it’s proximity
to the road is offset somewhat by the fact that it’s up on top of a slope, and some brush and
trees between it and the road side. So I don’t think there’s going to be any difficulty there in
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
connection with road widening or visibility, motorists, any problem with impact there visually,
and 21.5% relief from the 65% minimum requirement permeability is interpreted as minimal to
moderate, but really that is a lot, but the project that you’re on only increases the overall
permeability, lack of permeability by a very, very small percentage. So these matters I don’t
think are of maximum importance, in connection with the project. Effects on the neighborhood
or community. There have been testimony here, in connection with some requests that have
been made, that we might say we would hope that you would follow through with what you’ve
said to meet the desires of your neighbors out there, which don’t seem to be too great, and I
think might be a positive effect to your property, too. So, in other respects, I think the impact to
the community is going to be good, because you’re creating a service that’s necessary for the
area. It’s a service that’s going to do a good thing for the lake in the long run, and where you’re
doing it is about as far away from the water as you can get, again from a practical standpoint,
from a functional view, and the self-created difficulty I don’t think is necessary to comment on.
So in short, I again propose we approve the application as submitted.
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, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. The variance is approved.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2003 TYPE II PAUL AND LAURI ROBILLARD AGENT: N/A
PROPERTY OWNER: PAUL AND LAURI ROBILLARD ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 91
BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 FT. BY 25 FT.
STORAGE BUILDING/GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK, HEIGHT
AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-31 LOT SIZE: 0.14
ACRES SECTION 179-4-030
PAUL ROBILLARD, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2003, Paul and Lauri Robillard, Meeting Date: March
19, 2003 “Project Location: 91 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 14-foot by 25-foot detached garage at 22 feet in height. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 2.5 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback
requirement, 18 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, and 6 feet of
relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement for detached garages per Schedule of Area
and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant
would be permitted to construct the desired structure at the proposed height on a pre-existing
foundation in order to provide for storage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem
to be limited due to the size of the parcel and the steep bank sloping towards the lake. 3. Is this
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 2.5 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum
shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal (5%), 18 feet of relief from the 20-
foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial (90%), and 6 feet
of relief above the 16-foot maximum height requirement may be considered moderate (37.5%)
all relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects
may be anticipated as a result of this action for the shoreline and side setback relief, as the
applicant claims the neighbor most effected by relief granted from the side setback is in favor of
the proposal. Minimal to moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of the action for the
height relief as the structure will appear taller from a lake perspective compared to the road
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
perspective where it would appear to be compliant. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of
the difficulty may be attributed to the lack of suitable area to construct a garage to
accommodate the storage needs of the applicant due to the steep sloping bank leading to the
lake and the size of the parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Variance
No. 787: 10/20/82, shoreline and side line setback relief and relief to build a dwelling on a parcel
without frontage on a public road. BP 7615: 10/22/82, 28’ x 28’ single-family dwelling. Staff
comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant claims
the proposed garage will provide for much needed storage. The applicant claims the neighbor
most effected by the proposal, is in favor of the proposal. The proposed garage would not need
any height relief if constructed on level ground. However, the concrete platform on the steep
bank has to be included in the total height per town code. Even though the height will appear
to be taller from a lake perspective, should this application be approved, numerous neighboring
properties have structures that appear taller from a lake’s perspective due to the steep bank,
and therefore would not be out of character with the neighborhood. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-And no County.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Robillard, I presume?
MR. ROBILLARD-Yes, sir.
MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to the application?
MR. ROBILLARD-Well, that letter kind of says it all. As far as the variance for the height
requirement, from the back of the road, you can see from that picture right there, I’m only going
to be 16 feet, which is actually less than the height that the house is now, which would be about
approximately where that wire goes into the eaves, approximately there, yes.
MR. HAYES-You’re going to be higher than 16 feet, though, right? I mean, that’s why you’re
asking for the relief?
MR. ROBILLARD-Well, because of the Zoning Ordinance, they’re measuring it from way down
on the bottom of the bank.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. ROBILLARD-If you were to take it from like the lake level, that would actually be like 30
something feet, you know, but like I say, from the roadside right there, it would be
approximately the height of the eaves, of the roof eaves right there.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. ROBILLARD-I do have a letter from my neighbor here. I don’t know if I should submit it
to the Secretary?
MR. HAYES-Yes, and we’ll read it into the public record at the appropriate time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question for you. Did you consider just adding on to the side of
the house and moving it that way, because that would give you a little bit more setback from
your property line.
MR. ROBILLARD-Well, you can’t see it from this perspective right here, but there’s a set of
tanks right there for my propane, and there’s also a set of stairs, which I have access to the cellar
and the lake. If I were to squeeze that much up anymore, I really wouldn’t have any, I wouldn’t
be able to get the stairs and everything in there.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone here in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Correspondence?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-We have the one piece of correspondence, from Joseph and Shirley Valastro,
and they say, “In regard to Paul and Lauri Robillard’s building project at 91 Birdsall Road, in
the Town of Queensbury, we have discussed this project with Paul and Lauri in detail, and are
aware of the proximity of this building to the property line. We have no objections, and
support the building of this project. Thank you.”
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I will then, therefore, close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Is there any further questions for the applicant, based on the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Who owns the property on the other side of the road from you there, on
the right of way?
MR. ROBILLARD-In back? John Whelan is the property owner in back.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That goes back to the right of way where the old rail line came through?
MR. ROBILLARD-Yes. He owns probably 25 or 30 acres back there, at least that.
MR. HIMES-A question for Staff. The concrete slab that’s there, would that have required a
variance to be put there? What the garage is going to be built on.
MR. FRANK-Well, there was some discussion about that, and there was also some discussion
about the actual shoreline setback. What was provided to Staff was a measurement to where
the water was at the time that the survey was done, and I’m not really sure if he really needs
shoreline setback, but we put it on there just in case, and it’s really minimal. To construct what
he did, no. It would require a building permit, which, actually I’m not even sure about that.
What it didn’t require was site plan because it wasn’t within the 50 foot shoreline setback at the
time. That’s the determination that was made.
MR. HIMES-The side setback wasn’t needed?
MR. FRANK-Because it’s not considered a building.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Bruce, could you explain again about the shoreline setback?
MR. FRANK-The survey that he provided, actually he provided the actual survey and he
provided copies which he did his drawings on. The actual survey shows a setback to the
shoreline, I’m not sure what time of the year it was, but that’s where the water’s edge was. So it
wasn’t a reference to a mean low or mean high, and I think Jim would be able to tell you better
than I what is considered to be the average. I know that Glen Lake fluctuates quite a bit from
summer to fall.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s probably only a couple of feet, if that, you know, it’s pretty minimal.
MR. FRANK-So, again, I mean, I thought Mr. Robillard was going to investigate that. Did you
find out anything from the surveyor?
MR. ROBILLARD-I did call C.T. Male Associates who did the original survey for me, and they
told me that they take the survey from the water mark at that time. When I measured it, I
measured it in the fall, which was actually several years ago, to be honest with you, and it was,
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
you know, I just pulled the tape off the wall there, and it was give or take 50 feet, a couple of
inches. So, I mean, obviously the water was lower then than it was when they did it in August.
So we’re talking, you know, a foot and a half to two feet. That’s where the difference is there.
MR. HAYES-Is this a year round residence?
MR. ROBILLARD-Yes, sir.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, we’ll talk about it. We’ll
start with Norm, I guess.
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In short, I tend to be in favor of the application. The
matter is referenced somewhere in here that you look at the residences along there and
although a couple are very low, and they’re down right on the water, they have garages or
something up on the road, so you’ve got this thing, and the garage isn’t going to be as high as
your house. I think you’ve got some trees between it and the lake, the water there. If they’re
allowed to remain and grow, then I don’t think there’s going to be any visual impact, and I can
certainly understand the need for storage and the rest, given the situation you’re in with that
kind of a lot, and certainly, it’s a small matter I suppose, but the concrete setting, you know, is
there. You’re using that now, and now you’re going to put a building on it, and I don’t think
that I see any negative impact, and you’d rather have your vehicles and other things stored
under cover than out in the open like they are now. So I would tend to be in favor of the
applicant. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m inclined to agree. I don’t normally like variances for height exceptions on
lakes, but in this case, as Staff has pointed out, viewed from the roadside, or built on level
ground, this would be a normal, compliant garage that would require no variance. It strikes me
that the lakeside, while it’s going to look higher, it’s going to kind of be the same kind of
situation as some of the other places along that area and some of the houses. So I don’t think
it’s going to look out of place. Building on an existing foundation not only means it’s going to
be more economical for the applicant, but also means that the applicant’s not going to be
disturbing more shoreline trying to put in new retaining walls or some other kind of structure.
So I think that somewhat mitigates the closeness to the side lot line. So all told, I think the
benefit to the applicant and, to some degree, the benefit to the community, in terms of not
disturbing the shoreline more off balance is any detriment. So, I’ll be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. When I first looked at this application, it seemed a little overwhelming with
the number of variances you were seeking, but when I started to break them down one by one, I
realized they really weren’t that hard to approve. I mean, the only one that really bothered me
was the height, and Chuck did a good job of explaining where we would stand on that, and I
agree with Chuck on that, too. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’d be in favor of it also. I think that, you know, given the very steep
nature of the site, I live on the lake, so I look at it every time I paddle around there, it’s about the
only place you can put your garage and as everyone has mentioned, not disturbing it and
digging it up again is going to be a good thing. I think that the, you know, setback from the
side property line is a negative, but given the fact that there’s nothing there, you’ve got 97 feet
over to the next one, probably eventually there will be a camp there somewhere, but I don’t
know, it’s the only woods on that side of the lake that’s left. So, hopefully not for you.
MR. ROBILLARD-I was going to just comment that my neighbor, Joe, is the one that sold me
that lot, and the reason that he did do it that way was because he wanted to kind of make it
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
forever wild between us, if you will. So that he always had plenty of room, and then, you
know, I would benefit also.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. ROBILLARD-That’s kind of the reason for that whole.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The only suggestion I would make is maybe plant some trees down on the,
you know, the forefront there in front of the wall, and that’ll lessen the impact of it. You won’t
see it or, you know, whatever color you decide to make, if it’s an earthy tone that’ll, you know,
lessen the impact of it, too. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I certainly was interested to hear what Jim would say about this
application because he’s going to become our Glen Lake expert, but my impressions were
similar, in that, initially on viewing this application, it seemed over the line to me, but I think
that, you know, it’s a difficult situation. I really think that your feasible alternatives are limited.
The fact that it’s a year round residence is probably the thing that swayed me the most, being
that it’s difficult to imagine living in this environment, particularly this winter, and not having
protection for some things, your vehicles and other things. It seems almost a necessity to me, at
this point. So, that’s a very big benefit to you, and that’s part of our test. As far as the relief
being substantial, certainly the height relief, we’ve been very tough on that in the past, but this
has an unusual circumstance of being, having more to do with a technical aspect of the
topography of your land more than you’re trying to build a very high, large building, which we
have worked against in the past. The side setback is substantial. The relief that you’ve
requested is substantial, but apparently your neighbor, and the one that wrote the letter in
support is the one that sold you the property, and if he’s satisfied that you’re still far enough
away from his lot, I have to add some credence to that. So I don’t think the difficulty is self-
created, in the sense I’m not sure where else you could put this garage if you decided to build
one, and I think other members have the Board have indicated that they feel similarly on that
aspect of things. So, on balance, I guess I’m in favor of the application. It seems to be
reasonable. So, having said that.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2003 PAUL AND LAURI ROBILLARD,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes:
91 Birdsall Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 14 foot by 25 foot detached garage at
22 feet in height. The applicant requests two and a half feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum
shoreline setback requirement, 18 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback
requirement and 6 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement for the detached
garages per the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030.
As we discussed, the relief from the lakefront is minimal, with only two foot there, and I don’t
think anybody has a problem with that. The height, the minimal effects of the height variance
would be basically as a result of the fact that you have the cement poured down the side of the
hill there, but as we mentioned, it’s a very steep grade. The neighbor most affected also has
granted his relief to you for that. So as far as the side setback relief, even though it’s substantial,
we don’t have a problem with that either. Minimal impacts would be a result of the creation of
this garage, and as we mentioned, too, it’s going to give you some place to store your
equipment and have a place to keep your car out of the weather in the wintertime.
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, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. You’ve got your variance, Mr. Robillard.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. ROBILLARD-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2003 TYPE II DANIEL J. MARGOLIS AGENT: MICHAEL J.
O’CONNOR PROPERTY OWNER: DANIEL J. AND CAROL L. MARGOLIS ZONE: WR-
1A LOCATION: 134 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AND
REMOVE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,593 SQ.
FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO
REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
3/12/03 CROSS REF. BP 2002-399 TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES
SECTION 179-4-030
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2003, Daniel J. Margolis, Meeting Date: March 19, 2003
“Project Location: 134 Lake Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to
demolish an existing 4,188 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and construct a new 4,593 sq. ft. single-
family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 3.86% of relief from the 22% Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A Zone, §
179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to replace the existing dwelling
with a new dwelling and septic system in a compliant location. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may include constructing a new four-bedroom home within the allowable
22% Floor Area Ratio. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 3.86% of relief
above the 22% maximum FAR requirement (686 sq. ft. above 3907 sq. ft.) may be interpreted as
minimal to moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action.
5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel
History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 47-2002: 10/15/02, open boathouse and 34’ x
37’ sundeck. BP 2002-399: 05/28/02, replace I-shaped dock with new 700 sq. ft. U-shaped dock.
