2004-03-17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 17, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ALLAN BRYANT
ROY URRICO
JAMES UNDERWOOD
CHARLES ABBATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
PAUL HAYES
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. STONE-The first two items on the agenda tonight will not be considered, and I will, I move
to table.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2003 & SIGN VARIANCE NO. 71-2003
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Charles Abbate:
Until the next meeting next week, because the Planning Board did not have an opportunity, last
night, to consider the SEQRA determination.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT C. WING AGENT: VAN
DUSEN & STEVES OWNER: ROBERT C. WING ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 147
SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSOLIDATE 2 PARCELS
TOTALING 20.59 ACRES, AND TO CONVERT AN EXISTING GARAGE INTO A
DWELLING UNIT RESULTING IN 4-DWELLING UNITS ON THE NEW PARCEL. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT REQUIREMENTS.
CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2004-021, SPR 52-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
3/10/2004 LOT SIZE: 0.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.05-1-47; 279.17-1-60 SECTION: 179-
4-010(C6)
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROBERT WING, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2004, Robert C. Wing, Meeting Date: March 17, 2004
“Project Location: 147 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
to consolidate 2 parcels totaling 20.59 acres, and to convert an existing garage into a dwelling
unit resulting in 4 dwelling units on the new parcel in the RR-3A zone. Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from the one single-family dwelling per lot requirements to allow for
three additional dwelling units, per § 179-4-010(C6). Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): SP 52-2003: 11/25/03, landscape supply nursery on a 19.9-acre parcel. BP
2004-021: not yet issued, conversion of a commercial garage to a two-story 1995 sq. ft.
residential dwelling with a 181 sq. ft. one-car attached garage. BP 91-454: 07/10/91, septic
alteration (for the dwelling on the 19.9-acre parcel). Staff comments: The applicant’s proposal
would result in 4 dwelling units on a 20.59-acre parcel (currently 2 dwelling units plus a
commercial garage are on the 0.69-acre parcel, and 1 dwelling unit is on the 19.9-acre parcel).
The applicant received a site plan review and approval to develop the property as a landscape
supply nursery business on November 25, 2003, which includes a proposed 6800 sq. ft.
commercial building (garage/office/retail/storage). Even though this type of commercial use is
not incompatible with residential use (both allowed uses in the RR-3A Zone), it appears a large
majority of the proposed parcel will be developed for the commercial use. In the RR-3A Zone, a
4-lot subdivision would require a minimum of 12 acres under the current zoning ordinance.
Should this application be approved, the applicant would have to appear before the Planning
Board to request a modification to the approved site plan.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March
10, 2004 Project Name: Wing, Robert C. Owner: Robert C. Wing ID Number: QBY-04-AV-13
County Project#: Mar04-31 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes to consolidate 2 parcels totaling 20.59 acres, and to convert an
existing garage into a dwelling unit resulting in 4-dwelling units on the new parcel. Relief
requested from the one single-family dwelling per lot requirements. Site Location: 147
Sunnyside Road Tax Map Number(s): 279.17-1-60 290.05-1-47 Staff Notes: Area Variance:
The applicant proposes to consolidate two parcels, one parcel is 20.59 acres and the other is .021
acres. The 20.59 acre parcel is proposed to be a garden nursery, and the .021 acre is a pre-
existing residential lot. The residential lot contains 2 dwelling units and the nursery parcel
contains 1 dwelling unit. The applicant also proposes to add an apartment unit above the
existing garage on the residential parcel. By combining the parcels the lot would have four
dwelling units and a garden nursery. The County Planning Board recommended approval of
the garden nursery in Dec. 2003. The plans do not detail the septic systems for the dwellings
and the proximity to storage of nursery stock. The information submitted also indicates the
combining of the two lots would eliminate one non-conforming lot. Staff does not identify an
impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county
impact with the condition the septic systems for the dwelling units meet septic system
requirements. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation
The County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition the septic
systems for the dwelling units meet septic system requirements.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll,
Warren County Planning Board 03/12/04.
MR. STONE-Gentlemen.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves of Van Dusen & Steves, along with Rob Wing, owner
of the property, representing this application. Real quick. The property is located on the north
side of Sunnyside Road, just to the east of East Road, which is a couple hundred feet to the west
of Route 9, or 9L, I should say, Ridge Road. This was the old McDermott’s motorcycle place, if
anybody’s familiar with that area. I do have a copy of the site plan that was approved. If the
Board would like to take a look at that, I did bring along one with me. Jim Miller, the landscape
architect, designed that site plan for Mr. Wing’s landscape business that he is still going to be
putting on the back there, and we do realize that joining these properties will require a
modification to that site plan by showing the additional property on to it. It does not affect the
layout of the property, of the site plan whatsoever. What you have is two tax parcels. He owns
the small one, the .68 acre, and has also recently purchased a larger one after the site plan
approval, and as you can see, there were two small houses on that small lot with the concrete
block garage, and what he is proposing to do is to take that garage, clean it up, put the siding on
it and make it look like a residence, so it doesn’t look like that old block building that’s there
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
with the, I guess, washed out red or something on the top, and convert it into a single dwelling
unit, and because of the fact that the two already exist and it’s nonconforming, and even though
the building exists, we’re not proposing any new structures or any expansion of the structures,
only interior modifications to turn it into an apartment. So therefore we thought it would be
better suited to merge it all into one lot. The larger lot, the 19.9 acres, currently has a single
family wood frame structure on it also, and we’re in front of this Board to allow us to have the
three existing structures that are (lost words) and convert the one garage into a residential use.
I’ll open it up to any questions.
MR. STONE-Would you comment on the County’s statement about septic?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely. The new septic system is shown. We’ve located the wells on adjacent
properties to make sure we have the 100 foot separation, and it will be a New York State
Department of Health compliant septic system, and that Staff would also review for compliance
with that.
MR. STONE-So it hasn’t been done yet.
MR. STEVES-It hasn’t been done yet, but it is proposed. If the variance goes through, that’s one
of the first things that will be installed.
MR. STONE-Any questions?
MR. ABBATE-Please. It’s just a question which I’m not sure I have the answer. This is a
nonconforming lot, correct?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely. Yes. Existing. Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Yes. If we were, and this is a question which I don’t have the answer to.
If we were to approve this variance, would we not, in effect, be doing away with a
nonconforming lot, and in effect it could be perceived as rezoning on our part? That’s my
question.
MR. STEVES-My answer?
MR. ABBATE-No, not your answer. I’m looking for an answer from, basically from Staff.
MR. STONE-Staff. Well, I think Staff said that it would require 12 acres for four dwelling units
on a piece of property, and they’ve got 20. If they consolidate. Is that correct, Bruce?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STEVES-So what we’re asking to do, and honestly it kind of looks weird when you have a
tiny little lot with three buildings, and, you know, merging it into a larger, what it does is it
allows you to have a conforming lot. Even though they’re still, you know, all in that one corner,
but it would be conforming and then the septic would also be upgraded. The commercial use
that is allowed also in that zone would remain. It doesn’t affect the density for that, and like I
said, I’ll gladly hand this out. I don’t know if anybody has seen that site plan.
MR. STONE-I haven’t seen that, I don’t believe.
MR. STEVES-Do you know what the use is that’s going to be?
MR. STONE-No, we have the site layout.
MR. STEVES-You have a copy of that?
MR. STONE-Yes, we have a copy of that. We don’t have the septic, by the way, on this.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STEVES-You have the septic on the variance application.
MR. STONE-Okay. There it is, yes, okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Based on that site plan, out of the 20 acre plus parcel, it looks like a nursery takes
up about 19 and a half acres. I mean, what is the ratio there?
MR. STEVES-As far as?
MR. BRYANT-As far as the residential portion and the commercial portion?
MR. STEVES-Once you merge them altogether, the commercial portion itself, if you’re looking
at the retail area, is less than a third. The rest of the area is growing fields and nursery stock. It
is not used for the public to drive in and out, you know, somebody to come in and walk around.
The area you see on the site plan, the parking and retail with some display area up front is all
just being used. The rest of it is going to be planted by Mr. Wing for stock for sale within the
retail area.
MR. BRYANT-It’s all part of the commercial aspect of the property?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-What I’m curious is, as to what the ratio is, how much of the lot is going to be
used for the residential portion where the houses are, and the balance where you have growing
and sod and stock and all that, that’s all really the nursery.
MR. STEVES-Right. You’re taking a .69 acre parcel and then merging it with the other, and then
the areas you can see around which would be just to the north up to the growing fields, and
then back to the west around the existing two story house on the 19 acre parcel. You add that
all together, you’d be at about an acre and a half. With a nice buffer of planting stock all the
way around you.
MR. STONE-In other words, this is going to be one parcel of 28, twenty some plus acres, and
you’re saying that four houses, it meets, and Staff is not disagreeing with that. I mean, you’ve
still got the same density you would have had if you had four houses scattered around, or
actually six houses scattered around the property.
MR. STEVES-Correct. I understand his question as far as, does the area that is left, if you take
what’s being used as the retail area, do you still have 12 acres left, and I’d say, yes, we do. The
complicated portion of that is what is actually being used in the retail commercial area is the
area where the public would be utilizing it. The rest of it would be like a giant garden, personal
garden for yourself. It just happens to be stock for the retail area. I understand the question. I
guess it’s in how you look at it. We look at it as a nursery with a lot of planting and trees and
shrubs and some sod and a nice growing field for trees to be much more benefit than the
motorcycle track that was there.
MR. STONE-I was just about to raise the question about the nefarious history of this particular
parcel and tax parcels behind there. Mr. Wing, you can guarantee that, in the off season, there
won’t be motorcycle guys racing around your nicely cultivated fields?
MR. WING-Yes, I can.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. WING-Believe me.
MR. STONE-I mean, it has been discussed over the years, as both of you know very much.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. WING-Just in the past few months, I mean, it’s been, the neighbors have actually come up
and talked to me, are glad I purchased it, and just because of the sheer fact that the track’s no
longer there. it’s been cut in half or more, the usage in there, and I try to keep it to zero, but as
far as the activity, I mean, I haven’t started all this, yet. So it’s kind of still almost fair game,
unless I stay there 24 hours a day.
MR. STONE-Well, you’ve got four homes.
MR. WING-I know it.
MR. STEVES-Once we immediately go back in, upon the approval of this, if it’s approved, and
get the modification to the site plan, and it’s already drawn up, the application is ready to go.
We’re waiting on the results of this, and as you can see, the only change is that the area for the
site plan now will include that .68 acre or .69 acre lot. That’s the only change to the site plan.
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got a comment, at least, I think probably I ought to bring up two points
now, rather than wait until the end. First, it strikes me that really what the applicant’s asking
for here is a Planned Unit Development, and perhaps it would be more appropriate before the
Planning Board than here, and second, it sounds to me like they’re asking us to count the
commercial area twice. Once as a commercial operation, but also count it again as a land
against the homes.
MR. STONE-I raised, in my own mind, I didn’t do it quite as eloquently as Mr. McNulty is. I
put down, too squeezed. You can’t have both, and that was merely a comment so I could
remember when I saw. I mean, you’ve got a commercial operation, and at the same time, I
think as Chuck says, you seem to be counting the land twice. You require 12 acres for four
homes.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. STONE-That leaves you eight acres to have a commercial operation, one could argue. Can
you comment on that?
MR. STEVES-I will comment again on that, and I said it’s a fine line. How you define and Staff
may define what is the actual commercial operations. If you have a large growing field where
nobody except the owner goes into, do you consider that commercial, or do you consider only
the area where the public will be coming and parking and going to the retail sales portion of it
as the commercial portion? If you take the area which is includes the entire entrance drive, the
parking lot, the retail plant areas that we show up front as 13,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet,
and then the retail nursery storage, stock storage, with the building and the parking, the rest of
it is wholesale nursery storage, which the public does not utilize.
MR. STONE-You’re saying it’s a large private garden?
MR. STEVES-That’s for his own use.
MR. STONE-For his own use, but he’s selling it, as he’s allowed to do in this particular.
MR. STEVES-We’re in a gray area, correct.
MR. STONE-We want it green, because he can’t sell gray flowers.
MR. STEVES-And that’s exactly what it’s going to be. It’s going to be a large area, and I’m
trying to answer the Staff’s comments and the Board’s comments. I mean, as far as what
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
actually is going to be utilized as the commercial entity, it is about five acres, four and a half to
five acres.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, comments?
MR. BRYANT-I just want to, I think the growing area is part and parcel to the commercial
aspect because if you didn’t have the growing area, he’d have to buy everything. So he’d have
to have an area to grow what he’s selling, or he’d have to buy it. So I think it’s all part and
parcel of the commercial, but that’s just my interpretation.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-I have a question to nobody in particular, but how would this differ from a
cluster development where the houses would be quote in a specific area, but surrounded by
landscaping?
MR. STONE-In one sense I guess you could say it doesn’t. I mean, it doesn’t allow any more
density than this 20 acre parcel can hold, according to Code. Actually it’s less than the thing,
and it is a multiple use zone. Bruce, I mean, I’m looking at you.
MR. FRANK-Well, if you were to cluster, subdivide and cluster a parcel of land today, you’d be
creating individual lots.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. FRANK-So in the area that you would designate to be undeveloped would go towards the
smaller clustering that you’ve created. So that isn’t the case here. He’s not creating three
separate lots on that smaller, pre-existing, nonconforming parcel. Here he has two
nonconforming, pre-existing dwellings on that parcel. So you can’t really compare it to a
cluster. If you want to look at it from the numbers alone, then there’s some justification there,
but as far as the true way you would cluster today, it doesn’t really apply.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-I knew somebody had the answer.
MR. STONE-It is and it isn’t. Okay.
MR. BRYANT-I have one more question. The houses are rental units, right?
MR. WING-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So the worst case scenario is, on its current configuration, you’d have three
houses and a garage, if we didn’t allow the construction of the fourth house. Is that what the
worst case scenario is?
MR. WING-The one that I’m trying to get approval for really couldn’t be a garage for what use.
I mean.
MR. BRYANT-A garage to park the cars in.
MR. WING-For the three houses?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. WING-Could it be? I guess it could be.
MR. BRYANT-I’m just looking at, what is the worst case scenario?
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. WING-I, personally, don’t feel that that would work, for several reasons.
MR. BRYANT-Well, tell me what the reasons are.
MR. WING-The one house that’s separated, I mean, quite some distance from this building
here, the existing two story house to the far right.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, the wood frame house?
MR. WING-Yes, the one that’s over closer to the proposed road that goes in, and just the
structure of the building itself, it would almost be impossible to turn that into, the way it’s built,
the way the structure is framed, I’ve had the Building and Code guys over there, two of them,
to see what, I actually went to the Town and asked what can I do. What’s going to best fit this
building, and that’s when I had discovered, along with help from them, that the residential is
the best fit for it. It’s almost, to create the garage doors, and the height, ceilings in there, it’s
nearly impossible, the amount of money invested, you’d almost be better off building a new
one.
MR. STONE-So technically what, I mean, just go back to what you’re asking for. Right now,
you have a nonconforming, if you could consolidate the two lots, you would have two
nonconforming structures on that lot. You would have the garage, but you’d have two houses
where only one would be allowed, on the 20 acres, unless you subdivided.
MR. WING-Correct.
MR. STONE-What you’re asking is that we say that you allow four houses where one is
allowed, technically.
MR. STEVES-Correct. Right now you have two lots. You have two existing, separate tax
parcels. One at .69 acres with two residential structures and a concrete block garage, and you
have a nineteen acre parcel with an existing two story home on it.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. STEVES-And what we’re saying is that that one tiny lot, we’re willing to give away a lot to
allow us to take that existing structure, like I say, no exterior improvements, no expansion of the
footprint of the building, convert it into a residential use, and then we’ll merge it with the entire
property. That’s what we’re asking for.
MR. STONE-Anything else?
MR. ABBATE-It’s still bothering me, because I simply don’t know the answer. We currently
have a nonconforming lot, and we also currently have nonconforming buildings. Am I correct
so far? Okay. If we approve this, would there be any impact, in terms of reclassification, on the
nonconforming lot and nonconforming buildings? That’s really my question, and that’s what’s
bothering me, because if there is an impact, then perhaps we might be going in to a gray area of
rezoning, and that was my original question.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate, we’re not really rezoning, because that’s our job is to say the zoning is
not correct, we’re modifying the requirements of the zoning. We’re not changing the zoning.
The zoning would call for one house on this big lot, and one house on the small lot, which
would also be pre-existing, nonconforming, the one where the garage is. I mean, technically
there should only be one, can’t even be one house on there but there is, but it’s pre-existing. All
we’re saying is that recognizing the size of the piece of property, the willingness of the owner to
combine them, that we would allow four dwelling units on the property. The fact that these
four units, if they were in a subdivision, would require 12 acres, is really frosting on the cake, in
a sense, the way I look at it.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the
application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JANINE REMARQUE
MS. REMARQUE-I have some questions. Hello. My name is Janine Remarque, 24 Hewitt
Road, which is the property behind, located behind East Road, and I just wanted some
clarification, because when I got the notice of the hearing, I wasn’t clear whether or not, what
Mr. Wing’s intention was to modify the existing building that’s a garage to make it like an
apartment building structure with four families in that?
MR. STONE-No, with one family in it.
MS. REMARQUE-Okay. So it’s converting just the garage?
MR. STONE-I am correct, gentlemen?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. STONE-It’s converting that into a one family house to go along with the three other one
family homes on the property.
MS. REMARQUE-That are clustered on the corner?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MS. REMARQUE-Okay. That was what I was just curious whether or not it was going, we were
going to have an apartment building at the corner of the block.
MR. STONE-No. We will make sure that that’s what it is, when we get through, if we approve
this.
MS. REMARQUE-Okay, and the other concern I had is in the last hearing that you had, I had
raised the question of whether or not there was any intention of doing any future development
or subdividing on other acres of the property, somewhere down the road, and like I said, when
I got this notice, it raised some concerns about whether or not the original discussion we had a
few months back had changed, and if there were any further intentions, but that was the only
thing I was concerned with.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MS. REMARQUE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Would you gentlemen come forth, and would you please comment on her concern.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STEVES-Okay. On the two comments that were brought up, the existing concrete block
garage is going to be converted into a one unit dwelling, single unit, not a four-plex, and has far
as the subdivision, no, we have no intentions on subdividing. Just the opposite. We’re here to
merge properties together, and as far as future development plans, none at this time. The only
development plans that my client has at this time is to allow that, and then construct his
nursery. We are not looking to subdivide this property.
MR. STONE-That’s about as far as we can go, Bruce. We can’t tell him he can’t subdivide in the
future if it’s a legal lot. Can we?
MR. FRANK-Well, you can ask the question to him, do you think you’ll ever have the intention
to. Can you condition that?
MR. STONE-Well, he answered that they don’t have the intention of doing it.
MR. FRANK-Well, he couldn’t have the use that he’s proposing now, and the subdivision. So, I
mean.
MR. STONE-Right. Right. Okay.
MR. FRANK-If he was to sell the property some day, 30 years from now, and they decided to
subdivide, I mean, I don’t know if you would want to make that condition, or if you could.
MR. STONE-Well, I don’t think we can. I think it’s a long way down the road, but we have the
assurance of Mr. Wing and Mr. Steves that that is not in the current plans in the next few years
that it’ll have to be considered when the time comes. All right. Let’s talk about it. Jim, what do
you think?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we need to reflect upon the fact that the structures are already
located on the site, and that it’s logical to assume that someone would want to do something
with the old site of McDermott’s, which has been there for quite a long time, and it doesn’t
really look like much of a building. I think the proposed plan would be a benefit to the
neighborhood, as far as, you know, structurally it’s going to appear a lot nicer. It’s going to,
you know, push the neighborhood to maybe go in that direction. There’s a lot of substandard
housing in the area, and there’s also a lot of mixed use in that area. There’s everything from
trailers to, you know, rental cabins, just kitty corner on the other side of the road there from the
two. I think I’d basically be in favor of your plan. I know it appears to be asking for a lot of
relief with the three houses, but because they’re already there, it’s a logical conclusion to do
what you’re planning to do.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I don’t have any real objection to the plan. As I said, my only
concern was the fact, every time a nonconforming lot, nonconforming structures come up, I’m
just concerned about it, but other than that, I would have no problem with your plan.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I really think that there’s two sides to every story, and my original comments,
relative to the placement of the nursery and the size of the nursery versus the size of the
residential portion of the lot, you know, it’s just a perceptional thing. Realizing the density
issue and the number of dwellings you could actually put on the lot are more than the four that
you’re asking for, I would be reluctantly in favor of it. I’d rather see the three with a garage,
something happen to the garage, but I understand the logistics. So, this particular one I’ll be in
favor of.
