2005-04-20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2005
INDEX
Area Variance No. 20-2005 Wally & Kate Hirsch 1.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-45
Area Variance No. 26-2005 Dr. Keith Cavayero & Dr. Elysa Baron
6.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-21, 226.12-1-39
Sign Variance No. 27-2005 Prospect Child & Family Center 14.
Tax Map No. 295.18-1-75, 295-18-2-10
Area Variance No. 30-2005 Joseph P. & Lori O’Shaughnessy 22.
Tax Map No. 391.19-1-55
Area Variance No. 29-2005 Sam Bhatti d/b/a Quality Inn 25.
Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51, 52.12 and 52.13
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, ACTING CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO
LEWIS STONE
JAMES UNDERWOOD
ALLAN BRYANT
JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE
LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
PAUL HAYES
CHARLES MC NULTY
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2005 SEQRA TYPE II OWNER(S): WALLY & KATE HIRSCH
ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 145 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. 20 FT. HIGH 3-CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 14-05, BP 2004-872,
BP 2004-862, BP 2004-819, AV 2-2005, AV 27-2004, SPR 45-2001 LOT SIZE: 0.78 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 289.17-1-45 SECTION 179-4-030
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; WALLY HIRSCH, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We had a tabling motion at our last meeting, and I will read that, and that
basically has to do with the Staff comments on here.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2005, Wally & Kate Hirsch, Meeting Date: April 20,
2005, “Project Location: 145 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 900 sq. ft. two-story detached garage at 20 feet in height. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement of
the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 20-
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
2005: tabled 03/16/05, height relief for a 20-foot high, 900 sq. ft. garage. AV 2-2005: denied
01/19/05, 7 feet of height relief for a 900 sq. ft., two-story, detached garage. BP 2004-872:
pending, 900 sq. ft., two-story, detached garage. BP 2004-862: 11/29/04, 2,142 sq. ft. single-
family dwelling. 2004-819: 10/29/04, demolition of 1,342 sq. ft. camp. SP 45-2001 Modification:
08/17/04, site excavation/removal of earth and associated regarding. AV 27-2004: 06/16/04,
demolition of 1,342 sq. ft. camp and construction of a 3,805 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an
816 sq. ft. detached garage. AV 27-2004: tabled 04/21/04, same as current application except for
19 feet of shoreline setback relief requested. SP 45-2001: 04/24/03, extension of approval to
03/30/04. SP 45-2001: 01/15/02, clearing and grading to facilitate driveway, parking, accessory
structures, and future septic area. Approval includes 10,000 cu.yds. to be cut and 5,000 cu.yds.
of fill to be placed to a finished elevation of 135’. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to
construct a 900 sq. ft. two-story detached garage at 20 feet in height. AV 2-2005, denied on
January 19, 2005, was for the same size garage, but at 23 feet in height. AV 20-2005 was tabled
on 03/16/05 due to a lack of majority vote for approval (poll was 3 in favor and 2 against)”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 20-2005, please come to
the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself, your place of
residence, and/or your relationship with this appeal.
MR. HIRSCH-My name is Wally Hirsch. I’m the property owner and my current residence is 49
Coolidge Avenue, Glens Falls.
MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski/Hall
architecture, the architects for the project. As we’ve stated earlier, Chairman Abbate, we were
here at the March meeting. We had, I was hired by Wally and Kate to make some revisions to
the original application which was for 23 feet. We made that revision, went through and
changed the structure of the building and knocked the building down to 20 feet. We also
flipped the building over on the site, as we had discussed before, and dug the building back
into the bank that is currently there. Currently if you were up and looked at the property,
there’s still the big pile of dirt that’s up there. That is going to be hauled as soon as this gets
going. The immediate neighbor, Mr. Pittenger and Ms. Whittle, have a garage that’s going to
back right up to this that was here at that last meeting as well. Their garage is sitting up on top
of the hill, and we’re actually going to dig right down into it. They have a berm that’s going to
in front of theirs, and we’re digging this right into that bank. The view from the road, from
Birdsall Road, will have a 12 foot or about a 14 foot reveal. From the lake side of the building is
where you’ll see the 20 feet, but with the location of the house, the view from the lake and
looking up that bank, and the different landscape berms and things that, as you look up from
the lake, would be the only side that would see the 20 foot relief. At this point, that’s where
we’re at.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Would any members of the Board wish to
question, raise issues?
MR. STONE-Let me give a statement and possibly a question. We left here last month, having
the two applications at the same time and I, quite frankly, was very conflicted with not really
understanding why I did what I did, until the next day, and then it became very clear to me
why I could vote for one and not vote for the other. I know we’re only considering one
particular application, but you were followed by an application that was willing to compromise,
and I think that’s the thing that sold me. I didn’t know why. I have to admit, but you’re
allowed a garage of 900 square feet. That is, in fact, what the Code calls for. You want 900
square feet and an additional four feet on the garage. The other applicant, for whom I voted,
didn’t want the full 900 feet. There was a willingness, it seemed to me, to compromise, making
the garage 700 and something. I don’t know exactly the number, and going for the height that
you’re requesting, and that, to me, was the telling reason. As I say, I didn’t get to express it that
evening, because it didn’t totally form in my head, but it did the next day. One of those driving
along, ah ha, now I know why. So I just wanted to explain that, and I know it was kind
inconsistent, but I feel very strongly that, in terms of variances, the applicant must be willing to
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
compromise when they’re seeking the kind of relief that you’re seeking, in terms of the four
feet.
MR. HALL-And that was our intent in trying to get the roof height down as well. I think that,
you know, it’s a three car garage. Mr. Hirsch does have a Model A or a Model T antique car, as
well as his and his wife’s car that he needs to have storage room for. The only possible way to
make the footprint smaller would be to take the stair from within the building and move it
outside, and reduce the building by the width of the stair, and I don’t know, without talking to
Mr. Hirsch, but if that were a compromise that would be, that you’d be willing to address, we
could perhaps knock some of the square footage out by getting that outside as well.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m not sure either, but let’s keep going.
MR. HIRSCH-And as far as the compromise, also, don’t forget, it is set into the bank. We are
having a foundation that’s about six to seven feet tall, so the exposure, actual exposure of the
building will be quite a bit less than any of the other garages on that road. As we already know,
Pittenger is 20 feet, and there’s several others on the road that are, actually ours is the only
house that does not have a garage yet, and across our property from us, on the Dineen side,
we’re going to have actually a berm between the two properties that stands about, what’s it
about 10 feet, isn’t it?
MR. HALL-It’ll wind up being about 10 feet. It’ll be what’s the remnants of that (lost words).
MR. STONE-Okay, but you made the comment in your presentation tonight that the most,
where you’re going to notice the 20 feet is from the lake.
MR. HALL-Well, it would only be from the Hirsch’s house. From the lake, the house hides the
garage.
MR. HIRSCH-It’s very difficult, it would be very difficult to see the garage with the house there.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s not the way you put it to me. The way you just said it, it sounded as
if that it would be 20 feet, not the total 20 feet, obviously, but more visible from the lake than the
Birdsall Road side.
MR. HALL-Right, but the only people who would see it would be the Hirsch’s, because the
garage is immediately behind the house.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HIRSCH-You’d have to actually be in our side yard to see it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question? How difficult was it to redesign the garage to bring it
down?
MR. HALL-The initial design that Mr. Hirsch worked with had a steel beam and some posts
that were in the garage, floor joists sitting on top of that, with rafters going up on top. We went
through a considerable exercise working with Curtis Lumber to design some storage trusses
that would bear on the outside walls. Then we could eliminate the steel beam, thereby reducing
the depth. The depth of the truss was that much smaller, and we reduced it from a 12 on 12
pitch to a 10 on 12 pitch. That allowed us to knock that space out. So we’ve gone from a center
bearing point to an exterior wall bearing point.
MR. BRYANT-Just out of curiosity, if you went through this difficulty, why didn’t you just
design a compliant garage?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. HALL-To get it down to 16 feet would only allow, at the center of the garage on the upper
portion, would only allow about five and a half feet up above, and to get around, I mean,
basically Wally’s six feet tall or better, and he’d be basically walking around on his hands and
knees in that area.
MR. BRYANT-He’s basically going to store things up there. He’s not going to use it for any
workshop or anything, right?
MR. HALL-No. It will be for storage of the exterior. Mr. Hirsch owns Quaker Farms and Binley
Florist. He does a lot of exterior decorating and things like that, and it’s a place for him to store
his exterior, his Christmas stuff, his decorations for the year, the things that would go, the patio
furniture, the stuff that goes down on the dock or down on the boathouse as well. It’s just a
place to store that stuff and easy to get upstairs and walk around.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board.
MR. STONE-I’m just curious. You did say commercial operation? It’s going to be stored as a
commercial operation?
MR. HALL-No, no, but because he owns Binley Florist, he does a lot of decorating on his own,
at his own residence.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HIRSCH-Advertising begins at home.
MR. HALL-You have to use your own product.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Have these issues been cleared up, Mr. Stone?
MR. STONE-Well, I’ve asked my question. Made my statement.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the
Board to the applicant? If not, we’ll procedure to a public hearing. The public hearing is now
open for Area Variance No. 20-2005. This Board invites public comments on the appeal. In the
interest of time, please be crisp, organized, and limit your comments to only the facts and
information given this evening. Would those wishing to be heard please come to the table,
speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself, and your place of residence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
MR. ABBATE-I would now request that ZBA members offer their commentary, but I would
respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the
evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and the evidence relied upon
should be specifically stated. This is necessary for an intelligent, judicial review. I’d like to start
out with Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-Is there any correspondence?
MR. UNDERWOOD-None.
MR. HALL-I believe there was some previous correspondence, at the last meeting.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Actually, I don’t know where I am here. Generally, when it comes to height
variances, I’m generally opposed to them. I’d like to hear what the other Board members have
to say.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I appreciate the answer that the applicant and his agent made. To me, it’s
still a tremendous variation. We’re talking 25%, if we’re going to talk in terms of percentages,
and sometimes they lie and sometimes they don’t, but four feet on 16 feet is a lot, and I
recognize all of the arguments that have been made, but I still think, without the compromise
on size, that I still don’t think I can support the application.
MR. HALL-Would the removal of the stair from the inside, moving it to the outside, would that
sway your decision? I mean, that would get rid of somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 square
feet. It would bring us down to 850.
MR. STONE-Well, it certainly is a step in the right direction. Let me listen, like Mr. Bryant, let
me listen.
MR. HALL-I hear what you’re saying, and 25%, out of 100, I mean, if we take the volume of that
little point, in relationship to that, 25% of the total volume of this building is not very large.
MR. ABBATE-Let me raise an issue. Are you suggesting that you’re going to be making a
feasible alternative by removing the stairs? If so, please state it on the record.
MR. HALL-If that would persuade the Board further.
MR. ABBATE-Are you willing to, as a compromise, remove the stairs? You don’t have to, but
you opened the door, you raised the issue. It’s up to you.
MR. HALL-We would be willing to move the stairs.
MR. ABBATE-In other words, you would be willing to concede that?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. URRICO-I guess my question would be, would that removal of the stairs to the outside
create any additional variances, side setback or anything like that?
MR. HALL-No. It would, the building would physically take up the same size. The stair would
remain right where it is. We’d just move the exterior wall from the outside of the stair to the
inside part of the stair.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s stay with Mr. Urrico, please, Roy.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Stone was the one speaking.
MR. STONE-I’m done.
MR. BRYANT-He’s done.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m assuming that you have no objections at this particular time?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. URRICO-The criteria that we need to examine when it come to Area Variances
encompasses five steps. Whether you benefit from the granting of this Area Variance is one of
them, and obviously you’ve answered that. You would benefit. We’ve been here many times,
and you’ve explained it very well. As far as the effect this variance will have on the character of
the neighborhood, I’m convinced that this won’t have an effect on the character of the
neighborhood. I think you’ve done a nice job, I think, in bringing it back down a little bit, so
that it will not stand out as far as the rest of the houses. So I don’t think it’s going to have an
impact. As far as feasible alternatives, there was one and you just addressed it. I guess another
feasible alternative would be to make it totally compliant. That’s a feasible alternative. That’s
one of the questions we have to ask. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I guess it
is. I’m not particularly bothered by it at this point. I guess, again, in comparison to some of the
other structures in the neighborhood, I’m less bothered than I might be if it was standing alone,
and as far as any physical or environmental, I don’t see any conditions that would make this
have an environmental impact. So, at this point, based on what you’ve presented tonight, I
would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. In both instances previously I’ve been supportive of what was
requested here. I think that lowering the height down to 20 from the original 23 feet was a
compromise on your part. I think that the structure as I have said before is appealing and I
think it compliments the house that’s been constructed on the lake side there, and I think of the
other garages within the neighborhood there, those are all buildings and similar structures in
height. They’re all 20 feet, at least. We granted relief for those structures, and I think it would
be a draconian call on our part to deny this for you in your case here. I think you’ve gone out of
the way to put this thing part way into the ground, and though it will be 20 feet from the
lakeside as you have mentioned previously, the house does shield it pretty dramatically. You’d
have to be pretty looking forward. I live on the lake over there, and I paddled by, and I don’t
really think you’re going to notice this once the leaves are on the trees. So I would be
supportive of your request.
MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you, Mr. Underwood. Ms. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I agree with my two Board members who’ve spoken in favor.
Looking at the notes, there were neighbors who agreed, had no objection to it, and I certainly
think you’ve done a lot to try to come around to what the Board wanted, and I would be in
favor of this variance.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Rigby?
MR. RIGBY-Yes. I agree with Joyce as well. I think you’ve done a nice job and made a
considerable effort to redesign what you originally proposed. I think it’s a good project. It
conforms with the other garages in the neighborhood. I mean, it’s comparable to what the other
garages are. You’ve just also offered bringing it down 850 square feet. I believe that’s what I
heard, by the removal of the steps. So, I’m in favor of the project as well.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. I thank each of the Board members for their remarks. It’s
helped me take my position, and in the particular the applicant yielding to feasible alternatives
has now resulted in my supporting the application, and unless there’s a challenge to the vote, I
believe there are six in favor and one against. If that is the case, it would appear now that the
public hearing will be closed, and I will be seeking a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-But before I ask for a motion, may I respectfully remind the members that we
have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as
the fact that state Statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
deciding whether to grant an Area Variance. Now, may I please hear a motion for Area
Variance No. 20-2005.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2005 WALLY & KATE HIRSCH,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
145 Birdsall Road. The applicant is proposing construction of an 850 sq. ft. two-story detached
garage at 20 feet in height. I’d just like to point out that the applicant has made this concession
tonight, and that in doing so he’s going to be moving the staircase from inside the garage to the
outside. The benefit to the applicant would be being able to construct the garage that they’ve
put together. The affect on the neighborhood or community I think is negligible compared to
some of the other residences that already have houses that are equally or higher than this
particular structure. The feasible alternatives were spoken about earlier tonight, and the
applicant has made one concession which I spoke about earlier. Another feasible alternative
would be to make it totally compliant by lowering the height of the garage, but as I said earlier,
that does not bother me, and I think this is okay. The amount of relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? We just spoke about that. I think it’s still okay. It’s something that we can live
with. As far as the variance affecting the impact of the physical or environmental conditions of
the neighborhood, I don’t think there will be any. I do believe that this issue, this Area Variance
is self-created. Obviously they’re coming before us for an Area Variance, that’s something that
we didn’t create. They created it. I think that we should approve this Area Variance.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-And I do believe that the tally is six in favor, and one against. If there are no
challenges to the tally, Area Variance No. 20-2005 is approved. So be it.
MR. HALL-Thank you.
MR. HIRSCH-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2005 SEQRA TYPE II DR. KEITH CAVAYERO & DR. ELYSA
BARON AGENT(S): CURTIS DYBAS OWNER(S): DR. KEITH CAVAYERO & DR.
ELYSA BARON ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 87 MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,798 SQ. FT. 2-STORY, 4-
BEDROOM SEASONAL RESIDENCE WITH A 242 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND
CONSTRUCT A 3,124 SQ. FT. 3-BEDROOM SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WHICH
INCLUDES A 492 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE
MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.
SPR 7-2004, AV 69-2003, BP 2004-079 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 13, 2005
ADIRONDACK PARK YES LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES, 0.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-
21, 226.12-1-39 SECTION 179-4-030
CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think, prior to reading the Staff notes, I’ll read this letter in. This was
dated March 4, to Paul Hayes, Chairman of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board. “Dear
th
Chairman Hayes: On half of Dr. Keith Cavayero and Dr. Elysa Baron, I am requesting the
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
Zoning Board consider the enclosed Area Variance for the above mentioned project. In
September 2003, the Zoning Board granted area variance No. 69-2003 for the boathouse and
residence side yard setbacks, the boathouse railing height and relief from the required floor area
ratio (FAR). The boathouse reconstruction will be completed this April and the addition and
reconstruction of the existing residence was to commence. A careful structural, code and health
evaluation of the existing residence indicates that the financial investment is not warranted.
Therefore; we wish to submit to the Zoning Board a new application for the demolition of the
existing 1798 SF, 4 bedroom residence and the detached 242 SF, 1 car garage and the
construction of a new, 3124 SF, 3 bedroom residence; including an attached 2 car garage. The
project will also provide for a new, on site, septic system and roof storm water management
system. Warren County has indicated to Dr. Cavayero’s and Dr. Baron’s attorney that the two
parcels can be “hooked” to create a combined parcel of 12,923 SF. The application for the
combination of properties has not been filed, but the final combination of the parcels can be
made a condition of the variance approval. The existing development on the 9,243 SF, lakefront
lot totals 2040 SF, creating a FAR of .22. The September 2003 variance approved a lakefront lot
development of 2453 SF, creating an FAR of .265. The combination of lots (12,923 SF) and the
proposed development of 3124 SF, creates a proposed FAR of .242. This proposal does place all
the development on the lakefront lot but assures that the center lot remains undeveloped per
the neighbors’ consensus. The removal of the 1-car garage, which abuts Mason Road, removes
a safety hazard, but also improves the character of the neighborhood. Very truly yours, Curtis
D. Dybas”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2005, Dr. Keith Cavayero & Dr. Elysa Baron, Meeting
Date: April 20, 2005 “Project Location: 87 Mason Road, Cleverdale Description of Proposed
Project: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,798 sq. ft. 2-story, 4-bedroom
seasonal residence with a 242 sq. ft. detached garage and construct a 3,124 sq. ft. 3-bedroom
single-family residence, which includes a 492 sq. ft. attached garage. The project will also
provide for a new, on-site septic system and roof stormwater management system. The
applicant proposes “hooking” two noncontiguous parcels (9,243 sq. ft. lakefront and 3,680 sq. ft.