BP 98-312: 06/05/98, septic alteration. BP 97-599: 10/20/97, septic alteration (tank only). BP 96-
706: 11/13/96, replace existing dock with 288 sq. ft. dock. Staff comments: Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant proposes to
replace a pre-existing nonconforming 6-bedroom dwelling with a more compliant 4-bedroom
dwelling. The new dwelling would be compliant in all respects with the exception of the FAR
requirement. The FAR requirement for this parcel would allow for a sizeable 3900 sq. ft., 4-
bedroom dwelling. However, the proposed increase in the FAR from that existing is only 2.28%
(405 sq. ft.). Staff suggests the board considers the benefit of a more compliant dwelling and a
new septic system against a 3.86% increase of allowed FAR. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12,
2003 Project Name: Margolis, Daniel J. Owner: Daniel J. & Carol L. Margolis ID Number:
QBY-03-AV-16 County Project#: Mar03-35 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish and remove existing single-
family dwelling and construct a new 4,593 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from
Floor Area Ratio requirements. Site Location: 134 Lake Parkway Tax Map Number(s): 226.15-
1-10 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to demolish a 1,752 sq. ft. home to
construct a 3,926 sq. ft. home including both stories. This also includes the removal of a
detached garage. The applicant has submitted information on the wastewater system and
landscaping. The applicant requests relief from the floor area ratio where up to 22% is allowed
and the applicant proposes 25.8%, the existing is 23.6%. Staff would suggest working with the
Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District for the implementation of stormwater and
erosion control measures. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff
recommends no county impact with the stipulation the applicant work with the Warren County
Soil and Water Conservation District for the implementation of stormwater and erosion control
measures. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with the Stipulation
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
the applicant work with the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District for the
implementation of stormwater and erosion control measures.” Signed by Bennett Driscoll,
Warren County Planning Board 3/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Does this go for site plan review as well? No? Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Not new construction.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. FRANK-I think it needs to be determined by the Zoning Administrator. I don’t think, by
Code, it absolutely has to. I think, well, there’s some debate. I think Mr. O’Connor’s going to.
MR. HAYES-We’ll let you debate that with Mr. O’Connor, then.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor.
I represent the applicant, and with me is the applicant, Dan Margolis, and the builder, Mr.
McCall. We have a simple application. It’s a reconstruction or construction of a new house on
an existing lot in a WR 1 Acre zone. As the County said, they looked at it. They said there
would be no county impact. The lake, I think, is the asset that you’re really talking about, which
is a County asset. We’re going from a six bedroom house to a four bedroom house. We don’t
believe that the existing septic system actually is compliant. We will replace that septic system
with a compliant septic system for the bedroom, or four the four bedrooms. We will be more
compliant with the house that we’re going to construct, with the setbacks than the existing
structure is. We will comply with all the setbacks. We will comply with the permeability. I
think we’re required to have 65% permeability. We will have 72% permeability. The only
reason we’re here is that Queensbury double dips on lake front lots, or shore front lots. If we
were in Bolton or if we were in Lake George, we would not be required to seek a variance.
Queensbury has an odd definition of lot coverage, if you will. Both of those two other towns
say that you can only 15% of lot coverage, and I just say this for comparison purposes.
Queensbury says you can have 22%, but they add all stories. So in that fact they make the
buildings that you can do much smaller. I got involved in this a little bit late. I think Mr.
McCall actually did the application with the owner, and I’ll be honest with you, I don’t want to
make it overly complicated, but I don’t know if we actually need a variance, and I talked to Staff
in the last couple of days, and mostly with Craig, and I kind of got the impression well, that’s
the way we’ve been doing it. I said, well, Craig, read the Ordinance. Maybe it’s something you
want to separate, you do separately, or maybe it’s something you want to do in conjunction
with this, but if you take a look at what we’re talking about, everybody knows the magic figure
is 22%, when we talk about floor area ratio, and that’s the first definition. I’ve put them all
together on one page there exactly as they appear in our recently adopted Ordinance, and the
relationship of building size to lot size is derived by dividing the total building square footage,
see building floor area, by the lot size in square feet yielding a percentage. Well, if you go to
building square footage, which is the third definition, for residential, is says, “The area in
square feet within the exterior walls of a dwelling unit, not including attached garages, porches,
decks, etc.” Now Staff should have caught this, that this gets over the 22% because the builder
included everything from the exterior of the walls. He also included the attached garage. So
we’ve got about 600 square feet or better, 640 square feet, in this application that we say that
we’re building that really isn’t counted by the definition. Now, the definition isn’t contradicted
by the building floor area. If you take a look at that, that says basically you’re going to cover all
floors. It does say as measured from outside walls, but I think, and I don’t necessarily
comprehend how you do that there and you don’t do it in the other one, but the other one,
which is the central part of the definition of Floor Area Ratio, says you divide the total building
square footage, and building square footage is from the interior walls. Now, in this particular
application, if you take out the exterior walls, you take out 238 feet, and if you look at the
application itself, if you take out the garage, you take out 484 feet. So all together you take out
708 feet that you really don’t have to count if you read and do a strict interpretation. Now
when we raised it, we said, Craig said, well, you can file for an interpretation, or you can
withdraw the application and file an amended application, all of which was, we could go on
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
forever, and I simply said we’d come and say what we are proposing here is very, very
minimal, and I’m not even sure we’d need the variance. We’re asking for a 3.68% variance on
lot frontage, according to very conservative calculations. The other thing which I’ll throw on,
which I’ve been involved in before, and you’ve heard me speak before, and I talked to Rick
Missita, two copies of the survey. Lake Parkway, lane or whatever you want to call it, is a
roadway by prescription, and if you ask Rick Missita what that means, it means that the Town
owns to the point that they use it, and that they have consistently said that’s to the pavement,
maybe six inches, maybe a foot outside the pavement. If you look at the survey that the builder
used in this, it was attached to the application, it shows that there is, on this total lot, 17,761
square feet. In actuality, it’s 18,794 square feet. The deed to the owner begins at the edge of the
road and runs 150 feet to the lake. If you take a look at the survey that was attached to the
survey, and I’ve had that survey changed because I went back to Dick Bolster and said, Dick, or
not Dick, Mr. Bolster, and said, you’ve got to go from the edge of the road, you can’t go from
the pin you did, but you look at his survey, you will see that he finds he’s got iron pin found,
right next to the road, on his survey, not the one that was attached to your application, it’s the
survey on the front page of your application.
MR. HAYES-I guess you’re saying the possibility of that additional rectangle being included on
the plot plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-Here’s the deed that says it is. Here’s the tax map that says it is, and there’s
the survey that’s been done as of yesterday that says it is as well.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that you have new evidence. The bottom line of that is that
there’s an additional 1,000 square feet, 22% creates another 227 feet. So, what we have is an
application for a modest excess of the floor area. It’s questionable whether it is, in fact, an
excess. We’d like to avoid the necessity of coming back again. I don’t know of any negative
impacts. It’s going to improve the septic. It’s going to improve the setbacks. If you take one
survey, the garage right now is right on the property line. If you even take ours, it’s 10 feet back
from the property line. It will be 21 feet, I think, back from the property line. We submitted
with the application, or the applicant submitted with the application, a landscape plan. He’s
going to do an attractive job on the property. So that’s, I don’t mean to throw all kinds of
numbers and create confusion or create issues that are side issues. The substance here is what is
the impact on the neighborhood by the request. I think it’s very insubstantial.
MR. HAYES-What I think we’re going to do on this case is we’re going to proceed. Mr.
O’Connor certainly made arguments that there’s some conflicts in the Code, the definitions in
the Code as well as what the basis of what the lot should be, but I think we’re going to proceed
as the application was submitted. If you don’t get satisfaction, then you can obviously
challenge on other grounds that the variance wasn’t needed, but I think tonight we’ll proceed
with the application as it sits, with the request for the 3.86% from the floor area ratio, and then I
don’t think it’s proper for us to make a determination more properly made by the Zoning
Administrator as to.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the question of the garage is so clear in the Ordinance. I think you are
the final interpreters of the Ordinance. I don’t know how you’ve been reading it. Have you
been including on the calculation for floor area ratio the attached garages?
MR. MC NULTY-We’ve been relying, I think, mostly on the Zoning Administrator’s decisions,
and that’s the way it strikes me with this. I think that the two issues that Mr. O’Connor has
raised are questions of interpretation of the Code, which first should come from the Zoning
Administrator and then if he doesn’t like the decision, it should come before us as an appeal.
MR. HAYES-I agree. I think that, unless you want to amend the application, we’ll entertain this
one as it’s written. Do you guys feel the same way? Obviously, if you don’t need a variance, if
the Administrator doesn’t, determines that you don’t need a variance, which he may very well.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not asking for that determination from this Board.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-But I’m asking for this Board to look at its own Ordinance. You’re the
interpreter of that Ordinance. The Ordinance says that you do not include attached garages.
MR. MC NULTY-But one of the sections you gave us says you do include detached garages.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right. This is not a detached garage. I didn’t write.
MR. MC NULTY-I think that’s back to a conflict and an interpretation.
MR. O'CONNOR-I didn’t write the Ordinance. I wrote a 16 page letter saying why I didn’t like
the Ordinance, if you remember right. Because of those things, but you are charged with
reading the Ordinance in a fair manner. So t hat’s basically our presentation.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? If there isn’t, I’ll
open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the applicant?
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me, just as one thing, offer some pictures, too, that you can look at.
MR. HAYES-Sure.
MR. O'CONNOR-These are the existing structures.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed?
Please come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DAN STEWART
MR. STEWART-Dan Stewart, the law firm of Dryer, Boyagen, in Albany, NY, and this is my
mother, Maggie Stewart, a resident of Assembly Point. On behalf of my mom and the other
people who are here, some of whom are going to speak, we would strongly oppose this
variance. I agree that the variance should be considered as applied for and if there is some
change, it can be either resubmitted with regard to the road issue, I won’t get into that. With
the issues that are presented to you, the five criteria that you must consider, I guess the first is
the undesirable change, and essentially what you have on Assembly Point is you have
individuals who are purchasing lots that are very expensive lots, and as a result of that, it’s their
desire, I think historically, to tear down what had been camps on Assembly Point and to create
homes that are full time homes and that essentially are their dream homes so to speak, and I
don’t think we have an objection to that. There is, the character of Assembly Point’s changing,
but it’s certainly understandable. We would object, however, to any increase in the Area
Variance requirements of any of these homes, because essentially what have are very small lots.
This is about .41 acres plus or minus. You have an enormous house. You have an enormous
house that’s being constructed upon it. Whether it’s four bedrooms or six bedrooms, it’s
designed as a four bedroom home. You could easily put six or seven bedrooms. I mean, there
are numerous great rooms and other rooms which I’ve never heard of. I mean, this is an
extremely large house, and to allow this variance to occur, you’re going to have to consider the
cumulative effect it’s going to have because you are going to have more and more people,
especially on Assembly Point, who have purchased these small lots who want to build these
enormous houses because they’ve invested so much money and the cost of the lot, and we
believe, as full time residents of Assembly Point, that you need to adhere to the Code and to the
Area Variance to prevent houses that are just much too big. With regard to the benefit sought,
can it be achieved through some other means, obviously it can. I live in Bedford Close. I have a
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
four bedroom home, it’s 2500 square feet. I consider it to be large, on a three quarter acre lot.
This is, this lot, under the provisions that we have now, you could build a home as large as 3900
square feet. There’s really no need to build a 4,588 square foot home here. Is the variance
substantial? Statistics, I guess, can be talked about in any way, but I think George Langford, in
his letter, pointed out that what we have here is a house that’s going to be about 18% bigger
than what’s normally allowed, and as residents of Assembly Point, we do consider that to be
substantial, and we do consider it to have a significant effect. There was a point that was made
that we’re going to change the septic system, and therefore that’s a benefit as far as a new
construction. I assume that, no matter what size the house is built, whether it’s a 3900 square
foot house or a 4800 square foot house, they’re going to be required to change the septic system
so that’s compliant. So I don’t really see that as a significant issue. Will it have an adverse
effect? I believe that the size will. It’s going to have an adverse effect. This is an area which is
zoned as a critical environmental area under the zoning law, and therefore it’s an area which
these large houses should be protected against, and finally, is this a self-created issue? It
certainly is. It’s the essence of self creation. It’s not like some of the other variances that you’ve
had here today where the slope of the person who wants to build a garage, I mean, he has no
control over that, or the issue with the dock that was built. He, ultimately, had no control over
that, once he discovered it. Here they have absolute control over the size of the house. The size
of the house is just too big. I would ask you to reject the variance. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the?
GEORGE LANGFORD
MR. LANGFORD-My name is George Langford. I live at 254 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point.
I’ve prepared a letter. Unfortunately I didn’t get it to you in time to put it in the file, but I
would like to read it at this time. Basically, I say, I oppose the referenced variance application
which requests relief from the floor area ratio requirement specified by the Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance. There is no justification for exceeding the current Town requirements for
construction of a new home located on the environmentally sensitive shore of Lake George.
Several years ago, the Town Zoning Ordinance was carefully reviewed and revised to eliminate
impractical requirements which were not necessarily in the best interest of the lake
environment. The resulting Ordinance established upgraded requirements for development of
Lake George waterfront property. The floor area ratio was capped to help protect this
environmentally sensitive region. The need for variances was eliminated except for unusual
circumstances. A desire to build a house significantly larger than allowed is not sufficient
reason for a variance. Many features of the proposed house add to the large size. For example,
there are six bathrooms, which seems excessive by any reasonable standard. The property was
purchased with the intention of demolishing the existing house and constructing a new one.
The zoning requirements were established long before Mr. Margolis bought the property. A
large home, 3,907 square feet floor area, would be allowed. The area of the proposed house is
4,593 square feet, or 686 square feet larger than allowed. Although the requested increase in
floor area is 3.86%, the actual floor area increase of 686 square feet is 17.56% more than the 3907
square feet provided for by the Town Zoning Ordinance. This is a very significant increase for
property located on the lake. Building on the shoreline of Lake George is booming. The old
camps, which characterized the community, are being demolished and replaced by new larger
homes. The Zoning Ordinance already allows very large homes to be built on the small lots
which were originally sized for modest seasonal camps. If everyone who wants to rebuild is
allowed to construct a house much larger than allowed by the Ordinance, the character of the
community and the quality of the lake will be further compromised. This prospect is untenable.