MR. STONE-Roy?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think when we look at the balancing test, the benefit the applicant receives,
whether it can be achieved in any other feasible manner, I guess it’s a toss up there, because of
the type of property it is and what they’re trying to do. So that, to me, is a wash, but I think
there’s a beneficial change to the neighborhood. I think the request is not substantial when you
think about the total acreage involved. I don’t think it’ll have an adverse effect on the physical
or environmental characteristics of the area as well, and this difficulty could be classified as self-
created, but I think on balance, I think I’d be in favor of it, for the same reasons given.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to be the odd man out. I think, looking at the property and the
choices, the uses, there are some alternatives. If the applicant wants four residential units, he
can subdivide and have four residential units. I think the only justification for this is because
the applicant wants to do this, and I think there are some parallels with one of our recent
actions on Tuthill, and I think we’re doing the same thing here. The area for the commercial
nursery is commercial use. I don’t think it should be counted twice. If it’s not counted twice,
then that removes the justification of all that acreage for the four homes and leaves you putting
four residences on something like two acres, in an area that’s supposed to have three acres per
one home. Further, when the rezoning went through just recently, I believe all those homes
were there, and whoever did the rezoning in this area did so in the wisdom that felt that they
should be one home for three acres. That’s why it was zoned that way, and I just don’t see
justification for overruling that. as I say, I don’t believe we should be counting the commercial
acreage twice, once for the residences and once for the nursery. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. STONE-Well, I basically concur, well, I do concur with the majority of the Board. I’m not
sure I agree with Mr. McNulty, in terms of counting it twice. I think what we have is a
commercial operation, and I, originally, was concerned that we’re kind of squeezing an awful
lot into a piece of property, yet I recognize that, as stated by one of the Board members, that
those buildings are there. We had nothing to do with putting them there. They were there, in
many cases, long before it was zoned this way. What we’re saying is we recognize Mr. Wing’s,
in a sense, balancing his investment, if you will. He hopes to make a big go of the nursery. At
the same time, it’s nice to have rental income. I assume you’re not living in all four homes
yourself. It’s nice to have rental income coming in. It is certainly a large tract of land. I look at
it more, as I said earlier, as a kind of a private nursery selling material out of it, but it’s certainly
going to be green, and it’s going to be open space, and it’s going to be permeable. We certainly
hope the rain is going to go in and do its job. So, having said that, on balance, I definitely think
it’s a worthy application, and having said that, I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2004 ROBERT C. WING, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
147 Sunnyside Road. The applicant is proposing to consolidate two parcels totaling 20.59 acres
and to convert an existing garage into a dwelling unit resulting in four dwelling units on the
new parcel in the RR-3A zone. The relief required is the applicant is requesting relief from the
one single family dwelling per lot requirements to allow for three additional dwelling units per
Section 179-4-010(C6). Again, the vast majority of this parcel is going to be incorporated as a
nursery and retail operation. The small southwest corner of the lot where these pre-existing
structures exist, he’s asking to convert the concrete block garage into a single-family dwelling
unit, not a multiple family dwelling unit. For the reasons that we’ve previously discussed, it
seems a logical conclusion to the reuse of that building. So I move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-Would you be willing to include a statement, Mr. Underwood, that the applicant
has assured us, even though it’s in the record, that there are no plans in the future, as far as he is
concerned, for subdividing the rest of this land? Just a comment. It’s not a stipulation.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess we could include that, but I think it would be incompatible with its
intended use as a nursery. You can’t subdivide a nursery into anything but a, it’s already a
concerted use for it.
MR. STONE-Well, if we get a drought for the next 10 years, it becomes land that maybe won’t
grow anything. That’s the only reason I say that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t know how you would word it.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, should the applicant, let’s say in the unforeseeable future, decide
he wanted to subdivide, well those four dwelling units would have to be reconsidered into the
density at that time.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you don’t think it’s necessary. That’s fine.
MR. FRANK-You couldn’t create a nonconforming lot, in the future, with three dwelling units
without appearing before the Board again. So, I don’t think he intends to do that, but if he did,
it would not be an easy go.
MR. STONE-It would not. Okay. Then, fine.
MR. STEVES-Plus the fact, just real quickly, if we were to subdivide these, and have three acres
per dwelling unit, as you can see in the location of them, we’d be back in front of this Board for
all kinds of setback variances.
MR. STONE-I think that’s what Mr. Frank is saying. Yes. Okay. Thank you for that
clarification.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. WING-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II MICHAEL M. DUGGAN, JR. OWNER:
MICHAEL M. DUGGAN, JR. ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 861 SHERMAN AVENUE
APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 396 SQ. FT. ONE-CAR DETACHED GARAGE AND
SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS
REFERENCE: BP 2003-590, BP 2003-685, BP 85-439 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
301.17-2-47 SECTION: 179-4-030
MICHAEL DUGGAN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2004, Michael M. Duggan, Jr., Meeting Date: March 17,
2004 “Project Location: 861 Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
constructed a 396 sq. ft. one-car detached garage. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting
10 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement of the SR-20 Zone, per §
179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-590: 08/21/03,
construction of a 396 sq. ft. one-car detached garage. BP 2003-685: 08/27/03, conversion of an
attached garage into storage space. Staff comments: An investigation of a concern by the
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
Building and Codes Department revealed the applicant had placed the structure, in error, too
close to the front property line. The applicant claims he set the structure 30 feet back from the
shoulder of the road believing that to be the front property line. The hand-drawn site plan
submitted for the building permit shows a 30-foot distance from the structure to Sherman Ave.
an accurate measurement revealed the structure is set back 30 feet from the shoulder of the road
and 33.5 feet from the closest edge of the travel lane (fog line). If the roadbed is centered within
the Sherman Ave. right-of-way, the structure setback is 20.5 feet, requiring 9.5 feet of relief (the
applicant is requesting 10 feet of relief).”
MR. MC NULTY-And No County.
MR. STONE-Mr. Frank, just before we go there, you wrote if the roadbed is centered. Do we
know where the roadbed, where the right of way is?
MR. FRANK-We don’t know, and it’s typical throughout the Town. The roadbed doesn’t
always fall dead center of the roadway.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. FRANK-We need a survey to determine that. There’s no other way to determine it besides
having it surveyed.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Sir?
MR. DUGGAN-Yes. My name’s Michael Duggan. I did build the building all by myself. I had
no help. I believed, when I went and applied for the application, that the boundary line of my
property was the side of the road. In fact, the Town owns 50 feet for the right of way of the
road, which I did not know, and so it’s 25 feet off the center line. So that’s where I measured
was 30 feet off the property line. Which I was told the property line was the side of the road,
and not knowing.
MR. STONE-You were told by whom?
MR. DUGGAN-The Town.
MR. STONE-The Town told you?
MR. DUGGAN-Told me it was the property line. Which I perceived the property line to be the
side of the road. I did not know that the Town owned 50 feet for the road.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you felt in the right when you did it.
MR. DUGGAN-It was an honest mistake on my part, but, you know, there should be more
information on building. Because we have to pay, in this Town, to build. There’s no
information, you know, they told me 30 feet from the property line. There’s no information
telling me that the property line, you know, is 25 feet from the center of the road. As you all
have seen the site, it’s already built.
MR. STONE-We recognize the words “has constructed”, yes.
MR. DUGGAN-I just don’t understand how, you know, I get all done and now it comes to the
end where I’ve just about put the roof on and they finally catch it. I was out there working on it
and the Town’s driven by probably two or three times and I just can’t understand, when they
inspected the footings, why didn’t they catch it then? I asked that same question to the Building
Inspectors, and they said it’s not our job. What is their job? That’s my question.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re not a happy camper.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. DUGGAN-Needless to say, no, but, that’s why I’m here.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me ask a question. Why did you put the garage where you did?
MR. DUGGAN-Back yard’s limited space. I wanted to keep the back yard open for my son to
play in. I didn’t want to cut it up with the garage, because my back yard, the front yard’s
probably one and a half times my back yard, because my house sits 70 feet off the road. Plus I
didn’t want the long driveway.
MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, I know I was struck, as I drove down Sherman Avenue, how
incongruous this garage is to the neighborhood. There is nothing out in front of homes at that
particular point. I just noticed it. It is not our purview. You can build, as long as you build
according to Code, but it seemed to me that it was just stuck way out in front of everybody
else’s, but we’ll get to that. Any comments?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I just want to answer, it really isn’t the Town’s job to take surveys, but that
leads to my question. Building that close to the road, did you ever take a survey of the property
to find out where you could actually build? Was there ever a survey taken by a professional
surveyor?
MR. DUGGAN-No.
MR. BRYANT-So you just laid it out with a tape measure, measured from the road, end of
story?
MR. URRICO-I do have one question. Bruce, if we don’t know exactly where the center of the
road is, then how are we determining what the exact setback should be for this variance?
MR. FRANK-Well, that’s a good question. I mean, the applicant is requesting ten feet of relief. I
think you know the answer. Do you want to impose a hardship of forcing the applicant have a
survey done to show what the exact relief is? I mean, unfortunately with our submittal for
building permits for projects like this, we don’t require a survey to be submitted. If the
applicant doesn’t have a survey, he works off of a tax map. Unfortunately for the applicant,
and he did mention this, why didn’t the Building Inspector notice this when he went to check
out the forms? Why did he wait until the structure was completely built? I don’t have the
answer to that. What I do know is, and I’ve made the suggestion that maybe as part of the
building permit process, that for applications like this, that the applicant should give a distance
from the center of the road. We know the right of way is 50 feet, typically. So we know its
going to have to be at least 25 feet, plus whatever the required front setback is. That should be a
flag right there for the Zoning Administrator when he reviews the building permit for zoning
compliance, that something’s not right here. The applicant did submit a generic plot plan, and
he showed the distance that he put it at to Sherman Ave. I mean, unfortunately, a lot of people
do not realize where their front property line begins, unless they live in a newer subdivision
where the pins are still there, where it’s more obvious where a survey comes to the property.
For older parcels, a lot of people do not have surveys of their property, and a lot of people are
ignorant of the fact that their property line is not where the roadbed ends, and I hear it a lot. It’s
not an uncommon problem.
MR. BRYANT-Well, you know, I can understand if somebody’s building a deck or somebody’s
building a porch, and not requiring a survey, but this is a separate structure. Whether it’s a
garage or it’s a house or whatever, and we’ve run into this numerous times, where contractors,
legitimate contractors, have built the structure without a survey, and, frankly, in my view it
should be part of the process, and I know it’s an additional expense, but which is the greater
expense, a survey before you build, or a survey after the garage is done and you’ve got to move
it 10 feet?
MR. FRANK-You’ve got a valid point. I understand where you’re coming from, and one of the
other concerns is not just imposing the additional financial hardship. Where do you draw the
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
line? Do you make it anything over a certain amount of square feet for a deck, as opposed to
another structure? Where would you draw that line what requires an as built survey of the
foundation beforehand, and what doesn’t require?
MR. STONE-Well, let me ask you that. Let me ask you that, Bruce. If nobody detected this, is
there a CO process for a garage, first of all?
MR. FRANK-They don’t require an as built survey for a garage.
MR. STONE-They don’t require an as built survey.
MR. FRANK-As built surveys are required for new dwellings.
MR. STONE-New construction, I understand.
MR. FRANK-New construction or dwellings, not for garages.
MR. STONE-So, in other words, it falls to you guys to go out and look at all of these, any garage
that’s built, if you will, and even though you’re not a surveyor, say, well, you eyeball it.
MR. FRANK-Typically one of the building inspectors, who are always the first ones on the site,
they give us a heads up, I think something’s wrong with this, could you check it out.
Unfortunately, this was not given to us early. It was given to us long after the structure was
already built. These guys are very busy. We’re very busy. I mean, I’m not trying to make
excuses. Another reason, and I’ve tried to express the same point to my supervisor that Mr.
Bryant stated is that, why don’t we require these surveys beforehand, so there’s no confusion.
Well, there’s a time constraint also. I’m sure, if you were to call Mr. Steves up to the
microphone, he would tell you that he’s back logged a long ways, sometimes four to six weeks,
and contractors don’t like the thought that they would have to be held up in the building
process for four to six weeks before they could go ahead and start their construction. So that
was what I was told by my supervisors besides. I mean, it’s a problem, I agree. I don’t have an
answer, and I’m not sure if anybody does.
MR. STONE-So it falls to the Zoning Board of Appeals to be the good guy or the bad guy.
MR. FRANK-Well, it’s not an easy job you have, I agree with you there.
MR. ABBATE-Well, Mr. Chairman, I made a promise I wasn’t going to say anything on this, but
I just can’t stand it. I’m a firm believer that, you know, individuals must comply with the laws
and must stay within the framework of the law. There’s no question about that, and when they
exceed, go outside the framework of the law, they should held accountable, but here is a set of
circumstances, and Mr. Duggan, you’re not the only individual to come before us, it seems to
me that there are tremendous flaws in the way the Town administers their building programs,
and I don’t think it’s quite fair to hold an applicant responsible for rules and regulations that are
nonexistent, because you have a backlog, or because we don’t know where the middle of the
line road is, etc., etc., and, Mr. Duggan, I must tell you that, people come before the Board, and
when I read something that says, has already constructed, you know, my mind is pretty well
made up, but I think there’s more to it than that. I think the Town is more at fault than the
applicant, in this case, and I don’t think we should penalize the applicant because the Town has
a problem, and there are flaws in the rules and regulations. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-In that regard, Mr. Chairman, you know, I agree with Mr. Abbate somewhat.
However, I think it’s incumbent upon the applicant, the builder, to, just for his own peace of
mind, regardless of the delays, to make sure that he’s putting a structure, we’re not talking
about a porch that can easily be removed. We’re talking about a garage that has concrete
footings and would probably have a pad down there, whatever you’ve got, you know, before he
begins building that, that he knows where he can build and where he can’t build. I mean, that, I
think, is incumbent upon the applicant, and I don’t think that the, it’s not part of the normal
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
process. I don’t think that the Town is necessarily liable in this case, or at fault, but I think that
it calls attention to the fact that the process doesn’t work, that we should address the process, so
that these kind of errors, I mean, we had a couple of them last year where houses were
involved, whole houses were built, and there were setback issues, one on two roads. So, I think
it’s the process that should be reviewed and not necessarily, it’s not a question, really, of blame,
but let’s try to avoid these complications in the future. That’s all.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, I would agree, but let me make one other point. When an individual
comes before us, and based on what we can read and what we hear, it appears that the
individual has acted in good faith, why should he be penalized? Thank you.
MR. MC NULTY-Can I put my two cents in, as long as we’re on the subject?
MR. STONE-Please do.
MR. MC NULTY-I’m inclined to agree, somewhat, with both the previous speakers. It strikes
me that even though we may not have a lot of time with Town staff, and even though it may not
be the Town’s job to check a survey, and this is a good example where apparently somebody
from Building and Codes looked at this thing, after it was up, and said, gee, it looks like it’s too
close to the road. Well, doggone it, if they can look at it when it’s up and get that impression,
they should have been able to look at it as the applicant says when the forms were there, before
he poured concrete, and come up with the same conclusion, and it doesn’t take that long to just
at least get that gut feeling that, is this close enough that I ought to warn the applicant that he
better do some checking first, and I think our Building and Codes people probably have got a
couple of advantages over a lot of the people that come before us. One is they look at a lot of
structures. So they’re probably better at eyeballing distances and picking up when something is
maybe too close, and they’re aware of some of these considerations which the average
homeowner may not be. They may not be aware that they need to be careful about how close
something is to a lot line. So I think there’s something that the Town staff could do, without
taking a lot of extra time. Second, to answer Mr. Abbate, you know, I understand what he’s
saying about, if it’s not the applicant’s fault, maybe we should do something to alleviate the
problem, but I’m not sure that’s our job, either. We’ve got to look at where structures are and
whether or not they’re a detriment to the neighborhood, and sometimes maybe regrettably still
deny the variance. I don’t know how we’ll go on this one, but I definitely think the Town’s got
to be more proactive in helping applicants pick up problems before they’ve poured concrete.
Thank you.
MR. STONE-We’re very fortunate tonight. We not only have our normal Staff person. We also
have two members of the Town Board listening to this argument, and I will make no
suggestions one way or the other at this point in time, but at least they’re hearing the
arguments, your concerns, our concerns, and they may even hear our hardnosed reaction, but
we haven’t gotten there yet. So we’ve still got a process. Anything else?
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, we don’t want to overlook another VIP here either. We have a
County At Large Supervisor, I do believe, here, in the back of the room, looking down at the
present time.
MR. STONE-And what does the County have to do with the Town of Queensbury?
FRED CHAMPAGNE
MR. CHAMPAGNE-Nothing, thank you.
MR. STONE-You’re welcome, Mr. Champagne. Okay. Nothing else? Let me open the public
hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody
opposed? Opposed? Please come forward.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
SUZETTE USHER
MRS. USHER-My name is Suzette Usher, and I live next door on the east side to Mr. Duggan,
my husband Jack, and I, and if I may, I’ll show you where our house is.
MR. STONE-It’s the one to the right of the yellow, right?
MRS. USHER-Put the first picture up, with the structure there, the building. Okay. Our house
is right here. You can just see a little corner of it there.
MR. STONE-Right. Okay, as you said, to the east.
MRS. USHER-And we noticed Mr. Duggan pouring the floor, and we were going to say
something to him, but we noticed he has a building permit. So we just assumed that he had
gone through the process and gotten permission to build that close to the road.
MR. STONE-No. He got permission to build.
MRS. USHER-Yes.
MR. STONE-As you’re hearing.
MRS. USHER-Right. So I feel bad that he worked very hard to build this structure, and without
the variance I realize he would have to move it. My concern is that the building disturbs the
symmetry of the row of houses, and the view to our west, and this concerns devaluation of our
property because of this garage placement, and the possibility of the rear of the garage being
used to store building materials and wood and so forth, which would be in our view. So, that’s
all I have to say, but I do have some photographs.
MR. STONE-Why don’t you give them to us. Let me just, for the record, make Mrs. Usher
aware that if he moved this garage back 10 feet, we wouldn’t be here. He would have the right
to build it 10 feet further away from the road, but that still would have been, using your word,
the symmetry would have been hindered.
MRS. USHER-Well, it’s my understanding that all the structures on our street must be 75 feet
back from the road.
MR. STONE-That is not the case.
MRS. USHER-Are you sure?
MR. STONE-Staff tells us it’s not the case. He’s our expert.
MRS. USHER-And this is just because I know that our block is an exception to the rest of the
road.
MR. FRANK-The front setback requirement in the SR-20 zone is 30 feet.
MR. STONE-It’s 30 feet, and that whole area is, that’s the way it’s zoned?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s, the zoning is 30 feet.
MRS. USHER-But the deeds say that that part must be 75 feet.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STONE-Deeds are not controlling. It’s the Town Zoning Code which is controlling.
MRS. USHER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-I mean you, as a homeowner, if there was an Association, could bring it up with
Mr. Duggan, but it’s not a matter for the Town. We don’t deal with covenants.
MRS. USHER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. DUGGAN-I’d like to make a few comments. I just want to comment on her, I cut down
probably, I don’t know, 30 trees. I mean, the front yard was all full of garbage when I bought
the house. I mean, I just can’t see how it’s going to obstruct her view when there was no view
to begin with. I mean, there was, like I said, right in that spot there was 30 trees there. I just
don’t see where there was a view before.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments?
MR. URRICO-I have a question. Are you in construction?
MR. DUGGAN-No.
MR. URRICO-Because she mentioned something about you storing construction materials back
there?
MR. DUGGAN-Yes, stuff to build it. I mean, it definitely looks ugly. I mean, to go back on
your comment, look at it, I mean, it sticks out like a sore thumb because of the plastic, you
know. I had to do something to preserve how much money I’ve got into it, you know.
MR. STONE-Sure, I mean, you’re obviously, if we gave you a variance, there’s a lot of work for
you to do on it.
MR. DUGGAN-Yes, I’ve got all the stuff to finish it. I’ve had the stuff to finish it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. DUGGAN-That’s what she’s talking about, I guess.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck, let’s talk about it. Do you want to start?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Duggan, I just want you to know where I’m coming from.