Eastside of Mason Road). The applicant claims that Warren County has indicated that the two
parcels can be “hooked” to create a combined parcel of 12,923 sq. ft. Relief Required: The
applicant requests 8.5-feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum side setback requirement, per §
179-4-030 for the WR-1A, Waterfront Residential-1 Acre zone. As well as relief from the
maximum FAR (.22), if combined parcels, FAR would be .24. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): SP 7-2004: Approved 2/24/04, Proposed addition to boathouse and
proposed addition to existing residence. AV 69-2003: Approved 9/17/03, relief from FAR
requirement for proposed addition to existing residence, and maximum height and side setback
relief for the existing boathouse. BP 2004-79: 3/10/04, 678 sq. ft. boathouse. Staff comment:
Staff questions the “hooking” of the 3,680 sq. ft. vacant parcel on the Eastside of Mason Rd. for
the purposes of increasing the density on the lakefront parcel. This proposal places all the
development, the 3,124 sq. ft. residence and the septic system on the lakefront lot (.21-acres),
which would result in a FAR of .35. The proposal for new development of a 3,124 sq. ft.
residence on a .21-acre lakefront lot would max or exceed all of the dimensional and bulk
requirements per the WR-1A zone resulting in: the minimum shoreline setback (50-feet), the
maximum height (28-feet), 16-feet and 6.5-feet (variance) respectively from the minimum side
setbacks (15-feet)), and .13 over the maximum .22 FAR. Staff questions whether this proposal
calls for overdevelopment of this parcel and overuse of the shoreline. This is a redevelopment,
the lot and buildings should be made as compliant as possible. It would also be advantageous
to locate the septic system on the parcel across the road, which would site it further from the
Lake. It might be appropriate to “hook” the two parcels together for the purpose of allowing
the accessory structure on the lands across the street. The proposal would have the residence
situate 18.5-feet from the N. neighbor’s residence, and 17.5-feet from the S. neighbor’s residence.
A feasible alternative would be redesigning the new residence, narrower and longer so that it
does not encroach on the (S) side setback. If the vacant parcel was also a lakefront lot
transferring the density might be justified, but this lot is across the road and will not help to
lessen the potential visual impacts of this 3,124 sq. ft. structure from the lake, nor will it lessen
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
the apparent overdevelopment of the shoreline by permitting all development on the lakefront
lot.”
MR. ABBATE-I see a representative of Area Variance No. 26-2005 has already come to the table.
Be so kind as to speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself, your place of
residence, and your relationship with this appeal.
MR. DYBAS-My name is Curtis Dybas. I reside at 19 Deer Run, Lake George, NY, and I’m
acting as agent for Dr. Cavayero and Dr. Baron.
MR. ABBATE-Are you prepared?
MR. DYBAS-I hope so.
MR. ABBATE-Go.
MR. DYBAS-I listened to the readings, and I think there’s one piece of history that is missing,
and that in July of 2003, we came before this Board and the request of this Board was that we
present the entire project, which we were going to phase over 2 or 3 years, and at that time we
addressed the boathouse, the renovation/addition to the existing residence, an existing one
story, well, one car garage that’s on the parcel, and also a two car garage across the Mason Road
on what I call the green lot. Due to public comment at the time, there was quite a concern about
developing the green space on Cleverdale and ruining the character of that, and at the
recommendation of the Board, we tabled that proposal and came back in September and
eliminated the two car garage from the green area, but the FAR from the original proposal was
24.18, when we came in here in July. We’re coming back at the recommendation of the public
and the Board. We placed all the development on the lake lot, being the renovation of the
existing residence, and the only thing we needed at the time was the FAR because the existing
south wall line was there. We did need a setback requirement, and we came back in and the
FAR at the time was 26.5, which that variance was approved by the Board, and in the spring of,
as you can see from the notes, in the Spring of 2004, we proceeded with the reconstruction of
the boathouse, as part of that plan, and due to an oversight, the variance was never renewed in
September, but prior to that we were already looking at the existing residence and discovered
that, being unheated for two years, the foundation walls have buckled, and removing some of
the interior finishes, the three walls in the rear of this structure are all rotten, basically from
water coming down from the roof. There’s virtually no way of making the building energy
compliant because of roof structure and two by four studs, deficiency in structure, it’s a 100 year
old camp that’s been added and modified, and I’ve said in my letter that was read into the
record, it became a point of putting good money after bad, and at that time we made a decision.
If I recall at a previous Board meeting, I believe it was Mr. Stone said I do not want to hear
about you tearing it down, and rebuilding it, and I tried to keep everything above board, and
that’s why I’m sitting here in front of this Board tonight, with this proposal to virtually, with the
exception of the boathouse, remove everything from the lakefront on, and reconstruct a year
round residence that meets all Code requirements, obviously a new foundation and everything
else. I’ve heard comment, and I may ramble because there’s so much running through here. I
heard comment read into the record that this proposal has exceeded or maxed out all the
setbacks. First of all, we moved the house back about five feet so we could have a small, eight
foot deck on the front of the building. The front of the deck is 50 feet from the lake. The front of
the house is 58 now. The front of the old was about 53, and you say, well, it’s still 50 feet, but if
you read the Ordinance it says, shoreline setback is also an average of the two adjacent parcels,
unless it’s been changed, which comes up to about 43.5 feet.
MR. STONE-No, it’s the other way. It’s 50 or the average of the two, further, whichever.
MR. DYBAS-Okay. Then I stand corrected. Then we are at 50 feet, and the neighbors are closer.
So that’s the way it is. The comment, there’s no comment about the rear yard setback, which we
have met, in fact we’re about six feet better than that. It seems that the focus of the Staff notes is
concerned about lakefront view from the lake. There’s no concern about the inward view and
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
what is created to the character of the neighborhood. Everything is addressing how it’s viewed
from the lake. The character of the house, it will remain virtually unchanged in architectural
character. We will still have the second floor terrace which takes away that stark high vertical
wall that you would see if you built it that way. The second floor bedrooms on the front step
out onto that terrace. Right now it happens to be a roof. There’s mention of the 28 feet. I’ve
talked to Staff over this 28 feet dimension, and I don’t know what created it, but the existing
house, per survey, is 25.6 feet, and I know I have to increase it to get the Energy Code on the
roof. I just cannot make this building, this existing building or anything in that configuration of
that height energy compliant. I have seven foot six and seven foot four ceilings in the existing
building. We have, I think, addressed the concerns of the public back in July of 2003, when I
heard, and correct me if I’m wrong, that they did not want to see any development on the green
area on Cleverdale, and w decided to make this year round residence all inclusive, one
building. We won’t have three little structures. We won’t have a house, a one car garage and
possibility of a two car garage. Another thing that was not addressed at the September 2003
variance, when it was 26.5% variance on the FAR, was the in board green lot still was not
hooked. That was still a developable lot, and as a pre-existing lot, I do believe, correct me,
again, if I’m wrong, that it could be developed as a separate entity. By hooking them, that takes
that completely off the table. That lot has to remain forever open. There’s mention, in Staff
notes, about septic on this parcel. The septic field is over 100 feet from the lake. The Code says
100 feet. They said, well, it would be better served across the road. A couple of issues come
into play. First of all, we’re crossing a public thoroughfare with a private pump line. It makes
me very nervous, as far as a liability standpoint. We have a neighbor’s well within 100 feet of
where that field would be on that lot across the street that’s on the survey, I believe it’s in the
packet. We also have quite a, not a steep slope, but a slope down to the adjoiner’s house to the
east, if we put the septic there. We have a high perked soil. All those things, as a designer,
make me nervous. I would just as soon have it on the lot. It meets the Code. We’re not asking
for a variance, replacement or reduction in size. We’ve handled the groundwater. We’ve met
the permeability on the site. We’ve included all the decks, the shoreline decks, everything in
the perm. I think we’ve put together a reasonable proposal. We’ve reduced the FAR from the
26.5. We’re down to 24. That’s what I’ve presented to the Board tonight. I would hate to have
to turn around and go back and say, okay, what do we do next? And I think the neighbor’s
don’t like the idea of putting a two car garage on that green lot, and you cannot have a
permanent year round residence in the North Country without a garage. Well, you can, but it
gets boring very quick in the morning, for anyone who lives here. I don’t know what other
things to, as you see, I haven’t paid attention to my notes, but I think I’ve covered just about
everything. One last thing are Staff comments in relationship to neighbor’s houses. One thing
that is not mentioned, that the neighbor’s house to the north is two and a half feet off the
property line. I mean, it says, well, we’re 18 feet, well, it’s fine, it’s a good relationship, but I’m
16 feet from the north property line. On the south property line, because of building a new
residence and trying to make it convenient for even dimensions, I’ve gone from five feet 10
inches down to six foot six. I’ve gained eight inches. I’ve increased my setback, not that that’s a
big number, but there’s little compromises, when you’re dealing with a lot of this size, there’s
not any large things that you can put your hand on. So that’s, gentlemen and ladies, that’s what
I’ve presented this evening.
MR. ABBATE-Have you concluded your argument?
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-You have? Okay.
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Then it’s time for members of the Board to ask questions and raise issues.
MR. BRYANT-I have a couple of questions, please. You mention your setback from the lake
and the height of the building and my understanding we’re only looking at the two side
setbacks and the Floor Area Ratio. Is that correct?
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. DYBAS-No, we’re, I believe we’re only looking at the south side setback and the area ratio.
MR. BRYANT-Well, according to the application, you’re looking for 8.5 relief on, you’re right,
it’s only one setback. That’s correct.
MR. DYBAS-Which the current south wall is at five foot ten inches.
MR. BRYANT-And the Floor Area Ratio.
MR. DYBAS-And the Floor Area Ratio.
MR. BRYANT-My question is, why, if you’re redesigning, you’re starting from scratch, you’re
demolishing the existing building, the foundations, why not design a compliant building?
MR. DYBAS-Right now the only difference between what was approved in September of 2003
and what we are proposing is basically the area of a two car garage. I mean, we have, for all
intents and purposes, a 2600 square foot, three bedroom house.
MR. BRYANT-You’re not answering my question. My question, specifically, is you’re starting
from scratch. You’re demolishing an existing building. Why don’t we build a compliant
structure. That’s my question.
MR. DYBAS-I can’t fit the program space in it.
MR. BRYANT-Maybe we ought to rethink the program. I mean, I don’t understand. That
doesn’t register. Why isn’t it compliant? What is it specifically about the building that you
absolutely need, that you need that eight and a half feet?
MR. DYBAS-Right, excuse me. Right now, in order to comply with all the setbacks and the FAR
ratio on the lake lot, I have to construct a 2200 square foot total area residence, including a
garage, any covered porches, and the garage right off the get go is 450 to 500 square foot for a
two car garage. Now, sir, I’m down to 1700 square feet, to get a three bedroom residence and
stairs and everything else. That’s my problem.
MR. BRYANT-I still don’t understand the problem. I mean, I live in a 1700 square foot house.
It’s got four bedrooms. So, it depends on the design, and you’re the architect.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board?
MR. RIGBY-A question for Craig. Craig, the idea of hooking the properties together, I mean, is
that a realistic thing, or what has to be done in order to do that?
MR. BROWN-That’s a better question, I think, for the County Real Property Tax Office. I know
that they have expressed some hesitation to do that in the past, to hook parcels that either aren’t
directly across the road from each other or aren’t directly contiguous to each other. They’ve
indicated that they’ve spoken to the County and they have some buy in from them, and if they
do, that’s fine. If the County will do that, I think it would be reasonable for us to go along with
that. We haven’t seen any proof of that, but they’ve offered that they have spoken to the
County. The County’s willing to do that. It’s feasible.
MR. RIGBY-So we’re looking at a significantly different variance, based upon whether the
hooking takes place or not, correct?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. RIGBY-So, I mean, that should be part of our proceedings. How can we authorize a
variance without actually knowing whether these properties are going to be hooked together or
not.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think what the applicant’s offered is if you put this condition on us, that
we have to hook these, and if you grant our variances that we’ve asked for, if we can’t hook
them, well, then our variance is no good.
MR. RIGBY-And then they’ve have to come back for.
MR. BROWN-Then they would have to come back. That’s correct, and I don’t want to misspeak
for Mr. Dybas, but that’s what I heard in the presentation.
MR. DYBAS-That is correct. I mean, without the hooking, this is a moot presentation.
MR. BROWN-The logic of a lesser variance goes away, if you can’t add that other land in, and if
the County won’t allow them to combine them into one tax parcel, then they have bigger
problems.
MR. RIGBY-Okay. Thanks.
MR. STONE-Just a quick question. On the north side, you meet the setback requirement?
MR. DYBAS-That is correct.
MR. STONE-So we’re only talking the south side. I mean, that’s what it says. I just want to
confirm that.
MR. DYBAS-That is, that was confusing the first time I read it, also.
MR. RIGBY-And on the south side is the variance you’re requesting less than the variance that
you have right now? In other words, where is the footprint of the house on the south side right
now, and where is the footprint of the new house on the south side?
MR. DYBAS-The existing house is five feet ten inches from the south property line. The new
proposed residence would be six foot six inches from the south property line.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions, comments?
MRS. HUNT-I’m having a little difficulty trying to understand how, by combining property
across the street, you can count that to have a, what is it, 24% density, when really it would be
almost 35. That is not waterfront property. It’s not part of that same parcel. I find that a little
difficult to see how combining it is going to make a difference.
MR. BROWN-Is that a question for me, or just a statement?
MRS. HUNT-No, I mean, has that been done before?
MR. BROWN-Well, there are parcels, there are properties, probably up and down Cleverdale,
it’s hard to tell here, and around the lake, that have a portion of their parcel on one side of a
road, and the remaining on the other side of the road. It’s not uncommon. This is uncommon
in the fact that it’s probably addressed with two deeds.
MR. DYBAS-That is correct.
MR. BROWN-Two deeds. Two separate tax parcels. Owned by the same person, kind of
contiguous, almost across the road from each other.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MRS. HUNT-In some cases it’s been the house on one side and the boathouse on the other side
of the road. That’s a little different than having a vacant lot across the street that you count as
part of your waterfront property.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct. It’s different.
MR. STONE-Mr. Dybas, you made a good statement or a positive statement about your
findings of structural instability, if you will. Let me just say this, so we get it on the table. Over
the years, we have been shown a number of variances or a number of variances have been
requested for homes that, all of a sudden, had to be torn down after we’d grant a certain
amount of relief. So, there is some healthy skepticism, I certainly hope, on the part of a number
of us who have seen this happen before. You made a statement. I’d like you to reiterate it again
in response to my question. You feel, on the basis of your professional reputation, that this
house is not worth putting good money after bad, to quote your phrase.
MR. DYBAS-I will reiterate again that the foundation is a concrete, un-reinforced concrete
foundation which has buckled, which means that the building, if anything, would have to be
raised and a new foundation constructed under it. The second part of it, in removing interior
finishes, that the rear of the two side walls and the rear of the building are completely rotted.
The mold infestation is so bad in there that they cannot stay at night. I mean, if you visited the
site, the paint is coming off the siding because of the amount of moisture that’s in the walls.
The floor structure, it’s a 100 year old camp. The date on it I think is 1896, the original building.
Whether that’s the original building, I don’t, I’m not sure, but it’s been, as we call it in the
business, compromised, i.e. cobbed up over the years, and without even, what we did look at, it
gets frightening. I mean, there’s layers on layers, and beams going to nowhere, and the other
part of this, it’s all two by four construction. There’s virtually, there’s ways of insulating the
walls to be at the energy code, but it’s very difficult. The roof is two by four and two by six
framed. It doesn’t even come close to the structural loading capability required by today’s
Code, and there’s no way, because of, I hate to get technical, the way the rafters sit on the walls.
There is no way to get insulation in that configuration, and, sure, anything is salvageable and
rebuildable if you spend enough money on it, and in this case you would probably be spending
in the neighborhood of about 30% premium over building a new structure, than trying to save
this thing. Because in all practicality, there’s not going to be much left of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. I had a person who worked for me years ago who, after time passed, and
we were trying to market a new product, and it failed, and his question was, what do we know
now that we that we didn’t know then. The answer was usually nothing. So you did not know,
two years ago when you came before us, that this house was not renovatable, if you will?
MR. DYBAS-If you recall, the house was occupied up until about six months before the
Cavayero’s bought it, in Christmas of 2002. The building was occupied and heated. At the
time, they had the furnace removed because it was just an old hot air furnace. The building has
been unheated for two years, and basically the frost and everything else, you can go in the
basement and there’s (lost words) up to three eighths of an inch openings between blocks where
they’ve buckled in. We didn’t know anything about the exterior walls until we started
removing siding on the outside, mainly in the area of the entryway because we realized there
was some rot and there was virtually nothing left when we took the siding off, and interior,
they remodeled the downstairs bathroom to make the structure more usable for them for the
summer, and when we got into it, I mean, once you start peeling off sheet rock and finish and
you start looking and you say, well, I mean, it’s just (lost word).
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board?
MR. URRICO-I guess there was a comment. You use the example of the neighbors preferring
the green space across the way, but don’t you think you’ve created an imbalance on a lot totally
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
unpropriational to the size of the lot, that does exist, where the house and the garage are now
going to sit?
MR. DYBAS-If you refer to it as, I call it the lake lot, 9200 square feet, if you viewed that as all
development being on that parcel, yes, you know, it’s 35%. There’s no argument with that, but
if you view it as a combined parcel, and as Mr. Brown commented, there are situations that exist
on the lake. There’s situations on Trout Lake where the road goes right through the lots, not
that, that’s a different town.
MR. URRICO-But the green space you’re taking from one you’re stealing from the other.
MR. DYBAS-Yes, but for instance, if you have, on Assembly Point, you have roads going down
through where you have boathouse, as referred to, you have the boathouse and some property
on the lake. Well, you have virtually no development there because the boathouse doesn’t
count as far as land occupancy, where all your development is on the other side. Now I am not
familiar with all the lots on Assembly Point, but you may very well have a situation where the
lot, or the portion of the lot, which I assume would be all one deed, has the house and the
garage and everything else on it, and its FAR ratio may be at 35% or exceed it, but you look at it
as the entire parcel. You don’t say the lake parcel. We’re doing the reverse now.
MR. URRICO-If you’re allowed to hook it.
MR. DYBAS-If we’re allowed to hook it.
MR. URRICO-But in reality you have a lot with a 1798 square foot house on it that we’re going
to replace with a, you’re proposing to replace with a 3124 square foot. That’s a 75% increase on
that one lot that has a house.
MR. DYBAS-But there’s also a 292 square foot, one car garage on that lot.
MR. URRICO-Because you’re putting it there to try to, that’s one of the things that you’re not
necessarily entitled to a garage. A garage is something that people would like to have, but it’s
not something that you’re entitled to.
MR. DYBAS-No, no. Excuse me. The existing lot right now has 2100 and some odd square feet.
MR. URRICO-The garage on the other side.
MR. DYBAS-And it’s right at 22%.
MR. URRICO-Right.
MR. DYBAS-No, the existing lot has the one car on it.
MR. URRICO-One car.
MR. DYBAS-Has a one car garage on it, and it’s 2100 square feet.