I consider this request to be unjustified and unacceptable. I sincerely hope that the Zoning
Board of Appeals will enforce the Zoning Ordinance. Sincerely, George Langford. I don’t
know if you’d like to have this for your record, but I would like to add one other thing. As far
as this other issue about how you calculate square foot and how far the road is from the
property line, I can tell you from personal experience that zoning has considered the exterior
area of attached garages, covered porches, and everything else on that property as part of the
area ratio, and furthermore, the distance from the road to the property certainly has not been
included with the property in any issues that I’m familiar with.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. URRICO-Where do you live in relation to this property?
MR. LANGFORD-I live down the road, but I live on Assembly Point, and I’m very concerned
because of all the large places they’re building, being built, the change to the community and I
feel like that, you know, allowing an area increase, even above the large houses that are already
allowed, is certainly not an acceptable way to go, for lake property.
MR. HAYES-Would you like to submit that letter to the Secretary and we’ll include it in the file.
Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? Please come forward.
TONY METIVIER
MR. METIVIER-I’m Tony Metivier, Assembly Point on Bay Parkway. I’ll try not to duplicate
anything that the other two gentlemen have said, but in the past year or so certainly there have
been significant changes on Assembly Point, primarily from people coming and building large
houses on lots that at one time had nice camps on them. I took a walk down Assembly Point
today, actually, and took some pictures of exactly what’s going on, and some of these will
represent the pictures. Here’s a home that a developer bought and, from what I assume, this
home is in compliance as it’s being built, and yet you’ll see, from the pictures, that it’s just too
big. The home is massive on the piece of property. It barely meets the setbacks on the side.
There’s no way it can meet the front setback towards the lake, and the zoning requirements
state that the house must be either 75 feet back from the lake or in line with the other homes
along, on either side of it. I actually took a picture of this home, which is not 75 feet back, from
the alignment of the corner of the house next door, and as you can see, it’s completely out of
line with the home next door. So these people that once sat at their kitchen table and probably
looked out on the lake of a nice home that actually had no problems whatsoever and has since
been demolished, now gets to look at somebody else’s house. Okay. Side setbacks. I can
hardly believe that there’s a 20 foot setback on either side. I mean, I don’t know how this house
is passing Code, as it’s being built. Obviously the guys are going up and checking it out, and
yet, you know, they’re destroying property on either side of this. Another house. This was two
houses, one lot, up until last year. Subdivided the properties. The couple came in. They
demolished the nice log home that was there and they put this house up. Too high. To correct
that, they raised the ground up. They demolished their house on a Sunday, and we know that
for sure because we were having a party for our parents that day and actually we had to go
inside because it was so loud that we couldn’t, seriously couldn’t think. They built the shack,
this little pump house, on a Sunday. Supposed to be five feet off the line. There’s no way. It’s
on the line. This is what’s going on, just on Assembly Point. I mean, at what point is it going to
stop? With all due respect to Mr. O’Connor, he said that this is a modest exceedence. This isn’t
modest. I mean, a 3900 square foot house is a big house. Forty-five is excessive. I mean, it
really is, and, you know, if you think this gentleman bought the house two years ago, I mean,
he knew what he was buying. Granted if he wants to tear it down and rebuild, that’s fine.
That’s everybody’s business, and I welcome that, because it certainly is clearing up the shoreline
with septic systems, but keep in mind, the septic system had an alteration as early as ’97, I
believe you stated. It has to be in compliance. If they go in with a permit to alter the septic
system, it has to be in compliance, if I’m not mistaken. So how can the house not be in
compliance at this point? As far as being nonconforming, the house has been there for a long
time. It hasn’t bothered anybody. It might be 4,000 square feet, and, yet, you know what, the
house that’s going there is going to be excessively larger. So what could they possibly say could
benefit anyone by doing this? I mean, if this home here that I showed you, is in compliance,
there’s got to be something wrong with the zoning, because the home was just too big for the
lot, and the same thing is going to happen here. You don’t have to, you just don’t have to
always grant variances because people want them. I mean, there has to be a benefit or
something, and there’s just not in this case. There’s just not. They bought the house knowing
full well what they were getting, and I’m happy that this gentleman is actually going to live
there. Most of the other places people are tearing down and they’re, you know, this other
house, the guy’s building it, he’s going to sell it. He actually sold it and is going to make
significant profit on it. He’s the only one going to profit because nobody else in the area is
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
going to. I mean, the house is excessively large, and it just, at this point, you know, it’s got to
end at some point. If you take a look around that lake, I mean, look at the end of Harris Bay
and what Cantanucci did with that piece of property. I mean, it’s ridiculous. McCall. He has
two docks up there. I mean, how? If I wanted to come in for two docks, you’d laugh, and yet
he has two docks sitting on his piece of property. Cantanucci has three houses, a boathouse,
with living conditions up above that was just built in the last three years, and he has two
additional docks there. I mean, please, there’s got to be an end at some point. You’ve got to
stop giving these variances out. You truly do. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to this
variance?
CONNIE LANGFORD
MRS. LANGFORD-Thank you. I’m Connie Langford, and I also live at 254 Lake Parkway. The
other half of the George Langford family. First of all, regarding Mr. O’Connor’s comments, if
you can count the space between the pavement of Lake Parkway and the property line parallel
to the road, and if you do not have to count the perimeter walls or the attached garage, then I
will file papers asking for my tiny variance to be voided as being unnecessary, and I think so
will many, many dozens of other residents. That is absolutely unreal, and as far as the new
home being only a little bit larger than what was there, it has no bearing on anything.
Grandfathering dies when the building comes down, and rightly so, because then you can
enforce the zoning that should have been there in the first place, but unfortunately has taken
years to get where we are. Now, as to the actual application, I have something I’d like to read.
“Dear Sirs: I oppose this application. Mr. Margolis does not appear to have made any attempt
to comply with the existing FAR requirements. When an owner places a gargantuan home on a
large parcel away from an environmentally sensitive, that’s his business. When he wants to do
it on a tiny lot on Assembly Point, on the fragile shore of Lake George, it becomes my business
and that of everyone who cares about the quality of the Lake and adjacent community. I have
lived on Assembly Point since 1951, and personally have experienced diminishing water quality
for the past 20 years. Lately, with the advent of the “I want a bigger home than the guy down
the road” mentality, the quality of life in communities around the Lake, especially Assembly
Point, has diminished as well. The regulations were recently updated to satisfy the
requirements of most applicants, taking into consideration the postage stamp size parcels as
well as the fact that they are in a sensitive area on Lake George. These regulations already
allowed huge homes. Now everyone wants even more. Each year a few more tiny camps are
demolished, making way for the Trophy Homes. This insanity must stop. Mr. Margolis says
the proposed structure will be an Adirondack style which will “nestle” into the community. An
88 foot wide, 4593 square foot house on less than 0.41 acres does not conjure up the vision of
“nestle”. Webster’s definition of “nestle” is “to settle snugly or comfortably”. This structure is
more in the style of a great Adirondack camp, but the great camps were on great parcels of
land, not .41 acres. It would be another eyesore on the shore, another example of precedent
setting, and an excuse for the next applicant to say “he got his, so I want mine”. Mr. Margolis
says he is demolishing a six bedroom and building a four bedroom home. The plans show six
bathrooms, each bedroom with its own bath and two more baths close to other rooms which can
also be used as bedrooms. Mr. Margolis admits there are feasible alternatives to his variance
request, but says he “needs this type of space to create a family environment” and “wants a
place for children and grandchild to visit”. A house meeting the allowed 3907 square feet
should do that very nicely and have plenty of space left over. He also contends the relief
request is moderate. An area of 686 square feet over what is allowed is not moderate. It
amounts to about 18% of the total building space, which has already been mentioned. As for
upgrading the septic system, that is a requirement regardless of the size of the improvement.
Lake George cannot support this building craze. Assembly Point can not tolerate further
degrading changes in character. Our main road is dangerous – a situation which has been
brought to the attention of the Town on numerous occasions. The more we build, the more
heavy construction equipment decimates the road even further. We do not have the
infrastructure to support the ever increasing number of oversize homes on tiny lots. Of course,
the Town of Queensbury will take in more tax dollars each time another huge home is allowed.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
Soon the communities on Lake George will just become cash cows; the quality and desirability
of Lake George will no longer exist and then what will we have? The Queen of American Lakes
will cease to be. Other municipalities have realized this is a real threat and tightened their
regulations to protect the environment. Keeping a tight control on Lake George area
development will protect the area from further deterioration and possibly even reverse the
damage, resulting in a jewel which everyone will treasure. This will be more valuable in the
long term than extra tax dollars in the short term. The zoning regulations were in effect before
Mr. Margolis bought the property. If the parameters were not satisfactory, he could have
purchased a larger parcel. Zoning regulations are paramount. They set the tone of a
community. Every time a variance is allowed, another non-conforming parcel is born.
Thankfully, the courts are recognizing that this process creates a potential cumulative negative
impact on the community. The danger of this is more important than the individual’s desire for
more. Please reject this application. Please do not allow another precedent setting project.
Sincerely, Connie Langford
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application?
MILFORD LESTER
MR. LESTER-My name is Milford Lester. I live at 110 Lake Parkway. I did not come here
prepared to speak for or against it. I’ve heard enough. Mrs. Langford’s letter is eloquent. It
speaks the truth. It’s time to draw the line and not let larger homes get on lots that are too
small. Please pay attention to these objections. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the
application? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-We do have two pieces of correspondence, in addition to ones we’ve heard.
The first one is from the Lake George Association, signed by Susan B. Barden, Land Use
Management Coordinator. She says, “I am writing on behalf of the Lake George Association,
Inc. (LGA) to provide additional input in relation to the above subject matter. I regret that I am
unable to attend the March 19 meeting. The applicant is proposing to demolish their existing
home and construct a larger home. The LGA is pleased to see that the applicant is planning to
update their septic system and that the aesthetic properties of the new home will be of an
“Adirondack style” that will fit in with the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. However,
having looked at the applicant’s proposed plan it seems that the additional 686 square feet of
floor area requested, beyond what the regulations allow, can be remedied by simply scaling
back on the plan. We strongly suggest that the applicant amend their plans to reduce the
amount of floor space, in which no variance would be necessary. If this is not an alternative, we
ask that the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the request for an area variance for the floor area
ratio requirements. Thank you for your continued consideration of our comments and
questions in the interest of protecting the water quality and aesthetic resources of Lake George.”
The other letter that we’ve got is from Maggie Stewart, who we heard from, but her letter says,
“I am concerned about the Margolis application for a variance from the Floor Area ratio
regulations. The property is located on Assembly Point, tax map #226.15-1-10. I live at 106 Bay
Parkway, tax map #226.15-1-17. It seems to me that unless practical difficulty of some sort is
proven, a variance should not be granted. The requested variance is relatively small, but the
property is very small, especially from the road to the lake. The extra 600 s.f. being requested
will lead to congestion, especially when other properties ask for the same consideration.
Already Assembly Point has had a proliferation of large houses replacing small camps, which is
OK up to a point, but many of these new structures loom over their neighbors. The character of
the neighborhood has changed dramatically over the last few years. One mansion is still not
finished after 5 years—our road has deteriorated due to heavy cement and other large trucks
using the road, which is not even two lanes wide. I oppose the Margolis request for a
variance.”
MR. HAYES-Is that it?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. That’s the end of the correspondence. Mr. O’Connor, would
you like to come up and address?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The one comment I would make, I guess, is that the existing structures,
as you would count them on the property right now, are 4188 square feet. They are 280 feet
over what the Floor Area Ratio would allow, using the conservative method in which Floor
Area Ratio was computed. You’re talking about a 400 foot exceedence from what exists there
now. You’re talking about taking down some very old looking buildings, buildings that are
very close to some of the property lines and replacing them with something that is, we think,
more attractive and should be more pleasing to the neighbors. I understand the neighbors
comments, but in deference to them, I’m not even sure we need a variance, and I’m almost of
the mind, I’d like to hear what the Board thinks, but I’m almost of the mind to ask the Board to
ask for a legal opinion as to the arguments I’ve presented, as to how this Board should be
calculating the Floor Area Ratio, based upon the Ordinance that you have before you, and also
the base that we’re talking about, based upon the survey and the deed, and the tax map that I’ve
submitted to you for the property. I did not invent the arguments that I’m presenting to you.
We did the same thing on Fitzgerald Road. We’ve done the same thing on Mannis Road. I’ve
done the same thing on a number of roads where they are roads by prescription. That’s how
you measure ownership. A Town, you can’t get adverse possession against the Town, but when
the subdivision is laid out, if it’s a road by prescription, or a road by use, there was a 1967
resolution that the Town Board passed for the Town of Queensbury, they took into ownership
only the actual part of the road used. This goes back through Naylor, and I think it goes back to
the Supervisor, or the Highway Superintendent before Naylor, and if there’s an issue there, we
can get a letter from Rick Missita. I don’t know if that’s even an issue, if Staff has an issue with
that. A road by use is what you use.
MR. FRANK-I believe that’s true, but, again, the Zoning Administrator has directed me to the
same as what the Acting Chairperson has stated, that what’s being submitted is what you’re
here to review. If they want to withdraw this application.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I will follow my request and ask that you table the application, that
you refer it to Counsel. I mean, I’ve had three discussions with Mr. Brown in the last couple of
days, and I used to think he was stubborn. I don’t think he’s stubborn anymore. I just think he
doesn’t know how to read the Ordinance.
MR. HAYES-So, are you formally requesting a tabling?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HAYES-I think that’s fine.
MR. URRICO-I’d like to take a vote.
MR. HAYES-Well, if he’s requesting a tabling to get resolution of some of the primary facts.
MR. UNDERWOOD-At the same time, I think that those are accessory to what we’re here for,
and that is that, you know, he’s requesting, you know, I think that we still need to give him
some direction. Should that not come to fruition, I mean, then at least he’s going to have some
time to modify his claims before they come back. To a degree, I think that’s reasonable to do
that.