I’m not particularly taking your side. I generally have strong feelings when individuals who
come before the Board and request a variance only to find out they have already constructed
what they’re requesting permission to do, but several interesting points have come up this
evening, and I think there is a fairness standard that has to be applied, until this can be resolved
by the Town, and based on the fact that there are some flaws in the administration of this
program, I am going to vote on the side of what I consider to be right and be justice, and I’m
going to support your application.
MR. STONE-Allan?
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. BRYANT-Primarily there are a number of criteria when we have an application for a
variance, a number of criteria that we have to, questions that we basically have to answer
relative to the application, and one of them is to determine whether or not it has an effect on the
neighborhood. In my view, I think the neighbor indicated that, you know, it’s close to the road.
The Chairman indicated that, you know, you can see it from both sides of the road, and,
frankly, I was able to find the garage right away, without even looking for it, because it’s the
only structure near the road and Sherman Avenue for blocks.
MR. DUGGAN-I don’t know about that.
MR. BRYANT-So, in my view, it does pose a detriment to the neighborhood, and frankly, I
understand that we’re only talking about 10 feet, and I understand that there’s a tremendous
hardship. However, I also believe that it was incumbent upon you to assure yourself that
where you were putting this structure was legitimate and there wouldn’t be an issue, and you
should have taken the survey, so, in this particular application, I’m going to be opposed.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to agree with Mr. Abbate on this one. I also think there’s a sense
of fairness of play here, and to me the telling measurement to me is an accurate measurement
revealed that the structure is setback 30 feet from the shoulder of the road to me demonstrates
that the applicant did, in good faith, believe that he was within 30 feet. That’s where he should
have been, and measured it from the side of the road. Now, whether he should have measured
beforehand, excuse me, should have gotten a survey beforehand, again, I think goes back to
procedure, and something that is not done on a regular basis, or a part of the application
process at this point, but I could understand where somebody that doesn’t do this for a living,
that’s just putting up a garage for themselves, could make this mistake, and there was nothing
to tell him, somewhere along the line, that you’re making a mistake, and normally we try to
look at this as if you’re coming before us without, with clean hands, so to speak, is Mr. Stone’s
favorite line, and I just feel that, in this case, the applicant made a mistake. It’s not a real serious
mistake, and I think it’s something the Town could live with, and I’d be in favor of it, at this
point.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, this is a difficult one, but I’m going to basically agree with Mr. Bryant.
Again, a lot of times somebody’s built something and then comes to us for a variance, we land
on them because we feel they should have checked first. I can understand why this happened.
MR. DUGGAN-But I did check, that’s the thing.
MR. MC NULTY-Right. So, I don’t hold that against you. I also look at the thing and realize
that, with the amount of masonry work you’ve got in that, it’s going to be one heck of a job to
move it. It’s going to be a lot more difficult than if it were a framed building just on a pad, but,
nevertheless, also looking at the criteria, I agree. I think it’s going to be a detriment to the
neighborhood. If you had been before us before you had done any of this, and asked to place
the garage there, I definitely would have said no. So the only justification for saying yes is
because of the difficulty it’s going to create for you, but I think it’s going to be a detriment to the
neighborhood as well. So, I’m generally going to be opposed on it. I would add one caveat.
Whatever, however this vote comes out, with one neighbor mentioning something about the
possibility of a setback in your deeds, if you haven’t checked that, before you do anything more,
you might want to double check, because while the Town won’t enforce that, your neighbors
could take a civil action against you. So you want to make sure that you’re in compliance with
whatever might be in your deed, or maybe there’s nothing there, but it would pay to be sure,
but in any event, I’m going to be opposed.
MR. STONE-Jim?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I basically will be supportive of your application for the nine and a half or
ten feet of relief, whatever it works out to. I think that, you know, there probably never was
any intent to build your garage closer to the road than you had wanted to, or than anyone
would have assumed you would have. At the same time, you know, I would make the
suggestion, you know, maybe on your neighbor’s side there, because it does appear to be a little
bit of a snouty garage sticking out there, that you could plant some vegetation on the sides to
break up the outline of it, once your house is completed at some point in the future.
MR. DUGGAN-I plan to.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we, too, also could direct that the Building and Codes
Department, and I mean, it would be very simple to include a little pink piece of paper on the
front of every application saying all structures to be located within 50 feet of the side of the road
should be measured accurately from the centerline of the road, and I think that would give a
pretty ballpark estimate of where your structure should be located, so we don’t continue to get
these same ones month after month.
MR. STONE-And I asked you to get me last, Sue, right? I’m very conflicted here. I mean, I’ve
heard everything that everybody says. I’ve heard Mr. Urrico remind us all that we quite often
have looked at cases like this and said what would we have done if you had come to us before
you built. I definitely would have said no, and Mr. McNulty did. It is much too close to the
road, particularly, and Mr. Bryant said it, I think best, as you come down the road, whether
you’re coming east or west, it is there. It’s right in your face, and it’s the only, I heard you start
to argue there are others, not in your immediate neighborhood. I mean, it was very obvious to
me, as I was driving west, that, wow, that must be the place I’m trying to get to. Because it was
way out in front of everybody else. I do recognize, and let me talk, because I don’t know where
I’m going yet, I do recognize the situation. I think the comment that Mr. Underwood makes, I
would sincerely recommend to the Building Department that we do that, we develop a post-it
or a sticker or something that says, if you’re going to put it near the road, be sure you know
where the road is. Be sure you know where the right of way is. That is something that we’ve
had a number of problems of that over the years that I’ve been on the Board, and this may be
the best suggestion I’ve heard yet, that we, in fact, do flag every building application that way.
There is, I mean, I could be hardnosed and say no, which would be the same as a no decision,
because we would be three, three at this point, and we have to have four votes either way to
approve or eventually to deny. I’m not very comfortable in saying yes. I would much rather
have a full Board, so that we, it works out, because I really don’t like the idea of granting this.
On the other hand, I hear Mr. Abbate, say, well, in the spirit of justice. Well, we have criteria for
this thing, and let me just go through it, because it isn’t often that we really have to think of
each and every one. Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means. Yes, you could have
built it in a conforming situation.
MR. DUGGAN-I don’t believe so because my septic is right behind there.
MR. STONE-Well, you didn’t mention the septic. Now you’re mentioning, let me just say that
the undesirable change in the neighborhood, to me, is very important. I think it is undesirable.
The request is substantial. Well, it’s 30 percent, approximately, 10 feet on 30, give or take, that’s
about 33 percent actually. Whether the request will have an adverse physical or environmental
effect. I think it will. I think in terms of just the location, you’ve got one neighbor who is
concerned that it’s sticking out very far, and the most important attribute in this particular case,
is whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, and even though you believe, and you’ve got a
building permit, it is still incumbent upon you to be sure that what you’re doing is correct. I
don’t often cite my own case, but many years ago, when I sought a variance, before I even knew
what a Zoning Board of Appeals was, I hired a lawyer to help me through the process, to make
sure to get the variance, but I would have sought technical help to make sure I was putting the
house where I was supposed to put it, because we were being very, almost to the inch. So I
think what I’m going to do is I’m going to say that I’m going to vote no, which means that we
don’t have a decision. I will be willing, if you want, to table it to the next meeting, so that we
have a full Board, and we can go through the same thing again.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. DUGGAN-Can I make a closing statement, maybe change any one of your minds?
MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead.
MR. DUGGAN-I mean, of course it looks ugly when you bring it up there. Once I paint it, put
landscaping, I mean, you won’t notice when you go by. I guarantee it. I mean, it’ll look nice.
I’m bringing topsoil in. I’m trying so much to make it look a lot nicer. I bought the house for
$60,000. It hadn’t been lived in in years. The grass was as tall as me. I just don’t understand
how you guys can sit up there and point at me, and say it’s my fault that I built in the wrong
spot when you know, and all of you said that, this process needs to be changed. I pay you
money to come inspect it, you know, pay you money to build in the Town. What liability lays
on the Town?
MR. STONE-Sir, let me just state for the record, so that everybody knows, we are volunteers.
We are citizens of the Town of Queensbury. We’re not elected. We were appointed by the
Town Board, and we are an independent organization. The courts can overrule us, but nobody
else can overrule us. I just want you to know that. I mean, I appreciate your position, and I
think Mr. Bryant appreciates your position, and so does Mr. McNulty, but a variance, and I’ve
said this many times, a variance is not a God given right. We have had some very high-
powered people come before us asking, and, guess what, they don’t always get what they want.
MR. DUGGAN-I mean, the one neighbor that showed up, if it was 10 feet, it still doesn’t
change. Ten feet isn’t going to get a clear view.
MR. STONE-I agree. It would be further back, but nevertheless, I really do think that I would
prefer that we get the benefit of, do you guys have any objection to that, if we do that?
MR. BRYANT-I object to it.
MR. ABBATE-No, I don’t.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s three, three, Al. We have no vote.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I understand that, but, Mr. Chairman, there’s two things to take into
consideration. We have ten applications at the next meeting. This makes it eleven. That’s one
objection, which has nothing to do with this case. Secondly, I don’t think that not having a full
Board is a legitimate, if the applicant wants to table it, if that’s his prerogative and he can ask
that we table it, but my view is that we ought to vote.
MR. STONE-Well, we have voted.
MR. DUGGAN-You hadn’t voted.
MR. STONE-We hadn’t voted.
MR. BRYANT-We should vote now. Whether we have a full Board or not is not really.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-However, if I remember correctly, back a while ago, we were told that a
failure to approve constitutes a denial.
MR. STONE-That’s been changed.
MR. FRANK-By the way, I’ve been directed by the Town Attorney that you are to disregard
that. That’s being re-reviewed by a higher court. Should you make anymore motions to
approve, and you don’t have the vote, you need to make a motion to deny.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So we are going to end up with a tie if we go the way we.
MR. STONE-Probably, well, why don’t we, we’ll let the yeses make a motion to do this, and
we’ll see where it goes.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll make a motion, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-If you want us to table it, we’ll table it. I can’t guarantee when it’ll be on, because,
as Mr. Bryant says, it won’t be on next month because, well, no, it would be on next month
because we’re not asking for any new information. So it won’t be on next week. It could be on
next month.
MR. DUGGAN-So that makes new conflict. Now it makes the neighbor angrier. You’re
representing the people of Queensbury. You’re making them angrier because now you’re
prolonging it, and it’s going to look like that. It could look like the rest of my house, all nice and
pretty.
MR. STONE-I understand. So, Mr. Abbate, you move that we, at the request of the applicant,
that we table this until a meeting in April.
MR. ABBATE-I do, Mr. Chairman.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2004 MICHAEL M. DUGGAN, JR.,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
861 Sherman Avenue. At the request of the applicant, until a meeting in April.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-Then I wish you more luck next time. Maybe you can come up with some other
arguments.
MR. DUGGAN-So this isn’t going to be next week?
MR. STONE-It can’t be next week.
MR. DUGGAN-Just because you’ve got too many? I’ll stay here all night if I have to.
MR. STONE-We won’t stay here. We’re going to table it until it next month.
MR. DUGGAN-Next month.
MR. STONE-I think Mr. Bryant is correct, we have a full plate next week.
MR. BRYANT-We have ten next week.
MR. ABBATE-He’s right.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II FRANK C. PALANGI OWNER:
FRANK C. PALANGI ZONING: MU LOCATION: 36 QUEENSBURY AVENUE
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE
MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENT FOR BOTH LOTS AND THE MINIMUM LOT
WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR LOT NUMBER ONE. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2000-381
(SHED) LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-47 SECTION: 179-4-030
FRANK PALANGI, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2004, Frank C. Palangi, Meeting Date: March 17, 2004
“Project Location: 36 Queensbury Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes the subdivision of a 0.67-acre parcel (approximately 29,185 sq. ft.) into two lots of
14,665 sq. ft. and 14,520 sq. ft. in the MU Zone. Relief Required: 1) For Lot #1: 10,335 sq. ft. of
relief from the 25,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the MU Zone. 2)
For Lot #2: 10,480 sq. ft. of relief from the 25,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement, per § 179-
4-030 for the MU Zone. 3) For Lot #1: 45 feet of relief from the 100-foot minimum lot width
requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the MU Zone. 4) For Lot #2: 10 feet of relief from the 120-foot
minimum lot depth requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the MU Zone. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-381: 07/12/00, 200 sq. ft. storage shed. Staff
comments: It appears the proposed lots would not be out of character with other lots in the
neighborhood or all of the adjacent UR-10 Zone. In the opinion of staff, had the previous owner
requested the parcel be rezoned to the adjacent UR-10 Zone back in 2002 when the new zoning
ordinance was adopted, the request would probably have been granted being the parcel is the
only one in the MU Zone that has frontage on Carroll Street and is mostly surrounded by the
UR-10 Zone. Had the parcel been rezoned to UR-10, the current proposal would only need 20
feet of lot width relief from the 75-foot minimum requirement for Lot #1. Note: the minimum
lot size requirement for the UR-10 Zone is 10,000 sq. ft.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 10,
2004 Project Name: Palangi, Frank C. Owner: Frank C. Palangi ID Number: QBY-04-AV-15
County Project#: Mar04-28 Current Zoning: MU Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision. Relief requested from the minimum lot
area for both lots and minimum lot width requirement for lot number one. Site Location: 36
Queensbury Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 303.16-1-47 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The
applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of an “L” shaped parcel that has frontage on Carrol
Street and Queensbury Avenue. The parcel is located in the Multiple use zone and surrounded
by the Urban Residential Use – 10,000 sq. ft. Parcel one is to be 14,665 sq. ft. and parcel two is to
be 14,520 sq. ft. In addition Lot one requires relief from the lot width of 75 ft. for the existing of
55 ft. The information submitted indicates the lot size would be consistent with the UR-10
surrounding neighborhood. Staff does not identify an impact on county resource based on the
information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, 3/12/04.
MR. STONE-Mr. Palangi, anything you want to add?
MR. PALANGI-Yes. Basically, I wasn’t aware of the way it was zoned when I purchased the
house. I talked with the previous owner, Beverly Ann Close, and when it was rezoned
commercial, or light commercial, she wasn’t aware of the change either, or she definitely would
have tried to keep it residential. I had purchased the house in 2003, which is, what, a year later.
Talking with the neighbors, they seemed very, they welcomed the idea of having a house there,
versus the commercial impact that could happen if I were to sell the property, you know, the
house existing now the way it is. They would much rather have a house there, which I did get
some signatures. I don’t know if the Board got those. I went around and I got some signatures.
MR. STONE-If they were submitted, we got them.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. PALANGI-On the proposal.
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t remember seeing anything in here.
MR. FRANK-It’s part of the application.
MR. STONE-Question. Yours is not the house on the corner, the house which doesn’t appear on
the survey?
MR. PALANGI-No. That’s a rental house, yes.
MR. STONE-All right. It doesn’t appear on the survey I noticed.
MR. PALANGI-Yes. They’re the houses that all border the proposal.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of Mr. Palangi?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff, basically. On the south, the other, opposite side of
Carroll Street, that’s UR-10? That’s all UR-10?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. Part of your application, there’s the zoning map that’s color coded.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I saw that, but I just wanted to make sure I’m looking at the same thing.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. South of Carroll Street, and that is oriented north and south.
MR. BRYANT-So, is that the only area, right around there, that’s UR-10? What is the rest?
MR. PALANGI-I have a printout, if you’d like.
MR. BRYANT-I’ve got that, too.
MR. PALANGI-Okay.
MR. STONE-Which part is UR-10?
MR. FRANK-I don’t have the zoning overlay on here. It took a while for this laptop. That’s
why he came up with the zoning maps. If you were to follow a line. Here’s Dix Ave. That’s
where most of the Mixed Use zone is surrounding. On the east side of his property, as far as
you can see on this screen, that’s all of the UR-10 zone. On the west side, the same situation. If
you were to go from here due west, it’s all UR-10 zone, for a long ways, that’s why he provided
that zoning map to show you that, it’s pretty much a peninsula jutting down into the UR-10
zone.
MR. BRYANT-Except for his property.
MR. FRANK-Except for, his property is that little peninsula that juts down into the UR-10 zone,
and again, why wasn’t it looked at when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Well, it’s a big
Town, there’s a lot of parcels. If the applicant had come and said, you know, why am I being
kept in this Mixed Use zone which would allow commercial development, then we would have
said, we agree with what you’re saying, and again, I had this conversation with the Zoning
Administrator. He concurred with what I said, but there was no way for the Steering
Committee to look at every tiny parcel in the Town and say, gee, should it be in this zone or that
zone. It was previously zoned under a different zoning classification, but nothing changed.
The line never changed. That’s why.
MR. BRYANT-And basically, assuming that this thing is divided the way he would like to
divide it, then that piece on Carroll Street is still going to be MU, right?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. FRANK-No. That’s correct, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. It’s still going to be MU. So it’ll be the only piece on that road there, at that
point.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. He actually inquired about a zoning change, and I put that to the
Zoning Administrator, and he said, well, we’d prefer not to rezone properties, and he suggested
that Mr. Palangi go for a variance.
MR. STONE-And we can stipulate that it will stay UR-10, as far as the owner is concerned.
MR. BRYANT-It’s not UR-10.
MR. STONE-I mean the use will not be commercial.
MR. FRANK-That you can do. I mean, he’s asking for something, if you want to make that
condition, if h he’s willing to agree to it.
MR. PALANGI-Yes. I’m also willing to deed it. I’ve talked with the neighbors. I told them it
will be in the deed. In the deed I have on the house on Queensbury Avenue, it says no
intoxicating beverages will be sold there. So I can do the same thing. That wouldn’t be a
problem.
MR. STONE-Okay. Al, does that help you?
MR. FRANK-So, in other words he’s saying the Mixed Use zone allows for residential and
commercial uses. He’d be willing to forego the commercial use, which would be allowed in that
zone, if you were to grant him this relief, to make it only residential use?
MR. BRYANT-Is that correct?
MR. PALANGI-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Not to elongate the process, but wouldn’t it be better to rezone it and then right
the world, so to speak? To put this back where it belongs. If this should have been rezoned
when it was possible, and we have the opportunity to do it now.
MR. FRANK-Yes. The previous owner didn’t realize what was being proposed at the time,
even though we put out a lot of fliers, it was advertised, there were numerous informational
meetings. Again, if you, if I was to zoom out and you could look at the whole east side, there
are so many lots over there that if no one gave it a look, you know, why is this zoned this.
MR. URRICO-I understand that. Right now, we have the option of either creating a
nonconforming lot, by establishing some variances, or rezone it to where it should be.
MR. FRANK-Well, there’s two options.
MR. STONE-There’s two options.
MR. FRANK-I was told that we would prefer not to rezone parcels.
MR. STONE-Yes. We certainly can put the stipulation on it, and we can put it in the file, the
rezoning file, to come up when we look at the whole thing again.
MR. FRANK-Ultimately, you would achieve what a rezoning would do if you were to condition
that no commercial use take place on the parcel, should you grant the relief.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STONE-I mean, I can tell you that, having been on that zoning committee, I mean,
obviously it’s easy for a parcel, or even a couple of parcels to slip through, because, after a
while, you get bug eyed looking at.
MR. BRYANT-Well, from a standpoint of a resident, if I lived on Carroll Street, and knowing
that this thing was going to be split, and that that was still going to, with the possibility that it
could be commercial property, I wouldn’t be really that happy. Because it’s the only lot, really,
on that street, that has that potential.
MR. STONE-I agree.
MR. FRANK-That’s why the applicant is willing to make that a condition. He’s also willing to
put it in his deed, and that was an offer he made.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? Anybody else? Okay. Let me open the public hearing.
Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the
application? Opposed? Would you read that petition in?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Sure. It says, “We have reviewed Frank and Rene Palangi’s proposed plans,
and are in favor of the proposal.” We have nine signatures, Queensbury Avenue, Carroll Street,
about an even mix between Queensbury Avenue and Carroll Street addresses.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
MR. MC NULTY-No. That’s all.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Anybody else have any other questions? Then let’s talk about it. We’ll start with
Allan.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t like the situation where you have so many, so much relief required.
You’ve got four different issues here, but based on the configuration of the neighborhood, and
the fact that if you had been zoned the UR-10, this wouldn’t really be an issue, and based on the
fact that you’re willing to, is that Lot Two, the one on Carroll Street?
MR. PALANGI-Yes. I believe so, yes.