MR. URRICO-Right. I understand that. Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? If not, then I will,
for a fair and open process, the public hearing is now open for Area Variance No. 26-2005, and
this Board invites public comment on the appeal. In the interest of time, please be crisp,
organized, and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening.
Would those wishing to be heard please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for
the record identify yourself, and your place of residence. Do we have any public comments,
anyone wishing?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JAMES FINNECY
MR. FINNECY-My name is James Finnecy. I reside at 82 Mason Road. I am in favor of
property being improved in the Cleverdale area, and I am no stranger to this process. I do
believe there is a need to observe the Town Zoning requirements and not just build structures
on land to satisfy the many desires of land owners. Because most properties in Cleverdale are
60 feet wide lots, it is important that housing units not overwhelm individual lots, such as
occurred on Rockhurst many years ago. Accordingly, I strongly object to any building permit
that exceeds the legal ratio of floor area to land area of 22% in the Cleverdale area.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else?
JOAN ROBERTSON
MS. ROBERTSON-I’m Joan Robertson. I live at 286 Cleverdale Road, which is on the front road.
I’ve been a year round resident of Cleverdale since 1957, and I’ve watched lots of the changes.
However, I am here to object to the granting of this variance. The existing structure already
does not conform to side setbacks. The lot is small, and they are, most of them, 60 feet, actually
about the same measurement as most lakefront lots on the peninsula. Now this, therefore,
makes this not a unique situation. A larger dwelling will add to the congestion along an
already heavily developed shoreline. The visual aspects of large homes filling most of the open
space are aesthetically appalling. If you’ve driven around, you will see what I mean, and we’ve
watched this building. I would like to see this slowed down. As can be noted, on the
Cleverdale and Mason Road properties there are existing homes of various sizes. It is certainly
possible to construct a building within the permitted parameters. Therefore there is no
demonstrated hardship. Approving this request for a variance will increase the present
nonconformity. It will also set a precedent for future variances that will very likely be
requested, given the highly inflated market for waterfront property. Now with dramatically
outsized homes on 60 foot lots, the views of mountain and water that are so special to Lake
George will be gone forever. Do we really want nearly wall to wall building? I therefore
request that you deny this variance with the intention of preserving a sense of open space along
the shoreline. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to be
heard?
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident of the Town of Lake George.
Craig, could you put the zoning map up again, showing the two lots. Okay. The important
question here is whether or not this lot, it’s important to know whether or not this line is
contiguous across here, is continuous across here, as to whether or not this can be hooked to
this. Now the County has a procedure where you can make application for this sort of hooking,
and that application gets approved or disapproved, and that application passes through this
Town, through the Assessor’s Office, and that application should be part of this application.
Whether it’s approved or denied. That will be the proof of it. Secondly, Mr. Dybas should not
be at all nervous about putting a sewer line across a Town road. We did it many times in the
Hannaford Road area. That’s not uncommon. I’ve put a 14,000 volt power line under a Town
road. All you have to do is get a permit. They didn’t ask me to be liable for anything, just do it
according to the Code. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard concerning Area
Variance No. 26-2005? If not, then I would now request that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have some correspondence.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m sorry. Do we have correspondence, Mr. Secretary?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have a letter that’s dated April 18, received on April 18, 2005, it’s
th
addressed to Paul Hayes, Chairman of the Queensbury Zoning Board. “Dear Chairman Hayes:
On behalf of myself and my wife, Lee V. Tabner, I wish to have the Board take into
consideration the following comments. We are one of the adjacent property owners to the
premises owned by Drs. Cavayero and Baron. We have reviewed their application for an area
variance and have absolutely no objection to the variance being granted. We believe that the
proposed structure and changes will be beneficial to the neighborhood and will be done in good
taste, in keeping with the area. Unfortunately, Mrs. Tabner and I cannot be present the night of
the meeting due to other commitments. However, we request that you read this letter in
support of this application. Very truly yours, John W. Tabner”
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other correspondence?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just the Warren County Planning Board. “Warren County Planning Board
Project Review and Referral Form April 13, 2005 Project Name: Cavayero, Dr. Keith & Baron,
Dr. Elysa Owner: Dr. Keith Cavayero & Dr. Elysa Baron ID Number: QBY-05-AV-26 County
Project#: Apr05-34 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description:
Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,798 sq. ft. 2-story, 4-bedroom seasonal residence
with a 242 sq. ft. detached garage and construct a 3, 124 sq. ft. 3-bedroom single-family dwelling
which includes a 492 sq. ft. attached garage. Relief requested from the minimum side setback
and Floor Ratio requirements. Site Location: 87 Mason Road, Cleverdale Tax Map Number(s):
226.12-1-21 226.12-1-39 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to demolish an
existing 1,798 sq. ft. (living area) seasonal residence and a 242 sq. ft. detached garage to
construct a 3, 124 sq. ft. (living area) 3-bedroom single family dwelling. The new home is to be
located 6.5 feet from the south property line where 15 ft. is required and the floor area is 24%
where 22% is the maximum allowed. The information submitted shows the location of the
existing and proposed structure, septic system location and capacity, building elevations, and
storm water management. 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 4/15/05.
MR. ABBATE-Do you have something you’d like to say?
MR. DYBAS-I would like to respond to Mrs. Robertson’s comment.
MR. ABBATE-Of course you can respond, but I’d like to bring to your attention that even the
United States Supreme Court only allows 15 minutes, but go right ahead.
MR. DYBAS-Okay. Have you seen the application in its total, as far as the residence, the design
of the residence?
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me, this cannot work. If you are going to ask questions of the public, is
that what your intent is, to interrogate the public?
MR. DYBAS-I will rephrase my question, then. I assume that the application was available to
the public for review?
MR. ABBATE-That’s a fair enough question, and I guess the answer to that is yes.
MR. DYBAS-Okay.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. It’s time to request ZBA members to offer their
commentary, and I would appreciate if any of the members had any commentary or comments
or questions they wish to make to please do so. I’d like to start out with, to keep it consistent,
with Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-I guess the thing that I’m struggling with is the concept of hooking, and whether
this property is going to be hooked or it’s not going to be hooked, and if it is, you know, what
effect does it have on my decision, and I guess if I assume that the properties are going to be
hooked, I still tend to think that we’ve got a situation where it’s going to be too large of a house
for the size of the property that’s there. I understand that the southern side is actually going to
have less need for a side line setback. So I understand that that’s not really an issue that we’re
addressing here. The only thing we’re really addressing is the Floor Area Ratio. So I guess
what I struggle with is whether this hooking is going to take place, and then if it is going to take
place, that I struggle with my decision on whether this is really too much house for that size lot.
So I don’t think I’m in a position to make a decision tonight on whether I would approve this
variance or not, until we get a resolution on the hooking piece, and then once we do that, then I
think I’d be in a better position to make a decision.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Underwood?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I, too, am skeptical of what’s been proposed here. I think that we need to
keep in mind that even if we are going to hook these two lots together here, the important thing
for us to concern ourselves with is the impact on the lake, and on a .21 acre lot, I think that we
need to be very concerned with what’s been proposed here. You have a 1798 square foot house
that’s currently there. Even if it is in deplorable condition, I don’t think any of us would be
averse to replacing that house as it exists, but I think an expansion to 3,124 square feet would be
extraordinary, and I think, as was mentioned by the neighbors who were concerned, creating
urban density type situations on waterfront property is not in the interest of the community. I
think that it has been done on some lots up there, and the grand effect is that it’s not a good
thing for the lake or anybody else. I think that the lot that’s across the road, even on the plots,
has been shown as a possible secondary septic area, should the leach field, as it’s been proposed
here, fail, and I think that that’s something to also consider at the same time. You cannot go on
changing over to year round residences and rationalize, in any degree, that you’re not going to
have a long term effect on the lake. With very limited soils up here, and the close proximity to
the lake, I think that we need to be concerned with that. So I think that this house could be
designed in such a way, the side setback issue that we’re talking about here is what we’re
supposed to be focusing on. That’s a given, I think because of the narrowness and the 60 foot
wide lots that are present, but I think when you’re trying to turn over a house and make it into a
year round residence, you’re going to create a situation, as you’ve even mentioned yourself, as
what we have currently on Rockhurst, and it reaches the point of ridiculousness if we allow it to
continue. So I think something more modest could be proposed for this site, and you can’t
always have the big house you want, but it should fit the lot, as was mentioned.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Ms. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I’m afraid, even if this vacant parcel was also on lakefront, was on the
lakefront I would consider it, but being across the road, I think that the benefit can be achieved
by some other means. A compliant building could be constructed. I think there would be an
undesirable change to the neighborhood, especially to the lake side. I think it’s a substantial
request, and I think it’s certainly self-created. I think something could be designed to fit the lot
across the street, the lake lot, without counting the other, and I would be against it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I’ve heard some very cogent arguments on behalf of my fellow Board
members, and I concur with Mr. Underwood and Mr. Urrico, and Mrs. Hunt. You’re asking us
to deal with a hypothetical. I don’t like dealing with hypotheticals. IF the County does this,
then the number is this. If the County doesn’t do this, it’s 35%, which you know would never
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
get by this Board, never, ever. I can state that almost unequivocally. I would like to see, I think
as Jim said and some of the others, I would like to see the resolution from the County before I’m
comfortable making a decision, and, even if, as Mrs. Hunt said, if the County said yes, I still
would have to be convinced, but I would like to know with what I’m dealing. So I would much
prefer to table this thing, and see exactly what the situation is. I know we can put conditions on
it and say, but I’d prefer not to.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with what Mr. Rigby and Mr. Underwood
have said. I think it’s much, too much house for this lot. I go back to my original question and
comment, relative to the fact that you’re starting from scratch. You have the opportunity to
build a compliant structure and the response was you’re not going to fit what you want to fit in
there, but yet I look at the floor plan and on the first floor you’ve got a great room that’s 22 foot
by 37 feet. You’ve got three bedrooms on the second floor, all with a bathroom, plus one with a
sitting room. I think there’s room for a little design work, a change that, to make it a more
compliant structure, and so I’d be opposed to the application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-I never thought we’d be talking about hooking in Cleverdale, but I agree with my
Board members, my fellow Board members, at this time if I were to, I would have to deny this
application, if I was given a chance. I don’t have enough information on the hooking situation
to make a cogent decision, as far as whether that applies to this application or not, but I would
say that even if it did, I would be leaning against this application, based primarily on the fact
you don’t satisfy any of the criteria, in my estimation, and particularly that there would be an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. It’s one of the tests
that we have, one of the questions there, and I think putting that large a structure on one side of
the road would certainly disrupt the character of that neighborhood, and I would be against it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. It’s now my turn. I was moved by the young lady’s plea that she
stated that she doesn’t see any demonstrated hardship, and, quite frankly, I agree. I also agree
with my fellow Board members, and I would offer you, sir, before I ask for a motion, an
opportunity to withdraw your application. The decision is yours.
MR. DYBAS-I will withdraw the application.
MR. ABBATE-All right. You have agreed to withdraw Area Variance No. 26-2005. Is this
correct?
MR. DYBAS-I have.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Area Variance No. 26-2005 is withdrawn.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 27-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY
CENTER AGENT(S): SIGN CRAFT, KARL BRENNEISEN OWNER(S): PROPSECT
CHILD & FAMILY CENTER ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 133 AVIATION ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF 2 FREESTANDING SIGNS (24 SQ. FT. AND
20 SQ. FT.). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE 24 SQ. FT. SIGN AND FROM THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS FOR A
SECOND FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF. BP 2001-515, 2001-386, 2001-389, BP 84-028
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 13, 2005 LOT SIZE: 4.17 ACRES, 1.86 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 295.18-1-75, 295.18-2-10 SECTION 140-6 (B1 AND B3C)
KARL BRENNEISEN & PATRICK BENNETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 27-2005, Prospect Child & Family Center, Meeting Date:
April 20, 2005 “Project Location: 133 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes the installation of two freestanding signs, 24 sq. ft. and 20 sq. ft. The 24 sq.
ft. illuminated sign will advertise fundraising events and be located 9 ft. from the property line.
The 20 sq. ft. freestanding sign will provide direction to the new Marilyn Cohen Therapy
Building. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6 ft. of relief from the minimum setback
requirements (15 ft.) for the 24 sq. ft. sign and from the number of allowable signs for a second
freestanding sign, per § 140-6 B1 and B3c. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2005-134: Pending alt. to BP 2004-812, 20 sq. ft. freestanding sign. BP 2004-812: Pending, 20
sq. ft. freestanding sign. BP 2004-811: Pending, 24 sq. ft. freestanding sign. AV 34-2002:
Stockade fence. BP 2001-515: 7/12/01, Addition to Prospect School. BP 2001-389: 6/25/01, New
building for Prospect School. SPR 10-2000: 9/26/00: Modification for fence. SP 10-2000:
6/27/00, Lighting. AV 22-2000: Expansion of school facilities, 2,740 sq. ft. addition to Main
Center, 8,100 sq. ft. addition to School bldg., additional parking areas and sidewalks. Staff
comments: The applicant desires two freestanding signs to be located on the School property,
South-side of Aviation Rd. Currently, there is one wall sign on the front of this building.
Concern regarding the two street trees in the island where the 24 sq. ft. sign is proposed, can the
desired visibility of the sign be achieved while maintaining these trees? The applicants might
consider reducing the 7-foot height to bring the sign below the tree canopy. Applicants should
address any feasible alternatives to the proposed siting of the 24 sq. ft. sign. The sign could
meet the minimum 15-feet setback if it was to be located along the grassy strip at the side of the
building, between the walkway and the road. The trees are spaced wider in that area than in
the island, thus visual obstruction of the sign would not be as much of an issue. Consider
landscaping around base of signs, and design/color specifications.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April
13, 2005 Project Name: Prospect Child & Family Center Owner: Prospect Child and Family
Center ID Number: QBY-05-SV-27 County Project#: Apr05-35 Current Zoning: SFR-1A
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes installation of 2
freestanding signs (24 sq. ft. and 20 sq. ft.) Relief requested from the minimum setback
requirements for the 24 sq. ft. sign and from the number of allowable signs for a second
freestanding sign. Site Location: 133 Aviation Road Tax Map Number(s): 295.18-1-75 295.18-
2-10 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to construct 2 free standing signs. The
site is allowed one free standing at 50 sq. ft. and one wall sign at 100 sq. ft. One sign noted as
sign A is to be located 5 ft. from the property line where 15 ft. is required and is to be 24 sq. ft.
Sign A is also to be illuminated and allow for changeable lettering. The second sign noted as
sign b is to be 20 sq. ft. and non-illuminated and located 15 ft. from the property line. The
information submitted shows the signage location and the signage designs. 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 04/15/05.
MR. ABBATE-Are you prepared?
MR. BRENNEISEN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. BRENNEISEN-I’m Karl Brenneisen, owner of Sign Craft. I’m the one making the signs. I
reside at 38 Saratoga Avenue, South Glens Falls, and I’m here along with my client.
MR. BENNETT-I’m Patrick Bennett, Director of Finance and Facility Operations at Prospect
Child and Family Center. I reside at 7 Willow Road, in Queensbury.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Okay. Based on what I’ve heard from the Staff comments, the location
where we’re looking to put the sign, which is the reason we want the setback, the relief from the
setback, it’s the only logical spot for this sign. It’s in an open area. Those two trees that are on
either side are, I don’t know if you’ve seen the property, but we have a photograph here which I
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
can pass. They’re very tall, narrow trees. They’re not going to spread very much, and they’ve
already said that they will be kept clipped, so they don’t get out of control, and there’s enough
room and it’s right in the center of the island between the two trees where the sign’s going to be
placed. As far as the issue I see here with the height being reduced, I really don’t want to see
the bottom of the sign below three feet off the ground, because we do get some heavy snowfalls
in the wintertime, and they do have a changeable letter panel on this, so they can advertise
different functions at the School, not just fundraisers, but also community events, just like
Queensbury School’s got on their reader panel in front of their place, and the one we did for the
Church just down the road on Aviation Road. So that’s the logical location. Again, to bring it to
the 15 foot setback, it would be in the parking lot, which is where the busses come in and other
customers come in to go inside and do what they’re doing there at the School. As far as a
feasible alternative, the area that you guys had noted on the other side of the driveway in the
grassy area, it’s past Mount View Lane, the other road that comes out on the other side. That’s
where 80% of the traffic flow comes through, which is why they want the sign there on both
sides, so people coming to and from work can see the community events that are going on at the
School. So it’s just, it wouldn’t be a logical place for them to put that sign. They’re going to
miss half the use of even having it there, which is why we want to put it in the island, and as far
as, I don’t know if I should be addressing the second sign yet, but the need for the second sign,
the aquatic therapy and administration building sign, that’s more of a directional type thing,
because people would be getting confused coming around there because there’s no signage
there now at the other end of the property. It will help direct people in there so they don’t drive
by it and miss it or try and turn around in somebody else’s driveway at the end of Aviation
Road. So it’s definitely just a need to have something there.
MR. ABBATE-Have you concluded your argument?
MR. BRENNEISEN-If anybody’s got any questions.
MR. ABBATE-No, that’s my job.
MR. BRENNEISEN-I’ve concluded.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you so much. Now I request members of the Board, if they have
any questions or comments concerning the application, speak thereof, please.
MR. BRYANT-I have a couple of questions, actually. You mention the Queensbury High School
sign. You did that sign?
MR. BRENNEISEN-No, I didn’t.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Why isn’t this letter changing sign, I can understand the need for a sign, if
you’re having a special function and you want everybody to know that. Why aren’t you doing
that type of sign instead of, you know what I mean?
MR. BRENNEISEN-This is that type of sign. This is a changeable letter sign.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but that’s elevated. That Queensbury High School sign is right on the
ground.
MR. BRENNEISEN-No. They’re elevated, too, it’s just that theirs is connected by it’s brick, it’s
all brickwork.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it’s not elevated that high, a couple of feet.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Actually on the way home I’ll go take a tape measure and I’ll guarantee it’s
at least three foot to the bottom of the sign. It would be ludicrous to put it lower than that,
because it would get covered up with snow in the wintertime and you wouldn’t be able to
access the letter panel.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I agree. My second question is, you’re putting an illuminated sign in a,
the High School is one thing. Prospect School is right in the middle of a residential area, and
here you’re putting an illuminated sign. I question why we’re even putting signs of that nature.
I don’t understand, for Prospect School. It’s not like it’s a hamburger joint that you want people
driving by to see the sign and stop in and have a sandwich, okay. Everybody knows where
Prospect School is. There’s a sign on the building that says Prospect Child and Family Center. I
mean, you know.
MR. BENNETT-I’d like to respond to that.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. BENNETT-We serve approximately 800 developmentally disabled, primarily children and
adults, in Warren/Washington/Essex and Hamilton County, and in Northern Saratoga County.