MR. HAYES-I think if you want to take a polling of the Board to establish some positions that’s
fine, but I will say that, two factors here, one if there is some factual dispute as far as the actual
percentage of the variance that’s needed, whether it’s the garage or the additional property with
the lot, I don’t see how we could proceed without necessarily ascertaining the facts of the case,
and the other thing is we have five members tonight, and I said at the beginning of the meeting
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
that, you know, that if a tabling was requested that I would at least be leaning toward doing
that, based on the fact there’s not a lot of, you know, the total membership here, but, having
said that, I certainly think it’s a good idea to take a poll of the Board members as to their
positions so we can give a direction to the applicant as far as where we all stand. So, do you
have anything to add, Mike?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, I do not.
MR. HAYES-Well, we will proceed with a polling of the Board members, and then we’ll take a
vote to table the motion and if that doesn’t pass, then we’ll talk about that. So I guess it’s, we’re
back to Chuck.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, I think there’s two or three issues here. As far as the application
as it stands now, I think I would be opposed. I’m going to line up with a lot of the comments
that have been made by the public. I think it’s time to say the Floor Area Ratio is there for a
reason. If, indeed, this application does require a variance, then I’m going to be opposed to it.
I’m going to say stick to the Floor Area Ratio. Now, as to the other question of tabling or
whatever, it strikes me that this is a procedural process. I’m inclined to believe that the first
thing that’s required is a determination by the Zoning Administrator of how the Ordinance
should be interpreted and how the square footage of the lot should be interpreted, because I
think Mr. O’Connor’s made a valid point that while the lot lines may be one thing, the way the
deed description and the way property ownership is determined, and with this kind of a road,
may indeed allow him to add another small rectangle to his calculations, but I think that’s a
Zoning Administrator determination, first off, that should be made, and then if that
determination is not favorable to what Mr. O’Connor and his client wants, they have the
prerogative of appealing that decision to us, and then we can act on the appeal, but that’s the
way I feel it should go. So I’m going to be opposed to tabling.
MR. HAYES-Opposed to the application and opposed to tabling?
MR. MC NULTY-Correct.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess it’s Roy.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with Chuck on both counts, and I’ll go down the criteria to
explain where I stand. The benefit to the applicant is obvious. They’d be able to put a dwelling,
a bigger dwelling or a new dwelling where an existing one now stands. As far as the feasible
alternatives, I believe there are feasible alternatives here. One of the alternatives is to build a
compliant home. As far as the relief substantial to the Ordinance, I respectfully disagree that
this is a modest application. It may only be 3.86% of relief, but that is 3.86% on less than half an
acre. To me that is a big deal, and we’ve heard from the neighborhood. I think it would have a
major impact. I think the Floor Area Ratio is there for a reason, and I think it’s, even 3.86%, to
me, is substantial, and this is self-created. You have the opportunity to create a smaller home.
Now, as far as the interpretation, I’ll leave that up to the Zoning Administrator as well, but to
me, the definition is the relationship of the building size to the lot size, and that’s, I think, what
we’re dealing with here. We have a certain lot size. We have a certain building size, and
whether you measure the outside or you measure the inside, I think the Ordinance is there so
we don’t have excessive building on small lots. Whether this is the case here or not, I’ll let the
Zoning Administrator determine that, but I think that’s what the definition to me means.
MR. O'CONNOR-See, the problem I have, the Zoning Administrator says take it to the Board,
and unfortunately he’s not here. Mr. Frank’s here, but that was his comment when I raised
these issues with him. So we get thrown back and forth.
MR. URRICO-Well, if it was left up to me, I would measure it from the outside.
MR. O'CONNOR-But if you read the Ordinance.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. URRICO-But you said it’s left up to us to determine whether.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, it’s up to you to read the Ordinance.
MR. URRICO-And I’ve read it, and this is the way I’m interpreting it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think you will have difficulty sustaining that, but that’s your
position. How about attached garages?
MR. URRICO-I am opposed to the application.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, but how about, would you include, I’m asking the Board, if I might,
would you include attached garage?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think we’d have to ask each individual person. Traditionally, we haven’t
gotten into allowing interviews of Board members when they’re presenting their position. So,
Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that we have to reflect upon what’s going on and what the
concerns of the neighborhood are up there, and I think that there’s no doubt in my mind that,
you know, when I drive up there and I see these new places that have gone up, that they’re
substantially super sized, Mc Mansions from what they could have been. I think that, you
know, looking at your design here, it’s thoughtful. It’s very pleasing to the eye, and as
mentioned before, if it was a two acre wide lot, it would fit into the context of a great camp on a
parcel that was appropriate for it, but I think that, you know, even though you’re still going to
meet the setbacks from the current Code, I think that the neighbors and I think that all of
Assembly Point, you know, suffers from degradation from the fact that these houses are, I
mean, you’re talking a building that’s 88 feet across the front, which I think is excessive, and I
think that, you know, the original properties up there were camps. Many of them were added
on to over the years, as I assume this one was here, too, and, you know, I look at your design
where you’ve got a great room and a dining room and a kitchen and a hearth room and all these
little add ons, and, you know, in my situation, being a waterfront property owner, too, I guess I
could have gone for all the bells and whistles that could have gone on there, but I think that
everyone can be a little more concerned, you know, when you go building your design, that you
can, you know, put a little forethought into it. You know, you can shrink it down some. It’s not
going to kill you to do a redesign and make something that’s a little bit more compliant, that
really looks like it fits in, because the end result is that, that everybody has mentioned, is that,
you know, when you have wall to wall housing on each one of these lots up there, I don’t think
that there’s any doubt that the end result is not going to be what people had assumed it was
going to be, and I think that we all have to maybe give back a little something. In other words,
everyone always comes in asking for more. We don’t very often have people coming in asking
for a little less. We did have a gentleman last year who did alter his design down and shrink it
down somewhat, and I think that’s, you know, a feasible alternative for you to consider, if you
come back to us. As far as what the Zoning Administrator decides here as to what is measured
on a house, as far as the design, I mean it is a minimal amount, 3.86% or whatever it happens to
be here. It’s not that great, but at the same time, in looking at the size of the lot, it’s less than a
half an acre in size, and I think that you should presume that, you know, something should be a
little bit more compliant, you know, think about what the end result is. You can drive around
down on Antigua Road and see some of the huge houses that have gone up there. They’re
beautiful homes. We have had proponents come in and say to us, well, our only concern should
be the value of the property, and that effect for the community is going to be good as far as tax
end result, but I think that, too, we have to consider it is Lake George. It’s a special place, and
we’re all obligated to do something that means that maybe sometimes we can’t have exactly
what we want, but, you know, a slight modification is going to be more palatable, probably, to
everyone.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I have to agree with the other Board members and what Jim has
just outlined. I have been thinking along from the beginning that the house is big, and yet I
look, the permeability is all right, but impermeability is going up, but still you’ve got a pretty
good permeability figure. So I’m thinking, well, what about the Floor Area Ratio. So I always
have some trouble when both of these are before me and one looks pretty good and the other
doesn’t look quite as good. The aspect of the procedure, in measuring, I’m glad that this matter
was brought up, and I wish that, if I had known of this, I could have studied a little before, and
hopefully remembered it, between this afternoon and tonight, what my thinking might have
been, you might not be here. So I feel that, in my case, I do rely on the Staff to provide the
expertise, and unless I might stumble across something that I think, and then the times that I
have that I think that there’s a mistake, I can’t think of an instance where I didn’t find out that I
was the one mistaken. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but that’s, and my feeling is that you
may be right. We need an airing of the facts. We’re supposed to be voting, too, Mr. Chairman,
on whether to table it or not? Is that it, or to come for an appeal?
MR. HAYES-Well, if you’re against the application, how do you feel about tabling?
MR. HIMES-Okay. I think I’ll go along with the others in that air it all up and bring it back for
an appeal. So it’s no on the application, and I’m really wringing my hands about whether to say
no on the tabling, but it doesn’t make much difference. It’s all (lost words).
MR. O'CONNOR-It does time wise. You’re putting us into the fall, probably, at best if we have
to start the application over again.
MR. HIMES-I recognize that. What I mean is.
MR. O'CONNOR-If we table it, I can maybe work this out with Staff between now and the next
meeting and not have a variance application, or have some adjustment of what we’re doing, so
we’d not have a variance application or have an interpretation. I think the Town needs to do an
interpretation. There’s obviously a conflict between those two sections.
MR. HIMES-He has a point here. If he can work something out with Staff, fine, we don’t see it
again.
MR. HAYES-Okay. So you’re okay with tabling, then, is what you’re saying?
MR. HIMES-Yes, I think so.
MR. HAYES-All right. Well, I won’t spend a lot of time getting into my comments. I think
there was a lot of important things brought out in the public hearing, a lot of things, hopefully,
that the applicant has heard and understands. There seems to be some pretty strong opposition
in the neighborhood. You don’t have the votes. I guess you can see that. So, I’m not telling you
anything you don’t know. I guess I would spend most of my comments on the tabling aspect of
it, only in that I feel that there’s enough of an issue here we really don’t know whether the
applicant is asking for 3.86 feet of Floor Area Ratio relief, 2.86 feet of Floor Area Ratio relief, 1.86
feet of Floor Area Ratio relief, or none, and I guess that has to be worked out with Staff, but it’s
difficult for me to make a decision on something where I really don’t know what I’m voting for.
So, that’s essentially why I’m in favor of tabling, in the sense that I’m not sure, myself, what we
really are voting for, as far as relief, in the end. It is clear to me that the applicant needs to go
back to the drawing board, either clarify things with Staff or, as Jim and others have suggested,
make some modifications to the house. Because I don’t see this passing at the current ratios.
I’ve got to say that, and certainly there’s neighborhood opposition as well. So, having said that,
I will make a motion, and part of the reason that I believe in making a motion is that the
applicant could always withdraw the application, and that would, in effect, have the same effect
as tabling, essentially. Right? I mean, time wise.
MR. O'CONNOR-Then you’re starting over again.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. FRANK-Well, if you consider the tabling motion, and if you don’t get a quorum, four
votes, it’s going to be denied. So if the applicant wants to withdraw the application, that’s his
choice now, but if you make the motion to table and you vote, and it turns out to be a three, two
vote, that’s not a quorum and essentially it’s going to be denied.
MR. O'CONNOR-No action.
MR. HAYES-The tabling would be, the tabling motion would be a No Action.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it would still be on the table.
MR. FRANK-All right.
MR. O'CONNOR-It still would be tabled, unless you had a motion, you’d have to have another
motion. The problem here is also, and I partially got involved in this, I’m also doing one with
the Ramada Inn, and the same problems with measurement are there, and you look at the
bottom part of that Section, and I just couldn’t get Staff to take a position to even file an appeal.
They’re saying the Board has traditionally done something. I kind of asked what has the Board
traditionally done? And maybe the Town Board has to change the Ordinance, but in the
commercial ones, they don’t count common hallways, and, you know, I said, okay, we’ll do it
that way. That’s not in there.
MR. HAYES-Well, I guess to clear the air, we can make motions and see what carries and what
doesn’t, and then I’m not sure, we might have to get an interpretation of what that means, but
I’m not sure. I have to say that. If we don’t get a motion in either direction, then Mr. O’Connor
will have to appeal that. So, anyway, getting back to the case at hand here, I’ll make a motion
that we table Area Variance No. 16-2003.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2003 DANIEL J. & CAROL L. MARGOLIS,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes:
Tabling it with the request that the Town Staff make a determination as to what is included,
specifically, what is the criteria for determining the building floor area so we can arrive at a
ratio, one, and, two, determining what is the lot square footage based on a determination of a
road by prescription, road by use, versus a Town road. We basically need both sides of the
equation clarified, what is the dividing number and what is the number to be divided into, at
this point.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
MR. HAYES- I think we’ll live with that determination and Mr. O’Connor can appeal that if he
wants, but I certainly think that we’ll live by that determination.
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is not carried. Procedurally, I’ll make a motion that we deny the
tabling motion. Do I have a second?
MR. URRICO-I second.
MOTION TO DENY THE TABLING MOTION FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2003
DANIEL J. & CAROL L. MARGOLIS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Roy Urrico:
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty
NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-That motion doesn’t carry. So, unfortunately, we’re at a situation where we do
not have a motion that has carried, which means I guess the application is still pending?
MR. O'CONNOR-By operation of law my interpretation would be, and you may have other
interpretations, but my understanding would be that the application is de facto tabled. You
have not taken action.
MR. MC NULTY-We haven’t voted on the application. We’ve only voted on tabling, and the
tabling failed.
MR. HAYES-That’s true.
MR. MC NULTY-So your next step, you could go for a motion on the application itself.
MR. HAYES-That’s true. If someone wants to make a motion on the application as it stands, we
did not successfully table the application. So, would someone like to make a motion?
MR. O'CONNOR-I would respectfully withdraw the application, Mr. Chairman, if you’re not
going to table it, and not give him a fair shot at it. That’s the only thing he can do. I don’t want
to be prejudiced for a period of a year of resubmitting, which I understand is the penalty,
without change of circumstance.
MR. HAYES-The application is withdrawn.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2003 TYPE II KATHARINE SEELYE AGENT: DENNIS MAC
ELROY PROPERTY OWNER: KATHARINE SEELYE ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 14
CROOKED TREE DRIVE, OFF ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
A 160 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE 75 FT. SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF.