MR. BRYANT-And based on the fact that you’re willing to place a stipulation that that Lot
Number Two will never be used for commercial use, I would be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I would be in favor of the application also, with the stipulations, just
basically to make this right by you people.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can say ditto. I think it’s a case where, as it’s pointed out, that probably this
was an error in zoning, and it really should have been zoned like the adjacent parcels in the
residential area, and so, and certainly with the stipulation that the second lot will never be used
for commercial purposes, I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Jim?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’ll be in agreement, too. This is another classic, one of those
transitional zones, and, you know, you’ve got to look at it from both sides of the coin.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-And I agree with all the comments of my fellow Board members, and I will
support the application.
MR. PALANGI-Thank you.
MR. STONE-And so will I, obviously. Having sat on the Committee, I know that it can happen,
and I applaud your stipulation, and, having said that, I need a motion to approve.
MR. URRICO-I’ll take a shot at it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2004 FRANK C. PALANGI, Introduced
by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
36 Queensbury Avenue. The applicant proposes the subdivision of a .67-acre parcel
approximately 29,185 square feet into two lots of 14,665 square feet and 14,520 square feet, in
the Mixed Use Zone. This relief required for Lot One will grant relief of 10,335 square feet of
relief from the 25,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement per 179-4-030 for the Mixed
Use Zone. The second relief required is for Lot Number Two. That’s 10,480 square feet of relief
from the 25,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement per 179-4-030 for the Mixed Use
Zone. Relief Number Three is for Lot Number One. It’s 45 feet of relief from the 100-foot
minimum lot width requirement per 179-4-030 for the Mixed Use Zone, and Number Four is for
Lot Number Two, 10 feet of relief from the 120-foot minimum lot depth requirement per 179-4-
030 for the Mixed Use Zone. Per the balancing test, the benefit the applicant would receive
from this cannot be achieved by, the only other feasible means would be a change of zoning in
the area. There would not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby
properties. The relief is not substantial when weighed against the other properties in the
neighborhood, and it will not have any adverse physical or environmental affects, and the
alleged difficulty is really not self-created. I also would like to add the stipulation that this will
not be used for any commercial use at any time in the future, for Lot Number Two.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. PALANGI-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II RANDALL L. HUBER OWNER:
RANDALL L. HUBER ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 1037 BAY ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 32 FT. BY 34. FT. SECOND GARAGE AND
REQUESTS RELIEF FOR AN ADDITIONAL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM THE SQUARE
FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 87-469 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 3/10/2004 LOT SIZE: 5.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.20-1-7 SECTION: 179-
5-020
RANDALL HUBER, PRESENT
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2004, Randall L. Huber, Meeting Date: March 17, 2004
“Project Location: 1037 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 32’ x 34’ storage building/workshop. However, the Zoning Administrator has
determined the structure to be a garage being the proposed sliding door would allow for an
automobile’s access. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting 188 sq. ft. of relief from the
900 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for a garage, and for a second garage, per § 179-5-020(D).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 87-469: 1987, construction of a 1,564
sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an attached garage. Staff comments: The applicant initially
requested relief for an oversized accessory structure to be used partially as a workshop and for
storage of a boat and other equipment. After being informed of the Zoning Administrator’s
determination the proposed structure is a garage, the applicant agreed to proceed with the
request for the relief needed even though he has no intention of using the structure for housing
an automobile. The proposed location for the structure is more than 300 feet from Bay Road in
a depression surrounded by a dense stand of trees on all sides.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March
10, 2004 Project Name: Huber, Randall L. Owner: Randall L. Huber ID Number: QBY-04-
AV-11 County Project#: Mar04-22 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 32 ft. by 34 ft. second garage and requests
relief from an additional garage and relief from the square footage requirements. Site Location:
1037 Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 278.20-1-7 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
proposes to construct a 32’ x 34’ garage for the storage of lawn equipment, a boat, and to use as
a workshop. The applicant is requesting relief to allow a second garage and to exceed the 900
sq. ft. size. The information submitted shows the location of the new garage and elevations.
The applicant indicate the new building will be located 300 ft. from Bay Road, behind a hill, in
the woods to the rear of the property. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources
based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning
Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County
Planning Board 03/12/04.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Huber and gentlemen, before we start, I’ve had some discussion with
the Zoning Administrator on this subject, and I have come to the conclusion that we’re going to
sort of separate this, for discussion purposes. The first thing we’re going to do is decide
whether or not a second garage is allowed on the property, as the Zoning Administrator
indicates. Then, if we approve that, then we will attempt to decide whether, the size of the
building, because our Code does not talk about the size of a second garage, since they’re not
allowed, but if we assume it’s a garage, then we will probably use the 900 feet as a discussion
point. So I just want everybody to know that we’re going to do that. So, go ahead, sir.
MR. HUBER-Okay. Well, basically everything I wrote in the application pretty much covers
everything. Thirty-two by thirty foot building. Whether you call it a garage or a shed is up to
you guys. It’s going to be done very nicely with board and batten, metal roof, for purposes I am
retiring and want some place to store or redo a boat, a workshop where I can go out and spend
some of my, hopefully, long life ahead. I’ve got a lot of property. The amount of equipment I
have, lawnmowers, snow blowers, chain saws, weed whackers and all this stuff, that’s great
with a 900 square foot building, but I want to tell you something, you put two cars in that
garage, you’re banging the doors and everything else, so you need some place else to store
things, and that’s the reason why I want the space I’m asking for, and that’s pretty much it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just remind you, you had a previous course of action you could
have taken. I just wanted to make sure you didn’t, you could have appealed the Zoning
Administrator’s decision to us, which would have prolonged the whole thing, and I applaud
you for it, saying, okay, sir, it’s a garage, and I will go to the Zoning Board, and they’ll tell me
whether or not they’ll allow a second garage, and that’s where we are right now. Comments?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’d like to say thank you for the word “proposed” in here, as opposed to
“been built”.
MR. STONE-That’s it?
MR. URRICO-That’s it.
MR. STONE-Anybody else? Well, let me just say, as we start, just very quickly, basically I like
our Code, in terms of one garage, but you do have a big piece of property. You want to put it in
a place that it won’t be seen very easily. So I’m probably not going to have any real problem
with it, but anybody else, comment?
MR. BRYANT-Just one question. Since you’ve determined that the second is going to be a
garage for your boat, basically, right?
MR. HUBER-I’m not sure. I’m sure it’ll be a boat or something, I had a sailboat before. I’d like
to buy another one, and put it out there and store it or something.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I know you have a big piece of property. I know what you’re talking
about, a two car garage, and then weed whacker and lawn mower and snow blower and all the
other accoutrement that you need in the North Country. My question is, can you get away with
just another accessory building? If it wasn’t a garage, could you live with it?
MR. HUBER-I could if it was, yes, if I could put a workshop in it and stuff.
MR. BRYANT-I mean, you wouldn’t need, if you weren’t putting a boat in there, you wouldn’t
need, you know, 1,000 plus square feet, whatever it is. I mean, you could put weed whackers
and snow blowers in a building, you know, in a normal accessory structure building, right, a
couple hundred square feet?
MR. HUBER-I guess it’s relative, then how much room you want for a workshop and what you
feel, I just felt this was a comfortable size. Could I downscale it? Sure. Do I want to? Not
really, no.
MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s a valid question, a valid answer, I think.
MR. MC NULTY-And you mentioned that you might want to work on a boat in this workshop?
MR. HUBER-Sure.
MR. MC NULTY-Which is a consideration, obviously. Boats take up a lot of room.
MR. HUBER-The closest house to me is approximately 150 feet away. I’m down in a
depression. I’m sure you people all came out to see the property. It sits down in a depression
of a 13 foot hill on the front side. I’m not visible to the north or to the west at all, and at this
present time not even to the south. I have one home that’s even remotely to me. If I’m going to
sand on a boat or something, make a little noise or something, that’s possible. I’m not going to
say it’s not going to happen.
MR. STONE-How close would you have been to the proposed gravel pit?
MR. HUBER-That proposed gravel pit never happened. That was exactly 75 feet off my back
line.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me open the public hearing open on the second garage. I mean, I’ll
keep the public hearing open. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the second garage?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
FRED CHAMPAGNE
MR. CHAMPAGNE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Fred Champagne. I live at 1
Juniper Drive. As a matter of fact, when Randy comes down off from his berth up on top there,
for whatever reason, if his brakes ever failed, he could certainly end up in my garden, and he’s
an excellent neighbor, to say the least. We’ve been very cooperative over the years, but I can tell
you that he has invited us, along with some other neighbors, in on his plan. We’ve reviewed
this 32 by 34 shed, garage, whatever it is, and we’ve had some lengthy discussions about how to
proceed, and certainly he has taken some of our input, as he’s proceeded. So that says a lot of
this fellow as a neighbor, in my opinion, and it’s worked out very well thus far. I certainly had
some time with him up there to look the site over, and it’s going to be far enough up in the
wooded area. It’s going to be on a flat plateau area that almost is out of sight from Bay Road as
you look up over the hill. So with that said, I guess I can only say that I’m here to support it.
Certainly it’s going to be, in my opinion, an advantage to him, as he proceeds in his retirement,
having had some of that experience myself, and knowing this guy’s background and how he’s
contributed to the neighborhood with a beautiful home, it just makes good sense, in my
opinion, to proceed with the project, but in addition to that, you have to keep in mind that those
of us that live on five acres, it’s U-2 or U-3 or, you know, we’re not U-10 or U-20 or U-40. We
have a lot of maintenance there, and I happen to have a 28 by 32 big gambrel roof barn in the
back of my house, and I’ll probably be back in here, in a year or so, to ask for a variance in order
for me to build an addition on to that. So, with that said.
MR. ABBATE-Was there a variance granted for that 20 by 20 initially?
MR. CHAMPAGNE-That was done before your time in Queensbury.
MR. STONE-Thank you, Fred. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed?
All right. Let me close the public hearing on the second garage.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-And I would like to discuss the second garage before we get to the size. So, having
said that, let me start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-I have no problem with the second garage. I think, certainly, the benefit to the
applicant far outweighs any possible detriment to the community. In fact, I don’t see any
detriment to the community at all. So I would be in favor of the second garage.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I also would be in favor. Very often when we get requests like this, one of my
comments is, it doesn’t matter how many toys you’ve got, find a storage space somewhere else.
They don’t belong on a small lot. You don’t have a small lot, and you’ve got an ideal situation
with the depression that you’ve got there. so I think, as you’ve pointed out, this is not going to
show, and, for that reason, because of the site that you have, I’m willing to approve a second
building, garage, whatever it should be.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in favor of your application. I think the last one we
granted over in Ward One was up on the end of Ellsworth Road. It was a similar construction
and design, and on these larger lots, I don’t think they’re a problem. The only time that we’ve
really had a problem, turned them down, is when the neighborhood is smaller, and things are
closer together. So, I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. ABBATE-I would, too, and I would like to justify my support. I agree, I concur with both
gentlemen. I have 1.03 acres, and I have two cars, a snow blower, a generator, a sit mower, and
I’m having a problem, and anything larger than one acre, I don’t know what I would do. I’d
probably be before the Board requesting a utility vehicle, building or something or another. I
don’t know, but I empathize with you, and I think your request is justified, and I would support
it.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-Unfortunately, I’d have to disagree with the other Board members, even though
I’m in a minority, there are two issues that I’ve never really voted for, in favor of, one is a
second garage, and the other is the height variance, but the garage is not so much as to whether
or not it can be seen from the road or from your neighbor’s property. It’s the fact that now Mr.
Huber has a second garage, and therefore the next neighbor would want a second garage and so
forth and so on, and you establish a precedent, and the Code is written for a reason, and I think
I’d like to stick to it. So, with that in view, I’m going to be opposed to it.
MR. FRANK-And, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I want to remind Mr. Bryant, you have
voted for relief for height.
MR. BRYANT-That’s right, for one, that’s right.
MR. FRANK-Don’t say you haven’t.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-You remind me every time.
MR. STONE-We’re not going there, guys. I share Mr. Bryant’s concerns about a second garage,
and that was the first thing I’ve done. However, we have granted it before in particular
circumstances, and I think this is one of those circumstances where it really will be very hard to
be seen. You’re going to have to look very hard, and as one that goes up and down Bay Road, I
don’t think I’ll ever see it, because I worry about Mr. Champagne coming out of his driveway
there when I go up the road. So I’ve got to be careful. Having said that, I would like a motion
to approve the second garage, and then we’ll go to the size. Bruce, you want to say something?
MR. FRANK-I really have a problem with the procedure, and I’ll tell you why.
MR. STONE-Why?
MR. FRANK-Well, for one thing, what you’re saying, that you had this agreement with the
Zoning Administrator is hearsay, as far as I’m concerned.
MR. STONE-It’s my decision as the Chairman.
MR. FRANK-Okay, but I wish you would share that information with me, since I’m the Staff
representative here.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry.
MR. FRANK-Just to let you know. I was not aware of that. I don’t understand why it’s being
done this way, because he made a determination. He checked these Staff notes and he agreed
with them.
MR. STONE-No, no. It’s my.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. FRANK-I’m just putting it on the record that I’m not real pleased with the way you’re
doing this.
MR. STONE-It is my interpretation because I’m very logical-minded, and it seems to me that we
have no Code for a second garage. Therefore, we have no size requirements for a second
garage, until we call it a garage.
MR. FRANK-Well, that’s why we have a Zoning Administrator to make that determination.
I’m just going on the record stating my, but you can continue with where you are, but I’m on
the record with my stance.
MR. STONE-This is my decision.
MR. ABBATE-And I’d like to go on the record, too, that Staff has supported my premise that
there are severe flaws in the administration of these programs. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-Wait a minute. I disagree with that logic.
MR. STONE-You do?
MR. BRYANT-I do, because somewhere, I was just reading here, and now I’ve lost it, it says that
no garage should be over 900 feet. So, it doesn’t say no first garage, or no second.
MR. STONE-Well, we’re going to get there. We’ve agreed.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I understand that.
MR. STONE-That’s why I want to do it this way.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So the same restriction would apply.
MR. STONE-And that’s what he said, it could be more, but I don’t want to do it. I want to get a
second garage on the record. That’s where we seem to be going. So I need a motion to approve
a second garage for Mr. Huber.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll be happy to take it, Mr. Chairman. Now, an administrative question.
If this is going to be a motion to approve a second garage, we only have one Area Variance
number. Can I still include the same Area Variance number?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I can.
MR. FRANK-There has been a history where you have split up an application.
MR. ABBATE-But it’s okay if I use that?
MR. FRANK-I don’t see why not. There’s been a precedent set in the past.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2004 RANDALL L. HUBER, Introduced
by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
1037 Bay Road. The description of the project that I’m going to propose a motion to approve
which will deal with the second garage. The applicant has proposed a second garage on the
property, and the relief that he is requesting is that he would like to have a second garage,
because based upon the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation, this is not a storage shed, but
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
rather a second garage. The question then becomes relief required. Well, the applicant is
requesting a second garage, and the question I have to raise, is this going to produce an
undesirable change to the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties? Well, I personally
went out there and took a look at it, and based upon the size of the property, it is my opinion,
Mr. Chairman, that it would not. The benefit to the applicant, the benefit to the applicant was
made obvious in the verbal testimony of not only the applicant, but of the individual who
supported it as well, in that, based upon the size of the lot, the size of the property, the
maintenance required, it just makes some common sense that another type of facility would be
required to store his accessories. Feasible alternatives, there are always feasible alternatives. In
this particular case, I do believe that his request is reasonable, based upon the size of the
property, and is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Well, is this relief substantial,
that’s a difficult one to answer. Is it objective or subjective? In my opinion, in this set of
circumstances presented to us, it is substantial. The effects on the neighborhood. The applicant
has made an effort to seek support and suggestions from his neighbors for the proposed project,
and as such there was support and no objections. So, effect on the neighborhood, it would
appear that the neighbors don’t object. So I have to assume, then, there is no adverse effect on
the neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? Again, subjective, self-created. Probably so, it
probably is self-created. However, Mr. Chairman, on balance, I believe that we should support,
based upon the information provided by the applicant, the support by the neighbors, the verbal
testimony of the public, we should support and approve Area Variance No. 11-2004, dealing
with permission to build a second garage.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate, it’s a good motion, but you’re treating, you’re making a statement like
you think some of these things are fatal flaws. They’re not. We have a balancing test. Certainly
a garage, a second garage where one is allowed is substantial. It’s not a fatal flaw, however, in
this whole application.
MR. ABBATE-No, and your statement is not a fatal flaw. It’s just a matter of perception, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. STONE-But it is, but we’ve always said it’s substantial in this particular case. It’s not a
problem. It’s not going to change my vote. It’s not going to change your vote, but it is
substantial.
MR. ABBATE-If that will make the Board happy, then I will reverse my position on that and say
that it is substantial.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-Now let’s discuss, now that we’ve allowed you a second garage, the only guide
that we have is the Zoning Code for a garage, and the Zoning Administrator’s comment that
this is oversized by 188 square feet. Do you want to comment on that, or just let us ask you
questions?
MR. HUBER-I’ll just let you ask questions.
MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor, are you coming up as an officer of the court, or?
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-No, I’d like to speak on this application.
MR. STONE-We’re not there yet.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. STONE-I closed it on the other part.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you’re going to do them separately, I would think you would take separate
comment on this issue.
MR. STONE-I will. No, I definitely will.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-You have a 600 square foot, approximately 600 square foot attached garage.
Right?
MR. HUBER-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Are you willing to reduce this building to 300 square feet, to make it 900
total square feet?
MR. HUBER-No.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry, what did you say?
MR. BRYANT-Well, in the Town you’re permitted a 900 square foot garage.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So, Mr. Huber has got 600 square feet already, and now we’re going to build
another 1,000. So he’s got 1600 square feet of garage that’s bigger than his house.
MR. STONE-I’ve got you.
MR. BRYANT-So my point is, is he willing to build a building that would compensate for the
difference between the 900, that’s all.
MR. STONE-All right. Thank you. I didn’t quite understand you. That’s all.
MR. FRANK-To remind you, he already has relief for a second garage, because you’ve already
approved that.
MR. STONE-That is correct. He has relief for a second garage, which I am determining allows
for 900 square feet, because it’s a garage.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Obvious question. Could you pare a 188 square feet off what you’re
proposing to build?
MR. HUBER-If you requested that, sure. I would prefer not to, but, yes, I can, sure.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments?
MR. ABBATE-I missed that. Could you say it again, please?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STONE-He has agreed with Mr. McNulty that, if necessary, push comes to shove, he could
pare 188 square feet off and make it 900.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-Then it wouldn’t require a variance.
MR. STONE-No, this part would not, if he’s willing to do that.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. MC NULTY-And that’s one reason why I asked it, is we’re charged with granting the
minimum relief necessary.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. HUBER-Would it be a hardship for the extra 188 square feet?
MR. STONE-Well, let’s hold that for the moment. Let me open the public hearing. Mr.
O’Connor wants to speak, probably to chastise or something.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m Michael O’Connor. I own property in the Town of Queensbury. I’ve
argued this issue since 1988 when we first came in to the dimensional requirements of 900
square feet and one garage. The reason we have it, the only reason we have it, is because of the
Harris property up on Pickle Hill. The guy built an enormous garage, and turned it into some
type of equipment or truck repair, and I deem it to be the Betty Monahan reaction. We won’t
have another instance, rather than go through enforcement, we won’t have another instance like
that. I think it’s ridiculous. If he attached this building to his house, let me go beyond that.
You talk about density. You talk about use of property and everything else. What impact has
anybody identified at all on any neighboring property, and that’s the biggest burden that you
have. No one has even come near an impact. All you’ve talked about, one person has talked
about, the Ordinance doesn’t say you can do it. I think Mr. Abbate was very correct in saying
that this is not a substantial variance. It’s inconsequential. It’s not a matter whether you have a
20% or a 10 foot relief. It’s what impact it has against the purpose of the restriction that you’re
talking about, but probably to the point, and I think it might help the discussion. I’ve done two
or three garages, double garages, and we’ve always excluded the portion of the garage from the
square footage that was not used for vehicle storage. So if the applicant comes up here and tells
you he’s going to build a 2,000 square foot building, and he’s only going to use 900 feet of it,
possibly, for vehicle, and he puts up some type of dummy two by four, thirty inch partition or
something that shows that the rest of it is storage, and his snow blower, his lawnmower and
everything else, that’s not garage under our Ordinance. We have a problem, even, with the
Ordinance, because our Zoning Administrator says anything with a garage door is a garage.