We have just over 250 employees, and these folks in the outlying areas, we have classrooms in
Whitehall, Chestertown and Hudson Falls, and in the City of Glens Falls, and the employees are
coming to here for occasional meetings. We also have educational seminars that we put on, as
related to developmentally disabled population, and people from throughout the State, from
different State organizations and other similar facilities come for training. On that side of the
School is a very large auditorium that we conduct these training seminars. So we have people
coming off the Northway who need some direct, and it is a very dangerous intersection. We’ve
had several accidents there, and a lot of times it is people confused and just trying to locate. On
one side of the street we have Prospect Child and Family Center, as we call it, with our medical
clinic, and on the other side we have the School and an aquatic therapy center, a pool, and we
have approximately 40 therapists who travel throughout the counties providing services there,
but we do get a lot of company at this facility, and they are confused. They do go by it. They
don’t know which side of the road to go. During, twice a day, we serve 27 school districts.
Which means we have busses coming from those, they have to bus the children in to our School.
So we have a tremendous amount of busses and commuter companies that bring the children,
and so we need some kind of direction to it, and if we had a seminar we could put on there
some direction or this, the name of the course that’s being offered to the folks that are coming
off the Northway and looking for this.
MR. BRYANT-First of all, coming down Aviation Road, when you come to the complex, you
know that you’re at the complex. There’s no mistaking it for anything else. My question, I
understand the need for the changeable sign, and I agree with that concept. The other sign,
can’t we put a sign on the building that says this is the aquatic center or the name of the aquatic
center or something? Why do we need another freestanding sign?
MR. BENNETT-Well, the aquatic center is behind a smaller administration building, and there’s
no way to indicate, you know, that the aquatic center is in the building behind that building,
and it’s something, visually, to be a flat sign on there, to be coming down is just not going to be
an aid for direction on that. I have some pictures here, if you’d like me to pass them around.
MR. BRYANT-Sure. I think it could show you.
MR. BRENNEISEN-I just wanted to add to that, too, for a minute. We originally started with
the aquatic center sign as a building sign, but we looked at it from different angles, and there’s
no way that, even if it was mounted on the building, at that entrance, the people would be
driving right past this. They wouldn’t realize that that’s where they’re going to turn in. That’s
why we’re looking for the second sign at the second entrance. So people that are coming
looking just for the aquatic center are going to be able to find it with relative ease, and like I say,
not get into any problems turning around in somebody’s driveway because they went past that
part of the building. It’s basically for directional purposes.
MR. BRYANT-You can have a nice little directional sign that says Aquatic Center on it, with an
arrow. I mean, that would work. That’s all my questions, Mr. Chairman.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I have a question, under Parcel History. It says you haven’t even
gotten a building permit for the 24 foot sign and you’ve already got an alteration. Can you
describe what we’re talking about here, under the Staff notes, or am I not understanding what it
says there?
MR. BRENNEISEN-They have no freestanding sign at all right now.
MR. STONE-I understand, but it says Building Permit 812, or 811, well, 812, the 20 foot sign you
already want to modify, or something.
MR. BRENNEISEN-No. We don’t want to modify anything. We’re just proposing these two
signs. I don’t know why there’s three of them listed there. These are the only two that we
proposed. Did you have something previously that might have been?
MR. BENNETT-No.
MR. STONE-Craig?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I could answer that question, Mr. Stone. Building Permit 2005-134 that’s
listed in the history replaces Permit 2004-812. 811 and 812 had been filed last year and they
were put on hold because variances were necessary. I think the alteration is maybe the location
is different. Somehow another permit was filed, so one of those goes away.
MR. STONE-Okay. The other question, in connection with Sign B, which is the one to the west,
I mean, I understand your perceived need for the sign, but when I drove up there, there are so
many little specialty signs there, that quite frankly I was overwhelmed. There’s signs for
private parking and, they even say visitors. I’m not even sure what all those little small signs
on posts, right by, close to the road.
MR. URRICO-In the parking lot?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-In the parking lot.
MR. STONE-Yes, right where this sign would be close to being. There are just a lot of signs
there. I think Mr. Bryant makes a very good point. We can put directional signs in, with, what,
six feet, Craig, or I forget what the number is.
MR. BROWN-Maximum four square feet.
MR. STONE-Four square feet. So you could put something in there as a directional sign, saying
here’s where you have to go to the building or the therapy, without having a 20 square foot
sign, and I just found that end of the property to be over signed, if you will. None of those signs
require permits. They’re all parking space signs, so to speak, but there’s a lot of them there.
MR. BENNETT-Well, to answer the question about the signs there, of course we have the
required handicap signs, and the company vehicle signs.
MR. STONE-That’s what it was, company vehicles.
MR. BENNETT-Yes. What had happened, we’ve had a lot of vandalism on our property, and a
few years ago we had a couple of thousand dollars damage to our agency vehicles that were
parked further back. So we’ve reserved those sites up front, closer to the lights of the building
and the street light, and we also have a problem with gas being siphoned out of the vehicles
when they’re back towards the woods. So, in the front building, the Administration Building, is
where the itinerate therapists are coming in to sign out the vehicles. So they need to be up
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
front, and if we don’t have the signs, they get filled up and then the cars, the agency cars are all
over the complex there.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. BENNETT-You’re welcome.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. URRICO-Is there any possibility that the two signs could be combined?
MR. BENNETT-It would defeat the purpose of what we need the signs for, because we
definitely need the directional sign because of the handicap vans and busses coming in to bring
the folks into the aquatic therapy, and the other thing is we were looking to have an
announcement sign, but if the announcement sign goes down to that end, next to the Glens Falls
Water Treatment building, it’s not going to serve our purpose once we get past Mountain View.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the thing that you’re calling the directional sign really doesn’t show any
direction. All it does it say this is the name of the building. It really doesn’t show that this is
where the building is, and that’s why I go back to my original comment, and I understand the
need for the letter changing announcement sign, but this other sign, there’s got to be another
way to do it, maybe in the way of a real directional sign that says go this way to whatever.
MR. BENNETT-Well, we have approximately five driveways and that’s a one way coming in
from where we’re asking for the sign for the aquatic therapy. If they come in from the school
parking lot, it’s a one way road, and they can’t follow through, and they’re coming back out
because they see the complex. They stop the first parking lot they see, then they have to come
back out, if they’re finding the one way, come back out into the road and then usually they end
up going into the School and asking for help at that point.
MR. STONE-Why is that going to change. If they’re coming from the east, the building comes
first. This is way after the building.
MR. BENNETT-The reason it would change because we generally know when people are
coming to our facility in our brochures for course curriculums and things, and we would tell
them, to be able to give them more specific directions to go through and to look for the
particular sign.
MR. URRICO-Your visitor parking is all directed to one side of the road?
MR. BENNETT-No, it’s on both sides.
MR. URRICO-It’s on both sides?
MR. BENNETT-We have insufficient parking for our center on the firehouse side, on that, and
so visitor parking is on the three parking lots.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What are your normal hours of operation?
MR. BENNETT-Normal operations are, for the School, 8:00 to 2:30, and the clinic would operate
until four o’clock. We have respite programs where parents may bring their developmentally
disabled children that we will take care of in the evening. One evening, Wednesday, is until
eight o’clock, and the other evening Friday until ten o’clock. Aquatic therapy would go until
nine o’clock in the evening, and these are, at this point, Monday through Friday.
MR. ABBATE-Comments, questions? Have all the members of the Board been heard?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I don’t think the Sign B is really going to help. If you haven’t gone in the
first, you’re coming from the east and you haven’t gone in the first parking lot, you’d almost be
past it, that one way street. I mean, if you just said to people, come in the one way sign, you’d
get your point across, but that sign is almost after the fact, if you’re going along Aviation Road
there with people, traffic behind you. It would seem to me it should be before the road, before
the entrance.
MR. ABBATE-Do you wish to respond to that?
MR. BENNETT-No, I think I’ve already addressed that. There is one thing in the back of my
mind. That it’s possible that that entrance in the Administration Building may be on a separate
tax parcel, and I don’t know if that makes a difference or not from what we’re asking.
MR. ABBATE-I would have no way of knowing that. It’s not in the record. It’s not in the record
as evidence before us. So we can’t consider that. Are there any other comments by any other
members of the Board? All right. If there are no other comments, I’m about to open the public
hearing, but before I do, I would like to explain something. It’ll just take a second. I go into a
long dissertation, each time, and the Board member says, why do you do that. You’re
redundant, and I explain as follows. The reason I go through the public hearing and state that it
has to be a fair an open process, is that in the event of litigation, the courts will only want the
minutes of the meeting of that particular appeal. If that particular appeal is subject to the initial
appeal, and initially I assume, once I make the public hearing is open and go through the whole
rigmarole, is not in the minutes of the meeting of the appeal that’s going to be heard, I’d be
remiss in my duties. So that is the reason why I am redundant. So, to meet the obligation of the
public officer’s law for a fair and open process, the public hearing is open, and this Board
invites public comments. In the interest of time, please be crisp, organized, and limit your
comments to only the facts and information given this evening. Would those wishing to be
heard please come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify
yourself, and your place of residence. Your statement will be limited to five minutes. Is there
anyone in this room who wishes to be heard on Sign Variance No. 27-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-No correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I would now request comments from Board members, and I’d like to start
with, if I may, Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Well, I really, I have some mixed feelings about the signs, and I don’t think Sign B
is going to provide the relief that Prospect Center wants. I don’t think it’s going to be, it really
isn’t that precise in telling you to turn there. It’s just saying, this is, and as I say, it’s past the one
way street. I really don’t know, I think one of the Board members said a sign with arrows
would be better, maybe, and up further, because very few people are going to be coming east
and people going west, they’re going to be almost past the entrance before they get to that sign.
I don’t know. That’s how I feel now. I don’t know how I would vote at this point.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to address the two areas of relief. First,
the setback requirements. You’re looking for six feet of relief on, this is the message board,
right? I see the need for the message board, and I understand the location, the selection of the
location. I kind of agree with Staff notes that it would be nice to see some kind of vegetation.
Prospect School has a history of really taking care of their property and they’ve always put
vegetation in, around fences or whatever. So I’m not really that concerned about that. The
second area, relating to Sign B, I think that that should be rethought, because I don’t believe that
it’s going to serve the purpose that you intend. I understand putting Sign B is going to make it
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
easier. You’re going to be able to identify a specific driveway, but I agree with Mrs. Hunt, and I
think that an individual is going to miss the whole point, and a directional sign at that point, to
point back to the Aquatic Center or to the auditorium, I think would be more effective. So I’m
really opposed to Sign B, the second sign at this point, unless you can come up with some
compromise.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree pretty much verbatim with what Allan said. The six
feet of relief for the informational sign I don’t really have a problem with that. I would like to
see some vegetation kept around it so it doesn’t become a totally commercial looking sign. As
far as the second sign, I think that, you know, the community provides for smaller signage for
directional signage, and I think that four square foot sign, I think, is essentially what Craig
mentioned was available for usage. The sign could be placed in a better position than where
you have proposed it. I would have to agree that placing it that far along kind of makes you
miss the turn and then you have to swing back around again. It’s really not necessary. I mean,
I think there’s signage on the walls. Prospect School is pretty well known. Once you’ve been
there once you would know where things were, and I don’t think the second sign would be
necessary.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-I certainly agree with the majority of the Board who have already spoken, in terms
of the message sign, the changeable sign. I, too, would encourage vegetation around it, but
that’s probably going to happen anyway. I think, as was pointed out, the Prospect School has
always done a very good job on their property. I do want to acknowledge, before I go on, we
do believe in the Prospect School. We are not questioning the job that you do, and while we
heard, with pleasure, your defense of the School, we know it is a good organization, and has no
place in this whole argument, to be honest with you, but, Sign B, we haven’t really talked about.
It’s 100% relief, to put a second sign. To my mind, you have not made a sufficient, not put forth
a sufficient reason to justify 100% relief. I think there’s some alternatives, as I think Mr. Bryant
said, some small directional signs. I think there’s a way to do it, rather than having a second
sign 100% relief sign, and therefore I would be in favor of the setback relief. I think that’s
certainly justifiable, particularly with the island that’s there and the trees and so on and so forth,
but I don’t believe you have convinced me, I know you haven’t convinced me, that Sign B
should be granted a variance.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Urrico.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’d just concur with what everybody has just said. I would be in favor of the
one changeable letter sign, as far as the freestanding signs go, and I would also recommend, and
only be in favor of a directional sign for the second sign. Where you put it, I feel, is your call.
You know your business better than we do, but I would point out, unless I’m misspeaking, that
the Code calls for directional signs, right? That’s plural?
MR. BROWN-Well, it doesn’t really call for them. It allows them.
MR. URRICO-It allows for them.
MR. BROWN-You can have a directional sign if you want to.
MR. URRICO-So you’re allowed more than one four foot directional sign?
MR. BRENNEISEN-Right, usually an entrance and an exit, if that’s the case, just like at Burger
King and McDonalds. They usually have a small sign each way. Some just point directly in if
you’ve got access both ways.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. URRICO-Right. So the tradeoff would be one changeable sign and maybe two smaller
directional signs, put at either end of the property, and then you cover your bases. I would be
in favor of that.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Rigby?
MR. RIGBY-Well, I’m going to come down on the other side. The piece of property that we’re
talking about is a fairly significant sized piece of property, and I think what Prospect School’s
attempting to do is to notify people coming from the west that this is Prospect School and this
is, these are the different buildings. So if you’re coming from the west, you would not see any
indication of any sign whatsoever until you come all the way up the road. So I think that, you
know, there is a need for a sign on the western side of the property, small, maybe, what they’re
proposing, 20 square feet, maybe would be a good answer. So I would also like to see some
landscaping against, with the 24 foot sign I’d like to see some landscaping around that, possibly
in the design of something like the Queensbury School. Who knows. So I’m going to come
down on the other side and say that I’m in favor of it. I think there is a need for signage coming
from the west, before you reach the School, and it is a significant sized property.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Now it’s my turn. I will agree with the majority of the folks. I think
that there must be some sort of reasonable alternatives, and I would suggest, sir, at the present
time, unless my numbers are wrong, it might be, before I call for a motion, in your best interest
to withdraw your application, because as I see it right now, the vote may end up five to two
against. So, before I call for a motion, I’m going to give you an option.
MR. URRICO-I think we’re asking for some alterations, not necessarily, not a complete.
MR. ABBATE-Well, if you wish to make alterations, certainly, you may, but you must offer
them.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Can I interject for just a second?
MR. ABBATE-Sure, by all means.
MR. BRENNEISEN-What I’m gathering from what everybody says is that you’re all pretty
much okay with this sign and with the relief from the setback to keep it in the island?
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. BRENNEISEN-As long as there’s some greenery, which obviously they’re going to do. The
second sign we’re not in favor of.
MR. ABBATE-That’s correct.
MR. BRENNEISEN-And we’ve basically agreed that using the directional signage that we’re
allowed in the Code already, which we don’t even need a permit for, four square feet, Craig
said, we can probably work something out with that for the second sign down at the other end
of the property.
MR. BRYANT-That’s correct.
MR. BRENNEISEN-So we don’t need to withdraw anything?
MR. ABBATE-No, if that’s your proposal, then the Board, naturally, is going to consider what
you have just said.
MR. STONE-Well, you’re withdrawing part of the application.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. ABBATE-You’re withdrawing the second sign, basically.
MR. BRENNEISEN-We’re in agreement with that, that we will withdraw this part of the
application, the second sign.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I don’t have a problem with that, and I don’t think the Board does, either.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-So then your position, then, is that you intend to, you have, in fact, withdrawn
your request for a second sign.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Yes, we have.
MR. ABBATE-Fine, okay. Well, then, it would appear then that the votes would probably be in
favor of your application. So, let me continue and ask at this particular time, did I close the
public hearing, by the way?
MR. STONE-No, but now you have to do the Unlisted SEQRA.
MR. ABBATE-Now we do the Unlisted SEQRA. Go right ahead, Mr. Secretary, please.
MR. STONE-You’ve got to make a motion.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SHOWS THAT THERE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS
PROJECT, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, the motion has passed. Now I’m going to appeal to the
Board and ask for a motion on Sign Variance No. 27-2005. Do I have a motion?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 27-2005 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY
CENTER, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Leo Rigby:
133 Aviation Road. The applicant proposes the installation of a freestanding, 24 sq. ft. sign,
illuminated sign, which will advertise fundraising events and will be located 9 feet from the
property line. The applicant requests 6 feet of relief from the minimum setback requirements,
15 feet for the 24-foot sign. The benefit to the applicant probably could be had by other means,
but this seems to be the best location for the sign. It would not be an undesirable change in the
neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The request is moderate, but not substantial,
and it will not have adverse physical or environmental effects and it is self-created, but
understandable. So I move that we approve Sign Variance No. 27-2005.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-Now, may tally is seven for and zero against, and if there’s no challenge to the
tally, Sign Variance No. 27-2005, that portion dealing with the one sign, is approved. Thank
you, gentlemen.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You bet.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2005 SEQRA TYPE II JOSEPH P. & LORI O’SHAUGHNESSY
OWNER(S): JOSEPH P. & LORI O’SHAUGHNESSY ZONING: YR. 1988 ZONING SR-20
LOCATION: 33 FERRISS DRIVE, QUEENSBURY FOREST, PHASE 2 APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO ENCLOSE THE EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A
728 SQ. FT. 2-CAR ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM
SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2003-862, BP 2001-644, BP 96-579, SP
91-598, BP 91-190 LOT SIZE: 0.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-55 SECTION 179-4-030
JOSEPH & LORI O’SHAUGHNESSY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2005, Joseph P. & Lori O’Shaughnessy, Meeting Date:
April 20, 2005 “Project Location: 33 Ferriss Drive, Queensbury Forest, Phase 2 Description of
Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to enclose the existing attached garage and construct
a 728 sq. ft. 2-car attached garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests 2.8-feet of relief
from the 10-foot minimum, sum 30-feet side setback requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the SR-20,
Suburban Residential-20,000 sq. ft. zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2003-862: 10/15/03, septic alteration BP 2001-644: 08/27/01, in-ground pool BP 96-579:
09/20/96, above ground pool BP 91-598: 12/05/91, deck Staff comments: The applicant
proposes to enclose the existing attached garage and construct a 728 sq. ft. 2-car attached garage
to be located at the end of the existing driveway. Stormwater management should be
addressed so that the neighbor’s property to the East is not impacted.”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, very much. Any correspondence, Mr. Secretary?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll read it later.
MR. ABBATE-You’ll read it later. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. O’Shaughnessy. I
see that you’re already here. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and for
the record identify yourselves, please.