AV 29-2001 DECK ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
3/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2003, Katharine Seelye, Meeting Date: March 19, 2003
“Project Location: 14 Crooked Tree Drive, off Route 9L Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 160 sq. ft. addition to the existing single-family dwelling.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 16 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 75-foot
minimum requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-3A Zone,
§179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition
in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due
to the entire structure being within 75 feet of the shoreline. 3. Is this relief substantial relative
to the Ordinance?: 16 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement
may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the ordinance (21.3%). 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal negative effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty
may be attributed to the location of the dwelling on the parcel. Parcel History
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 29-2001: 06/20/01, shoreline setback relief for a 276
sq. ft. deck. AV 29-2001: 05/16/01, tabled until 06/20/01 due to a no action vote. BP 2001-134: L-
shaped deck. BP 93623: 10/15/93, T-shaped dock. BP 89780: 10/03/89, foundation repair and
replacement. Staff comments: Minimal negative impacts may be anticipated as a result of this
action. The proposed addition will only be used for storage, laundry and access to the
basement. Additionally, a new septic system will be installed should this application be
approved. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12,
2003 Project Name: Seelye, Katharine Owner: Katharine Seelye ID Number: QBY-03-AV-17
County Project#: Mar03-39 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes the construction of a 160 sq. ft. addition to the existing single-
family dwelling. Relief requested from the 75 ft. shoreline setback requirement. Site Location:
14 Crooked Tree Drive, off Route 9L Tax Map Number(s): 239.15-1-10 Staff Notes: Area
Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 160 sq. ft. addition to an existing non-
conforming dwelling. The existing home is located 33-39 ft. from the shoreline where 75 ft. is
required. The addition will be located 59’ from the shore but will be consistent with the existing
home. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county
impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennett F.
Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 3/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. It’s all yours.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. My name is Dennis MacElroy. I’m with Environmental Design,
representing the owner and applicant, Katharine Seelye, seated to my right, and we’re here for
an Area Variance for setback relief from the shoreline setback on a property that is off of Route
9L, west of Dunham’s Bay. It’s a lakefront property, approximately a third of an acre. I just
wanted to say I heard Mr. O’Connor say he had a simple application, and I think this one may
qualify for that. Hopefully. I want to explain a little of the history of action on the property.
Because it really was all one project at one time, and it got somewhat derailed, because of this
addition. In 2001, the applicant had applied for a deck and an addition. When it was
determined that the addition would trigger the requirement for a septic system upgrade, that
portion of the project was pulled. They proceeded with the deck, and that was eventually
obtained, the variance for required for the existing open deck as shown on the plan. This
addition involves living space. Therefore triggered the requirement for a septic system
compliance, or in this case an upgrade. I got involved with the project about a year ago, and we
went through that process and had obtained a variance from the Board of Health for the
proposed location proposed system as shown on the plan. We’re now back in the process, as far
as the Area Variance with this addition. It’s a 10 by 16 single story addition to the existing
structure with a basement area below it. That basement area will extend slightly under the
existing structure. There is no real foundation or basement area below the existing structure.
This addition would allow for the winterizing of the water system. There’s an existing well that
comes into the crawl space area. The house really doesn’t allow for easy use. The water really
is shut off in the fall, and because of that, the use of the property is not as year round as it could
be, or as the owner would desire it to be. So by having the basement area within the
foundation, mechanical systems can be placed in that winterized area and the living space
above it would used simply for access to that basement area, storage and a conversion or the
relocation of the laundry, washer/dryer that’s currently in place in the house. I wanted to say
that this house has been there in place since the 1880’s. Somewhere along the line zoning came
into place, and, this being a Waterfront Residential Three-A, a 75 foot setback, shoreline setback
is required. The entire house, as it exists and has existed for some time, lies within that 75 foot
or closer to the lake than 75 foot. There really isn’t any location on the house that the addition
could be placed that would, that a variance, a setback variance would not be required. So,
we’re in a bit of a pickle, as far as placing any improvement of this nature on the house, and this
really, from a construction standpoint, and from an access standpoint, is the logical location. So,
that’s my spiel.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Anything you’d like to add, Mrs. Seelye?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
KATHARINE SEELYE
MRS. SEELYE-No.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions from the Board members for the applicant or her agent?
MR. URRICO-I’m just trying to recall, this was granted two years ago? There was a setback
granted two years ago. Right?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I wasn’t involved with that at the time.
MR. HAYES-Was that the deck?
MR. MAC ELROY-For the deck.
MR. HAYES-Is it covered?
MRS. SEELYE-No.
MR. HAYES-Just a deck. Okay. No other questions for the applicant at this time? If there isn’t,
I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the application?
Anyone opposed? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. It’s from a Barry and Mark Handleman. They
say, “In regards to the referenced variance request for our neighboring property on Crooked
Tree Drive we would like your Board to know that we have no objection to the proposed
addition. We own the property immediately to the east of Ms. Seelye and therefore have the
most direct exposure to her planned expansion. We have been in contact with Ms Seelye
through her engineer, Dennis MacElroy and have been sent the application documents
including the site plan. It is our understanding that a new septic system will be part of the
building approval process. Based on our review of the documents and our discussions with Mr.
MacElroy, we are satisfied that the house addition will have no significant impact on the
character or conditions of the neighborhood. Thank you for your efforts.”
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I will now close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And we will poll the Board members. I believe it’s back to starting with Roy.
MR. URRICO-I don’t have a problem with this application. I think, it seems fairly simple to me,
and I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we tried to work this out two years ago, it didn’t work out,
but this time I think it’s a go ahead deal for you. I think that, you know, given the fact that it’s
WR-3 and you’ve got to be 75 foot back, you know, if it was WR-1 it wouldn’t be any big deal at
all. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I guess the thing that keeps popping into my head here, it’s a big
laundry room. What I was thinking, I wonder, I thought I heard, saw on the notes here that
you’re going to have a basement under it, you mentioned, for equipment and so forth, for the
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
year round water use. The room itself is 10 by 16. So I’m thinking perhaps not your plans but
some future owner that maybe that becomes a bedroom. It’s a 1600 plus some odd square foot
place. So this is what impacts me a little bit, and I’m concerned that a laundry room doesn’t
need to be that big, and I’m not saying that it is your intention, but, representing the Code and
all, I’m looking at it as being, how can I say yes to that. Would you like to comment on that
before I, where I don’t know if it, it’s not time for comment now. So I guess I would have to
say.
MR. HAYES-Well, if it’s part of what determines your viewpoint, you’re entitled to ask a
question.
MR. HIMES-Well, all right. Go ahead, if.
MR. MAC ELROY-Let me just say briefly, and then Kit will respond better. I included within
the application’s material a simple floor plan to that first floor, with some indication of what
that space is, and then also the sectional detail of the plan indicates, not only laundry, and that’s
really the movement of the washer/dryer from an existing closet into a more useable space, but
storage and access to the basement below, a stairway that accesses that area below, and that’s
really why this now qualifies as living space. So Kit informed me just this evening, in more
detail, what the floor plan of that area would be, and if that helps clear your concern about that,
it certainly isn’t planned to be a bedroom now or at any time in the future, but we’ll let Kit
respond.
MRS. SEELYE-I don’t know if you have this drawing, but if you can see on the, it actually, half
of that is storage off the deck for chairs and the grill and those kinds of things, and then, so it’s
really only half of this, and then much of that is taken up with the stairwell, which goes down,
and then if you have the picture, you’ll see the kerosene tank is also going to be in that part of
the room. So all that’s left in there is a pretty narrow.
MR. HIMES-Are there going to be windows?
MRS. SEELYE-Well, I’d like probably a skylight, to have some light.
MR. HIMES-Yes, it would look better with them, I agree. All right. If we could put in a
condition that it would never be used as a bedroom, or a living space, I’ll go along with the
application.
MRS. SEELYE-Yes, no, I wouldn’t consider it living space.
MR. MAC ELROY-By the definition, it does, and that may be why we’re here in the first place.
MR. HIMES-Well, that it won’t be used for an additional bedroom.
MR. MAC ELROY-Fine.
MRS. SEELYE-Yes.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Then with that, I would support the application.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-It seems like a reasonable proposal to me. I’m going to be in favor. One
comment on the bedroom issue, of course there’s no way the Town can make sure that
somebody doesn’t use an empty room as a bedroom, in effect, but by definition, this is not a
bedroom. It doesn’t have a closet. In New York State, if it doesn’t have a closet, it’s not a
bedroom. If you build a closet, you’ve got to get a permit. You’ve got to prove that your septic
system is capable of accommodating that extra bedroom. So, given its size, I’m comfortable that
it’s probably not going to become a bedroom, at least on a regular basis, and I’ll be in favor.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Yes. I guess the issue of bedroom ability would boil down to
inspections, and we all know how everybody feels about inspections right now, so, they’re not a
popular thing, but I guess in general I opposed the applicant’s original application for the deck
toward the lake because I felt that, as the applicant’s agent pointed out, this whole facility was
already within the setback requirements, understanding that the 3A zone has a generous
setback, but this piece of relief does not trouble me. It’s not close to the lake, by comparison to
the other houses. It’s not a further intrusion toward the CEA. I don’t think it’s large enough
that I feel it’s going to block or create a view shed issue for people behind the property, which is
always an issue on lakefront properties when there’s things behind there. So I think the relief is
pretty, I think it’s minimal, and I don’t think there would really be any negative effects on the
neighborhood or community by this action. So, you know, the difficulty, I think in a sense, is
self-created, in the sense that you want your laundry room, but the rest of the test I think I’m
okay. So I would be in favor of the application. Having said that, would someone like to make
a motion?
MR. HIMES-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2003 KATHARINE SEELYE, Introduced
by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
14 Crooked Tree Drive, off Route 9L. The applicant proposes construction of a 160 square foot
addition to the existing single family dwelling. The applicant requests 16 feet of shoreline
setback relief from the 75 foot minimum requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk
Requirements for the WR-3A zone, 179-4-030. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would
be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives,
well there probably really aren’t any for any practical sense. Is the relief substantial to the
Ordinance? 16 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback may be interpreted as
minimal. Effects on the neighborhood and community. There isn’t going to be any negative
impact to either the neighborhood or the community as far as I can see. In view of these
considerations, I move that we approve the application as submitted.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is carried and the variance is approved.
MRS. SEELYE-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2003 TYPE II STEWART’S SHOP AGENT: N/A PROPERTY
OWNER: STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION: 977 STATE ROUTE
149 APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF CURRENT TWO-PUMP GASOLINE
ISLAND WITH A 24 FT. BY 32 FT. CANOPY TO THREE PUMPS AND A 20 FT. BY 60 FT.
CANOPY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE NC-1A
ZONE AND THOSE OF THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/12/03 CROSS REF. SPR FILE NO. 35-
1989 TAX MAP NO. 266.03-1-11 LOT SIZE: 1.82 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 AND 179-4-
060 C
BRANDON MEYERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2003, Stewart’s Shop, Meeting Date: March 19, 2003
“Project Location: 977 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
expansion of the existing two-pump gasoline island, with a 24’ x 32’ canopy, to three pumps
and a 20’ x 60’ canopy. Relief Required: Applicant requests 48.75 feet of relief from the 75-foot
minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overly Zone per §179-4-060(C).
Additionally, the applicant seeks 26.67 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback
requirement for the State Route 9L frontage and 23.75 feet of relief from the 50-foot 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. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to expand the existing covered gasoline island in the preferred location. 2. Feasible
alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to
the Ordinance?: The relief requested from the front setback requirements for both frontages
and for the setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone when combined may be
interpreted as substantial relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated, as a result of this
action, as it appears on site traffic flow around the pumps will become more difficult. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed to the location of the building
on the parcel, which limits locating the desired structure in a compliant location. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 35-89 Modification: 03/25/03, pending this
application. 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: Moderate
effects may be anticipated as a result of this action, as it appears the on site traffic flow around
the pumps will become more difficult compared with the already less than ideal traffic flow
around the pumps. The effects may be even more substantial should the New York State
Department of Transportation utilize the remaining 15 feet of the north side of the State Route
149 Right-of-way as part of their current project. The Town of Queensbury has not received any
definitive plans for this section of State Route 149. The applicant was directed to explore the
state’s plans to reveal any potential impacts on the site. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12,
2003 Project Name: Stewart’s Shop Owner: Stewart’s Shops Corp. ID Number: QBY-03-AV-
18 County Project#: Mar03-40 Current Zoning: NC-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes expansion of current two-pump gasoline island with a 24 ft.
by 32 ft. canopy to three pumps and a 20 ft. by 60 ft. canopy. Relief requested from the setback
requirements of the NC-1A zone and those of the travel corridor overlay zone. Site Location:
977 State Route 149 Tax Map Number(s): 266.03-1-11 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The
applicant proposes to construct a 20’ x 60’ gas canopy and two additional gas islands. The
canopy does not meet the required setback from Ridge Road or Route 149 where 23’ +/-, 26’ +/-
is proposed and 50’ is required. The applicant has indicated that the site will be reconfigured to
accommodate better traffic flow. The information submitted details the layout of the new gas
pumps and some landscaping information. Staff does not identify an impact on county
resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No
County Impact” Signed by Bennett Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board, 3/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. MEYERS-Thank you. My name is Brandon Meyers, and I’m with Stewart’s Ice Cream
Company. I’ve been with the Company now for about 15 years, and in my time with Stewart’s
I’ve seen a lot of changes. We’re in a continuous process of change, whether it’s our floor plan
layout in our stores to our warehouse, how we distribute our products to our sites. I mean,
every area, at all times, is under a continuous review and improvement. I’m sure that all of
you, as I have, have sat behind one behind another car at an island like we what we have here at
this site, where you cannot get around, if there’s someone in front in front of you, you’re either
backing up and pulling around or vice versa, and very simply, this project proposal here is to
solve a problem. We have been here since 1989. It’s, as you can see from this existing site plan
behind me, it’s one canopy, two pumps, one island, and they’re in series. It’s taken us awhile,
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
but we’ve finally come around to figuring out that our pumps in parallel work better. A lot
better, and they allow us to alleviate that back up and pull around when you have it in series.