Well, people that have big properties like, sometimes, to have a big garage, a garage door.
Somebody that’s got a four-wheeler that they take off their property onto adjoining properties
or something like that want a garage door I think it’s something that the Town Board really
needs to go back and look at, and you aren’t going to be putting citizens through the application
process that you presently are, and you folks aren’t going to have to struggle with each one of
them, which I think is a waste of your time. What impact does this have, the way that they’ve
explained this, the size of this property, where it’s located and everything he. He could take,
you know, he could put the shop attached to his house. It probably would have screwed up the
house, but he could attach the shop to his house, and that’s not a variance. So all he’s done is
included with some portion of a building that will be used possibly for a garage, but I don’t
even know that he’s, if he tells you that he’s not going to use 188 feet or 168 feet, I think he’s
removed the issue, even, of square footage. Because he’s permitted, I think, under your earlier
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
version, to have a garage, and the Ordinance, as was pointed out, says garages shall not exceed
900 square feet.
MR. ABBATE-Would it be self-serving if I said, well stated, Counselor?
MR. STONE-No, no, he wasn’t a counselor here. He’s a private citizen.
MR. URRICO-You’re not on the clock, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Not on the clock. Well, I don’t know, I’m still on the clock. Let me ask my
client.
MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor, just a second. The only other situation that you describe, you
described one very accurately on your lake. We had a guy on the other side, I don’t think you
represented him.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve done an oversized garage for, I did two garages for Phil Morris, in a kind
of congested area up on Assembly Point.
MR. STONE-No, no. That’s okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Marshals, Marshals have an oversized garage, because they tow their horses
with it.
MR. STONE-No, it wasn’t that. There was one on Glen Lake. On the other side, the guy had it,
it was already built, and somehow we got it to.
MR. O'CONNOR-That was height.
MR. FRANK-It was a shed he wanted attached to the back of his garage, a pre-existing,
nonconforming garage.
MR. STONE-Yes. That’s what it was. It was a shed behind his.
MR. O'CONNOR-We did one up by Tim Brewer. Remember the guy that had the handicap van
that wouldn’t fit in to the other garage, and the building was, you know, was it a garage, wasn’t
it a garage, and all that stuff.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to comment on what you just said, and I agree somewhat with what
you say, however, this is where I differ. If we go along that logic, if I have a 25 acre parcel, it’s a
residential parcel, and I decide in the middle, I want to put an ice cream shop, but nobody can
see it, you know, and it’s a commercial use, and it doesn’t affect any of the neighbors because
they can’t really see it. I mean, you know, the logic, I think, in my view, and maybe it’s
distorted.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me correct you a little bit.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Go ahead.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. You’re talking apples and oranges. On an Area Variance.
MR. BRYANT-Or a Use Variance.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, no, on an Area Variance, once the person makes a reasonable application,
the burden shifts to the municipality to show a reason for sustaining the dimensional
requirement that you’re looking at. On a Use Variance, it always stays with the applicant, and
he must show that he doesn’t have a reasonable rate of return from his property for all
permitted uses. There’s a world of difference.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. BRYANT-Let’s just talk, keep it at apples and apples.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Based on your logic, and I can build anything on my property as long as nobody
sees it. Now I’m talking about Use, I can build an accessory structure, you know, 25,000 square
feet if nobody can see it. You see, I, this is where I differ with you.
MR. O'CONNOR-I understand, trying to use logic makes something work against something. I
would probably have to say, theoretically, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. See, this is where I differ.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s no impact.
MR. BRYANT-Because I think that the detriment to the surrounding property is the precedent,
because you start to build garages or accessory structures that don’t fall within the Code, then
what you do is, if they can’t see it from the road, that’s one issue, but the fact that you’ve built it,
okay, contrary to the Code, allows, it opens the door for other people to do the same.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll defer to your Staff. I’ll defer to your Town Attorney. That’s not what the
law says.
MR. ABBATE-Let me state this. Impact, to be any detriment to the health, safety, and general
welfare of the neighborhood, that should determine. If there is none of that, then there is no
impact.
MR. STONE-The word in there is community, but, look, Mr. Bryant, I just want to reflect, if we
go long, it’s your. Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak?
FRED CHAMPAGNE
MR. CHAMPAGNE-Again, Fred Champagne. We have dealt with this in the Town of
Queensbury for, I can’t tell you how many years. Whether it’s an Area Variance based on a
garage, whether it’s a guy that builds too close to the road, I mean, it’s within the confines, I
guess, of those of you that are sitting there at the table. What concerns me more than anything,
is after we did the revision of the Zoning Ordinances, there were a lot of glitches in that, and I
spoke against those glitches. I’m kind of getting away from it, but I’ll get back to it. Those
glitches need to be addressed, and I’ll go back to what this gentleman said earlier, you know,
we’re going to go through a, not a zoning change, but we’re going to give this guy a variance,
even though it should be a zoning change. I think that’s what I heard here tonight. Someone in
this Town needs to take a real hard look at those glitches that appear. We had the same thing
coming off of Exit 20, if you recall, and those are the kinds of things that make your jobs
impossible, not just difficult but impossible, and I can remember when the 900 square foot, two
car garage got put in place in this Town, and a lot of it was because West Glens Falls was
building and building and building and there were, you know, 2,000, 3,000 square foot houses
going out there, on a very small, 75.75 acre lot. Unfortunately, for those of us that live in the
boonies, I mean, we’re close enough to the Adirondack Park so we can’t do a hell of a lot out
there to begin with, without that kind of approval, but when we come here and we own five
acres or we own nine acres, or we own fifteen acres, you’re telling me, Mr. Bryant, that I can
build one 900 square foot garage, just like the guy out on Winnepy Drive with a half an acre.
Now there’s something wrong with that zoning law, and I would ask you to take a real hard
look at it, to see if, in fact, some of those changes need to be looked at.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to comment on what you just said.
MR. CHAMPAGNE-Please do.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. BRYANT-And I understand what you’re saying, and there have been accessory structures
and garages that we’ve approved that have been oversized, because of the size of the property.
There was one near Exit 20. I know exactly what you’re talking about. However, in this case,
you have a situation where we’re going to have garage which exceeds the square footage of the
house. So, in my view, that’s excessive. You’ve got two garages, now, that are going to exceed
what the square footage of the house is.
MR. CHAMPAGNE-Yes. It’s all relevant, I’m sure.
MR. BRYANT-Well, everything is relative.
MR. CHAMPAGNE-I lost my point here. Can you give me a second?
MR. STONE-Let me respond to what you said, though, because it was always my
understanding, as someone who sat on the zoning committee, that we knew there would be
inconsistencies, and there was supposed to be a file set up in the zoning office for these little
things to go in there, and when it got this big, then we go re-codify, just to be on the safe side.
That’s what was supposed to be done, and I don’t know if it has been done, but we need to do
that. We need to reflect, in that file, these things that have come up, so that we can correct them.
I mean, Mr. O’Connor is correct, is incorrect, too, but, I mean, but in the sense that it is
something that should be looked at. It’s arbitrary as the devil to say 900, to say one garage on
five acres of property, or ten acres of property. I agree, and maybe we need to reflect that.
MR. CHAMPAGNE-Well, to get out of your hair, just let me say this, that in my review with
Randy, and, you know, some of our folks have come to this table right here are a bit innocent
and sitting in front of this Board sometimes causes some insecurities, but I can tell you that in
my review of that plan, there was definitely a partition there, that there wasn’t a boiler room,
but certainly it was a mechanical room. Now if that makes a difference between where you
park your car on 900 square feet, and another 100 plus square feet, in order to accommodate the
mechanicals and all the rest that goes with that garage, then so be it, but I thought I’d just
interject that for whatever it’s worth. Thanks a lot.
MR. STONE-All right. That’s a good point. Anybody else wishing to speak, yes or no?
Obviously no correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any comments?
MR. HUBER-I’m going to go back to where I got shot down last time. I’ve got to say this. I
guess I don’t understand, because I do keep my property neat and clean, where a 23 foot
sailboat with a blue tarp over it, sitting outside of my property, is not against my zoning. That’s
more attractive than a building that’s finished, and the boat’s inside?
MR. STONE-Careful, you’re talking about my sailboat. Be careful. I agree with you. There are
certain things, I mean, you come up at the lake where I live, in the winter, and you’d think there
was a distress sail of blue tarps. There’s no question about that.
MR. ABBATE-See, the problem, Mr. Huber, is that you’re trying to inject some sort of logic.
MR. STONE-Well said. So, tell us about, just to go along with what the public said, namely Mr.
O’Connor and Mr. Champagne. If I were to look into this garage, and maybe, do I have it here,
what am I going to find?
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. HUBER-The building is 32 by 34 foot. There’s a 12 foot by 34 foot section that I thought of
using for a shop or whatever, possibly.
MR. STONE-It’s got a wall, door?
MR. HUBER-Well, yes, there’ll be a wall and a sliding door in there, to go into the other shop.
I’ve been in Mr. Champagne’s garage, and he can’t move, and that’s what kind of pushed me to
the bigger, longer thing. Because I need the room.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Do you plan on putting any bars on the windows so you’d feel comfortable?
MR. HUBER-I work at Comstock. I have no reason to put bars on my windows.
MR. STONE-He just wants to be sure that he doesn’t go there. Okay. Let’s discuss it. Let’s go
the same order. Roy, how do you feel about the size that Mr. Huber has requested?
MR. URRICO-Well, I think there have been some great comments tonight, and, unfortunately, I
think Mr. Huber got caught in the middle of, you know, of discussion that affects the entire
Town rather than his property, and he’s not putting up a paintball field. He’s not putting up a
dome. He’s not putting up an ice rink. He’s asking for a garage, he’s gotten approval on a
garage. So we’re basically looking at 188 feet beyond the 900 feet, and, you know, I agree. This
is not an issue to me. It just makes sense, that, you know, it’s not going to be unattractive. It
looks nice. It’s going to be hidden from view. I really don’t have a problem with the size.
MR. STONE-Chuck, McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Two comments. One, on our digression, and then one on the garage.
As far as the Town’s zoning goes, I think, in this case, and a lot of cases, we’ve got to look at a
zone includes several properties, and therefore the rules are based on the average of what
somebody thought’s appropriate for those properties, and I think one of the functions of the
Zoning Board is to make exceptions where the average doesn’t apply, and I think this is one of
those cases, in allowing the second garage is the average doesn’t apply to this particular piece of
property, because of its size, and because of its configuration in the site. Regarding our current
question on the size of the building, it strikes me that probably if the applicant wanted to be
technical about it, he could argue that he doesn’t need this relief because the garage portion of
this building, or the portion that could be used as a garage, even though he doesn’t tend to use
it that way, is probably 900 square feet, since he’s got a portion of it that’s going to be
partitioned off where you couldn’t put a vehicle in, but to give him assurance on this, and
flexibility on where he puts that partition, I’m certainly willing to go along and grant the 188.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be in favor of the application. I think if someone goes to the trouble of
designing a building that they want, they probably have a very good legitimate reason for
doing that, including the workshop on the side makes sense, too. So I don’t have a problem
with your request.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a problem, either, particularly in view of the fact that he has support
from his neighborhood and we’ve had public comment in support of the application, and so I’m
in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Al?
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. BRYANT-Well, it would be inconsistent to agree with the expansion above the 900 feet, but
I didn’t want the garage in the first place. So, I think you know what my opinion is.
MR. STONE-Well, I agree with the majority. Primarily because I think you said it was going to
be 12 by 34, a separate section for your shop, which is 408 square feet, which brings it down to
750 feet, something like that, or 780 feet, well, under the 900. I do want to apologize. I know I
made this more complicated for the Board, but it was important to me to be logical. I know
that’s a terrible word to use with this Board, but, having said that, I need a motion to approve a
1,088 square foot garage. It’s not a second garage now. It’s a garage. Jim?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2004 RANDALL L. HUBER, Introduced
by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
1037 Bay Road. The applicant has previously obtained a variance for a second garage, and he’s
asking for 188 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum size requirement for a
garage, and that’s, again, out of Section 179-5-020, Section D. As requested, he explained that he
needs this garage for storage of a boat and for the addition of a workshop on the side.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-There you go, sir.
MR. HUBER-Thank you very much, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II A. BHATTI FOR ECONO LODGE
MOTEL AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER: AFTAB BHATTI
ZONING: HC-INT. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE 2,002 SQ. FT.
OFFICE/APARTMENT PORTION OF THE EXISTING MOTEL AND CONSTRUCTION OF
A NEW 2,188 SQ. FT. OFFICE/APARTMENT PORTION. THE APPLICANT ALSO
PROPOSES TO ENCLOSE THE OPEN WALKWAYS OF THE EXISTING MOTEL WITH
GLASS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR
AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 12-2004, SPR 20-2003
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/2004 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE AND 1.22 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 302.05-1-51, 52.12 SECTION: 179-4-030
THOMAS JARRETT & DON DAVIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2004, A. Bhatti for Econo Lodge Motel, Meeting Date:
March 17, 2004 “Project Location: 543 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes demolition of the 2,002 sq. ft. office/apartment portion of the existing motel
and construction of a new 2,188 sq. ft. office/apartment. The applicant also proposes to enclose
the open walkways of the existing motel with glass. Relief Required: Applicant requests 28.17
feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement, 12.08 feet of relief from the
20-foot minimum side setback requirement, and 3% of relief from the previously approved
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 35%, per § 179-4-030 for the HC-Int Zone. Note: 35% FAR Relief was
granted from the 30% maximum requirement in AV 85-2002. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): SP 12-2004: to be reviewed on 03/23/04, reconstruction of hotel office, and
alterations to the building exterior along with the associated lighting. BP 2003-1005, 12/22/03,
demolition of single-family dwelling. BP 2003-965: 12/18/03, 36 unit, 8000 sq. ft. hotel building.
SP 20-2003 Mod: 11/18/03, building exterior modification to a 36 unit, 8000 sq. ft. hotel building.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
SP 20-2003: 06/24/03, construction of a 36 unit, 8000 sq. ft. hotel building. AV 85-2002: 11/20/02,
front setback and FAR relief for a 36 unit, 8000 sq. ft. hotel building. AV 55-2002: denied
08/21/02, relief from front and side setback, FAR, permeability, town road frontage, and parking
requirements for the construction of a 46-unit motel building and additions to the existing
Econo Lodge Motel. AV 25-2002: withdrawn in April 2002 and resubmitted as AV 55-2002 on
06/26/02. BP 90-009: 01/25/90, construction of a 21’ x 145’ motel BP 90-010: 01/23/90,
demolition of an 18’ x 120’ motel. SV 22-1990: 03/28/90, Imperial Motel. SP 66-89: 12/19/89,
expansion from 31 to 48 motel rooms. AV 136-1989: 11/15/89, relief of permeability
requirements. AV 86-1989: 07/26/89, density increase and side setback. Variance #1241:
04/22/87; to construct 12 additional units. Variance #1087: 06/18/86; setback relief for addition
of swimming pool. Variance #1045: 12/18/85; setback relief for addition to motel. Variance
#263: 10/27/72; relocate a motel in R-5 Zone, various setback and sign requirements. SV 85 &
86: 03/19/69; move of signage due to road widening. Staff comments: The applicant desires to
improve the existing Econo Lodge motel building to be more functional, more attractive, and
more consistent with the new building under construction by constructing a new front office
structure and by enclosing the existing covered walkway with glass. Even though 28.17 feet of
relief is needed from the front setback requirement, the new structure is proposed to be only
1.34 feet closer to the front property line compared to the existing structure. Similar to the front,
the relief needed from the side setback requirement is 12.08 feet; however the structure is
proposed to be only 1 foot closer to the side property line than that of the existing structure. For
the 3% FAR relief requested, only 0.19% is attributed to the proposed structure (2.77% is for the
enclosure of the covered walkway).”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March
10, 2004 Project Name: Bhatti, Aftab Owner: Aftab Bhatti econolodge ID Number: QBY-04-
AV-19 County Project#: Mar04-15 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of the 2,002 sq. ft. office/apartment portion
of the existing motel and construction of a new 2,188 sq. ft. office/apartment portion. The
applicant also proposes to enclose the open walkways of the existing motel with glass. Relief
requested from the front and side setback and Floor Area Ratio requirements. Site Location:
543 Aviation Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.05-1-51 302.05-1-52.12 Staff Notes: Area
Variance: The applicant proposes alterations to the front portion of the existing econolodge
building. The alteration involves the demolition of the 2,002 sq. ft. office/apartment portion of
the existing motel and the construction of a new 2,188 sq. ft. office/apartment portion. The
building alterations will place the building 21.83 ft. to the front property line where 50 ft. is
required and 7.92 ft. to the west side property line where 20 ft. is required. Also, the applicant
proposes a floor area ratio of .38 where .30 is the maximum allowed. The existing front was
already non-conforming. Where the alterations make the building less non-conforming by a
little over 1 ft. and make the building consistent with the other enhancement of the property.
The information submitted includes photo-simulations, lot lay out, landscaping, and lighting.
Staff recognizes the need of business owners to improve existing facilities. Staff recommends
approval. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve The County Planning Board
recommends approval recognizing the need of business owners to improve existing facilities.”
Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 3/12/04.
MR. STONE-Mr. Jarrett.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening.
MR. STONE-Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Thomas Jarrett, Jarrett-Martin Engineers. We’re here tonight representing Sam
Bhatti, the owner of Econo Lodge. Sam is still out of the country, but his wife Wendy is in the
audience supporting us tonight. With me is Don Davis of S.D. Attele’, the architect. As your
notes say, and our application states, we’re seeking three variances. We would like to rebuild
the front motel management area on the existing motel building, existing Econo Lodge. In
order to do that, come in to Town Code compliance, we would like to build one foot closer to
the side line and one foot closer to the front, Aviation Road side, and we need to aggravate the
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
Floor Area ratio slightly. Don can get into some of the reasons why we would enlarge the
building slightly.
MR. DAVIS-Hi. My name is Don Davis, project architect. Frankly what we were trying to do is
clean up that edge of the building, facing west towards the Silo, and holding the existing
foundation lines of the north wall, which is going to be our two hour party separation wall, to
the rest of the hotel suites, and we will hold the front wall, which is the east wall facing the
parking lot, and then we would also hold the south wall, facing Aviation Road. So the wall in
the rear is actually pushing more into the encroachment area, but we did hold it back six and a
half inches from the existing north wall, excuse me, west wall, of the main Econo Lodge suite
that shows up, and we did a floor plan that I enclosed with the package, which shows a small
indentation of where the new building joins the existing hotel suite. That was really sort of a
design element, as well as a functional element, in terms of allowing us to keep the building as
plumb and square as possible, because of the fact that the site, the property lines are askewed a
bit, it was creating problems with the image that we were trying to project with this building,
which, proportionately, and from a scale aesthetic, we were trying to show, I’ve actually
enlarged these drawings that you’ve received on the Board, but the board that’s sitting on the
easel, the middle drawing actually shows the proposed building addition and then we sort of
vinette it in the rear, you can slightly see the hotel suite with the enclosure, and then you see the
new proposed building further to the east. So we were trying to show, from a scale proportion,
and contextual image, what we were trying to do with the building size. So the building size is
directly a derivative of trying to work with the contextual mass and size of the new building
that we have presently under construction. The finished materials on this new building would
reflect the same of the finished materials we are putting on the new hotel. Again, we’re trying
very hard to be sensitive to the residential context and area, but at the same time, I feel it’s very
important, contextual, when coming down Aviation Road, having come, whether it’s from the
west or off the Northway, that the image of Queensbury may be improved, and I think more
correct, if I could express my opinions, from a planning perspective. So I do feel very strongly
that pushing this as far as we can to Aviation Road and enlarging the building that it helps sort
of the massing and scale of the feel of this context and this site. I think also what’s difficult with
this building, I think that the site, the way it presently works with the setbacks and with the
existing buildings that they have in place, is as much of a problem as dealing with this existing
building, trying to clean it up from a building codes and a life safety point of view. So in that
sense, it’s pretty consistent with the difficulties that we have, and so some of those difficulties
are actually coming out, in the reasons for us being here, in terms of the zoning.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just ask a question, without prejudice. On November 20, 2002, at a
previous hearing in which the variance was granted for building the building, Mr. Jarrett, you
completed one of your statements with, we are not proposing to move the sign, and we are not
proposing to make any modifications to the existing Econo Lodge building.