MRS. O'SHAUGHNESSY-I’m Lori O’Shaughnessy, 33 Ferriss Drive, Queensbury.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-And I am Joseph O’Shaughnessy, 33 Ferriss Drive, Queensbury.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, and if you are prepared to proceed, please do.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-Okay. The reason we are going about this, we want to enclose the
garage that we have now, due to space, with three kids and what not, the amount of space in
the house, it would be nice to have some space. Therefore, attaching a garage, and at this point,
with the garage, the way our land sits, since the driveway slopes down, I would like to build
the garage up. I said 24 to 32 inches. Maybe it would only be 18 to 24, and therefore, I’d have a
couple of steps leading then from the garage into the existing garage. Right now my garage is,
the width of the house is 26 feet, which gives me approximately 25 feet width, of which I use
now. With the asking of the variance with the relief of the 2.8 feet, I would then be able to
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
basically have the same amount of room as I am accustomed to now, and I’m just looking to get
where I have my two vehicles and with the amount of stuff my kids have, and everything else, I
just would like to be able to store everything in there, and that is basically the reason for the
garage. Also, as far as, with the neighbor, and the runoff of water, what I plan on doing is, and
the way it is now, the drywell sits behind where that basketball pole is. I would keep the land
the way it is sloped, where I would put like drainage grates I want to run across the front, and
therefore, I just put it directly into the drywell, and I’m also going to have, when and if we have
the garage built and they’re excavating, that section behind the pole, just cut out a little bit of
that maybe six inches or so, kind of flatten it out, and therefore if, once or twice, the drywell
itself, when we’ve had so much rainwater that it’s backed up a little, it would therefore present
no problem if that were to occur again, because it would just be in my back yard which, you
know, I lived with the problem for 14 years. I can hopefully live with it for, you know, another
14 years.
MR. ABBATE-Does that conclude your argument?
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-Yes, pretty much, unless my wife has something to add.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MRS. O'SHAUGHNESSY-No, the only thing we were thinking, too, is with the garage, that
extra space, the stairs leading into the house, we would need that because we are building it
out, but there will be a step down or two, however many we decide we’re going to need to get
down into the space itself.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-Two or three, probably three.
MRS. O'SHAUGHNESSY-I mean, we’re not looking to have something massive, but just
currently to construct something that’s similar to what we have, but it will allow us to get down
into the house, since we’re building it up.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-And speaking of something not massive, as far as, I have down here
728, and I’m talking to some people trying to get some ideas. They said it would probably be
better just to have it 24 wide or deep, and therefore, it’ll look better as far as aesthetically, with
the roofline and what, as far as to the house the way it is now. So instead of 728, it would be
672, if my math is correct.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Questions by the Board, any
comments, questions? Please.
MR. BRYANT-If you’re going to reduce the size of the garage, is that going to affect the setback
at all?
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-No, it would just be, I would keep the, the garage would be in line
with the rear of the house, the back end. It’ll just be two feet, the width of the house right now
is 26 feet on the foundation. At the front of the house it’ll be two feet in, as opposed to even
with it, because then if we had that, then the overhang would be overhanging part of the front
of the house, and I don’t know, people said it would look better to have it in the two feet, and
then the overhang would kind of be even with the bottom level of the house, which would
make it look better.
MR. BRYANT-So actually, the new garage, you’re going to be driving right into the garage?
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. You’re not going to rely on the Town of Queensbury to put that drainage
in front of your house, are you?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-No, what I’m doing is, that’s why part of it is, the driveway goes down
and I want to build it up a bit, so I’m going to have a little bit of a, I don’t know what you call it,
a gully, whatever you want to call it. Therefore, at that section, either right before the garage, or
in that section right there or it’s going to be kind of the gully, I’m going to put grates in right
across myself, and I’m just going to do that and then run it back right into the drywell.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Because they put drainage in front of my neighbor’s house, and my house
floods every time it rains now.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-I haven’t had that problem yet.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments?
MR. STONE-In other words, the width of the garage, which is the only thing that we have to
talk about. It’s going to be what you’ve asked for here?
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-Right, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Right.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-That’s what I’m asking.
MR. URRICO-What’s the height of the garage?
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-The height will be, I haven’t gone and gotten plans. All I’m
anticipating is an eight foot ceiling with whatever, I don’t know if I have a five/twelve or a
six/twelve.
MR. BROWN-Probably less than 16 feet.
MR. URRICO-He’s allowed 16 feet.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-Yes, it’ll definitely be less than that, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Less than 16 feet?
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-That’s for the record.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other comments or questions? If there are no other comments or
questions, then I will go to a public hearing, and again, to meet a fair and open process, the
public hearing is open for Area Variance No. 30-2005, and the Board invites public comments
on the appeal. In the interest of time, please be crisp, organized, and limit your comments to
only the facts and information given this evening. Would those wishing to be heard please
come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself, and your
place of residence. Your statement will be limited to five minutes. Do we have anyone in the
audience who wishes to be heard on Area Variance No. 30-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have one piece of correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-Would you please read it into the record, Mr. Secretary.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Dear Members of the Queensbury Planning Board: We are neighbors of
Joseph P. and Lori J. O’Shaughnessy, who reside at 33 Ferriss Drive, in the Town of
Queensbury. They have notified us of their intentions to build a two-car attached garage and
explained their plans. We have no objections to their proposal to seek a variance.” Again
they’re at 33 Ferriss Drive, and it’s signed by the Podwyszynski’s at 35 Ferriss Drive, next door;
Michael Greene at 24 Ferriss Drive; and Jan Senecal at 22 Ferriss Drive, as well as their spouses.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have anything else you wish to read into the record, Mr. Secretary?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I now request ZBA members to offer their commentary,
and, if I may, I’d like to start with Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-I agree this is a good variance. I have absolutely no problem. You have obviously,
you understand the rules of keeping stormwater on your property, and that’s the only thing
that really comes out in here. It’s nice to see that the neighbors are in favor of it, and certainly
it’s minimal relief, and I have no problem.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Stone. It’s a good application, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I, too, would be in agreement. It’s a modest home, and I’m sure they can
use the extra room downstairs for the crew.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes, I have no objection, either. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Ms. Hunt?
MRS. HUNT-Again, I have to agree with the rest of the Board members, I would be in favor of
the variance.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Rigby?
MR. RIGBY-I’m in favor of it as well.
MR. ABBATE-And I am last to comment, and I certainly have no objections.
MR. ABBATE-The public hearing is now closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to seek a motion, and before I ask for a motion, may I respectfully
again remind the members of the Board that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the
variance against the impact on the area as well as the fact that State Statutes spell out five
statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an Area
Variance. May I please hear a motion for Area Variance No. 30-2005.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2005 JOSEPH P. & LORI
O’SHAUGHNESSY, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Lewis Stone:
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
33 Ferris Drive, Queensbury Forest, Phase 2. The applicant has proposed to enclose their
existing garage and construct a 728 square foot two car attached garage. They’re requesting 2.8
feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback requirement, and it’s the feeling of the
Board that the 2.8 feet of relief is quite minimal. This addition to their home would give them
more living space within the home itself. It would also create a better situation than their
present garage situation with the amount of runoff coming off the road to the low point where
the garage is currently attached to the home. The neighborhood has expressed no qualms about
this project, and at the same time, the stormwater management plan has been adequately
addressed. I’m sure that the Town will review this at some point before issuing the building
permit. So I would move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 30-2005 is seven in favor, zero against, and if
there is no challenge to the tally, Area Variance No. 30-2005 is approved. Thank you.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY-Thank you.
MRS. O'SHAUGHNESSY-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2005 SEQRA TYPE II SAM BHATTI D/B/A QUALITY INN
OWNER(S): SAM BHATTI AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONING: HC-
INT LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 38
ROOM MOTEL AND ASSOCIATED PARKING, STORMWATER CONTROLS,
LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, AND UTILITIES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FLOOR
AREA RATIO, ACCESS DRIVEWAY WIDTH, PARKING, AND SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF IS REQUIRED FROM THE TRAVEL
CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2003-
1005, BP 2003-965, BP 90-010, BP 90-009 SPR 12-2004, AV 19-2004 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING APRIL 13, 2005 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRES, 0.83 ACRES, 0.39 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 302.5-1-51, 52.12, AND 52.13 SECTION 179-4-030, 179-4-040(B, C), 179-4-060
JON LAPPER & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We have a couple of letters, first of all, that are addressing this
variance tonight, and I’m going to read those in, first of all. This is, again, in response to Area
Variance No. 29-2005, and this is from Steve Smith, the Fire Marshal. “This memorandum is
meant to serve as confirmation and acceptance of a solution offered by Jarrett-Martin Engineers
in response to an issue involving inadequate fire department access to the subject property.
Please refer to the attached letter from Jarrett-Martin for details on the problem and the
proposed solution. At this time, I am in agreement with the solution offered by Jarrett-Martin
to rectify this issue and provide code compliant emergency access to the property. Respectfully,
Steven J. Smith, Fire Marshal” And this is a letter addressed to Sam Bhatti at the Econo Lodge
and Quality Inn Motels, 543 Aviation Road, Queensbury, dated March 25, 2005, from Jarrett-
Martin Engineers, RE: the fire access – Econo Lodge Quality Inn site “Dear Sam: Subsequent to
our discovery of the aisle width deficiencies at your Econo Lodge/Quality Inn site, the Town
Fire Marshal reviewed the site for fire access. That office has responded to us that fire access to
the site is limited at present due to the narrow aisles coupled with the existence of the Econo
Lodge canopy. In order to provide compliant fire access to the site, please remove the canopy
on the Econo Lodge motel, in accordance with the original site plan approval, as soon as
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
possible. You should contact the Queensbury Building Department for the necessary
demolition permits, and advise this office when the removal is complete so that we may update
the site plans for discussion with the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board. Please
contact our office should you have any questions. Sincerely, Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC
H. Thomas Jarrett, P.E. Principal” And this is a letter addressed, again, to Sam Bhatti at 543
Aviation Road, Queensbury, NY, and RE: Area Variance No. 29-2005, and this is from the
Town of Queensbury, from Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator. “The Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) will review your application at its meeting on Wednesday,
April 20, 2005 at 7 p.m. The ZBA meets at the Town of Queensbury Activities Center located on
the Town Office campus at 742 Bay Road. The ZBA meeting format allows you or your
representative to make a brief presentation outlining the key elements of your project or
requested approval. The ZBA conducts a public hearing and dialogue with the ZBA regarding
your project. Property owners within 500 feet of your project/property are notified of the
meeting. The ZBA agenda is attached and my be subject to change. The most current version
is published on our website . The Town of Queensbury is required under
www.queensbury.net
state law to refer certain projects to the Warren County Planning Board for comment and
recommendation. The Warren County Planning Board (WCPB) meets Wednesday, April 13,
2005 at 7 p.m. at the Warren County Municipal center located on Route 9 in Queensbury. The
WCPB does not conduct a public hearing. The WCPB encourages an applicant’s attendance in
the event there are questions regarding the application. You may contact the Warren County
Planning Office at 761-6410 for additional information regarding their processing of
applications. If you have any questions, please contact my office. Sincerely, Town of
Queensbury Craig Brown Zoning Administrator” This is a letter dated March 15, and this is
th
from Jon Lapper, who is, I believe, representing, this is addressed to Paul J. Hayes, Chairman of
the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, again, regarding this same project. “Dear
Chairman Hayes: On behalf of Sam Bhatti, Tom Jarrett and I are unfortunately submitting this
application for post-construction area variances with regard to the new Quality Inn located on
Aviation Road. Apparently what happened was that Mr. Bhatti’s former construction manager
made changes to the site which differed from the approved site plan, without seeking necessary
approvals of these modifications from the Town of Queensbury. At this point area variances
and revised site plan approval are required for the constructed 38-room motel for parking,
stormwater controls, lighting, landscaping and utilities. The application drawings include an
existing conditions plan as well as the proposed site modifications. Please place this on the
agenda for one of your April meetings. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2005, Sam Bhatti d/b/a Quality Inn, Meeting Date:
April 20, 2005 “Project Location: 543 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant has constructed a 38-room motel with 2 conference rooms and associated parking,
storm water infrastructure, lighting, landscaping, and utilities. Relief Required: Applicant
requests the following relief: 1) 12% of relief from the 30% maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
requirement. 2) Front setback relief: a) 37.5 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum
requirement (canopy). b) 30.2 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum requirement (deck). 3)
1.08 feet of side setback relief from the 50-foot sum of both sides minimum requirement. 4)
Access driveway width requirement: a) 6 feet of relief from the 24-foot minimum requirement.
b) 5 feet of relief from the 24-foot minimum requirement. c) 4 feet of relief from the 24-foot
minimum requirement. d) 3.5 feet of relief from the 24-foot minimum requirement. 5) 22
spaces of relief from the 108 minimum parking space requirement for the motel rooms and
conference rooms. (1, 2 and 3 per § 179-4-030; 4 and 5 per § 179-4-040 (B and C) Additionally,
even though none has been requested, 67.7 feet of relief is required from the 75-foot minimum
edge of the road right-of-way setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay District for
Aviation Road, per § 179-4-060. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004-
945: pending, construction of a new office/manager’s apartment addition to the Econolodge
Motel.” Again, that’s on the westerly part of the property. “SP 12-2004: 03/23/04,
reconstruction of hotel office, and alterations to the building exterior along with the associated
lighting (Econolodge). AV 19-2004: 03/17/04, setback and FAR relief for a new office/manager’s
apartment addition to the Econolodge Motel. BP 2003-1005, 12/22/03, demolition of single-
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
family dwelling.” That would be on the east side. That was a house that was existing there.
“BP 2003-965: 12/18/03, 36 unit, 8,000 sq. ft. hotel building. SP 20-2003 Mod: 11/18/03, building
exterior modification to a 36 unit, 8,000 sq. ft. hotel building. SP 20-2003: 06/24/03, construction
of a 36 unit, 8,000 sq. ft. hotel building. AV 85-2002: 11/20/02, front setback and FAR relief for a
36 unit, 8,000 sq. ft. hotel building (Quality Inn).” Again, that’s the new part on the east side.
“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 6/26/02. 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
received an approval for front setback and FAR relief for a 36 unit, 8,000 sq. ft. hotel building in
AV 85-2002. The applicant is currently requesting front setback relief for a portion of the
canopy (canopy built somewhat larger than that approved; however, the additional portion
requiring relief is setback further than that portion previously approved). The deck addition on
the east side of the building also requires front setback relief. However, the relief required is
much less than that approved for the closest portion of the building in AV 85-2002. The deck
addition also requires a small amount of side setback relief. Even though it is of a minor
significance, it should be noted that the building (not counting the deck and canopy expansion)
was constructed at a 7.3-foot setback, even though the approval was for 6 feet. The FAR relief
approved in AV 85-2002 was for 5% greater than the 30% requirement. An additional 3% FAR
relief was granted in AV 19-2004 for the changes to the Econolodge building (total FAR
approved for entire property was 8% above the requirement). The construction of 2 additional
motel rooms and the 2 conference rooms results in the need for 4% more FAR relief above the
8% relief previously approved (actual relief for this application is for 12% above the 30%
requirement). The additional relief from the 75-foot minimum setback requirement of the
Travel Corridor Overlay District for Aviation Road was never identified by Staff in any of the
past requests for relief. This additional required relief might be considered more technical in
nature than significant, as the state right-of-way at this location is extremely wide due to the
previous location of Aviation Road. The relief from the parking requirements is due to the
construction of the two additional motel rooms and the two additional conference rooms. In
order to maximize the parking as proposed, the drive isle widths were reduced in four
locations.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April
13, 2005 Project Name: Bhatti, Sam d/b/a Quality Inn Owner: Sam Bhatti ID Number: QBY-
05-AV-29 County Project#: Apr05-33 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant has constructed a 38 room motel and associated parking, storm
water controls, lighting, landscaping and utilities. Relief requested from the Floor Area Ratio,
access driveway width, parking, and setback requirements. Additionally, relief is required
from the Travel Corridor Overlay District setback requirements. Site Location: 543 Aviation
Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.5-1-51, 52.12 & Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
requests area variance relief for an already constructed 38 room motel. The motel was proposed
to have 37 rooms and 38 were constructed, also constructed was a conference rooms, and an
owner offices that was not part of the original plan. Relief is requested from the floor area ratio
where .30 is allowed .38 was the original request and constructed was .42. The applicant
proposes reduced parking aisle width in three locations and reduced amount of parking where
108 parking spaces are required and 86 can be provided. The information submitted indicates
the construction manager made modifications to the approved site plan without seeking the
necessary approvals. The plans provided show the modifications to the site. 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
Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 4/15/05.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. ABBATE-I see that there are two individuals sitting at the table. I won’t presume your
identity, but would you please identify yourself and your relationship with Area Variance No.
29-2005.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Jarrett, and Sam Bhatti is with us as well. I
guess I’d like to start out and try and explain to the Board how Sam got to be before you
tonight. In October, I think, I was at the Planning Board meeting here, and his construction
manager was sitting at the table seeking site plan modifications for this project. It was the first
time that I’d been made aware of the approval process for the project, and the construction
manager was talking about how the Town consulting engineer, C.T. Male, didn’t know what
they were doing and that they should get sued, and that the Town didn’t know what they were
doing, and Tom Jarrett’s engineering firm, Tom’s sitting next to me tonight, didn’t know what
they were doing, and I was surprised because I didn’t think that’s usually an effective way to
get approvals, and it really just struck me as strange, and then two days later Sam gave me a
call and asked me to look into the matter for him, and he delivered copies of the original
approvals, the approved plans, and a book that was prepared by the construction manager,
which outlined all of the changes from the approved site plan. Although it seems like there’s a
pretty good list of changes that we’re here to talk about, that require variances tonight, the list
for the Planning Board is, although they’re small items, there are many small items, and, you
know, certainly for a commercial project, where there’s inspections, it’s just not usually what
happens. So I looked at everything, and got back to Sam and said, I think what we need is to
get Tom Jarrett back on the team and go through the whole list and figure out how it changed,
and essentially what happened was that the construction manager just had better ideas of how
to do things than how the plans were approved, and came to Sam with a constant set of changes
without anyone stopping to say, wait a second, these aren’t like cosmetic changes. These are
changes that move things and change things and require Town approvals. So the building is
built, and Tom Jarrett and I are sitting going through the list and trying to figure out all of the
site plan modifications, and we realized that some of this stuff violated the Code and we
required the variances that we’re seeking tonight. It just, it’s unfortunate, because in the end it
cost Sam a lot more money. It was just an inefficient way to build, and things had to get fixed,
and now he’s got a building which, fortunately, at one of the main entrances to the Town, is an
attractive building. It’s no bigger than it was supposed to be because the floor area changes are
all, in terms of using interior space differently than what was requested, but it doesn’t change
the size of the building, and fortunately the change in the drive aisles, although it doesn’t meet
Code, it’s sufficient, with the changes that Tom Jarrett suggested, it’s sufficient for fire access.
So there’s not a fire access problem, which would have been a real issue. I mean, this could
have been.
MR. ABBATE-Would you say that one more time. I missed that, please.
MR. LAPPER-The drive aisle widths do not conform with the minimum drive aisle widths in
the Town, which are there so that fire trucks can get around the site.
MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting that fire apparatus cannot?
MR. LAPPER-No, I’m saying that we have a letter that Mr. Underwood read, that the Fire
Marshal has said that they are sufficient for fire access. We’re here seeking a variance because
they don’t comply with what is Code, but they are sufficient.
MR. ABBATE-In other words, you’re saying on the record that your client has complied with
fire requirements, and that fire apparatus currently has access?
MR. LAPPER-I’m saying that he has not complied, but that fire access.
MR. ABBATE-He has not.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. LAPPER-He has not complied, and that’s why we’re here seeking a variance, but fire
apparatus does have access, because although it is smaller than required, it is still sufficient.
MR. BRYANT-That’s not what I read in this memo.
MR. ABBATE-Let me continue, since I started it. Let me make this quite simple. At the present
time, as of 21:30 this evening, does, in fact, fire apparatus have sufficient access to your client’s
property to fight fires?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-By who’s standards?
MR. LAPPER-The Fire Marshal.
MR. BRYANT-No, that’s not what the memo says.
MR. ABBATE-No, that’s not what it says.
MR. BRYANT-The memo is clear. Mr. Jarrett offers a solution and that solution is to remove the
canopy and the Fire Marshal agrees that that’s an adequate solution.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely right. You read it wrong, Counselor.
MR. LAPPER-No. What I, the canopy has not been taken down.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-But I have in front of me a demolition permit which was just issued.
MR. ABBATE-That’s not good enough. That wasn’t my question. Answer my question. Under
the current conditions stated by the Fire Marshal, does the fire apparatus in the Town of
Queensbury have access to fight fires?
MR. LAPPER-The answer is there is a solution, but that solution has to be implemented.
MR. ABBATE-You’re not answering my question. The answer is, no.
MR. LAPPER-The answer is, no.
MR. ABBATE-And furthermore, I might add and let you know that the Fire Marshal in the
Town of Queensbury does not have that authority. The only authority that can come from a
variance from that is from the New York State Fire Code from Albany, New York. We’ll get to
that later and I’ll give you the references.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not seeking a variance from that. We’re seeking to demolish the canopy.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but you have to start answering our questions, straight forward.
MR. LAPPER-I just didn’t answer it correctly.
MR. ABBATE-Well, then maybe you’re not prepared this evening.
MR. LAPPER-No, no.
MR. ABBATE-All right, let’s continue, then.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. LAPPER-I will submit to the Board a demolition permit which was just issued by the Town
which allows the canopy to be removed.
MR. ABBATE-But it hasn’t been removed yet.
MR. LAPPER-But it will be.
MR. ABBATE-Well, it will be. Now let me continue, here. Now, I’ve checked with the Fire
Marshal. It’s been a considerable period of time that he has been after your client to do
something about it and it hasn’t been done. Now continue, please.
MR. LAPPER-The Fire Marshal’s memo is dated March 28, just if we stay on this issue for a
th
minute, and it says that a solution has been agreed to.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, but at the present time there is serious liability to the Town of
Queensbury, because your client has not complied with what the Fire Marshal has suggested.
Now I suggest we move on, because I’ve got about a 40 minute dissertation here.
MR. LAPPER-I would like to submit for the Board the demolition permit that was just issued
yesterday.
MR. ABBATE-That’s perfectly okay. That’s fine.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question?
MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. Anybody may ask a question at any point. Please.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Lapper, let’s get away from the Fire Marshal for a second. I’m not really
understanding this, the floor area ratio issue. Based on what I see in the drawings and the Staff
comments, there were two additional rooms and two conference rooms.
MR. LAPPER-There was actually one additional room. Tom has the maps, and Tom will go
through that.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, but I just, these, they weren’t approved in last year’s?
MR. LAPPER-The interior partition walls were, well, actually the conference room was
proposed to be on the first floor, instead of the basement, and what happened was, when they
built it, they realized that that room was too small for a conference room. They turned that into
a guest room and put the conference rooms in the basement, which is mostly storage space.
MR. BRYANT-I think the crux of my question basically is, I mean, last year you got a floor area
variance, okay. Those rooms were included then.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Now how did we come to the situation where we need additional relief?
MR. LAPPER-In the original proposal, there was no finished floor space in the basement, and
that’s the difference.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you’ve finished the basement now?
MR. LAPPER-Part of the basement, and Tom will go through the map and show you that.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. JARRETT-It is extremely confusing, as you’ve all acknowledged and we’ll try to go
through, piece by piece as you ask questions, but if you go to our submission package, you’ll
see in the last drawing, there is a layout of the basement, basement floor plan, which showed
the two conference rooms that were added in the basement, as well as the bathrooms and the
office. In the project that was presented to you originally and presented to the Planning Board,
the office and a small conference room were all on the first floor. All the living space was on the
first and second floors of the motel. There was nothing proposed except storage in the
basement.
MR. BRYANT-See where I have a problem with the floor area ratio issue, going through the
minutes of the last application, I touched on the floor area ratio issue, and I think it was Mr.
Urrico that asked the question specifically, you know, relative to floor area ratio, whether this
was going to be revisited, and Mr. Jarrett’s response was, no, it’s not. So the question is.
MR. JARRETT-Could you explain revisited?
MR. BRYANT-Well, there were some questions about the floor area ratio at that time.
MR. URRICO-It wasn’t Mr. Jarrett, it was Mr. Davis, I think.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Davis? Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Do you remember the context of that question? I don’t.
MR. BRYANT-I’ll look it up while you’re making your presentation.
MR. JARRETT-We represented, at that time, that there would be no living space in the
basement, if that’s the context of the question.
MR. LAPPER-Unfortunately, I wasn’t around at that point, but what happened was that when
design changes were made, Tom wasn’t on the team to give advice, and I wasn’t representing
Sam. So the builder said, here are some things we can do to make it a better project, and
nobody stopped and said, wait a second, you need to go back to the Town, and that’s where we
are.
MR. ABBATE-Let me ask you a question during this lovely interlude here. During this period
of time, Counselor, did your client, at any time, feel it pertinent to inspect the construction
going on, if nothing else but to determine that he was getting his money’s worth?
MR. LAPPER-Well, he was certainly involved, but they kept going back to the Building
Department and making changes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but you didn’t answer my question again. Did he, your client, at any time,
think it probably would be a good idea if I were to inspect this tremendous amount of
construction going on, if for no other reason than to make sure I was getting my money’s
worth? Yes, or no?
MR. LAPPER-I didn’t represent him during the building process. So we’d have to ask Sam.
MR. ABBATE-Well, maybe we should ask your client, then. I’d like to have an answer.
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
SAM BHATTI
MR. BHATTI-Yes. My name is Sam Bhatti, and during the construction, I don’t know anything
about construction. This is my first building I was building, and I just got the idea to build it
myself, so somebody suggested to me to hire a construction manager, rather than getting a
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
contractor. I got three bids. I ended up with the one guy, and the way he did it, I was away for
one week. When I came back, things were there. You can ask your Staff. I was not aware of
what was going on on my project, and I was supposed to open up in June, and I got delayed,
and he told me everything was going to work out. We’re going to open. So a lot of things I was
not aware of, and hotel I proposed two years ago for 37 rooms and one small meeting room
upstairs, and that was a one room where we added. We didn’t add the room in. We just
changed that room to a small meeting room to a guest room, and tried to think, you know, if the
downstairs was already done, maybe I can ask for a small meeting room there. That’s all I did.
Everything else was done, I was not in the knowledge of that. It was done, and then I found out
from either Craig Brown and Dave Hatin.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Before we get too far a field, I’d just like to get on the record, until I looked at
these, this application and I went on site yesterday, I thought we were dealing with one brand
name hotel, and I look at the minutes going back to November, no, March of last year, and it
says Econo Lodge, and all of a sudden, at least to me, we’ve got two different businesses. I
don’t know what it means in terms of the Community Development Department, but we do
have two separate businesses, and I thought it was an expansion of an existing business.
MR. ABBATE-You’re correct, Mr. Stone, these are two separate entities. You’re observations are
accurate.
MR. LAPPER-I’m not sure if that makes a difference. I just don’t know.
MR. STONE-I’m not sure it does, either.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of the motel rooms, but I’ll let Sam explain about the two brands.
MR. BHATTI-Both hotels are owned by the same company, Choice International. They’re the
same company, parent company. One is a high end. One is a lower end. Same Choice
International runs Econo Lodge, Quality, Comfort. It’s one and the same company. It’s still the
same company running it, otherwise I’d have a problem to share parking lot. I cannot have
another flag like Best Western. I can only go with the Choice. So I decided, if I’m putting that
much money in the rooms, better to get a little higher rate, and only the high rate if I have a
Quality Inn. Econo Lodge is lower end. It’s like a two star. Quality Inn is three star, and what
the Town approved, they approved interior corridor and a larger room, good bathrooms.
Everything was really done good. So I’ve tried to go that route, but still the same company,
Choice International.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-At this point, let me ask Tom to just walk you through the plans.
MR. JARRETT-If you’ll bear with me, here, we’ll go back to our Plan B-1, which is the second
from last in our package. We identified, at the bottom of that sheet, six central types of
variances or groups of variances we need. We actually only need five. The height has been
removed from the variance request. If you wish to explore that at all, I’d be glad to do that, but
we’ll skip over that. The floor area ratio we’re discussing, and in the context of the March 17,
2004 meeting, I think the discussion revolved around additional variances for floor area
pertaining to the Econo Lodge itself, and upgrading of that building. I think the question was,
are we going to come back for more variances on that building, if I’m understanding this
correctly, and Don Davis and I represented that no, we would not be, in effect, tonight we’re not
here for any variances on that building. We’re here for a mistake that was made on the Quality
Inn construction. So I hope that answers that question. We’ll pursue it further if need be.
MR. URRICO-At the time, we weren’t talking Quality Inn and Econo Lodge. We were talking.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. JARRETT-No. We were talking one franchise name for both buildings.
MR. STONE-But the interior corridor, as Mr. Bhatti said, is different from the, enter from the
parking lot.
MR. JARRETT-And when we were, we were here for modifications to the old building, which is
truly the Econo Lodge now, and that dictated variances on the site, and so it’s become even
more confusing, and that’s, I think the context of the question you’re asking was, are we going
to be back for more variances on that building, and we’re obviously not here tonight for that
reason.
MR. URRICO-No, I think I was asking about anymore variances, period.
MR. ABBATE-That was the question, a very above board question. Will you be asking for
anymore variances, no.
MR. URRICO-Well, and we didn’t think we would be. Frankly, I said no, and I meant no at the
time, and here we are.
MR. BRYANT-A question on B-1, on the requesting of variances, you’ve got the building
setback to the front of the property line, 50 feet required, 12.5 feet, because of the canopy. Now
that canopy’s coming down.
MR. JARRETT-No, actually, this is the new canopy on the Quality Inn.
MR. BRYANT-That’s the bigger canopy on the right?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. That one’s not coming down.
MR. JARRETT-That’s staying, that’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-And the red one on the other side is coming down?
MR. JARRETT-That’s coming down.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, but the canopy that’s staying is the one that affects the setback.
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-I’d like to just make one other comment in response to Mr. Urrico’s questions.
Tom Jarrett is the one person who would have known all along if something violated the
approvals and violated, required a variance, and the construction manager convinced Sam that
Tom didn’t know what he was doing, and he didn’t need Tom, and Tom, who had done the
design work, and come here for the approvals, was not involved during the construction
process, and it wouldn’t have gotten to this point, because if Tom was involved, he would have
said, wait a second, you can’t do that. The construction manager can’t do that, and it was only
in the last few months that I got involved, Tom got back involved, the construction manager is
no longer involved, and here we are. It shouldn’t have happened that way, but that’s what
happened.
MR. ABBATE-That’s all nice and good, Counselor, but I’m sure you realize that the burden of
responsibility to comply with the rules and regulations of a particular town fall squarely on the
shoulders of the applicant.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. LAPPER-Agreed, but at the end of the day, it comes down to the standard of the balancing
test between the benefit to the applicant and the burden on the community and the
neighborhood, and in this case, most of the changes are interior to the building.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to hold off my comments and let the rest of the Board make their
comments because as I say, mine are rather lengthy and I have a lot of legal work here.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I think it comes down to whether you want to punish Sam. I mean, he
certainly.
MR. ABBATE-Wait a minute. It’s not a question of punishing. It’s a question of compliance.
Let’s make that quite clear on the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask Tom a question. If we go to the Staff notes, and I’m looking at
the relief required section here. You’re asking for a net four percent more floor area ratio relief
from the eight percent that we granted. Is that driven by the size of those rooms down cellar
that were created, the two of them. If you remove one from the quotient, what does that do to
the number? That’s about, makes it two percent?
MR. JARRETT-I haven’t run the numbers, but I would say approximately that would be correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because, I mean, you’re probably twice the size of what you would have
had upstairs in that original one I’m guessing.
MR. JARRETT-Actually, those two downstairs are more than twice that size, but it would
severely cut into the variance requested if we would have moved a portion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I’m thinking as a fall back position for you, that that might be
something to be considered that, you know, you eliminate one of those conference rooms
because that gets you more back in the line of reality.
MR. LAPPER-That’s certainly something we’d consider. I get the sense that the Chairman is a
little concerned or worked up about the application, and I’m sorry about that, but certainly
we’re here to try and work this out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as the setback reliefs for the canopy, the canopy was built slightly
larger than what was there, but I think that, you know, if you could go through those setback
reliefs on that and kind of remove that FAR thing for the moment, I would think it would make
sense to go down through these things and explain how they’ve been rectified or what your
solution is for those. If we go down our list on drawing B-1, going to Number Three, which is
the parking aisle width, that’s already come up in discussion to some degree. The changes to
the entrance, the changes to the parking configuration and some stormwater modifications
made by the construction manager that you haven’t even seen yet change the parking lot and
they reduced the aisle widths in the locations that we show on our plan. We don’t have any
easy way to modify or mitigate that situation. We’ve looked at it. We feel the parking lot is
functional. We did discuss it with the Fire Marshal and he felt that if the canopy that was
supposed to have been removed is removed, that it will become functional. Not ideal, not to
Town standards, but it will become functional. The number of parking spaces is dictated by the
conference rooms in the basement. The vast majority of the relief requested is based on the
conference rooms in the basement. Our records show that we had approval for 37 rooms. We’ll
have to go back and check that history. Staff’s records show 36 rooms. They were all contained
on the first and second floor. So the total Floor Area Ratio would not have changed. It’s just the
number of rooms in the motel, and we do have enough parking spaces, or would have, to
support 37 rooms, by the way. We do not have enough parking spaces to support the extra
room, the 38 plus the conference rooms in the basement.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How many rooms does the conference rooms add on as far as parking
spaces needed?
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. JARRETT-Well, the conference rooms, it’s a little bit of a moving target or a nebulous
discussion here, because we didn’t quite know how we should approach that with the parking.
So we discussed it with Staff, who suggested that we apply some type of reasonable layout to
the conference rooms to show how many seats would be in those conference rooms, which
we’ve done on the drawing that you have in your packet. Based on that, we would need 22
additional spaces.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In regards to the conference rooms, were you anticipating that these were
going to be used for people that would stay there and go to the conferences, or are these going
to be day use only?
MR. JARRETT-Sam has told us that he feels that it’s predominantly going to be used by people
staying there. Obviously, I can’t speak to that personally.
MR. ABBATE-Are you done, Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counselor made a good point. He said the Chairman is a little upset. Let
me explain to you why I’m upset. There is tremendous amount of inconsistencies in the history
of this whole project, and a most recent inconsistency is this demolition. This demolition permit
is not the demolition for a canopy. This is a demolition permit for a lobby. Now where’s the
demolition permit for a canopy? This says lobby. A lobby is not a canopy.
MR. BROWN-Agreed. Another approval that’s been issued to this property is for the removal
of the, if you’re viewing the property from the road, the Econo Lodge building is to the left. The
Econo Lodge lobby is going to be reconstructed. Attached to the lobby is this canopy, and this
demolition permit covers all the demolition, lobby, canopy, upstairs, office, everything, one
demo permit.
MR. URRICO-If they tear down the lobby, there can’t be anything holding up this canopy.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. JARRETT-So it’s a little misleading and confusing, but it’s all rolled together.
MR. ABBATE-If the Board will be patient with me, I’m going to take about three minutes here.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask another question, here?
MR. ABBATE-You may ask all the questions you wish.
MR. BRYANT-I want to go back to this parking thing. I really want to understand how you
came about calculating these parking. There must be some kind of engineering formula that
says you get, for so many square feet of conference room, you need so many parking spaces.
MR. JARRETT-I think I can clear that up by going back to Drawing B-1, in the right margin. We
show parking calculations.
MR. BRYANT-And that’s how you calculated it?
MR. JARRETT-And it’s basically Town standard, as opposed to our developing criteria.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it doesn’t, okay. One parking space for four seats. I see.
MR. ABBATE-Is there a deadline on here?
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. BROWN-It’s good for one year.
MR. JARRETT-In that situation, the numbers, I don’t think, should be considered exact. They
should be considered a reasonable approximation of what the conference rooms would require.
MR. RIGBY-So, again, it’s the conference rooms that really present the parking problem.
MR. JARRETT-Correct. There is one room, one motel room that is still hanging out there we
have to discuss, 38 versus 37 versus 36, but the vast majority of the variance request is based on
the conference rooms.
MR. BRYANT-But the dimensions of the overall outside of the building are identical to what
you had in last year’s?
MR. JARRETT-I don’t know as I want to sit here and say absolutely identical, but for all intents
and purposes, I believe they’re the same.
MR. ABBATE-That’s safe. That’s good.
MR. JARRETT-Well, we have a survey of it and I’d have to go back and double check, but it
looks to me to be the same dimensions, nominally, that was approved.
MR. RIGBY-The height variance on the plan says building height requires 40 feet, and on the set
that I have it’s crossed out. It was 46 that was constructed, but now it says 36.
MR. JARRETT-I suspected that question would come up. When, in our zealousness to try and
submit something to this Board and get before this Board, my staff estimated height of the
building, using relatively crude techniques without survey instrumentation, and in the snow,
we estimated 46 feet. Staff nicely suggested that we go back and verify that, and we had it
surveyed, and it actually was 36 feet. We had made an error. So there is no requests.
MR. RIGBY-So we can cross off Number One on our lists?
MR. JARRETT-You can cross off Number One, and that’s why Staff did not put it in the notes.
It’s not listed.
MR. ABBATE-I hope the Board will allow me to take an exception here and make a statement.
The demolition, this is strictly for the Board. The demolition permit that was issued is good for
up to one year. Now let’s take that timeframe, because this is basically my position. It’s my
position that appearance before this Board is premature. It seems to me that your client first
should seek relief from the New York State Office of Fire Prevention, which is located in
Albany. It’s my belief that, in principle, it would be in the best interest of this Board and the
Town of Queensbury to have on the record documentation from the Fire Marshal that Chapter
5, Section 503.21 of the Fire Code is satisfied, particularly since Town law makes it
unmistakably clear that the Board of Appeals shall preserve and protect the character of the
neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. It may now, in my opinion,
be appropriate to table this appeal until action has been taken to satisfy the State Fire Code.