So that’s what we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to deal with seasonal peaks at this site, and
we’re trying to deal with peaks during the daytime, you know, the course of a day here with
our business, and take those constriction points out and simplify internal flow and make it more
logical. Unfortunately, it requires a variance here. It’s expensive and it requires a variance, but
that’s what we’re here for. To do t this, to spread the pumps out into three, one of the questions
was, in the criteria here, is have we looked at other alternatives, and I’d like to just take a look at
the plans. There aren’t a lot of alternatives to solve this problem, but as you can see on this
sheet here, the purple, which (lost words) an island, the second island constructed in the
location (lost words) in black, and we can do the same thing on this side, but what we’re trying
to accomplish here is this alignment basically is the hypotenuse of this triangle. This is our
greatest distance here. We’re trying to work with the greatest horizontal distance for our pump
location. So that’s why want to expand on this triangle, this hypotenuse versus put something
like over here or over here, because the back up and maneuvering from our parking then would
be in direct conflict with an island, second or third island in either of those locations. So we
have looked at other alternatives, and what we’ve come around to, from the standpoint of flow
on this site, let me just flip this up, is the proposal that we’re here for tonight, which is the 20 by
60 canopy, basically long and narrow, a long and narrow canopy with the six pumping points
now, versus four. We presently have two pumps, there’s four points. Now we have three, so
that’s three times two is six points, but they’re in parallel with each other. So the purple would
be the flow of a car, a vehicle, and the black I’m trying to represent would be a vehicle parked at
the those islands, and we’ve done this now at two locations, have approval at two other
locations where we had to go through the same process, apply for a variance, and we basically
created the same thing. We’ve found that the circulation does improve quite a bit, and that’s
what I’m trying to illustrate in purple here is that you don’t have someone forced to go out and
around another person in front of you. So you have, choking points aren’t created here at the
front door, etc.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you still going to have a by-pass in front of the doors there?
MR. MEYERS-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-For traffic to flow.
MR. MEYERS-Yes, and that dimension has actually proven to work out over the years very
well. It’s just enough so that if there’s a car at that island, there’s enough room to cross.
MR. URRICO-Is it going to be any closer to the front door than it is now?
MR. MEYERS-No. I think it’s exactly the same. I think that dimension should be nearly exactly
the same, and this blue outline is the existing canopy, and what I’ve darkened in here with a
darker marker, actually I’m out a little too far, is the proposed canopy. So it’s clearly one on top
of the other, where existing is. The second here and third here. These lines, by the way, reflect
the 75 foot corridor and they reflect the 50 foot setback. Just to put that in perspective on how
that impacts us. So what I’m saying here is that this variance request, we looked at all the
options, is the minimum. We cannot meet the setback to solve our problem here. We just can’t
do it. So it’s the minimum we need to solve what we see as a problem peak times, etc. Now, I
did receive, I just received information from the DOT, actually it was faxed in to me I think last
night. Every engineer that had worked on the 149 project that stopped further to the west of us
had actually moved on out of the State DOT. So I had a little trouble getting the information.
There are improvements here planned, and this is important, because obviously we’re asking
for two things. We’re asking for the relief for the 50 foot setback for the building. This is a
canopy. We’re asking relief for the 75 foot corridor overlay district of 48 feet, but, I think that
the big issue is what’s the context of that. So that’s why we’re trying to find out what DOT has
planned. We did find out, I’ve given a copy to Bruce, and long term, or some time in the near
future, well, I should say this, there’s a plan on the boards right now, when it’ll happen no one
knows, but the right of way taking will be about eight feet from existing. So, we’re comfortable
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
with that, in terms of where would our facility be now in relation to that proposed DOT
expansion, and we’re comfortable where that would fall in here. So eight feet of taking, so we
still have a green strip between our proposed edge of paving and the new DOT right of way.
That brings me around to the landscaping issue now. This site, even with this change, we still
have well over, I’m thinking just over 60% green space. Now the area in the front of the
property, the green space, would diminish. Obviously, we’re bringing our paving out toward
the intersection, but I think that the way to mitigate or hopefully mitigate some of your concern
in terms of granting us the relief is that we really landscaped this in an intensive way and make
it a quality space. I don’t know if the Code, your Code talks about quality or intensive as some
do, but what we’re showing on our plan here is our attempt to create that, and we can create it
both with smaller shrubs and taller trees as well. Now the question is, is this self-created. Well,
you know, we’ve grown here since ’89. We’ve been successful here. To say it’s self-created, I
guess you’d have to blame the problem on our success in terms of serving our customers, and in
terms of our service our value in what we do sell, and I’d like to, of course, ask that the solution
here is us asking for the variance and grow with our success. This is about serving our
customers better. I’ve got a sheet here, and I just want to run through quickly the estimate,
because we typically put together a conceptual budget number here, without, and there’s
another couple of factors, but site work wise, and canopy construction, we’re at approximately
$160,000, $165,000. Everyone thinks there’s a lot of money in gas, and last year we averaged
like two cents a gallon. Last week we were under a penny. We were taking a penny a gallon
loss. This week we’re up five cents. So we’re not looking here for so much a big increase in
volume. It’s really kind of small, and if we took our projected increase here of about 2500
gallons a week, and we extend that out, that’s only a return on investment of like three and a
half percent, and I just want to make that point, that the return here is not in dollars. We’re not
changing our underground fuel tanks. We’re not proposing to change that. That will stay
exactly the way it is right now, but the return here is the benefit to our customer as I have just
described in making this investment. Now, there’s a couple of other pieces that bring the total
cost here to up to around $180,000. We want to add another bathroom, which we’re not
requesting a variance for, and we want to add some additional landscaping which I’ve just
described and some paving. So we’ve got a number of things, a number of improvements here
that would be created by this. First of all, in the process of this, there would be a pay at the
pump. That’s a service that people are really demanding. We find that it’s working, and it is
expediting travel in and out of the lot. So we’ve got pay at the pump. We’ve got a new canopy,
20 by 60. We’ve got three dispensers now, not two. We’ve got a multi-use, this asphalt area
that has to go along with the canopy construction really becomes kind of a multi-use space, in
the sense that now we really have room for a vehicle, say, with a snow mobile or a small trailer.
So we’ve got a lot now that not only serves our gas customer better, but it will serve the people
that come in between, in terms of a larger vehicle that can accommodate, and again, allow for
smoother flow through the property. Additional parking spaces, we, in fact, have some gravel
spaces there now that are paved. That would all be part of this project. We’d actually end up
with like 22 spaces, counting the space at the pumps, when we finish this. So we’re adding
more parking, which will relieve a little more congestion. Landscaping upgrade. It is about
70% still green space. There’s a very minimal increase here in asphalt. It’s about 5,000 square
feet, and like I mentioned, we’re proposing, just so you know, a second bathroom at the same
time here. That pretty much covers my points I wanted to make. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-A question I have for you is what do you figure the lifespan of, I mean,
your building was ’88, is that what you said?
MR. MEYERS-It’s ’89.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So, I mean, you would expect a building to be there for quite some
time before you change that over, you know, probably way down the road.
MR. MEYERS-Yes, quite some time.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. HIMES-Question probably for Staff or anyone here. If something like this were to be built,
and then the road had to be widened, or something happened where that had to be torn down,
who pays for that? The owner? The State? In other words, say if the highway, at some point,
they decided that it was going to be a little wider than the current plan, and they did need to
come in to the areas that we’re supposed to be protecting, and something had to be torn down,
that we’d approved, was in a variance, who pays for that? Who’s liable for the cost of that, the
business or the Highway Department or who?
MR. FRANK-The Zoning Board.
MR. HIMES-Yes, I was kind of thinking.
MR. MEYERS-No, you’re not responsible. That we could tell you.
MR. FRANK-None of what’s proposed is within the State right of way, to begin with, if that
helps you out, and I’ve drawn the eight foot line on here. It really doesn’t change much. We
just didn’t know what the State had proposed, but of course anything the State does at their, as
part of their project, I’m assuming they pay for it. I hope they’re paying for it, but none of what
they’re proposing now is within the right of way of the State. Even their landscaping plan,
which is pretty extensive here, it goes up to the edge of the right of way, but again, there’s like a
15 foot portion of their right of way, in between the road bed and where that landscaping ends,
and according to Mr. Meyers, they’re only going to utilize eight feet of that for a turn lane. So
right now there’s nothing in the right of way that they’re building that is going to be affected.
MR. HIMES--Sometimes I wonder about these 75 foot things and the rest, you know, what is the
argument on their behalf? I don’t want to put you on the spot, but I’m holding back.
MR. HAYES-Obviously a little prevention’s worth a pound of cure. That’s essentially why they
get into those generous travel corridor.
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. FRANK-I concur, yes. I think that was the logic when the Town Board.
MR. HIMES-Because that’s, you know, one of the reasons I’m asking this is, you know, you
remember we went around with your neighbor across the street over there, and they evidently
put the project off for awhile, Getty, and we’ve got what’s going to be some time a big thing
across the street from you, to the south. I really don’t know how that intersection is going to,
what it’s going to be like in another very few years, and so I’m very concerned about the small
lot you have and this is not the only store of yours that’s this way. It’s very difficult to get in
and around them, and so I’m a little, but I’ve had my question answered. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. URRICO-Are there any plans to cut into the, to widen this, there’s like a little bow on both
driveways that come in. So it forces the car to go around it, and the way you’ve got it
configured, the curb cut sort of comes in a little bit and then it comes back, once you enter the
Stewart’s property, you have to come back to get to the (lost word).
MR. MEYERS-Right. What is your question?
MR. URRICO-Well, there’s a bottleneck that’s being created.
MR. MEYERS-Yes, I know what you mean.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. URRICO-And, on both, and I use that store quite a bit, and when it’s busy there, and you
have cars backing out, pulling in, and then coming around that turn, it’s really very difficult,
and I don’t see this as really helping that problem very much.
MR. MEYERS-Well, we didn’t show that on this site plan. This is a conceptual, but I know what
you mean. The point, the pavement actually continues to go out past the end of the radius
point. That’s what’s happening. So I think you make a good point, and we can certainly take
that into consideration and cut that back here. We have the room to do it.
MR. HAYES-Is this going to the varsity guys at the Planning Board?
MR. FRANK-This most definitely does go for site plan.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open
the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN WALKER
MR. WALKER-My name’s John Walker. I’m their neighbor on the westerly side of the building.
I have no objections to this at all. I can foresee a much better traffic flow through there, and the
other thing it may do is cut down on the people that use that as a cut through to avoid the
traffic light. I’ve seen people step off from the pump island where it is right now and narrowly
miss getting hit by cars that are just sneaking through there, and I don’t mean they just come
through easily. They just, straight through there. So I think that would be a great
improvement. As far as the highway, I think we ought to start a pool right now to see what
year that highway is going to be done, completed. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions or comments? Why don’t you come back up, please.
MR. MC NULTY-We have one piece of correspondence.
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-I didn’t have anything for or against, but I did have an idea, and I just have a
couple of questions.
MR. HAYES-Please come forward. Any member of the varsity team is always welcome.
MR. STROUGH-I’m John Strough, Queensbury. Now, does Stewart’s, now I’m sort of cold at
this, so I hope you don’t mind, just sharing some thoughts. Now does Stewart’s own all this
property?
MR. MEYERS-1.8 acres.
MR. STROUGH-Well, as alternatives to this, have you looked to locating the station and the
island over here and maybe wrapping your traffic flow this way, and the green space that we
would lose here, we could add green space here, and I’m a little bit worried about 149, the
widening of 149, the traffic flow that close to where you’re proposing those stations. I’m just,
have you considered the other alternative to?
MR. MEYERS-Do you want me to address those comments?
MR. HAYES-If Mr. Strough is finished, then you certainly.
MR. STROUGH-I’m finished.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MEYERS-We’ve actually looked, considered this concept a number of times in a number of
sites over the years, and I have been involved with some of those projects, and we would not
locate, I’ve only seen one site in my travels, in the past 15 years, in Columbia County, where
they were actually able to put the gas behind the building, but they were on a corner, in a very,
very visible corner, and it just seemed to work out. They just had the right conditions to make it
all work out. We don’t see those conditions here, and we’ve never done it. We haven’t
undertaken it because there’s, well, I think one of the biggest reasons is safety. First of, the law
requires, an NFPA law, and I think possibly New York State Building Code, that you have to
have your dispensers visible by people in the store, by people working in the store. So there’s a
huge safety issue there, in terms of there’s automatic fire suppression, but there’s also manual
suppression, and I think that’s the check, or Plan B, make it visible, as well as, of course, have
the automatic equipment. So there’s a safety aspect. The second aspect of safety which we’ve
found is the safety of people getting out of their vehicles, especially in night, in the locations,
let’s just say behind the building. Even with a well lit parking lot, and again, not be clearly
visible to people in the store. So those are two issues why we could not do that, here or
anywhere else, really. Code, just our concerns for people’s safety as well, and listening to the
people, etc. So those are the two reasons why we could not consider that at this site.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-You did say these are going to be pay at the pump, right?
MR. MEYERS-Yes. So there’s another aspect, but this is all about an investment back into our
facility here, an investment return back to the community. It’s about increasing our circulation,
making it more logical, easier to access in and out, and a commonsense, the most commonsense
way we can do it. That corridor, I think the point of that corridor is take a long term look,
which we did do that, and eight feet of right of way loss there is not a lot.
MR. URRICO-Pay at the pump is a big departure from Stewart’s previous market.
MR. MEYERS-It is. I guess we look at that like we were the second company to be first with it.
We really wanted to see how other people did, and we really spent a lot of time observing other
people, other businesses, I mean, but, you know, we find, I mean I’ve used it myself, when I’m
intending to go inside the store, I can pull up, get gas, pay, and then pull up and park at the
store and then go in. Just because I save myself maybe a couple of minutes. So it really works
very interestingly in a number of different ways, and everyone seems to be happy, but it
definitely expedites. It expedites in a number of different ways.
MR. HAYES-Any further questions for the applicant? I guess I should make sure there’s no one
else? I’ll close the public hearing if there’s no one else.
MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got a piece of correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence from Ben and Sharon Aronson. They say, “We
cannot attend the hearing as we are out of Town, but would like to express our thoughts on the
application as we live within 300 ft. of property. This location originally was done on what we
considered an undersized lot to begin with. They have already expanded their parking lot
(with or without permits?) by blacktopping into what was supposed to be green space for
employee parking. The entrance exits have been substantially widened and blacktopped. They
are permitting parking (larger trucks) on the west side of 9L. This is a safety issue as it blocks
view of oncoming traffic. This area should be fenced and landscaped. They could do a better
job with green space. It is unfortunate that they have the opportunity to do more business but
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
many other businesses have been restrained from expansion to satisfy existing Town codes. We
are against any future expansion or building on this site.”