MR. JARRETT-Responding to that question, putting that in context, if you recall, back earlier
2002, I thought it was actual late ’01, but maybe in early ’02, when we first came before the
Board for variances, we sought variances on two buildings, the existing building that we’re here
tonight for, and at the time it was primarily to upgrade the façade and to put in a handicap
accessible bathroom, if you recall. We also were seeking variances on the new building, for a
total of seven variances, as I recall, and the Board reacted quite strongly in disfavor of seven
variances. What we did was come back with the idea that Mr. Bhatti would abandon any
current, at that time, plans to upgrade the existing building. He would concentrate on the new
building and, to coin a phrase, to let the chips fall where they may with regard to the old
building, the existing building. It was not my intent, and I don’t recall promising that we
would never come back with any modifications.
MR. STONE-You heard me read it. It was there, though.
MR. JARRETT-So at the time we certainly had no intent of modifying the existing building, and
now Mr. Bhatti feels that, in upgrading the existing building to match, more closely match not
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
only the new building, but to upgrade the neighborhood, in the context of the entire motel
building, makes sense.
MR. DAVIS-I think I might be partially responsible for us coming back, too. Frankly, jumping
on board late with the original building structure, I don’t really have the knowledge or the
history of what has transpired, but, in working through this building with Sam, I was very up
front, frank, and aggressive about him taking a look at that building as it exists, because frankly,
contextually it doesn’t work. Aesthetically it doesn’t work. Planning I think it doesn’t work,
either. So I think that may have pushed maybe Sam to maybe reconsider doing this or maybe
reconsider doing it much quicker. So I’m probably part of the.
MR. STONE-Okay. One of my favorite expressions, when I used to work for a living, was, what
do we know now that we didn’t know then, and what you’re telling me is you brought a new
expert on board, and that’s what we know now that we didn’t know then. I mean, obviously,
the applicant and his engineer were happy with what they did. You brought a new perspective,
and that’s okay. I just wanted to get it on the table. That’s all. Mr. Abbate, you were about to
say something.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I was. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think the Chairman said,
without prejudice, I kind of like the plan. What will this do to occupancy, if approved, out of
curiosity? It’s an honest question.
MR. JARRETT-No change in occupancy. We’re enclosing the walkway along the existing
rooms, and we’re rebuilding the motel management area, quote unquote, the lobby and
breakfast area and desk area, and the manager’s apartment. That’s it. There’s no occupancy
change.
MR. DAVIS-We’re just going to clean it up.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, it certainly looks that way, because I’m looking at a picture of the Econo
Lodge on the bottom, next to, and it looks like a completely different structure. Very appealing
and what have you.
MR. DAVIS-Yes, and if you look at that photograph, you have three stories in a wood frame
structure. It’s existing, but that’s nonconforming, from a fire life safety code issue. It’s a big
benefit for Sam to clean that up.
MR. JARRETT-I can’t speak directly on the history, but I believe that was an old house that was
converted into a motel front and then added on to the back. If you’ve ever been inside, it’s very
nonfunctional, really, as a motel. It’s not a commercial building in design. I think Don has
come up with some excellent ideas on how to upgrade that interior.
MR. STONE-So this thing, these walkways where the glass is, is that going to be heated and
that’s going to be like an interior hallway?
MR. JARRETT-Correct. I’m not sure what heat level, but.
MR. DAVIS-I would prefer it not to be heated. We are discussing it. There are some details
about that enclosure. I like the idea of allowing them to have, such as you have in a three-
season porch. Have the ability to move out the storms, and allow screens. I’d like it, in the
summertime, to feel open. I think that’s very important for light and ventilation for the suites
back behind there. In the wintertime, if individuals do not want to go outside to get to the
management area, they can certainly scoot along this enclosure. Now it’s not, I mean, frankly,
when you have these wall units, they’re called P-taks, that is typical with the hotel industry,
there’s an awful lot of heat lost in the exhaust of them. So a part of that he lost could help heat
that space. Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay, but this would be, all the way here would be glass on both floors?
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. DAVIS-Exactly.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-What is the addition really made of? Is that the walkway? Is it a portion of the
addition? I mean, that’s really an addition, right? The walkway exists, but you’re enclosing it?
MR. DAVIS-Actually what I’d like to do is take that walkway off and rebuild it. Okay. So that I
can make it out of noncombustible material.
MR. BRYANT-But in the application itself, when you look at your square footage, you’ve got an
addition of so many hundred square feet or something.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That would be staircases coming down.
MR. JARRETT-That’s the filling in of the front building. There’s a notch out on the front left.
MR. STONE-The 202 square feet.
MR. JARRETT-Two hundred and two, right.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s the staircase and that walkway there. Is that what you’re talking
about?
MR. JARRETT-No, actually, if you look at the photo, either the site plan or the photo, the
bottom photo showing the existing building.
MR. BRYANT-That’s this little thing right behind the building here? Is that what you’re talking
about?
MR. JARRETT-No.
MR. BRYANT-No?
MR. JARRETT-If you look at the existing motel building, the front left corner, there’s a small
corner that’s not filled in. It’s a notch out of the old house. We’re going to square that off and
fill that in. That’s the addition. It’s on the corner of the Silo and the Aviation Road. That
corner.
MR. BRYANT-So that’s what’s considered the addition?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So, let me ask you a question. Why do we add a foot and a half to the front 1.34
feet closer to the front property line and 12.08 feet? What is that addition? I don’t understand.
MR. JARRETT-That is, as you square the building off and fill in that corner on the Silo/Aviation
Road corner, the building is not square to the property line. So it becomes closer in that corner
of the property line than it is back on the other, opposite corner.
MR. BRYANT-So that little, kind of looks like a building now, I mean, it looks, I don’t know
what it is, a shed or whatever it is, that little white thing there.
MR. JARRETT-That’s on the back side of it, right, that’s the back end of that existing.
MR. BRYANT-That’s where you get the foot and a half to the front? Where does that come in?
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. JARRETT-If you look at the site plan, Drawing C-1, and you’ll see the southwest corner of
that existing building, and you’ll see the old footprint with a notch there. The new footprint is
squared off.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, so that’s that little white portion in the photograph. Is that what it is?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, the front of that, in the front of that, the Aviation Road side of that.
MR. BRYANT-So because the property kind of cuts off at an angle, that’s what gives the
additional foot?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. When we square the building off, it actually becomes closer to the property
line than it was before, because it’s not parallel to the property line.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand now. Thank you.
MR. STONE-So, the basic building is going to stay. You’re going to put a different roof on, and
square up the sides and take out the, whatever you call that small roof in front, whatever that’s
called.
MR. DAVIS-It’s a gambrel. It’s a gambrel roof.
MR. STONE-Whatever it is, yes. Gambrel, okay.
MR. DAVIS-I just wanted to make clear that this building right now, as it exists, my intent is to
take it down, okay, because I don’t want to work with the existing building, in terms of its
material or its framing. So, I’ll certainly try to work with its foundation, if it’s acceptable, but I
like to start with a new, clean building structure. So that I may have it work.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-I think you’re asking about the dimensions of the building.
MR. STONE-Well, I was wondering if you were going to leave the building, and he’s indicated
you’re not, and you’re telling us where it’s going to be, and it’ll be slightly closer to the west
property line.
MR. JARRETT-Actually, the extreme dimensions of the building would not increase. In fact,
they’re going to decrease slightly, but by filling in that southwest corner, we get slightly closer
to the property line.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. BRYANT-What’s underneath that, that southwest corner? What is that?
MR. JARRETT-That is just lawn area now, grass area. That’s where we, you’ll notice in the
calculations we’ve increased our impermeability slightly, and we’ve decreased, actually
increased our stormwater runoff a hair. You’ll notice that in our application. That’s where that
comes from, that little corner.
MR. STONE-Any other comments, questions?
MR. BRYANT-In that particular case, you’re going to extend beyond the foundation obviously?
MR. DAVIS-In that corner.
MR. BRYANT-The rest of it you’re going to use the foundation?
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Why do you want to square it off there, just out of curiosity? What’s the
purpose?
MR. JARRETT-One is the roofline.
MR. DAVIS-Yes, well, the roofline, but I think overall, aesthetically, overall, when you look at
all sides, well, the two sides that I’m showing you, the side east, facing the parking lot, and the
side south, facing Aviation Road, they’re very symmetrical. So that’s sort of part of the design,
desire. It’s not a building that we wanted it to have any sort of irregular angles or anything of
that nature, because, frankly, the structure we’re attaching to it, back behind it, is pretty
irregular. So I’m hoping that, by cleaning up this building, keeping it simple, the eye is
attracted to it, and sort of scans the elements behind it, but then maybe just stays focused on this
structure as well as the new structure adjacent to it, or east to it.
MR. STONE-So you’re saying the south wall will be exactly where it is?
MR. DAVIS-Yes, it’s only extending further west.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the only reason you’re increasing the area is by squaring off the plot,
because you’re going to put a new building on, but it’s just going to be squared off.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-A simple question, a quick one. Nothing has been mentioned about parking
spots. If approved, will the size or the number of parking spaces increase, decrease, will they be
modified in any way?
MR. JARRETT-They will stay the same.
MR. ABBATE-They would be the same. Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Stay as we had approved during site plan review for the new building, correct.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else? Well, hearing none, let me open the public hearing.
Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This strikes me as a reasonable request. The applicant’s explained the
slight increase in setback relief needed. The bulk of the relief is because the existing building is
where it is. The rest of the improvements strike me as logical, and I think I’m told it’s going to
be a benefit to the neighborhood. It’s obviously going to be a benefit to the applicant, but I
think clearly the test comes down in favor, and I’ll be voting in favor.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, am in favor of it. I think it’s logical that you would want to
upgrade at some point in time, and since you’re already doing the other new addition on there,
it makes sense to do it at the same time. The closing in of the walkways makes sense, from an
energy standpoint, knowing that energy costs are going through the roof. So I would think that
would save you substantial, every time you open the door, if it’s not outdoors, and as far as the
setback relief to the west there towards the Silo, I don’t really see that as a problem either.
You’re going to square it up and make the design fit.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I think the applicant should be congratulated. I think it’s going to be
a positive impact on the community, and the phrase that I like is that it will, in fact, be more
functional. It will, in fact, be more attractive, and it will be consistent with the new building
under construction, when completed. So I am in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-I agree with what the other Board members have said, but I’m surprised that
nothing has been brought out about the Floor Area Ratio. Two years ago, you already received
an Area Variance allowing 30%, and now this addition is another five percent on top of that. I
question the validity of adding, gobbling up that southwest corner if all we’re doing is
increasing the Floor Area Ratio.
MR. JARRETT-I’m glad you brought that up. After you were done with your comments, I was
going to explain to the Board, there’s an inconsistency in our calculations, and I have to
apologize to the Board. We applied for the, by the way, the requirement is thirty percent.
When we applied for site plan review for the new motel building, excuse me, and for the
variances in the prior application, we applied for a 35% Floor Area Ratio, 5% relief. We should
have applied for 38%, including a covered walkway. We submitted 35, we should have
submitted 38. Now, if had submitted 38 then and gotten approval, we would have no net
increase right now. It’s really the walkways that are creating that three percent increase. I have
to apologize to the Board for our calculations originally, and now we’re asking for three percent
relief because we didn’t calculate it correctly the first time.
MR. BRYANT-So what you’re saying, instead of the 35% relief that you’re requesting.
MR. JARRETT-We got approval for 35 the first time.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-We should have asked for 38, if we had done our homework correctly.
MR. STONE-But you’re going from.
MR. JARRETT-Thirty-five to thirty-eight in this application. We’re asking for 38 right now.
MR. STONE-Yes, but you’re going back to the original one, what did it say, five percent was
granted from the thirty. So you were at thirty-five.
MR. JARRETT-We were at thirty-five with approval, we should have technically asked for
thirty-eight.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-I apologize to the Board for that.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. BRYANT-Is that correct, Staff?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and the amount of Floor Area relief they’re requesting now is
minimal compared to, for the new addition, or the new construction. I calculated closed to 2.8%
is for the enclosure of the walkway. So a huge majority I believe of what they’re asking for is
just to enclose the walkway.
MR. JARRETT-The 2.8% that he’s referring to we should have asked for two years ago.
MR. ABBATE-And that’s part of the three percent you were referring to?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. The .2 percent is that little corner you’re referring to that is the problem
corner.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Jarrett’s associate, Mr. Martin, actually when we had these discussions in the
pre-application meeting, they thought they actually had included that covered walkway and
they thought that that was approved in the five percent that was granted, but they had a
problem proving that with their numbers. I don’t know, maybe that’s what you’re referring to.
MR. JARRETT-I’m referring to that. We went back to it and we could not resurrect how we got
to the 35% with the covered walkways. So we believe we made a mistake.
MR. STONE-The bridge was only three percent short?
MR. FRANK-Well, if you think about it, they’re not creating livable floor area. They’re
enclosing this walkway that’s going to be used the same way. There’s not going to be any
change, logically.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, the only increase in Floor Area Ratio is that small corner, you know, at Silo
and Aviation Road. That is the increase.
MR. STONE-And that’s minimal, very minimal.
MR. JARRETT-That’s .2%.
MR. STONE-Okay. Al, where do you stand?
MR. BRYANT-I don’t know.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think the relief requested is negligible, especially when compared, and
warrants approval, especially when you compare it to aesthetics that it’s bringing to an area
that’s probably the main entrance into Queensbury, and I think you’ll be a welcome addition to
see this coming off of Exit 19. This’ll be one of the first things that people see, and that area
could stand some improvement, and this is going to help. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Question. The current building has a big sign on it, Econo Lodge. I don’t see it on
the new building.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, that’s to go.
MR. STONE-That’s the one.
MR. JARRETT-That’s to go.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STONE-That’s to go. Okay.
MR. ABBATE-That’s the architect’s recommendation.
MR. DAVIS-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, he wants that as well, but by standard and by code we have the
freestanding sign as well as the sign on the new building.
MR. STONE-Do you want to make a statement that you’ll never come back with a Sign
Variance?
MR. BRYANT-Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that we’re not in a question period, but I just do
have a question.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-Specifically for the architect. You’ve got a hotel that’s not finished yet, the new
building. It’s not completed yet. You were designing this and then we decided to come and do
this project, and my question is, I can understand the setback requirements, you know, we’re
only talking about a foot here and a few feet here. So I can understand that. I can go along with
that, but my question is, why didn’t we consider all this Floor Area Ratio stuff from the onset,
knowing at one point we were going to do this to this corner here. Why are we just
compounding it? Do you know what I mean? Why didn’t we take this all into calculation
when we built the other building and now this building?
MR. JARRETT-Well, if I had done my calculations correctly, we would be back asking for .2%
change, just to fill in that front small corner.
MR. BRYANT-. 2% I can live with.
MR. JARRETT-The rest is my err, and I don’t, you know, you can penalize me, but please don’t
penalize my client.
MR. BRYANT-No, I understand that. I understand that. I mean, the project is important. A
number of Board members have said it. It’s the entryway to Queensbury. It is, it would be nice.
This proposal is a beautiful, it would be a beautiful presentation, but I’m just curious as to why
we didn’t, in the scheme of things, when we planned this out, why this all wasn’t considered.
MR. JARRETT-Well, I think Don has also said, he wasn’t on board when we designed the initial.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re blaming it on him. Is that it?
MR. DAVIS-I can’t comment on the, honestly, the zoning issues, my focus and my priority
really, and what I like is, looking at this building from an image from a planning contextualism,
and also life and building safety, I think having been involved with the new building has given
me some opportunities with the client, especially now with what I’m finding out with the
utilities of this existing building, to be a little more aggressive about getting him to clean this
up, but again, I think that this site is a mess. Not just aesthetically, architecturally, but also from
utilities, from zoning, there’s an awful lot going on here, and the property is a little difficult to
work with.
MR. URRICO-Does that mean you’ll be back for more variances?
MR. JARRETT-We better put that in context. You’re talking about the electric service to the
existing building is a mess.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. DAVIS-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-The interior utilities are (lost words).
MR. DAVIS-And also some of the infrastructure that we’re cleaning up out there, in the parking
lot, that we’ve got part of the original. I mean, what we’re finding, it’s a mess. So we’re
actually cleaning that up.
MR. URRICO-Well, I think what Mr. Bryant is concerned about is that, you know, this
incremental change coming back here is problematic, you know, and if you seem to be
indicating there may be more.
MR. DAVIS-No, no. I’m not indicating that.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. DAVIS-I’m just indicating, if I had my way, I wanted to raze this entire structure. That
wasn’t an option. That was not an option.
MR. BRYANT-Well, are we going to come back, now, with the old hotel that’s behind this
building, and decide to rebuild it and need a couple of feet here and maybe add another five
percent?
MR. JARRETT-Let me put the application into perspective. Other than that one corner, the front
corner that borders on Silo and Aviation, everything else is an upgrade of the façade. It’s just an
improvement to the exterior. There’s no change in number of units or in square footage, other
than that one little corner that we’re squaring off on the Silo/Aviation Road side, and there’s no
change that I’m, there’s been no discussion that I’ve ever been privy to regarding any further
changes to the site.
MR. DAVIS-No, no. I’m not trying to make (lost words). What I’m saying is that I wanted to
initially start fresh here. I thought I was going to be able to do that, and the door was closed on
that option. So the only option I now have is to clean up that building directly on Aviation
Road and then to put something on the façade of that enclosure, those walkways, and I’m done.
MR. STONE-Okay, and anything you’d do other than that would be interior like wiring you
talked about? I mean, if you get the opportunity.
MR. DAVIS-That’s right. I mean, the utilities right now out there, are a mess, and Niagara
Mohawk agrees with us.
MR. JARRETT-Currently there’s 16 service entrances to that existing motel.
MR. DAVIS-Yes. It’s a mess.
MR. JARRETT-It’s a nightmare, and NiMo, a lot of meters. NiMo doesn’t like it either.
MR. STONE-Okay. I certainly agree. I mean, I got the point made early. I think you answered
it satisfactorily. Blame it on the architect. That’s why we came back to make modifications, but
I think what you’re talking about, with the exception that, I hate to be promised something and
then have it changed, and hopefully the next one will be exactly the way it was when we
approved it, not yours. I’m talking to the man in the back row who’s smiling there. I think it’s a
fine thing. I am not, even if you had not made the mistake in the calculation, I think what
you’ve got is an improved facility here, better for the owner, obviously, and, as a number of
people have said, better for the community in terms of its appearance, and I’m particularly
pleased that that sign will not be there, I’m told. You’ve all agreed, and that’s another positive.
So, having said that, I need a motion to approve this variance.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2004 A. BHATTI FOR ECONO LODGE
MOTEL,, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy
Urrico:
543 Aviation Road. Applicant’s proposing replacing his current 2,002 square foot
office/apartment portion of the existing Motel with a 2,188 square foot office/apartment, and he
is also proposing to enclose the open walkways on the existing Motel with glass. In doing this,
the applicant needs 28.17 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement,
12.08 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, and three percent relief
from the previously approved Floor Area Ratio of 35%, per Section 179-4-30. In considering this
request, we’ve evaluated whether this would produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood and whether it would be a detriment to nearby properties and I think we’ve
all concluded that just the reverse is true. It’s going to produce a positive change in the
character of the neighborhood and this property, and should enhance the nearby properties.
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for
the applicant to pursue. I think in this case the answer is no. There’s not a viable alternative.
The existing office/apartment is already encroaching in to the setbacks, and in fact the difference
is minimal between what currently exists and what is being proposed. Something on the order
of a foot to a foot and a half on the setbacks. The requested relief in that sense, a change from
what currently exists to what is being proposed, is not substantial by any means. It’s a very
minor increase of figures, and we’ve already discussed the variance will have a positive effect
on the physical conditions in the neighborhood. So that’s not a problem, and whether the
difficulty is self-created? In the sense that the owner wants to make these improvements, it’s
self-created, but the current site conditions, I think, are the real cause of the need to request for
these various variances. Based on all that, I think the clear benefit to the applicant and to the
neighborhood certainly outweighs any detrimental effects that might be listed, and for that
reason I move approval.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II CIFONE CONSTRUCTION AGENT:
VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER: JMC PROPERTIES ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION:
SMOKE RIDGE ROAD, LOTS 19 THRU 23 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF FIVE DUPLEXES ON FIVE LOTS (1.08 TO 1.59 ACRES), AND REQUESTS RELIEF
FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE SR-1A ZONE FOR ALL FIVE LOTS.
CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 15-2004, SUB NO. 11-2001, SPR 24-2002, SUB. 7-85 MOD. LOT
SIZE: 1.15, 1.13, 1.08, 1.24, 1.59 TAX MAP NO. 308.08-1-1-21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5, 21.6
SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-5-100(A)
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2004, Cifone Construction, Meeting Date: March 17,
2004 “Project Location: Smoke Ridge Road, Lots 19 thru 23 Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of five duplexes on five lots (1.08 to 1.59 acres).
Relief Required:
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
Per §179-5-100(A), each unit per lot shall be required to have the minimum lot area for the
district in which it is located. For the SR-1A Zone, each lot would require a minimum of 2 acres
for each duplex.
For Lot #19: 0.85 acres of relief from the 2-acre minimum lot size requirement.
For Lot #20: 0.87 acres of relief from the 2-acre minimum lot size requirement.
For Lot #21: 0.92 acres of relief from the 2-acre minimum lot size requirement.
For Lot #22: 0.76 acres of relief from the 2-acre minimum lot size requirement.
For Lot #23: 0.41 acres of relief from the 2-acre minimum lot size requirement.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 15-2004: to be reviewed in April 2004, five duplexes on five lots totaling 6.196 acres.
SP 23-2002: 05/16/02, five duplexes on a five lot subdivision.
AV 98-2001: 12/19/01, density relief for five duplexes on five lots totaling 6.196 acres.
SB 11-2001: 09/25/01, subdivision of 11.33 acres into 6 lots.
SB 7-85 Modification: 09/25/01, boundary line adjustment in the Burnt Ridge Subdivision; Lot
#17 gains 0.21 acres from Lot #999.
AV 74-2001: withdrawn 09/19/01, subdivide 6.196 acres into 6 lots.
Staff comments:
On 12/19/01, the Zoning Board approved AV 98-2001 granting relief for 5 duplexes on five lots
totaling 6.196 acres (the same as the current application). The Planning Board approved the
duplexes on 05/16/02 (SP 23-2002). The applicant failed to apply for building permits within the
following year, which resulted in the approval no longer being valid on 05/16/03. As in AV 98-
2001, the proposed density would not be out of character with the remainder of the Burnt Ridge
Subdivision, which is mostly comprised of duplexes.”
MR. STONE-County?
MR. MC NULTY-No County.
MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, first of all, I wish everybody a Happy St. Patrick’s Day. This is
an application that was approved in December 2001. I think everybody present, except Mr.
Bryant, was on the Board at that time. Nothing has changed. If it would abbreviate the
presentation, I don’t know if it was included in your packets, I would ask you to include the
minutes of that meeting as a part of our presentation tonight, and I even, I’m not sure why
we’re here. Sometimes, as you know, (lost words) differences of opinion with Craig, and he’s
taken the position the approval has expired because we didn’t do anything after we got your
variance approval, but in fact we did. We went forward and had the Planning Board approved
subdivision, and got approval of site plan. We then filed that in the Town Clerk’s Office. The
Town has accepted that. The County has accepted that. Their assessing us as five lots as
configured, but rather than argue, as Lew suggested earlier, maybe the shortcut was to come
back and say nothing’s changed. This is a duplex neighborhood. I think everything in Burnt
Ridge is a duplex except for one lot, and that was the lot that was occupied by one of the early
owners of the subdivision who chose to have a single family house in the duplex. All of the
other duplexes that are there are on 30,000 square foot lots. None of these lots are less than
46,000 square feet. So we’re not really impacting anything. The other thing that we did, too,
from the time we were here before, with this parcel, you can see the triangular parcel that’s
below it in green, we came in and we had a contract to buy all of that, and we said that as part
of the application we were not going to use that for residential, and we conveyed that off to
somebody else, but we did a lot of things after we obtained the approval, which I think then
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
fixes the approval in place. There was no building permit applied for. I don’t think I need to
get there, whatever.
MR. STONE-Okay. No.
MR. O'CONNOR-The other subdivision lots, across the street, where you have a duplex, there’s
like a 30,000 square foot, 31,000 square foot, 30,537, and 30,374, 30,632, 30,750, 30,750, 32,408,
and these particular lots, the smallest is 46,000, and I think the largest of the five is probably in
the area of 76,000, an acre and a half. We’ve got a 1.59, 1.24, 1.8, 1.13, and 1.15. It was like a
Phase II subdivision that was put together in 1985. The market just never came to a point where
there was a need for Phase II. For Mr. Bryant’s purpose, I did a presentation on the Master
Plan. The Master Plan that was done recently recognized this probably should have been
rezoned into a 20 acre, or a 20,000 square foot per duplex units. Nobody wants to buy these lots
as single family lots. We don’t anticipate anybody will.
MR. STONE-I think it was discussed. I remember the this area did get discussed, and it just
never got changed. I think it was Mr. Steves’ father who argued to leave it the way it was.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. O’Connor, are those the minutes from the meeting when it was approved?
MR. STONE-I’ve got them right here.
MR. BRYANT-Where did you get them?
MR. STONE-I asked Staff for them, for myself, the other day.
MR. BRYANT-It would be nice, I was absent from the meeting, as Mr. O’Connor so aptly
pointed out. It would be nice if I could read what the comments were, relative to the discussion
back and forth. So I’d know what I’m looking at.
MR. ABBATE-We can resolve it this way. Allan, would you rely on my judgment?
MR. STONE-While you’re studying this, Allan, do we have to do the Short Form again?
MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask you.
MR. STONE-Yes. I was just looking at the minutes. Okay. When we get there. Because when
I open the public hearing, there’s going to be a lot of people talking.
MR. ABBATE-In the interest of brevity and simplicity, basically, what we are basically saying is
that the Area Variance 98-2001 is identical to 12-2004, and the only reason that you folks are
here this evening, because someone’s made a determination that in May of ’03, the
authorization was invalid, and as a result, you have to come before the Board again. Is that
simple enough?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fair enough, and there have been no changes, right?
MR. STEVES-None.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, you have the minutes in front of you, you said?
MR. STONE-Yes, I do.
MR. FRANK-There was a SEQRA Short Form?
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STONE-Yes, there was, and there’s nothing on this sheet, but there was, I made a motion.
MR. BRYANT-It’s part of our package, the motion is right in the package.
MR. FRANK-Because it was classified as a Type II for this application, and it would not need
any SEQRA.
MR. STONE-Well, we did it the last time.
MR. FRANK-Well, did you do it in error, I guess is the question.
MR. STONE-I don’t know. It said Type Unlisted. Type Unlisted was in the reading. So we’ll
do it again when we get to there. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak
in favor? Anybody opposed? Any comments?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-I do remember, I had read this, and I do remember we had a great deal of
discussion. I think three of the four pages were Mr. O’Connor. It was, I think we all agreed the
neighborhood was in fact duplexes. These were going to be duplexes, and probably better than
the duplexes that are there. I certainly, I remember making a comment, and unfortunately it
hasn’t changed much, but things across the street are rental properties and not that well taken
care of, but, there’s nothing we can do about it, but it was a comment I remember making that
time, and when I drove by yesterday, it hasn’t really changed much, but certainly a reasonable
project, as far as I’m concerned. We’ll talk about it. Let’s go. We’ll start back with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it. I see it more as administrative, you know. I
mean, we always give extensions when people don’t follow through. I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Well, I think, technically, it’s a year with no action, as far as your Department is
concerned. Isn’t that right, Bruce?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-And actually it’s been another 10 months as far as, well, I don’t know when they
first came to you.
MR. FRANK-If they had requested an extension, I think there would have been no problem
with granting approval. I think it was an oversight on the applicant’s part and the Town’s part.
MR. STONE-All right. Let’s go on. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Well, the no action can be debatable. They may have been doing something
which would have continued the approval, quite frankly, which I don’t know of, but that’s
always possible. I don’t have any problems. That’s why I asked the question in the simplest
terms, what have you. The request is identical, and as far as I’m concerned, I will support the
application.
MR. STONE-Al, do you want to comment, or should I go to Roy?
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. BRYANT-No, just two things. In reading the minutes, the only one that had anything
negative to say about it was Mr. McNulty, and then, of course, he voted in favor of it, and then
the other question is, right next to the noes, you wrote, Al Bryant. What does that mean?
MR. O'CONNOR-It means you weren’t present. I was checking to see who was present at the
last meeting.
MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes was not here then and Mr. Bryant was not here.
MR. O'CONNOR-Jaime Hayes recused himself.
MR. STONE-It said absent. Did he recuse himself?
MR. O'CONNOR-At the beginning of the minutes he recused himself. He had tried to buy this
property.
MR. ABBATE-I remember that. I recall now. That’s right.
MR. STONE-I missed that.
MR. BRYANT-Anyway, my comment is I think this is just a technicality to make us stay here
later. So as far as I’m concerned, it looks okay to me.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of it. I was in favor of it back then.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m in favor also. I did take another look at this, because things can change in
a year, but I came to the same final conclusion I did the last time, that it’s a duplex
neighborhood, and regardless of what the zoning is, I think this is a case where the zoning is on
average, and this is an exception, and I think it’s appropriate to be duplexes.
MR. STONE-Okay, and I certainly agree. I think we went through this very well the last time. I
think we came to a reasonable and a good conclusion.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-Now, Mr. Bryant, do you want to make the motion.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question, so we don’t fall into the same problem
again. Does the Board have a problem giving us an 18 month term for this variance?
MR. STONE-Can we do that, Bruce? I have no problem.
MR. FRANK-I really don’t know the answer to that. I think the attorney would know better
than me.
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-You may not get five duplexes built.
MR. STONE-As long as you start. You put the first footing in.
MR. FRANK-Once the first building permit has been issued, that’s it. You’re not under that,
once you have the first building permit issued, I don’t think you have a problem with the
remainder.
MR. O'CONNOR-My discussions, if you didn’t have a building permit on each lot, you’d have
to ask for an extension or something like that.
MR. STONE-Well, why don’t we just say at the end that we encourage, any required extension
up to six months is, we look favorably on, because I don’t know if we have that authority.
MR. FRANK-I don’t know either, but I still don’t quite agree with Counsel. I think once, I don’t
know who told you that, did the Zoning Administrator tell you that, because this, all five of the
building permits would be connected with this Area Variance. Once you’ve issued the very
first building permit, you’ve satisfied the Area Variance.
MR. ABBATE-Can’t we make a stipulation that the approval is continuous, which would
encompass the fact that once construction has started on one building, that the approval
continues to go on until (lost words). Well, let’s do it and let them argue against it, say we were
wrong.
MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, Allan.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2004 CIFONE CONSTRUCTION,
Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Smoke Ridge Road, Lots 19 thru 23. The applicant proposes construction of five duplexes on
five lots, from 1.08 to 1.59 acres. The relief required per Section 179-5-100A, each unit per lot
shall be required to have the minimum lot area for the district in which it is located. For the SR-
1A zone, each lot would require a minimum of two acres for each duplex. For Lot 19, they’re
requesting 0.85 acres of relief from the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. For Lot 20, 0.87
acres of relief, Lot 21, 0.92 acres of relief, Lot 22, 0.76 acres of relief, and Lot 23, 0.41 acres of
relief, all from the two acre minimum lot requirement. First, the benefit to the applicant would
certainly weigh in their favor that they be entitled to construct what is essentially a second
phase in order to complete the subdivision of what are largely two family dwellings along the
Burnt Ridge subdivision area. Second, while there might be feasible alternatives in the
construction of single family residences on these lots, as there are indeed at least one single
family residence in the development, in effect the area is devoted to two family duplexes, and
the effect on the neighborhood or community would be minimal or non-existent. The proposed
lots are larger than the lots that are already in the development. I don’t think there’d be any
impact to drainage. This is not really our purview. I don’t see as it is self-created, as there was
a change in zoning increasing the requirement for lot size. On balance, I think the factors would
be in favor of Mr. Cifone and Cifone Construction, and I move the approval.
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-Go and build, gentlemen, or at least put a spade in the ground.
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. BRYANT-Please don’t let it expire again.
MR. STEVES-I refrained from responding on a previous application, so I didn’t want to appear
that I was trying generating work for myself. I just wanted to let the Board know a concern that
I have, and that I think puts you in an awful burden, when you’re talking about the setback
from the road, and all fairness to this Board, to the Staff, and to the rest of the Town, as far as
trying to measure that, and you were trying to come up with some kind of conclusion, I just
wanted to give you food for thought. I’m not telling you what to do. When you have roads like
you do in the Town of Queensbury, you also have to remember that you have what’s called
dedicated roads, roads by use, you also have Town roads, County roads, and State roads, and in
all fairness, you know, if you have a general rule of thumb that says, okay, if it’s a 30 foot
setback, you come 25 feet to the centerline of the road, because there’s a 50 foot wide right of
way, and then 30 feet from there, you’re going to be in the ballpark, except that you have a lot of
variables there because there are 16 and a half foot wide roads in the Town. There’s 33 foot
wide, there’s 50, and then there is varying width roads, like Dixon Road, from Aviation Road
down to the plug mill area has probably 18 different widths in there. So I’m just letting you
know that that’s a very convoluted, very complicated issue, and I know how that gets into it,
and I didn’t want to.
MR. STONE-I appreciate that, and I think the suggestion that was made that we develop a little
note to put every application that involves setback from a road, that we warn people.
MR. STEVES-And the reason I say that is because there was a prime example, as I was standing
out in the lobby, when I was out there, somebody else asking me a question because somebody
had mentioned that I was a surveyor. There was one up in Luzerne, for example, that was just
done about two years ago. The setbacks in Luzerne was 50 feet from the State road. The person
went off and said, okay, it’s 50 foot. So they came 50 feet from the centerline of the road, 25 feet
I should say, said there’s the boundary, came 50, and then said, gee that would give myself five
additional feet, but in that particular area it’s about a 126 foot wide right of way, and when he
went to do the location for the building, building 34 feet of depth is exactly straddled on the
property line, 17 feet within the State right of way, 17 feet on the private property, even though
they had the appearance of being way, way, way back off the road.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have another application that I got involved in, in early February. I read the
minutes, and the prior meeting in December said the applicant would come back in February, it
wasn’t to your Board. So I wrote a letter and said, we’re just not going to do it, and the reason
we’re not going to do it is you can’t get the engineering and survey work done. Matt is out
straight. Tom Nace is out straight. Tom Jarrett’s out straight. If you want to use somebody
local, you’re having great difficulty getting them, getting into their schedule and then getting
the thing done.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, at least we’ve put people on notice. That’s the most important thing.
Okay. Gentlemen. The Planning Board has requested Lead Agency Status on the Newbury
application. For SEQRA purposes.
MOTION THAT WE GRANT LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SEQRA PURPOSES TO THE
PLANNING BOARD FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2004 JAMES W. NEWBURY,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
July 16, 2003: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2003, Introduced by Lewis Stone who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
July 23, 2003: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
January 21, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-As you know, The Great Escape will be coming up before us for a variance. You
should also know, if you were all at the meeting, that the comment period has been extended to
April 8. Prior to that, it would be good if we could get some of our concerns. It doesn’t tie us
th
to anything, on the record, so that they can review them and possibly develop answers for that.
So I would encourage you to just state any concerns you might have about the height variance
that we are going to debate, and we’ll talk about when we’re going to do it later, but just
concerns, so that they can look at them.
MR. BRYANT-Could we send it to you by e-mail?
MR. STONE-I think I’d like to get it on the record. If you’d like to, we can get it in.
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. URRICO-My main concern is I haven’t heard the reason why it needs to be 27 feet above
the height restriction.
MR. STONE-Good. Anybody else? Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, and my main concern, and I’d like to go back to the original question I
asked, is that it appears that the philosophy of Six Flags is to encourage expansion upon
expansion upon expansion, and I’d like to address that issue, and I have it, as a matter of fact,
it’s in writing, and, Roy, if you’d let me borrow it next week, do you remember that, from the e-
mail?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I don’t know if I brought it with me.
MR. ABBATE-Next week.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I’ve got a couple. I guess, one, looking at the total height, one question I
would have is what their plans are for lighting, because, should we approve this as they’re
proposing it, if it’s not going to be floodlit, that’s one thing. If it’s going to be floodlit, then it’s
going to show up much more readily through the trees. So I think that’s one consideration, is
that kind of thing. The other concern or question I’ve got, which I haven’t gotten resolved
entirely, is the necessity of the height. I know what their argument is. They can’t do the
waterslide attached to the hotel unless they have the height, and obviously the waterslide,
hopefully, improves their chance of a higher occupancy rate, but, the Town Code there doesn’t
allow that kind of height, and I’m a little concerned that, well, a couple of thoughts were that,
one is they’re now proposing a new motel behind Waikita there. That one’s going to comply
with height.
MR. URRICO-Right.
MR. MC NULTY-That then says, well, if they’re going to comply with height, why should we
allow somebody like Great Escape, a Premier Parks, to do something else on that side. If we do
all Great Escape to do that, then the Starks are going to be back in at some point with their
request, and it’s going to be kind of difficult to say no to the Starks, should we decide that we
want to.
MR. STONE-Okay. For the purpose of the record, say concern for other motels, because they
can’t answer for him.
MR. URRICO-I’ll add to that, that my concern is for the height restrictions for the entire
Highway Commercial Intensive zone. By granting potential relief here, we’re basically
allowing other applicants in that same zone to come forth and say, well, you gave it to Great
Escape, now what about us.
MR. ABBATE-See, now I have one other thing I forgot to mention. During the discussion at the
last meeting, I heard, and I don’t know who the individual was, but it certainly was a
representative of The Great Escape, I heard them slip in the fact that this motel is going to be of
top quality. They will be seeking a certain type of clientele, which is fine, and then I also heard
somebody say, a representative say, and we may have to seek a Use Variance because during
the seasons when we don’t have that much attendance, particularly in the summer months, we
may want to allow the Town to use it, and as a result, seek a Use Variance. So my question is,
are they seeking a Use Variance as well?
MR. URRICO-A special use variance.
MR. ABBATE-A special use variance.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STONE-A special use variance.
MR. MC NULTY-That’s from the Planning Board. That’s not from us.
MR. STONE-No, but it’s a concern that we, as individuals sitting on the Zoning Board, have,
and the other, one that I got, just to throw it out because it was given to me, and I will say it, is
do we have a ladder truck that can reach the fourth floor, or the roof?
MR. ABBATE-Good point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-My only other one was, Lew, that if you create a situation where you’ve
created this new kind of amusement thing that goes along with hotels, and Roy was kind of
right on the mark when he looked into Wisconsin Dells, because Wisconsin Dells started with
one and they’ve added eighteen other ones since. On the Route 9 corridor, with it already being
in gridlock in the summertime, what’s going to prevent any other landowner, you know, to the
south of Great Escape or to the north going towards Lake George, from saying, well, I’d like to
put up a hotel with a water park, and I need the height variance so I can have the same thing? I
mean, in a worst case scenario, you end up with 50 of them, you know, even if you ended up
with a few more, you know, in essence you’re going to be changing the neighborhood. I’m sure
that the people to the south down in Twicwood would not want to see that, and I think that the
reflection of the height variance is different in this case, because they’re at the low point,
topographically, but if you’re up on top of a hill and you put up something that big, it’s going to
stick out like a sore thumb.
MR. STONE-I think another concern, and it all has to do with that, is the character of the
community, and you know, we talk both neighborhood and the community, and what is going
to be the effect, and that’s our charge, we have to face. So please, Great Escape, talk to us about
what you see the implications of you doing this, in terms of what’s going to happen in the
surrounding community.
MR. ABBATE-And one other comment, too. I was doing some research for the Post, concerning
The Great Escape, and I discovered that there was a statement made by their attorney, Lemery I
think his name is, he stated something like this, and I have it at home, he stated that the State of
New York has refused to put up a stop sign, a stop light. I’d like to know whether the State has
refused that in writing or was it verbal, or was it, in fact, refused.
MR. URRICO-I’m from the area. We had sent a petition, I mean Courthouse Estates, Twicwood,
not Twicwood, all the communities along Glen Lake Road, asking for a light there, and we were
refused, saying that there wasn’t enough traffic there to warrant it, and we even had Betty Little
speaking in favor of it, but that was a different situation. That was before this came in.
MR. STONE-Yes. I can only tell you that there was discussion today or yesterday, among Staff
and the State, on the subject, and there’s work ongoing, in terms of what it takes to trigger
lights. There was conversation about moving the two lights that are there now, one north and
one south. So that’s all, it’s being, I mean, there are some thresholds, and apparently they’re
going to get a traffic study.