Unless we don’t, I suggest there is potential liability. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Counselor, with regard to that statement? What is your
timetable for demolition of the canopy?
MR. LAPPER-I just checked with Sam, and he said that it can be down in two weeks. He’s just
got to schedule it.
MR. BRYANT-It’s not going to be the same contractor, right?
MR. LAPPER-Definitely not. They’re not speaking.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. URRICO-The parking lot requirements that we’re talking about. These are requirements
that the Town has made?
MR. LAPPER-Those are required if it’s treated as separate users, for the conference room.
MR. URRICO-How often do 37 rooms, 38 rooms require more than 38 parking spaces? Well,
I’m just assuming that each room usually has one driver.
MR. JARRETT-In reality, or by standard?
MR. URRICO-In reality.
MR. JARRETT-I presume occasionally you’re going to have, in the summer, you might have
two cars, rarely, but, you know, on average, I think the Town Code is based on what real use is,
an average use, and I would presume that one car per room, by Code, by standard.
MR. URRICO-I mean, I’m assuming that the only time that a parking lot’s going to be filled
would be at night when everybody is in bed.
MR. JARRETT-In this particular situation I think that’s probably a fair assessment.
MR. URRICO-And generally conferences are not going to be taking place at that time.
MR. JARRETT-Correct. We mention that in our narrative, too, that we think there’s some
diversity of use.
MR. URRICO-Right. Okay, but still we have double the amount of parking spaces that, we
have, assuming that every room has two cars to it, you still have 76 spaces.
MR. JARRETT-Well, we have two motels to deal with, and we have a total of 75 rooms, excuse
me, 85 rooms, or 86 rooms, depending on the count.
MR. URRICO-I see.
MR. JARRETT-So we’ve provided one per room for the two buildings.
MR. URRICO-So then you only have one parking space left over.
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. URRICO-That’s a problem.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, the question for you, if the created conference rooms were used for
some other purpose, like a game room or something like that, that you would normally find in
most hotels around, would that change the parking requirements?
MR. JARRETT-Or a fitness center or something?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m guessing that you can’t have a, I mean, it would have to be for the
guests on site, not the public. I’m guessing that’s not going to trigger your parking thing.
MR. BROWN-I would agree that there wouldn’t be any additional parking spaces that would
need to be associated, necessarily. If it was an arcade open to the public, if it was a health, you
know, fitness center open to the public, then you would, but if it’s strictly for the use of the
guests, I don’t think we need to apply any additional parking to it.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just saying, you know, I’m just thinking what a logical solution would
be, and that would be to eliminate the conference room concept and use it for purposes for the
guests on site, you know, for whatever reasons, put 50 pinball machines down there and make
it that instead. I’m just guessing that as we sit here and we’re looking at the amount of relief
and the extra parking that’s needed for the conference rooms, there’s going to have to be some
kind of compromise.
MR. LAPPER-We certainly recognize that, Jim, and I guess taking up your suggestion from
before that one of the conference rooms were removed, we could make the argument that the
other conference room is going to be primarily rented to guests of the hotel and that the extent
that it wasn’t, it would be used during the day rather than when the guests are there at night.
Sam feels that, in this market, he needs to have a conference room because some of his
customers are going to want to have meetings, but eliminating one conference room cuts the
relief pretty much in half. He could certainly use the additional storage, and it would still allow
him to have conferences.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think everybody’s been to a conference before. In day type uses
like that, most of those conferences are over by 4 p.m. in the afternoon, and I’m thinking, your
peak times for the motel users are going to be, you know, after, late in the afternoon, unless it’s
a rainy day, and then you’re going to be in trouble, but I’m thinking, you know, to come up
with a practical solution, you’re going to have to do something, as far as, you know, eliminating
one of those at least.
MR. LAPPER-And we’re prepared to agree to that as a condition.
MR. BRYANT-Getting back to Mr. Underwood’s question, if you were able to eliminate one of
the, I don’t know what stage you are.
MR. LAPPER-They’re finished.
MR. BRYANT-They’re finished. If there was a way to use one of the conference rooms as
storage, does that bring it back down to the 38%?
MR. JARRETT-No, it would not bring it to 38%. It would probably slice that additional request
in half, maybe from 42 down to 40. Roughly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So two percent more instead of four percent more.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, right.
MR. BROWN-And along the lines of practicality, I think you guys are thinking about with the
conference rooms, keep in mind, you know, the administrative, the enforcement part of that’s
going to be next to impossible. I mean, we’re not going to be able to go and determine who’s
renting a room. So I think when you think about those conference rooms, you want to have a
comfort level of, these could be used. So if we want to allow conference rooms, let’s plan on
them being used by the public. If you want to ensure that they’re not there, just don’t allow
them to have the conference rooms, and I don’t have a vote either way, obviously, but just from
us having to administer it and enforce it, there’s no way to.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. To assume that’s going to be enforced, this Board would be on very thin ice,
quite frankly.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’ve been to affairs at The Georgian, and, you have, really, because
sometimes it’s a mess. You cannot find a spot there, if you have something else going on
besides people staying there.
MR. LAPPER-They don’t have a kitchen here, though.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. URRICO-Well, that’s true, too, but, you know.
MR. STONE-Well, where does the four per one parking space for four seats come from?
MR. LAPPER-Town Code.
MR. STONE-Is that the Town Code?
MR. BROWN-Convention Center requirement.
MR. STONE-Okay. For 78 seats, we only need.
MR. LAPPER-But as Craig said, if it’s considered an amenity for guests, then you wouldn’t
count it double, and I think we could probably come up with a way to verify that one
conference room is removed, in terms of the interior finishings or what have you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How many conference room seats did we have in the original proposal for
that room upstairs that would have been, a quarter of the number?
MR. JARRETT-I’ll show you what was on the architect’s plan. We did not identify specific
seats, but I can show you that plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re about maybe a quarter of the size of one of those rooms.
MR. ABBATE-Let me move to a different subject here. This Paragraph Six in Staff notes,
indicates additionally, even though none has been requested, 67.7 feet of relief was required
from the 75 foot minimum edge of the road right of way setback requirements of the Travel
Corridor Overlay District for Aviation Road. I’m going to address my comments to Staff. What
kind of an impact does this have?
MR. BROWN-Well, just to back up, before I answer that, this is a relief that, the Travel Corridor
Overlay relief is relief that would have been required under the previous variance that was
misidentified or not identified by Staff. It’s added in here for purposes of the record to be
completed. My opinion of the impact is going to be very minimal impact. The right of way is
incredibly wide right there at that portion of Route 9. It’s where Old Aviation Road used to
connect in there. So there’s a significant road line, building line setback because the right of
way is so wide. So, if you’re asking my opinion, I think there’s a minimal relief to the Travel
Corridor Overlay District.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fine. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, if this had gone to the Planning Board originally, with the full cellar
underneath the building, I don’t know what’s been done previously with other motels or hotels
in the area, but are they usually left unfinished? Would this have triggered some major review
from their, on their part, since the two rooms have been created there?
MR. BROWN-I think more importantly than that, the New York State Building Code is not
going to allow any occupancy in a basement without certain egress requirements. So I’m not
sure the Planning Board would get into that as much. I mean, if the site has the parking and,
you know, site amenities to support living space in the basement, sure, I think they could go for
that, but, I think Building Code issues would probably rule more strictly than the Planning
Board, for a basement.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other comments or questions from members of the
Board?
MR. URRICO-Just that, you know, I feel there’s a resolution here somewhere. I think that, I
don’t know if tabling it will solve that. I think that, you know, this is an unusual circumstance
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
that looks like it’s gotten out of hand, but not to any one person’s fault, and I think they’ve
come to us for help, and I think we can do that, and I would be willing to work on that.
MR. STONE-Yes, in connection with that, can you guys describe for us, if you had your
druthers, exactly what it is you’d like to walk away from this meeting with? Because obviously
we can sit here and we can nitpick over inches, feet, parking spaces.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re listening to what you’re saying, as we always do, and Jim’s
suggestion that one conference room be eliminated, Sam feels he really needs a conference room
because it’s business customers in Queensbury that you attract, and, you know, perhaps two is
asking for too much, and one can be eliminated, and it can be verified by Planning Staff or the
Code Enforcement Officer that it’s been changed, that it’s no longer a conference room. So I
think that, in terms of compromise, we could put on the table that we would change the relief
requested and get rid of one conference room.
MR. STONE-Okay, and the rest of the things, you would argue, are minor, they’re technical,
even though the numbers look large?
MR. LAPPER-Are minor, right.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, if we do that, then floor area ratio goes down considerably, that request,
and the parking is reduced considerably.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re going to need 11 spaces of parking relief instead of 22. I mean
essentially, that’s what it’s going to amount to, I’m guessing it’s going to be half?
MR. JARRETT-Well, if you consider they’re all outside users, too, as opposed to motel residents,
and I was trying to be conservative with the Board when I ran those calculations, but I think
there is some combined use here, especially with a smaller conference room. A smaller
conference room is going to be more conducive to in-house conferences, in-house residents, I
think, rather than a large outside conference room.
MR. URRICO-You could conceivably get local people using that, too. That would be, what,
about 36 person capacity there, or something like that?
MR. JARRETT-Well, the two rooms we’ve shown, one has 36 and one has 42.
MR. URRICO-And which one would be eliminated?
MR. JARRETT-I’ll let Sam answer that one and we’ll see if we can live with his, you want this
one as the conference room?
MR. BHATTI-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Sam would like, for the record, he’d like the larger room for the conference
room.
MR. STONE-Okay. So 36 goes, but I know you’ve been asked and asked about the fire, and I
know that the Chairman has raised some very technical issues, but in your heart of hearts, you
think that Mr. Smith can live with a full parking lot, without the canopy?
MR. JARRETT-Actually, I talked with a couple of firemen, and, you know, they carry no
standing in this meeting, but I talked to a couple of firemen, and they said they would have to
jockey a little bit, but they could get around. The canopy is definitely an issue. That has to go,
but, if it was a full parking lot, which it’s not going to be during the day as much as it would be
at night.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m thinking at night when it’s more crucial, if you will.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. JARRETT-Especially in the summertime on a big weekend, but they could jockey them and
they could get around. Because you’ve just got to get the trucks in there, and then you fight the
fire and you worry about getting them out later.
MR. STONE-That may be a question, well, he’s saying.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but, you’re right, Mr. Stone, and I keep harping on this, guys. There’s a
potential liability here, and if we’re going to act to approve something, when the applicant has
not, in effect, complied with fire regulations, we’re looking for trouble, but this is the majority.
We go by the majority. I’m just letting you know, and I want to be on the record, perfectly clear,
where I stand. It would seem to me, logically, and I agree with Mr. Urrico, we’re here to help
you folks, but it would seem to me, logically, that this should be placed on the table, and when
you folks have taken the canopy down, and met all the fire rules and regulations, come back to
us, and we will be more than willing to work with you, but approving something, knowing full
well that in the record there is an indication that the Fire Marshal has indicated that currently
fire apparatus does not have access is dangerous and potentially liable to the Town.
MR. STONE-Yes, but Mr. Chairman, I think we have to determine, because you have brought
up a very good point about State Code, but we have to rely, I think, on the Queensbury Fire
Marshal as our interpreter for that Code.
MR. ABBATE-I agree. Well, I spoke with the Fire Marshal about this. This is where you’re
getting a lot of this information from.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. ABBATE-From the Fire Marshal, and he is convinced, let me put it this way, and he’s more
than welcome to appear. He is basically convinced that we should not hear this case until the
Fire Codes have been addressed. Those are his comments. I agree with him.
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, Sam just whispered in my ear that he will find a way to get this
down in a few days if that’s what this Board wants.
MR. ABBATE-No, that’s not what I’m suggesting.
MR. LAPPER-I understand that’s not what you’re suggesting, but he’s offering that.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s nice, but what I’m saying is this, that for this Board, and let me say
this, that I have sought legal advice on this. For this Board to act when there is potential
liability, and it’s documented, on a variance, one way or another, is potential liability for the
Town. The way to get around that is to say, okay, guys, everything is taken down. We have
complied with the fire codes. We’re now here, now back seeking your help, and by golly you
would get it, and then that would satisfy the potential liability to the Town, and to this Board.
MR. BRYANT-Well, couldn’t you achieve the same thing by saying the only thing that.
MR. ABBATE-As a stipulation?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, of course you can. Sure, by all means. If we were to come up with a motion,
and indicate in the motion, and I think, say something like this, Staff is advised that no portion
of the approved variance is to commence until a letter from the fire chief states that there is now
compliant fire access, the canopy has been removed, and that a copy of that letter to be placed
with the minutes of this hearing. To answer your question, yes, it can be done that way, if we
stipulate it as such. Yes.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, can I ask an opinion from you? Are you comfortable with the fact
that this canopy is coming down, that that’s the primary access that’s going to be created, and
we do have some narrow path situations that the trucks are going to have to go down. To me, it
looks like there’s one that’s 19 feet wide and one that’s 20 feet wide. Are you comfortable with
Steve Smith’s, you know, what he’s come up with as far as that goes?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that reasonable?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. All right. I would move that we walk through these things and that
we try to eliminate which ones we can live with and which ones we can’t live with. I think that,
on the table as the Chairman has suggested, are the driveway width reliefs and those do need to
be checked, and it would be nice to get something succinct for Steve, too, also. It’s his
judgment, yes, that they’re adequate, but we would be more comfortable with something from
the State saying they’re adequate also.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I agree with that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, we can go through this in lieu of that. That’s a very important
issue, noted.
MR. ABBATE-You know, a suggestion has been made. In order for a fair trial, etc., hearing, let’s
poll the Board. I’d be willing to poll the Board for each of our positions on this problem with
fire.
MR. BRYANT-I want to ask. In the Certificate of Occupancy process, was this, this whole fire
obstruction issue, did it come after the CO was issued? Was there a discussion before the CO
was issued? Did the Town know that there was a problem before they issued a CO? I mean,
can you enlighten us as to the procedure and the sequence? Because I don’t understand how a
building, in violation, could get a CO.
MR. BROWN-Sure. I can’t give you all the details because I’m not privy to the discussions that
the Fire Marshal may or may not have had with the applicant, but I know it was our
understanding, from the beginning, that the lobby and the canopy on the Econo Lodge was
going to be removed, and a canopy was not to be reconstructed there, and that set of facts
would allow adequate access to the site for any and all fire equipment, in order for them to get
to the minimum required distance from a building, which is like 150 feet, I think they have to
be, within the building, within a building that they’re going to be working with. So knowing
that, I think that played into the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The knowledge of the
drive aisles around the Quality Inn, was that known at the time the CO was issued? No, that
wasn’t discovered until the agents before you were involved with the application, had actual
survey work done, located what was constructed, versus what was approved. When that came
to light, it became part of this variance application you have before you tonight and they’re here
seeking relief from that. It wasn’t known at the time that the Temporary CO was issued. I don’t
think we’ve issued a final, have we issued a final CO for you yet? I don’t think so. I think a
Temporary CO.
MR. ABBATE-But, see, Craig, the Temporary CO, and the Temporary CO made as a stipulation,
okay, I’m saying this to the Board, that before it will be effective, the canopies had to come
down. You see, guys, this goes back years.
MR. STONE-Well, let me even quote Mr. Jarrett’s language here. I certainly agree with you that
in your memo of March 25, you’re addressing this to Mr Bhatti, and after a while it says, you
th
should contact the Queensbury Building Department for the necessary demolition permits and
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
advise this office when the removal is complete, so that we may update the site plans for
discussion with the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-I would agree that you are here in advance of compliance.
MR. ABBATE-Stated another way, the appearance before this Board is premature, Counselor.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the word I was trying to come up with.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do you mind if I say that?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, your appearance before this Board is premature, and I suggest to this
Board we take no action until we have satisfactory documentation that you have, your client
has met all the fire code rules and regulations. The reason I’m so firm on this, I want everybody
to understand this, this didn’t happen just two weeks ago. Based on my research with the Fire
Marshal and other people, the folks in the Town have been begging the applicant to do this for
months and years, and it still hasn’t been done, and the current application for demolition,
gentlemen and ladies, is good for up to one year. So, theoretically, he can wait 11 months, 22
hours, and whatever the case might be, and we’re still here twiddling our thumbs, and I would
say, see, I told you so. Thank you.
MR. BHATTI-I’m sorry for this, but I was under the understanding I had to demolish the whole
thing. That’s why I was talking to Craig, and I misunderstood. I was waiting, the canopy can
be gone in one day. I was waiting to demolish the whole thing, the front lobby area. That’s
where the mistake happened. The canopy, I should have done it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me say this, Mr. Bhatti. The most important word in the English
language today is responsibility, and I’ll leave it at that, and to you, Counselor, you can only go
to the water hole so many times before it turns dry.
MR. LAPPER-It wasn’t the lawyer’s responsibility to take the canopy down.
MR. BHATTI-I’m sorry, I misunderstand. Maybe the language barrier, maybe all this going on.
I was thinking about taking the whole building down to build it back, according to Queensbury.
MR. ABBATE-You see, I understand all that, and please understand, contrary to what your
Council may believe, this is not punishment, this is compliance, and at this point, I think it’s
appropriate for me to poll the Board, and see, basically, whether they agree, I guess that’s the
poll, I guess Roy was saying, whether or not this should be tabled until we have sufficient
documentation that the Fire Code rules and regulations have been satisfied. Once they’ve been
satisfied, then the argument that I make of potential liability disappears. So I would like to poll
the Board, starting with Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-I agree.
MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt.
MRS. HUNT-I agree.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Rigby?
MR. RIGBY-I agree.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico?
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-I disagree. I think that we can rule on this, with a stipulation giving you X
number of days to act on the canopy. I think that that’s a reasonable procedure.
MR. ABBATE-Well, let’s go one more step.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree with Allan. I think that, you know, you can go out there
tomorrow and get somebody to come over and take that thing down tomorrow.
MR. ABBATE-We have a five to two decision.
MR. URRICO-Let me just say, I agree with Allan and Jim. The only thing that’s stopping me is
the wording right now, and this.
MR. ABBATE-Well, what Mr. Stone said, and he’s right. So, gentlemen, right now, we have a
vote five to two.
MR. URRICO-But it’s Tom Jarrett’s letter.
MR. BRYANT-I think that we can word it in a way to satisfy all the Board members that,
whether it’s approved or whatever or altered or whatever, but in X number of days that canopy
is down.
MR. ABBATE-All right now look, let me go one step further. Let me talk about liability for a
second.
MR. BRYANT-Because, frankly, I’m going to give you an alternate situation here. You’re going
to ask that this thing be tabled for 60 days. The applicant is willing to remove the canopy in two
days, if some action is taken, regardless of the outcome, and they’re going to wait 60 days
before this thing is done.