MR. HAYES-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I guess it’s time to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The only other thing I could come up with would be if you
eliminated the parking on either the 149 side or the side, you know, on 9L there and you put
two double ones, kind of like what you have, in essence, on the top of Quaker hill across from,
at the Hess station up on Quaker Road, as you’re going up toward the Northway, where you,
you know, you eliminate your parking, and then you’d have to put some parking over towards
the Walker side, you know, over on that side. Where your green space is on the west.
MR. MEYERS-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know you couldn’t put parking over on the 9L side, because you’ve got
your septic out there and all that. So I don’t think you can park on there.
MR. MEYERS-So you’re suggesting we add parking over there. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, yes. Because I think you could do a set of double pumps there, you
know, a double set and then a double set, you know, in line with each other. I don’t know if
that would work or if you’d have enough room to have any parking over towards the Walker
side there, you know, just on the front frontage side. Not behind the building or anything like
that, but with the three pumps out there, I think it’s creating, I mean, I understand what you’re
trying to do, but I’m still trying to figure out a way that you could do two sets of double pumps,
you know, in line with what you have there, but eliminate the one that’s furthest out towards
the point there. You know, I don’t know, that would give you four instead of three. The
opposite way, but something to consider. I mean, I’m still open. I’ll listen to what everybody
else has to say, but.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that perhaps it’s possible, I suppose, that
what’s there now is already nonconforming, perhaps, I’m not sure, but to whatever extent,
there’s a lot of variance being requested here. I like the idea of, the logic of what you’re trying
to do here, I’d say, all right, maybe two pumps, the two closest to the building, and the other
one, I don’t know, as an alternative that I might suggest, and going along also with some of
what Jim has said. So, as applied for here, I would not be in favor of the variance. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, bottom line is I’m going to be in favor. I guess a couple of
thoughts that I have, and where I’m coming from, one, my general experience has been that the
guys that design these pumps usually know what they’re doing when they lay out the traffic
flow, and I’m going to rely more on that for what they’re proposing, as far as traffic flow. It
strikes me that it should work. I can tell you from experience the parallel pumps are a lot better
than the ones in tandem. I work for Cumbies, and we just put parallel pumps in over on by the
drive-in on 9, and, boy, that works a lot better than the two in line. So I think that’s going to
improve their traffic flow, even though they’ve got a little bit tight space there. I guess my other
thought is, on average, traveling around this section of the country at least, in looking at
Stewart’s shops, I think on average they’ve done a fairly good job with landscaping and making
their sites look nice, and I think they’ll probably do the same thing here, and as long as there’s
no proposal to make a fancy intersection there at 9 and 149, for now, I’m not concerned, too
much, with getting in to the travel corridor. That was the one thought I did have is what
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
happens if they decide they want to put a couple of side curbs in there some time, turning lanes,
real soon, that would cut through these, but as long as that’s not in the books for right now, ten
years from now these pumps will be obsolete and they’ll be ready to move them anyway if that
comes along later on. So, all told, even though it’s into variances, I think the benefit to the
applicant is clear, and I don’t think there’s that much detriment. So I think the balance is for the
applicant, and I’ll be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think you’re doing three things that I think are very positive, and
unfortunately I think I can only vote on one of them, but adding an island is certainly going to
relieve some congestion there. Pay at the pump is definitely going to be a help, because cars
now, they just line up there, and they wait for people to be done, and that creates part of the
problem with the congestion, and the third thing is putting in another bathroom, which will get
people out of the store faster, because they line up there as well, especially during ski season.
So, you know, I think the plan is good. It could be better, but I think you’re limited somewhat
in the configuration of the store, the lot location and what’s going to be done by the State.
Taking the criteria, I think you would benefit from this, by adding this island. I think your
alternatives are somewhat limited. I think the relief is, seems more than it is. It may be
interpreted as substantial, but there’s a large setback there, anticipation, I guess, of a major
highway going through some day, but as we’ve gotten some plans, preliminary plans, if the
State ever goes through with it, it looks like it’s not going to cut in very much. It’s already
there. So I don’t really see that as being a problem, and to be fair about it, a similar application
passed or I should say that I voted in favor of a similar application on the Getty side with the
same type of setback, and I think, I want to be fair about that. We’ve heard from a respected
neighbor who is in favor of the application. He doesn’t have a problem with it. He lives right
next door, probably the one person that would be most effected by anything, and he doesn’t
have a problem with it, and as far as the difficulty self-created, well, maybe, maybe not. I think
part of the problem is you’re in a busy location. You’re the second station in Warren County
coming in. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, first, I think that the applicant has done a commendable job,
being well prepared to answer any of our questions, as far as this is concerned. I frequent the
store next to my own business on Big Bay Road, which has similar features, and I do pay at the
pump, but on this one, I’m afraid I’m going to have to come down against the application.
Substantially based on the fact that there’s a, essentially my concern is that the applicant is
requesting a great deal of relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay, and while that has been
usually prescribed as kind of an ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure, I think the State
has indicated that they do intend to improve that area of the traffic. What the plans are now,
eight feet, that’s not a great deal, but yet that still would make the relief, in practical effect,
greater. I think, in this particular case, the applicant placed a store in a location, and I
understand the practical economics of moving the store back to create this benefit, but as I
looked at the criteria, I think that there are feasible alternatives on this site. While not ideal
from an economic perspective, they are there. It’s a large parcel. Essentially, I think
alternatives, my concern is the canopy being so close out to the actual intersection of the road, I
think that Ridge Road is unique, in the sense that all the zoning that we have out that way is
essentially calls for less density, less use, less intensity of use, even though I think it’s an
accurate description to call that intersection commercial, I think it is, I think that it’s different, in
the sense that it’s not commercial like Main Street or Big Bay Road, where your Stewart’s is
now, or Route 9. I think that those are commercial in the sense that, I just think that Route 9 and
Corinth Road, that Ridge Road, I would, myself, based on the surrounding zoning, think that
we have an opportunity to maintain that as a less commercially perceived road, and I think
moving this canopy this close to the actual road, with this type of relief, actually would
undermine that effort. I know when we talked about the Getty expansion next door, that was
greatly discussed, about the unique character. I think it was Norm that spoke about the unique
character of Ridge Road, versus some of our other commercial corridors. There is essentially,
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
just past this corner, there is residential zoning and residential homes immediately following
this, and I just think it has to be considered when we consider what this relief represents versus
the Ordinance, we have to consider the neighborhood and the surrounding zoning. So I think
that relates to the effects of neighborhood and community, and I think the difficulty is self-
created, only in that this is, they chose to place the original store in this location. I agree with
the applicant that, you know, that as far as the nature of having paginated pumps versus these
type of pumps, this is better, but I think in this particular case, the Code is being asked to
relieve, you know, an expansion of your business, which I think is admirable, and it’s a good
store. I use that store myself as well, but I think on balance, I think in this particular case the
relief is just too great, versus the Code and versus what might happen there, and I would be
opposed. So, I guess, having said that, I’m not sure where we’re at, but Jim is relatively
undecided. Are you still undecided?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I think I’d vote against it, as it is right now.
MR. HAYES-Either way, as I view my poll, there’s not enough votes in either direction, and I
said in the beginning of the meeting I’d be consistent with prior applications, the fact that we
only have five Board members does not necessarily mean this wouldn’t be resolved in either
direction if you came back. We have three and two, and that’s partially because we have five
members tonight. So I’m not procedurally opposed to a tabling of this motion, if that’s what
you desire.
MR. MEYERS-Okay. Since I would like to consult with my staff, too, in terms of, I don’t believe
that we can go down, shrink that canopy. I don’t, put it this way, coming here tonight, and
knowing the dollar investment to shrink the canopy, for example, and pull that back in, it was
front loaded, in other words, to pick that other canopy, or that other island up, it was really a
very small percentage of the cost, is what I’m trying to say. So really, to justify it, to make this
feasible, is to do the whole thing in total. Now, if my staff feels differently and wants to take
another look at it, then they would have to see something else than what they shared with me
tonight. So I can’t speak for them. So I have no problem giving them the opportunity to do it,
because I couldn’t do it myself anyway. So, if you want to table it, there’s certainly nothing lost
by that. It’s a friendly measure. We can bring it up to the gas marketing group, lay it out, share
what you’ve said to me tonight, all the comments I’ve heard here, and let them take another
look and decide and tell me what they want to do, and then we can come back, or if we can’t
modify it, just back out, by letter, or if we can come back up here and tell you what our rationale
is and see what you say.
MR. HAYES-Well, we’re tabling it without prejudice.
MR. MEYERS-That’s fine. That seems like that makes the most sense, at this point.
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, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. MEYERS-Okay. Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED WITH NO COORDINATED REVIEW
HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING & MILLER ASSOC.
PROPERTY OWNER: HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION:
QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 16,000 SQ. FT. NEW
BUILDING FOR CAR WASH, JIFFY LUBE, AND MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONTAGE ON PUBLIC STREETS REQUIREMENT.
CROSS REF SPR FILE NO. 14-2003; FW 1-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/12/03
TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-2 LOT SIZE: 4.82 ACRES SECTION 179-4-090A
TOM NACE & BILL SIMPSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2003, Hoffman Development Corp., Meeting Date:
March 19, 2003 “Project Location: Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 16,000 sq. ft. new building for a car wash, jiffy lube, and motor
vehicle repair shop. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot
minimum requirement for frontage on a public road, §179-4-090(A) and for 65 feet of relief from
the 440-foot requirement for moderate Peak Hour Trips (PHT), per §179-19-010(C). Criteria for
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure and develop the
vacant parcel as proposed. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3.
Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum
road frontage requirement may be interpreted as substantial (100%) and 65 feet of relief from
the 440-foot minimum driveway spacing requirement may be interpreted as minimal to
moderate (14.8%), both relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: The effects on the neighborhood can not be considered until information is
provided revealing if an easement across the lands of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
will be granted to the applicant. Additionally, no information has been provided indicating the
estimated PHT expected for the proposed use. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty
may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP
14-2003: Site Plan Review scheduled for March 25, 2003 pending this application. Staff
comments: How substantial the effects may be can not be anticipated as a result of this action,
being information has not been provided revealing if an easement across the lands of the
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation will be granted to the applicant. Additionally, no
information has been provided indicating the estimated PHT expected for the proposed use
other than a verbal notification the expected PHT would be greater than 100. SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12,
2003 Project Name: Hoffman Development Corp. Owner: Hoffman Development Corp. ID
Number: QBY-03-AV-19 County Project#: Mar03-29 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 16,000 sq. ft. new
building for car wash, jiffy lube, and motor vehicle repair shop. Relief requested from the
frontage on public streets requirements. Site Location: Quaker Road Tax Map Number(s):
296.20-1-2 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 16,000 sq. ft. multi
purpose car facility for Hoffman Car Wash and Jiffy Lube. The property does not actually have
frontage on Quaker Road due to the Niagara Mohawk right of way that is along Quaker Road.
Staff would suggest obtaining authorization from NIMO to cross over the property. Staff does
not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact with the
stipulation that the applicant obtain authorization from NIMO for the cross-over. Warren
County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The Board
recommends No County Impact with the Stipulation that the applicant obtain authorization
from NIMO for the cross-over.” Signed Bennett Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board
03/15/03.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. SIMPSON-Good evening. My name is Bill Simpson I’m Senior Vice President and Project
Engineer for Hoffman Development Corporation. Also with me tonight are Tom Nace, P.E.,
Nace Engineering, and Tom Hoffman, Sr., CEO, Hoffman Development. I’d like to read a short
presentation then answer your questions. Hoffman Development Corporation is proposing to
build on the vacant lands adjacent to Applebee’s, east side, on Quaker Road, a Hoffman Car
Wash, Jiffy Lube, automotive service center offering the following services, an automotive and
automatic exterior car wash, a self-service and a touch free car wash, a jiffy lube oil change
motor vehicle repair shop and self-service customer vacuum areas. The property is bordered on
the north by vacant lands, that would be up in here, on the west by Applebee’s restaurant,
which is in this area over here, and on the east by Della Automotives, over here, and on the
south by Niagara Mohawk Power transmission lands and Quaker Road. The NiMo property is
right here, with Quaker Road being below it. We’re here tonight to seek your approval for two
area variances needed to move this project forward. My function tonight is to introduce and
explain this project to you, to answer your questions and concerns, and to ensure that this
project will meet both your and our high standards for a showcase commercial facility, but first,
since we are new to the Town of Queensbury, let me briefly explain a little about the company I
proudly have been with for 25 years. We have been in business in the Capital District since
1965. We presently operate 30 some car washes and Jiffy Lube stores located in the Capital
District, Kingston, Hudson, Clifton Park and Wilton. These locations include full service car
washes, exterior car washes, self-service car washes, touch free car washes, and interior detail
shops. Additionally, we operate jiffy lube stores where oil changes, lubes, and selective
automotive repairs are offered in an express format. Hoffman Development Corporation
entered into the fast lube oil change market in 1997, with the acquisition of the local jiffy lube
franchise of seven stores. We now own and operate eleven jiffy lube stores. This past summer
we diversified once more and formed our own landscape division, with Staff and a 3,000 square
foot greenhouse facility, to ensure that our stores are flowered and landscaped to our high
standards. Hoffman Car Wash and Jiffy Lube employs approximately 400 people company
wide. We would be hiring about 20 full and part time people to Staff this location. Many of our
employees are first time workers and are local people from the community. We are a family
business, with 13 members from three generations, actively involved in the daily operations of
the car washes and jiffy lubes. Tom Hoffman, Sr. and Jr. are both past Presidents of the New
York State Car Wash Association and Tom, Sr. is past President of the 4,000 member
International Car Wash Association. We are one of the largest privately owned chains of car
washes and lubes nationwide, and what we do and how we do it have made us recognized
trendsetters and innovative leaders in our field. We are always upgrading our equipment and
facilities, and constantly attend and host meetings to enhance our car washing and lube
knowledge. We also actively involve ourselves, support and help local, state and national non-
profit and charitable organizations. So as you see, you may think of us as a small, local
company, but in reality, we are a quiet and national leader who’s company focus is based on
customer service, excellence in our appearance, our people and products and the services we
produce. All in a drug free work environment. Now let me introduce you to the proposed
project and the two area variances we are requesting. Hoffman Development Corporation is
proposing to build on said property the following: A 200 by 30 foot automatic exterior car
wash, that would be this portion of the building right here, with customers entering from the
street and into the wash and exiting here, a three bay touch free car wash, that would be the
next portion right here. Cars would enter the same way, and exit right here, a three by two bay
Jiffy Lube. The Jiffy Lube is the next portion. The cars enter and exit, a three by two bay self-
service. That would be this portion right here. Once again cars enter and exit. The present
plans call for the building to be constructed of earth tone colored, rustic brick, which we ship in
from Oklahoma. The trussed roof will be covered with complimentary color shingles, similar to
what you see over here. We don’t just build a flat building. We put a nice mansard roof on it
with doghouses, gable ends, similar to our new facility in Colony Village and Wilton, if you’re
familiar with the Wash down in Wilton. Access to the property is over a proposed 75 foot
easement with National Grid U.S.A. Service Company, Inc., formerly Niagara Mohawk. The
first area variance we are requesting is because the property does not have the minimum 40 feet
of road frontage as required by Code, but rather is accessed over the National Grid easement.