MR. URRICO-Just to follow up one other thing that Chuck had said, about the special use
variance, if that kicks in, that, in essence, to me, would change the zoning there from Highway
Commercial Intensive to Rec, or REC.
MR. MC NULTY-In effect.
MR. URRICO-In effect, and now we’ve basically granted them permission to put other
attractions up, because now it’s no longer just, what do they call it, an amenity to the hotel. It’s
an attraction to Great Escape, and that will definitely change the whole context of that area.
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. MC NULTY-I think another consideration for them to address, too, is one of our criteria is,
is there an alternative, and, yes, there is. Move it across the road into the recreational park
district which allows that kind of height.
MR. STONE-No it doesn’t. We had to grant a variance for the Nightmare, remember? It went
above 40 feet, and we still made them put it in a hole. So, there was.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, everybody else has gone around three times. Could I say
something?
MR. STONE-I’m sorry, Al.
MR. BRYANT-Just a couple of things. It’s very difficult to comment on something when you
don’t have the paperwork for it, because we really don’t know what they’re asking for, other
than the 27 feet, or whatever it is, in height.
MR. STONE-That’s all they’re asking.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s not what they said that night, okay, and Mr. Abbate pointed out, Mr.
Urrico pointed it out, and they did discuss the possibility of some kind of use change. Now,
with regard to the height variance, I’m not opposed to it. Actually, I don’t see a problem with
it, and I’ll tell you why I don’t see a problem with it. It’s about 15 feet that they’re going to
excavate there to build that thing. So they’re digging it in a hole. When I talked to the engineer
relative to the height, you know, of the thing, you’re really only looking like 10 or 12 feet is all
you’re looking for, okay, and from the place that it’s positioned, the only people that are going
to see it are the people on the Northway, which, frankly, I think the Town of Queensbury would
like them to see, so that they would get off at Exit 20 and come and ride on the rides or do
whatever they want. The second issue, relative to that, is that use change, about using, since the
water park is inside the hotel and it would be for hotel guests, and if they opened it to the
public, they would need some kind of permit, or some kind of change, that was discussed
thoroughly, and I do have a problem with that, because if that area is changed, as far as the
zoning is concerned, it’s going to open up a Pandora’s Box. The third thing relative to that, I
really thought it was distasteful, and very unprofessional, of the Planning Board to attach
significance to the overpass to the whole project. In other words, if the overpass is not finished,
they didn’t want to talk about the rest of the project, and, you know, when you have two
different contractors, two different projects, it’s impossible to tie these things together, and
finally, I think it’s important, and they made the point that night, and I thought about it,
because I came to the table totally opposed to the whole project, but having been back to the
Red Coach a couple of times, and looked at the area a couple of times after the meeting, and
listened to what they said, this gives us an opportunity as, we rely on tourism. It’s a major
industry in the Town of Queensbury all of a sudden, has been now for a while. We rely on that
heavily, and the fact remains that we are, primarily, a summer tourist spot, and maybe some
people come skiing occasionally to West Mountain, but the reality is we lack that year round
attraction that’ll bring people to the area, and this is an enclosed swimming place, what do you
call it, water park, and a lot of people are attracted to these water park things, and in the winter,
why not go to the water park. It would be a perfect opportunity.
MR. STONE-All I want are concerns. I don’t want arguments.
MR. BRYANT-So those are my concerns, my conception of the whole thing, but really until we
get the paperwork, we don’t know the extent.
MR. STONE-Absolutely.
MR. BRYANT-But I mean, as far as the height, I mean, I thought about it. Originally I was
opposed to it, and I looked at it and I talked to the engineer, for quite a while, before the
meeting, and he did address it during the meeting, and they are excavating that. It is down in a
hole, you know, they talked about the visibility and what it’s going to look like from Route 9.
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
We talked about the topography and the height of Route 9, versus the height of the Northway,
versus the height of the waterslide, and the difference is not 27 feet. So that’s my position.
MR. STONE-Okay, but you’ve taken a position on the basis of not full information. You just
said that yourself.
MR. BRYANT-That’s the way I’m viewing it now. Right now this is a milestone. We all haven’t
seen the paperwork. We’ve only come to that meeting with the other group.
MR. STONE-We had tons of paper, though.
MR. BRYANT-And we had tons of paperwork, but we don’t know what’s going to be presented
to us. We haven’t seen that yet. I mean, they’re not going to present that same package, I
wouldn’t think.
MR. STONE-Yes, that was the application.
MR. BRYANT-That’s it?
MR. STONE-They are going to comment.
MR. BRYANT-Well, then they didn’t ask for a Use Variance.
MR. STONE-Not yet, no.
MR. BRYANT-No, they only asked for a height variance.
MR. STONE-All we’re talking about is the height. The only part of this puzzle that right now
we’re talking about is the height.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m making a judgment on the height, based on the application, what I
saw, what the engineer presented to me, and my own observations of the site plan.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one other concern or thought, and I’ll mention it, partly because this is
probably going to come up in front of you in April, and I’m going to miss both April meetings,
but one thing that bothers me, from my previous experience with public involvement with DEC
and what not, is this whole thing of about, we’re going to create X number of jobs, probably
minimum wage, and we’re going to bring in all kinds of tax money and this kind of thing. This
is a valid argument to some things, possibly, but it concerns me that it gets presented to Town
officials and say, this is why you should approve this, and it strikes me that it’s almost like a
bribe. It’s paying a third party, the Town, to ignore the concerns of the nearby neighbors. Now
there may not be any big impact on nearby neighbors, but if there is, I don’t think the number of
jobs or the tax money should be used to counter those. If there’s an impact on their neighbors,
then something should be done to reduce that impact.
MR. BRYANT-The neighbors are The Great Escape. They’re surrounded by The Great Escape.
There are no other neighbors.
MR. STONE-Well, we certainly heard a lot about them the other day. That’s a good point.
MR. MC NULTY-That’s a point, if, indeed, it’s not going to affect Courthouse Estates or Glen
Lake or other surrounding people by being so high and floodlit that you can see it all night.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Chuck, I was wondering, if they had an indoor paintball game thing,
would the EDC still be their sucking up to them, telling them what a great thing it was going to
be for everyone?
MR. STONE-Now we’re getting down to the nitty-gritty.
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. ABBATE-Well, then let me go one step further. They’re going to be moving how many
thousands of yards of dirt, and if they accidentally put that into that little lake, that Glen Lake
that’s there, then the water level of that lake will be about eight inches, the furthest depth.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other concerns?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, one other thing. If they’re going to approve that height there, Jim had a
rather interesting question, I hope I phrase it right, if they’re going to approve that, can we
approve, how was it worded, about, about over the water?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I was thinking up on Pilot Knob, like if somebody wanted an over
height house, like a home next to your house, Lew, and they had proposed waterslides for their
children, and they wanted minimum height so they could be fun, would you allow them to
build an over height house next door?
MR. STONE-That’s a very excellent.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, where does it all end?
MR. ABBATE-And Chuck, can I have your permission, since you’re not going to be here, to
carry your thoughts into that meeting?
MR. MC NULTY-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Speaking of that, we are proposing an April 7 meeting, I believe that’s a
th
Wednesday, to hear the application. The public hearing will stay open, just like it is currently
open, until after the April 8, then we’ll have a final meeting to make a decision. It’s probably
th
going to be then.
MR. ABBATE-Excellent idea. I think it’s great.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Also, I would move that maybe we could send a letter, or publish a
letter that all those people that work for The Great Escape and the EDC, they don’t need to
come and tell us what a great deal it is.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, the owner of the property we don’t need here, either, who was supporting
that.
MR. BRYANT-I’m may not be here on the 7.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-Or the contractors.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s good. They won’t have the meeting then, now that you’ve set yourself
up.
MR. URRICO-Is it definitely set for the 7, because I might have a conflict.
th
MR. STONE-No, it may not, Chris was going to get back to me, and apparently he did not.
MR. BRYANT-The 14 is better for me. The 14 will work for me.
thth
MR. STONE-Well, they wanted to, again, compress the thing. Sue, would you just take what
these guys are saying, so that I can talk to Chris. Al, you can’t make the 7?
th
MR. BRYANT-I’ve got to be in Rochester at 9 o’clock in the morning.
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STONE-Well, you’ve done it before.
MR. BRYANT-I have done it before, but not comfortably, and I want to be alert for that one.
The 14 is okay. The 14 is good.
thth
MR. STONE-Okay. So the 7 is out for you, and obviously the sixth.
th
MR. BRYANT-No, I don’t have a meeting. It’s the 2. The eighth is good.
nd
MR. STONE-The eighth is good and the sixth is no good. Okay. So anybody else have any?
MR. URRICO-I can do it on the sixth or the eighth.
MR. BRYANT-The eighth is good.
MR. STONE-Will you be here then?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll be here. I’m leaving on the 14.
th
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-I’m fine. Whatever you folks come up with would be fine.
MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen, I’ve got two other subjects to bring up.
MR. FRANK-And I have to tell you something before you go, also.
MR. STONE-Okay. Is there any reason at all that any applications or any particular thing that
you would like to get Planning Board input on, before, unless we ask?
MR. ABBATE-No, unless we ask. Forget it.
MR. STONE-Okay. They want nothing automatic like density or anything?
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely not.
MR. MC NULTY-Agreed.
MR. STONE-Okay. You heard that.
MR. FRANK-It’s okay by me.
MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. Now, let me just, I said this earlier. I’m just reminding you about ex-
parte. If you have any, bring it up, just get it on the table and get rid of it. Don’t worry about it.
I mean, I’m not going to say you shouldn’t go to talk to people, but I always think that I only do
it by accident.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point, Lew. Yes, and I went to Wal-Mart the other day and spoke
to an Associate Manager and if you hadn’t reminded me, I probably wouldn’t have stated that
on the record. So I’m glad you said that.
MR. STONE-Okay. The other thing is, so that you know, if we table something, for additional
information, not like this thing tonight, if we table something and say, we need from you, that’s
going to mean that it’s probably going to be two months before it gets back on the agenda,
because if we do it like tonight, April is already closed. They can’t get it in for April, correct?
That’s what we talked about today. So it would automatically, May would be the first meeting,
just keep that in mind. I just want everybody to know that we’re talking two months. The 62
63
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
days I was told was only for advertising purposes, that was our own, but it would be two
months.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. There are two things I want to just mention quickly. Is that okay?
MR. STONE-Sure. It’s your time, not mine.
MR. BRYANT-I had gotten, Bruce sent me a proposed motion format, and I’ve got to tell you,
frankly.
MR. STONE-We just threw it all out. Two of us, nobody liked it.
MR. BRYANT-Well, you know, I just want to comment. Normally I, since we went to this new
format, I very rarely do a motion. Because, in the old format, you used to have all the criteria
listed, okay, and went through that, you know, I’ve got to pull out my card. I’ve got to look at
this. I’ve got to look at that. This new format doesn’t have all the criteria.
MR. STONE-Okay, it’s on the first sheet.
MR. BRYANT-Where? It’s not on the first sheet.
MR. STONE-The criteria is on the first sheet.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, the criteria, but I mean, it used to be specific to the application. So not only
could you make notes in that regard but, you know, it was all there already. Okay. So, either
we go back to the old format or we use the motion format. I mean, I think it’s more
professional, as a body, to have a consistent format, okay, and I think that was an ideal thing,
you know, this is the format.
MR. STONE-You mean the original.
MR. FRANK-Because in the Staff notes (lost words) toward the criteria.
MR. BRYANT-Right.
MR. FRANK-The only problem with that is those five things we looked at in the Staff notes
were not the actual criteria. The first one was the benefit to the applicant. That isn’t part of the
criteria. That’s the overall picture where you’re determining what’s the benefit to the applicant
as opposed to the detriment to the neighborhood or community. Using these five criteria, it
actually was a little different. So to make it actually what you were supposed to be reviewing,
and what you were doing, and also Craig wanted to shorten it up to make it easier to write the
Staff notes because of staffing problems. That’s why the change came about.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Now that was the first point I wanted to make, and I know the cards, I’ve
got it in my pocket, you know, it’s just too much of a hassle.
MR. STONE-Roy uses it all the time. He’s very good. I always count on Roy to come up with
the criteria.
MR. BRYANT-Roy has the criteria engrained in his brain. The second thing I want to do is I
want to make a motion. I want to move that ZBA meetings promptly end at 11 p.m., regardless
of what’s on the agenda. If we have to go beyond that, anything beyond 11 o’clock be pushed
to another meeting. I think it’s only fair, number one to the applicants, who are paying these
attorneys. Number Two, it’s only fair to us, because we go beyond this, from a personal
standpoint, you know, I’m a diabetic. I’ve got to eat. It’s time for me to eat. I’ve got to eat
something, and you’ve got sugar free candies, it doesn’t do me a bit of good. So, from a
personal standpoint, I think it’s important. From a logical standpoint, I think it’s important, and
also for the benefit of the applicants, because we’re working here really for them.
64
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. STONE-No, you’re right. Do I hear a second?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’ll second that, and also it seems to me our criteria should be no different
than the Planning Board’s. They limit their meetings from seven to eleven. Period.
MR. STONE-They limit their applications. We’re limiting our applications. We’re eight.
MR. ABBATE-Well, then we’re going to have to limit the applications, then.
MR. STONE-Well, we do.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m not saying limit the applications. I mean, you know, my
understanding of what the Planning, and correct me if I’m wrong, you would know better than
I would, but at eleven o’clock, their meeting is over.
MR. STONE-Is that true?
MR. BRYANT-We’ve gone to one thirty, okay.
MS. HEMINGWAY-You have to keep in mind that, you know, you’ve got advertising to get
out, and deadlines.
MR. URRICO-What if they have a number of items on the agenda?
MS. HEMINGWAY-You guys have already said that.
MR. STONE-We said eight.
MR. URRICO-No, what I mean is the Planning Board already has this eleven o’clock deadline,
so if they have a number of things on the agenda, and the first three items take three hours, then
are you penalizing the people at the back end of it who may have come here especially for this
meeting.
MS. HEMINGWAY-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I understand that.
MR. URRICO-I understand the logic behind it. I just don’t know if it’s fair.
MR. BRYANT-There are two things involved, though. I think one is planning, and number two
has to do with the way we conduct our meetings. I think the Chairman needs to be less
longwinded, and the rest of the members need to be less longwinded, and we have to address
the issues, not get carried away, because a lot of times we do get carried away, and I’m one of
the guilty parties, okay.
MR. FRANK-Your concerns are valid, but, you know, this isn’t the procedure to do so. You
can’t make a motion to do that.
MR. BRYANT-I can make a motion to do anything I want.
MR. FRANK-You can, but it’s not going to carry any weight, because you can only grant relief
from the Zoning Ordinance. You can’t create rules and regulations.
MR. STONE-I mean, we’ve said it, people get their application in by the 15 of the previous
th
month, they are guaranteed they’ll be on, and it’s complete, that they’ll be on the agenda.
65
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. BRYANT-The law is specific, though, that we have to hear these things at a reasonable
hour.
MR. ABBATE-That’s true.
MR. BRYANT-It’s very specific, and midnight is not a reasonable hour in anybody’s book, and
neither is one o’clock or any other time.
MR. ABBATE-And we advertise seven to eleven, the meeting.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So eleven o’clock is a reasonable hour. It should be the end of the
reasonable hour. So you say I can’t make a motion. I can make a motion.
MR. FRANK-You can, but it won’t carry any weight. That’s all I’m saying. There’s got to be
another way for you to get your point across and possibly amend our procedures. Do you see
what I’m saying?
MR. BRYANT-I don’t know.
MR. FRANK-The Zoning Board can grant relief from the Zoning Ordinance. You can’t make up
procedural rules.
MR. STONE-Well, the point is, why do we put on, I’ll go with Al right now. Why do we put on
the top of our agenda, seven to eleven?
MR. FRANK-Sue, do you know the answer to that question?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Because it was the hopes of our Department that we could accomplish that.
Not to say end the meeting at eleven.
MR. ABBATE-I have a simple question. Why don’t we have three meetings instead of two a
month?
MR. BRYANT-When we need it, we ought to have an extra meeting.
MR. FRANK-Well, we do that, we have special, like a real large project, sometimes when we
know there’s going to be a lot of time devoted to it, you have a special meeting of the Board.
MR. STONE-I mean, it’s a judgment call.
MR. FRANK-Like the Great Escape. Yes, I’ll pretty sure when Craig and Chris look at the
agenda, hey, this could be a real hot topic, they could spend hours on it, and then for instance,
The Great Escape, you’re going to have, that will be a special meeting.
MR. STONE-Guys, we had a very simple one at the end tonight. We still took longer than I
thought we were going to.
MR. ABBATE-Can you imagine if Wal-Mart was on the schedule this evening? We’d be here
until 1:30 in the morning.
MS. HEMINGWAY-It’s on for next week, Wal-Mart.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Now, I’m not a diabetic, but I’ll tell you, after 11 o’clock, I’m starting to get
crotchety.
MR. FRANK-I was against that, by the way. I said I don’t think that’s a good move for one
thing because it isn’t fair to the items that are last on the agenda when you tag on additional
things, because of the reasons you’re explaining.
66
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. BRYANT-Well, Wal-Mart ought to be pushed to the very end of the meeting.
MR. STONE-Well, they were on first tonight because they were supposed to get their decision
last night.
MR. BRYANT-I know that, but now we have another situation, and I don’t understand why all
these other eight applications have got to wait because Wal-Mart didn’t get on. Let Wal-Mart
wait.
MR. FRANK-And the answer to that is, well, if there’s a lot of public opinion, what if you have
40 people here that are against that application? Why make them wait until the end of the
night?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I don’t want to belabor the point about the time. I just want to say we need
to either, we need to restructure the way we do our discussions here, or we need to take less
applications.
MR. ABBATE-Why can’t we have three meetings a month? If we have sixteen, we have sixteen
applications.
MR. STONE-This time we have 16. What have we got for next month?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s always heavy in the summertime.
MR. FRANK-Well, we have seven, but it’s bumped up.
MS. HEMINGWAY-You have The Great Escape. You have that one. So that counts as a
meeting, and then there’s, yes, seven of them.
MR. FRANK-But then of course we know that two are going to be tabled. They’re going to be
on the April agenda, as opposed to.
MS. HEMINGWAY-Right, and I’ve seen you guys go to eleven o’clock with four items on an
agenda.
MR. STONE-Let me tell you my philosophy. I’d much rather go long and have it on the record,
then miss something, and that’s what I try to do. I try to get, as Chuck would have done when
he was on the bench, get a perfect record.
MR. URRICO-Chuck only heard two items last month, as Chairman, and we were here for two
hours, but maybe there should be a limit as to the number of items that we can hear per night.
MS. HEMINGWAY-There is, eight.
MR. STONE-There is, eight.
MS. HEMINGWAY-You already decided that.
MR. MC NULTY-I think, beyond that, it’s got to be a Department judgment. If it’s obvious that
one of those eight is going to take a lot of time, then have six on a meeting.
MR. STONE-There were two or three things tonight that could have been done in ten minutes,
outside of reading, Palangi, and the Cifone, both of those, Palangi was a no-brainer, and I’m not
saying Al, because I know you raised good questions, but that’s what happens. We start to ask
about those things.
67
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/17/04)
MR. MC NULTY-I think, and the point we do need to, if we want to cut the time, pay attention
to what we’re asking. We tend to get off on tangents.
MR. FRANK-You got into a debate tonight over the Zoning Ordinance.
MR. STONE-But there were some valuable points. I mean, I’m listening to my Board complain
about operations, and I think it’s very important to get it into the record, so that minutes go to
who they go to, this can be seen.
MR. FRANK-Let’s hope they read them. Fortunately you have two Town Board members in
the audience tonight.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s all the points I wanted to make.
MR. STONE-That’s a good point, and I think certainly we’ve tried with the eight items, and I
think Chuck is also right. If we listen to what everybody is saying, but don’t be afraid to ask
questions. I would much rather err on the other side, and I remember when Steve Sutton got
PO’d at me because I let 60 people talk. I would never cut the public off, never, and you can’t, I
mean, last night, at the Town Board meeting, or Monday night, they apparently went to 11:30 or
twelve o’clock because there may be 10 outdoor fireplaces in Town, but there was an immediate
world there. Let’s close the meeting. Thank you for all your input, guys.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
68