That would be right here. Since we don’t have road frontage, our only access will be over the
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
easement and the Code calls for 40 feet. We’re requesting with Niagara Mohawk a 75 foot
easement for our entrance. By granting this variance, a piece of property can be developed
where other feasible access alternatives are limited. This relief of 40 feet could be viewed as
substantial, but is not uncommon to others along this roadway that have NiMo in front of them.
There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood because the proposed stormwater management plan will improve the quality of
stormwater runoff into Halfway Brook, and lastly, was this difficulty self-created? That I had to
ask myself because I wasn’t sure which came first, the chicken or the egg, or in this case, did
NiMo come through here first or was Quaker Road here first, because if NiMo came through
after the road, then they’d take the land, so the property owner didn’t create the non-access
issue. The second variance requested is for driveway separation. The Code for our type
business requires 440 feet of driveway separation. We exceed the required 440 foot to the west
by 40 feet. That would be from the entrance to Applebee’s, we have 480 feet, which is 40 feet
greater than the Code, but are 65 feet short on the east to Della’s second driveway, from our
entrance to Della’s second driveway, which I would consider a secondary driveway, in as much
as this leads into mainly their entrance area, we’re 375 feet or 65 feet short. If you considered
their second driveway, there’s an additional 150 feet in there. So we’d be more than adequate,
but Della has two driveways, which if you went before DOT in this day and age, you’d only get
one access most likely. Additionally, National Grid has pretty much set this entrance for us and
any other use on the property. Therefore the relief requested may be interpreted in the minimal
plus range of 14.8%. By that I mean our first proposal for this property with NiMo was for a
center entrance coming in this area, but because of the pole location and the new poles we’re
going to have to put in to raise the 65K lines which are in the back, it was best to put the
driveway here, because then they can put their poles in this area, and they wouldn’t have to put
the new poles down in the wetland area. In conclusion, we look forward to becoming part of
the Town of Queensbury community. Our proposed facility will transform a vacant lot into a
showcase facility we feel that both you and I will be proud of. This location will have a
harmonious relationship with other area uses and are earthly colors are aesthetically compatible
to other adjacent properties. I now thank you for the opportunity of presenting this project to
you and welcome your questions and concerns.
MR. HAYES-Thank you for your presentation. Before we get into any questions, I’d just like to
remind the Board that we should stick with the issues that have to do with the variances, the
stormwater, not to steal Mr. Nace’s thunder, so let’s just stick to the variance issues related to
the variances that they’ve requested. Having said that, is there a question for the applicant’s
agents? I have one question, and maybe I didn’t hear it with the microphones here was, do you
or do you not have a factual right of way from NiMo now? Is that done? Is that a done deal?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes. We had two dealings with the Town Board, and both times we told them
we were dealing with NiMo and they didn’t ask for a substantive letter until we got their memo
a couple of days ago and I delivered said agreement with NiMo this morning. I can give you a
copy of that letter right now if you’d like.
MR. HAYES-Okay. It’s a deeded right of way or whatever? I mean, a legal?
MR. SIMPSON-No, it’s going to be an easement across.
MR. HAYES-Okay. An easement?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. FRANK-That was submitted as part of the permit file.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Well, if Staff is satisfied with that, the validity of that, so are we, I
think. That that was a legitimate question that was asked initially.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. FRANK-Yes. These notes were drafted last week, and that’s the problem.
MR. HAYES-That’s no problem. I’m not sure proceeding forward would have been germane if
that hadn’t been ascertained, but if it has been, that’s fine. That’s a question answered. Are
there any other questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m just curious as to what the setback, what the distance is between the
building and the wetland setback.
MR. SIMPSON-We’re greater than the 75 feet required from edge of wetlands to edge of
building, and we’re greater than the 50 feet required from edge of wetlands to edge of
pavement. The wetland is outlined on this drawing here. You can’t see it that well, but it’s in
this tree line back in here. It’s the tow of the slope as defined by the survey.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I see the line. I just didn’t see measurements there, on our survey map.
MR. NACE-Yes. I think that is really on the site plan, to show that we’ve met the required
setbacks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That was all backfilled at some point, that whole parcel?
MR. NACE-Yes. That was filled by the previous owner, by Dombek, back, I believe in the mid
80’s, and it was filled with a DEC permit at that time.
MR. URRICO-What’s a laser wash?
MR. SIMPSON-A laser wash is a touch free car wash where the customer pulls in to the
entrance part of the wash, and there’s an automated teller there where he puts in his money in,
and/or credit card. After that he proceeds into the wash and stops when the equipment tells
him to stop, and the equipment goes around the car and washes the car, touch free, nothing
touches the car other than a high pressure wash and soap.
MR. HAYES-They’re very laser oriented, as you can tell.
MR. URRICO-I want to compliment you on the presentation. It was very well done.
MR. SIMPSON-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-My wife actually grew up in Loudonville. So she actually is familiar with the
Hoffman Playland, the original one. I mean, every time we go back to old home week we have
to pass it.
MR. HAYES-I went to Sienna and I would mimic those comments. So, all right, are there any
further 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? Opposed? Correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-The only correspondence we’ve got is the letter that the applicant referred to
from NiMo.
MR. HAYES-And that’s been submitted and it’s in the file?
MR. FRANK-It has.
MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s fine. Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MR. HAYES-Any final questions, now? If not, I’ll poll the Board members. We’ll start with
Norm.
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In short, I’m in favor of the application. I think
the distances in connection with, and the amount of traffic that, primarily the amount of traffic
that comes out of Honda, I think is modest, in and out, and spread out pretty evenly throughout
the day. Your operation, hours, didn’t think to ask you that before, but what are your, are you
24 hours a day?
MR. SIMPSON-For the self-service, the automatic exterior and the jiffy lube facility are basically
eight to eight. With lesser hours in the winter.
MR. HIMES-And your traffic, in and out is just pretty well spread?
MR. SIMPSON-Our traffic count is a bell shaped curve. We have peak business midday where
the am and pm drive times on Quaker Road are their peak times. So we’re very compatible to
the traffic with our, with the way we peak midday.
MR. HIMES-You’re a pretty good, reasonable distance from the intersection and all. So I don’t
see this as being a bottleneck or a problem for safety, from a traffic standpoint.
MR. SIMPSON-No. With the turn lane in the center of Quaker Road, it’s very easy, in and out
access.
MR. HIMES-So I, in short, am in favor of the application. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Yes, thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m basically in agreement with this request also. I think it’s a
reasonable request, given the NiMo right of way along there, there’s no way somebody isn’t
going to have to come in for a variance to do anything in that area, and I think this is a
reasonable proposal. I think the benefit to the applicant is clear. I don’t think there’s going to
be any real detriment to the neighborhood or the area. So, in short, I’m in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m basically in favor of it. I’d just like to take it through the criteria and
say, I agree t that there’s a benefit to the applicant because you’ll be able to put up your desired
structure. I believe your alternatives are somewhat limited, and as far as the relief, I also agree
that the numbers sometimes don’t always tell the truth, and in this case the relief, because of the
easement, seems excessive, but it’s really not, and the same thing with the driveway distance. I
also agree that there’s still a lot of room between that driveway and the Della Honda driveway.
As far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, it probably isn’t the province of this
Board, in fact it isn’t the province of this Board, but as far as effect on the neighborhood or
community, I do have a concern about the traffic flow, and the way cars will be turning in and
out. It’s not something that we can deal with, but I can talk to about the effect of the
neighborhood, on the neighborhood, and that’s with Denny’s across the way and people going
there for their birthdays and big bang and big breakfast, whatever it is, and I am concerned
about the way the center lane is devised, to accommodate cars turning in either direction and
that could create a problem with a lot of cars going in and out of there, and is difficulty self-
created? I think largely it can be interpreted as self-created because of the location, but I’d be in
favor of it, but I think you’re going to hear about the traffic.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’d be in agreement with everyone else. I think it’s no problem to
grant the relief that you’re requesting. I think it’s, you know, a reflection of NiMo’s power line
being out there, and I didn’t think there was going to be any doubt that they were going to give
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
you access to the parcel. I also would applaud your buffers and everything else that you have
in there. It’s a thoughtful design and it’s going to look nice on Quaker Road instead of being
the usual ugly thing that we get proposed down there. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you, Jim. I would essentially agree with what the other Board members
have said. My understanding is that the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement is largely
to do with access for emergency vehicles and the like, and also not to create landlocked lots, but
it’s very clear to me that emergency vehicles can access this parcel satisfactory. As far as the
driveway spacing, I think that the line of sight down Quaker Road is very substantial, and you
are short, of course, of the 440 foot requirement, but there’s still 400 or 380 feet there of line of
sight, and I think that’s certainly adequate to provide safety and vision and traffic management.
I’d also agree with you that Della’s second curb cut there is a secondary one and that their main
road, you probably meet the requirements for. So I think, on balance, once I look at the
alternative, this, as has already been mentioned, certainly will probably have a positive effect on
neighborhood or community to have that site develop with something tasteful and well thought
out. I’m sure whoever was smart enough to dump that fill in there years ago is thanking his
stars he did it then instead of trying to do it now, but that’s a secondary issue. It’s there, and
this seems like a good use, and it will be a compliment to the neighborhood. So, I’m in favor of
the application. Having said that, do we need to do a? They’ve done a Full Environmental
Assessment Form. Do we have to somehow sanction that?
MR. FRANK-Well, because it’s going to be reviewed by the Planning Board, I think you can just
do what you normally do, as with the Short Form, or waive, actually, I’m not 100% sure. I
know they’re going to have to go through the Long Form with the Planning Board. So, I’m not
exactly sure how you handle it at this level.
MR. HAYES-If they’re going to go through a full review with them.
MR. FRANK-Then maybe you don’t need to here, is that what you’re thinking?
MR. HAYES-Traditionally we haven’t, but, I mean, I don’t want to prejudice the applicant to
come back for that. Tom, can you?
MR. NACE-I would think that you, you know, you’re addressing the zoning, and if you did a
Short Form type of review for the zoning issues that you’ve been addressing, obviously you
can’t do it for the site plan review, because you haven’t been addressing that, and really the
Long Form was generated for the site plan review specifically.
MR. HAYES-Fine.
MR. NACE-So if you did a Short Form, we’d be on the safe side.
MR. FRANK-I have a Short Form.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MOTION THAT, HAVING REVIEWED THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM, AND BASED ON THAT REVIEW, WE ARE MAKING THE FINDING THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL RESULT AS THE RESULT OF THIS
ACTION FOR TWO VARIANCES, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Roy Urrico:
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
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Okay. That motion is carried. Now, do we have a motion on the variances?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2003 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT
CORP., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Quaker Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 16,000 square foot new building for a
car wash, jiffy lube and motor vehicle repair shop. The applicant specifically requests 40 feet of
relief from the 40 foot minimum requirement for frontage on public roads from Section 179-4-
090(A), and for 65 feet of relief from the 440 foot requirement for moderate and peak hour trips
per Section 179-19-010(C). Benefit to the applicant, they would be permitted to construct the
desired structure and develop the vacant parcel as proposed, and there really are no feasible
alternatives. The 40 feet of relief is basically interpreted as substantial, but we’re minimizing
that because, due to the fact that the NiMo power line is located out front, and the 65 feet of
relief from the 440 foot minimum driveway spacing requirement can be interpreted as minimal.
It’s only 14.8%. Effects on the neighborhood will probably be positive as a result of this
building, and the easement has been granted from Niagara Mohawk so as far as we’re
concerned it’s a go.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. SIMPSON-Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board.
MR. HAYES-Do we have minutes that we’re supposed to do?
MR. FRANK-I think there was.
MR. URRICO-It was on here.
MR. HAYES-Okay. We have minutes for the September 25, 2002, November 20. Let’s see if
th
anybody has that with them.
MR. URRICO-I just threw it out.
MR. HAYES-Okay. We’ve got to see if we can pull it off. All right. So we’ve got September
25. Does anybody have those minutes? There’s only five of us here. So it could be a little
th
close anyway, but we’ll try.
MR. URRICO-November 20 is right there.
th
MR. HAYES-Okay. I’m currently looking at November 20, 2002. I was not here. We’ve got Jim
Underwood, Roy Urrico, Norm Himes and Chuck McNulty. All right. I can make the motion, I
guess, and then not take part in the vote. Right?
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
November 20, 2002: NONE
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/03)
MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FIRST REGULAR ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2002, Introduced by Paul Hayes who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-That carries. So they’re done. Now, does anybody have the minutes for January
15 or 22? If not, we’ve got next week anyway. I’ll adjourn the meeting.
thnd
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman
50