MR. ABBATE-No. We’ll have it back. We’ll have them back in the next available first meeting,
but let me explain something else, my concern. Counsel has indicated my concern. Here’s my
concern, ladies and gentlemen. We have people residing in that hotel at the present time where
fire apparatus does not have access. Talk about liability. Do I have to say anymore to the
Town?
MR. BRYANT-Are you going to compare two days versus 60 days? So you’re going to live with
that liability for 60 days by not taking action?
MR. ABBATE-I would request that Staff place this back on the next first meeting, a special
meeting if necessary, without a stipend. I’d be more than happy to do it.
MR. BHATTI-(Lost words) full parking lot in July, if the trucks come in.
MR. ABBATE-Look, you know, it’s not a question, I understand what you’re saying, but your
permit, by law, allows you up to one year, no matter what we say here.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. We’ve got a majority. Why don’t you just take a vote.
MR. ABBATE-The decision is five to two.
MR. BHATTI-Just give me two days. I was thinking about taking the whole building down.
The canopy can be gone in one day.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’ll get to that again. I have to continue with this. I’m going to open up
the public hearing because we’ll still continue here. The Board invites public comments on the
appeal. In the interest of time, please be crisp, organized, and limit your comments to only the
facts and information given this evening. Would those wishing to be heard please come up to
the table and for the record identify yourself and place of residence. You will be limited to five
minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I didn’t come here tonight to
comment on this, but I can’t help but comment on it. First of all, it’s got to be an extremely
intelligent and capable construction manager that can put these two conference rooms in that
building without them being designed into the facility. Now this is a conference room. Look at
what’s here, audio visual, the PA system, the screen, evacuation alarm for fire, exit signs, air
conditioning, heating. You mean this man, while he’s supervising construction, did all of this,
put this in? These facilities have to go in at the very early stage of a job. They don’t get pasted
on at the end. This was orchestrated, gentlemen, it had to be. You don’t order the materials, the
equipment you need to facilitate this, off the shelf at Lowe’s. These are engineered items that go
in there. My point is that the applicant is blaming what’s gone on with these conference rooms
on a construction manager that didn’t follow instructions. He followed instructions. That’s the
only way it could have gotten built, and it got built early on in the project. They started. They
didn’t paste it on in the end. It’s unfortunate that a CO was issued for this project. I see they’re
open for business. There is no basis for this facility to have received a CO, absolutely none, and,
you know, to do these things, switching from a conference area and building lodging rooms,
you need piping, you need heating, you need everything, all the facilities you need. You don’t
just do that overnight. You’ve got to order extra bath tubs, toilets, whatever have you. These
things go out for bid. They’re, you know how this is done. So I cannot accept that a lot of these
problems you have before you today are the result of a construction manager gone wild.
They’re just not that talented. There’s talk about two conference centers. I think you have to
understand how this kind of a facility works, and mind you, my wife and I were in this business
for quite a number of years, and had a conference center on premises and had lodging rooms on
premises, and it was our experience that it was not unusual to have the rooms filled, those
people attending the conference, and then other people from the neighborhood coming in to
attend, because they didn’t need lodging or, if we didn’t have enough lodging, they stayed at
other motels. So that parking lot could be chock-a-block during the day, during the day, and
please appreciate the traffic pattern into that place is off the Northway and everybody’s turning
left off of Aviation Road. I think I’d do a traffic study. I think that’s missing here. Putting
conference rooms in the basement of a building is almost a disaster. Humidity, around
electronic equipment, fire access, escape, handicap access, toilets. These kinds of things go with
conference facilities. It’s more than just a room. So I think you’ve got a use change here, and
you’ve got a significant use change that has to be considered. Somebody going out, excuse me,
Tom, somebody going out and looking at a building and trying to estimate the height of it can
come closer than, what is it 36 and 46, 38 and 48. All you’ve got to do is count the floors. How
can you miss it by ten feet. Incredible. I had a couple of other notes here. A conference center, I
believe they require, from the State Labor Department, they require a permit to hold a public
assembly. This project needs a serious, serious look at. This is inexcusable what has gone on. It
is inexcusable, and the CO should never have been issued, and that’s the way to get it corrected,
deny the CO.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you, Kathleen Salvador. I had a lot of the things that John had
written down also, but my main concern really is with the conference center. You’re all talking
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
about fire equipment coming in and all. How many exits do these conference rooms have?
How far are they from the main exit or entrance? Do they have restrooms? How far are they
from, again?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, they have restrooms.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay, and how many exits out of the rooms? The Fire Marshal will ask you
for two. He asked us for two.
MR. ABBATE-I didn’t go over that with the Fire Marshal. I’m sorry. I just went over other
areas with him.
MR. BRYANT-There are two exits.
MRS. SALVADOR-There are two exits out of each conference room?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, actually, there looks like three almost, but I’m sure there’s two.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. That size room having, that can only take 36 or 42 people, has three
exits, that has to have been designed for something other than a conference room, other than a
cellar, having built many facilities as we have. Also, Mr. Underwood mentioned something
about maybe turning one of those rooms into a game room or something like that. If you’ve
ever owned a facility and had a game room on premises, you would put it nowhere near your
lodging rooms. You don’t put ice machines, vending machines by your lodging rooms either. I
could go on and on, but I won’t. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, ma’am, I appreciate that. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I took a
kind of straw poll earlier. The vote was basically five in favor of having the applicant table this
application until all the fire requirements were made. I could go for a motion for that, or,
Counselor, if you want to voluntarily withdraw your application, that’s up to you.
MR. BRYANT-Before you do that, Mr. Chairman, we spent all this time talking about this. I
would at least, why don’t you review the Board members, let them go through the items that
they want to cover, so that if the applicant has to come back, he at least doesn’t go through this
whole process again, and at least he knows where he stands on all these issues.
MR. ABBATE-You’re absolutely correct, and let’s do that. If there are no other public
comments, the public comment is closed, and I would now request that members of the Board
present their particular views. I’ll start with, you, Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start from the bottom and work up, okay.
The Travel Corridor Overlay, I agree with Staff. I think it’s technical more than, the parking
space issue, I think the way conference centers are used, generally they’re used in the day time,
and parking, for the motel, is at night. You very rarely have a conference at night, unless it’s the
participants of the motel occupants. So I would, I have no problem with this. I would like to
have more information on the access driveway width relief. I’d like to have a little bit more
time to look at that. I really don’t know where I sit on that. The side setback is not a problem
for me. The front setback is a little bit larger, with the canopy, than we had anticipated, but I
could basically live with it. I think the only major problem I have is with the Floor Area Ratio,
and I’ve got to tell you that there are a couple of things that bothered me. One is the comments
that Mr. Salvador made. I agree with him 100%. To have a conference room, you have to lay
duct work, HVAC. You’ve got to lay electrical. I mean, somebody somewhere should have
seen this. Going back to the minutes, we had an exchange, Mr. Jarrett, and basically we were
talking about the Floor Area Ratio last year, and we went from 35 to 38%. It was a contractor’s
error. Now we’re going from 38% to 42%. It was an error. It was a mistake, and I can pull it
out. You’ve got the minutes.
MR. JARRETT-I remember reading what you were saying.
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I mean, this is a comedy of errors here, you know. Somewhere somehow
we’ve got to come to a figure that we all agree on and we’re not going to deviate from. My
view is that we shouldn’t have a conference center down there at all. We ought to close those
rooms off, make them storage rooms, as originally planned, and end this whole discussion, not
go beyond the 38% that’s already approved, and end the discussion on the Floor Area Ratio. I
mean, it’s unfortunate, but, you know, he’s got other buildings he’s going to renovate. He’s got
the building, the Econo Lodge building, he’s going to renovate. He’s got the building in the
back that will probably be renovated. So, build a conference room there. Build a conference
center, nobody wants to go into the basement without any windows for a conference, okay. My
view is this shouldn’t even be a discussion. We gave you 38%. That’s what where we ought to
stay.
MR. ABBATE-No, Counselor, there will be no discussion. What I’m going to do is go through
this. This is our normal procedure.
MR. BRYANT-No, I asked Mr. Lapper, he was going to say something, and.
MR. ABBATE-He can address these issues after the members of the Board have made their
comments. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I think the whole thing, I was just looking back here, I don’t even remember
the Floor Area Ratio, and probably I was not here, because I don’t remember it, and certainly I
think Mr. Bryant makes a very strong point, and certainly the public, in the guise of Mr.
Salvador, made a very good point about the conference center. The Floor Area Ratio opens up a
can of worms. I think it really does, why is it needed and what is the space being used for? The
other things, as Mr. Bryant said the technical right of way doesn’t bother me. The access
driveway doesn’t bother me, if, in fact, the Fire Marshal signs off on the plan. It is the floor area
ratio, because I think what has happened, it has opened up a lot of different things for
discussion. It’s not simply the floor area ratio. It’s the use of the rooms in the basement, how
did they get there is, in fact, are we condoning, because it’s not our job to do site plan, if you
will, inside or outside, but nevertheless, it is condoning some things that I think we need to
discuss. I think we need to discuss it with an understanding that, quite frankly, I don’t have
right now, and I would like to look at it further.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-Often when we’re presented with situations where something’s been constructed
before the fact, the question we ask is what would we have done had this come to us, to borrow
a phrase Lew Stone made famous, with clean hands, and that’s sort of the way I’m looking at
this. What would we have done if this had come to us fresh, and just one other comment is this
project didn’t come without some neighborhood controversy. I mean, there were neighbors
that were concerned about what was being placed here, and I feel that the plans changed from
what they heard. I know they had the opportunity to come tonight and they’re not here, so part
of that responsibility is theirs, but I also feel that we would not be serving them well if we
approved something that changed after the fact. I’m going to go through the five that we have
on the table. I think there are five, but I don’t have a problem with the Travel Corridor Overlay.
I think it is a technicality. However, the parking spaces bother me. They really do, and if
you’ve seen other facilities in this area that did not plan well for parking, particularly in Lake
George, and the parking spills out onto the road, blocking traffic, and visualizing that on
Aviation Road, we’re talking about a disaster waiting to happen. So I’m not sure I’m really
comfortable with that. Because, if they can’t park there, they have to go somewhere, or they’re
going to end up in the middle of traffic. The access driveway width relief, I really think, having
something from the Fire Marshal telling us that it’s okay, and that everything will allow for
equipment to get back there would be a good idea. I don’t have a problem with the side
setback. I don’t have a problem with the front setback, but like it’s been said earlier, the floor
area ratio really is the sticking point also, and I’m not so sure that Mr. Bryant’s idea to do away
with the conference room in the basement doesn’t solve that problem.
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, Mr. Urrico mentioned the parking spaces. I
didn’t, and I agree with him. I just wanted to get that on the record.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So it’s on the record, Mr. Stone’s statement. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr.
Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Looking at the relief required, I think, Number One, here, you know, why
are we here this evening, and I think that what we see here is another classic example of a break
down. We have employees that we have in this community that are hired by the Town to police
actions within the community, and it’s very difficult for me to believe, as Mr. Salvador
suggested, that somebody didn’t see these conference rooms until they were completed, you
know, or that they just suddenly appeared out of a cloud, you know, miraculously overnight. I
think it’s a major failure of the building permit department here in this community, and I think
we should bring it to the attention of the Town Board, and I think we should have Mr. Hatin
come in and explain to us why we’re placed in this position. Because we did our job. We
granted relief for this project initially. Oftentimes we have to deal with issuing variances after
the fact, for things that are off by three or four feet, but this seems quite extraordinary, to me,
that we’re here discussing this and that we’re placed in this position of being the bad guys here,
because we might not grant relief for everything this person wants. At the same time, I think
Mr. Bhatti is culpable in this, also. He’s ultimately been responsible for this project, and to
assume, you know, if I was a motel owner, I wouldn’t mind having a couple of extra conference
rooms to bring in a little extra cash to pay off your building, you know, that’s logical, but at the
same time, somebody must have known about this. It just didn’t happen out of the blue, but as
far as the relief that’s requested here this evening, I think the fact that the canopy on the Econo
Lodge is coming down, I don’t have a problem with that. I think that’s going to be adequate for
the fire apparatus to get in, if needed. I still think that the access driveway width relief, in a
couple of instances, is probably going to be something that should be looked into, and should
be written off at the State level, not just the local level, knowing how local things usually work
in this community. As far as the setback relief for the canopy, both the canopy and the deck, I
don’t think, are a problem. I don’t have a problem with granting relief for those. The side
setback relief on the building, I don’t think that’s a problem, and I’m not really uncomfortable
with the extra added one or two rooms from the 36 that we originally granted, moving those up
to 38, but those two conference rooms, I would have to agree that if you’re going to have
conference rooms, and you’re going to bring more cars and people on site, it’s thoroughly
inadequate, the amount of parking that we have created at the present time to accommodate
both those conference rooms. Whether one conference room would be available or acceptable
to this Board is still up in the air, because essentially we never had it before us initially, and I
think that this is simply just a big grab for something more. I think it’s been unfair the way this
has been done, and I think that the onus is on, you know, not only the applicant, but, you know,
strictly it belongs on the applicant’s shoulders, and the applicant here has not fulfilled what our
wishes were initially on this project, and I think that it’s up to the Town to decide, and I don’t
think that we need to be put in that position.
MR. ABBATE-Well, well said, Mr. Underwood, and if the members of this Board so desire, I
have the power of subpoena, and I would be delighted to subpoena Mr. Hatin to before this
Board. All this Board has to do is vote a majority and tell me yes. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Someone used the term, comedy of errors. I don’t think it was a comedy of
errors. It seems to me like there was a lot of forethought. I just want to, talking about the
occasional parking shortages if there is outside use of these conference rooms. Where are these
people going to park? Are they going to go to the Silo parking lot, which often gets
overcrowded? Or the streets? And the other one, just, this was from Jarrett Martin, the
necessary demolition permits and advise this office when the removal is complete. That was
almost a month ago. I think we need things done before we can approve them, and I really
have had problems with these conference rooms, and Mr. Salvador brought them to the
forefront. There are two stairways, and if you get 80 people trying to get up two stairways in an
emergency, it could be a real problem, and if we didn’t have the conference rooms, we wouldn’t
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
need relief for the spaces. I think, then, that the driveways could be increased if we didn’t have
those extra spaces. You’d have more room, and so I can’t go along with the, I can go along with
everything but the 12% relief, the FAR requirement.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-I think what we’re all talking about is Floor Area Ratio, and parking access, and if
we go back to what we originally approved, it was one conference room that seats eight people
on the first floor, I believe.
MR. LAPPER-One conference room on the first floor.
MR. RIGBY-That seats eight people. So, I mean, in my mind, it seems to be reasonable that, you
know, we never granted that, either the Planning Board or the Zoning Board, never granted
access usage for the basement, and they granted access usage for one conference room for eight
people. When I look at that I say, well, you know, how can we, now, say that we’re going to
approve the basement for two conference rooms or one conference room, and still have these
problems with floor area ratio and parking access. It just seems a no-brainer to me, that, you
know, we really can’t do that. So, I believe, that, you know, if we say that, you know, let’s just
go back to what was originally approved, we really have a minimal floor area ratio problem and
we really have a minimal parking access problem. So my view would be let’s go back to where
we originally, what we originally approved, we approved no basement usage, no conference
room, and, you know, we really have a done deal. The only thing that would have to be
addressed, also, is this fire access thing, and I’m concerned about that, too, as Chuck Abbate
brought up and as Joyce brought up. There’s a letter written March 25. We’ve got people in a
th
hotel that the Fire Marshal’s telling us we don’t have access with the proper fire equipment to
fight a fire. So I’m concerned about that as well.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. I guess it’s my turn. It’s my opinion that this variance
should be placed on the table for the very reason I stated earlier, under the distinctive state of
affairs, I could not support the variance, particularly in view of the fact that potential liability to
the Town and this Board exists. In addition to that, the floor area ratio is totally unacceptable to
me, and the ramifications thereof. In addition to that, I’m very concerned with the parking
spaces. Now, Counsel, if you wish to address any of this, please do.
MR. LAPPER-Just a couple of quick points.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, before you address it, because this might be pertinent to
your response. If we eliminate the conference rooms, completely, what does that do to the
parking problem? Then there’s no parking problem, is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-There was one room.
MR. JARRETT-There’s a problem with one space, but actually since we submitted this
application, we found a way to get one more space. So I think probably there’d be no problem.
MR. BRYANT-It seems to me you’d make a lot of people happy if you could just do that.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I just have a couple of comments. The point I was trying to make wasn’t
that this didn’t get planned out. Obviously, as Mr. Salvador pointed out, planning a conference
room took a number of months to do that. The point was that Tom was not part of the project
team at that point. I wasn’t involved. So there was nobody giving Sam advice telling him that
there was a zoning implication. It was just, gee, there’s space in the basement. It would be
better than putting the conference room upstairs, and nobody was thinking, and I wasn’t
involved. I can’t tell you any more than that, but that was the only point I was trying to make.
Obviously we’re here trying to work this out, and it’s going to be tabled, and regardless of the
fact that it’s going to be tabled, Sam’s committed that the canopy is going to be down in two
days and that’s the right thing, so, you know, he’ll get that done, and we’ll rethink the parking
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
and he would like to have one conference room, because he thinks that his facility needs that,
and we’ll come back and try and figure out a way that we could justify that, and maybe it’ll take
some imagination and do something differently, but I think it’s good to table it, and we’ll meet
with Sam and rethink the variance request and regardless the canopy will come down and we’ll
get some verification. I don’t think the drive aisles need relief from Albany. I think that they do
comply, but the canopy’s got to come down, and we’ll verify all that.
MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting, Counselor, that you wish to withdraw Area Variance No. 29-
2005?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me, I mean table it.
MR. LAPPER-Table it, and we’ll come back and we’ll see if we can modify it and make it a
better request.
MR. ABBATE-Let me say this, before we move on. The only way I would be satisfied is if,
when you come back, you will have documentation to certify that the permit for demolition has
been completed, and I would be even happier if the Fire Marshal provided you with a letter
after he inspected the demolition to certify that fire apparatus does, indeed, now have access.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t know that they can come back with certification that the demolition
permit has been completed, because he’s not going to tear down the hotel, but if the Fire
Marshal writes a letter ands says the canopy’s down, everything is A-okay, I think that’s all we
need.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sure we’ll all drive by it later this week, too.
MR. ABBATE-You understand the point that I’m trying to make?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-So you are suggesting?
MR. LAPPER-I am requesting that it be tabled, and we will do some thinking and meet with
Sam and see what we can come up with, but the canopy will be down.
MR. ABBATE-That, to me, in my opinion, is reasonable.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Now, I’m going to request a motion to table Area Variance No. 29-2005. May I
please hear a motion?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2005 SAM BHATTI D/B/A QUALITY
INN, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
543 Aviation Road. Tabled with the following stipulations: Regarding the canopy and the
concern of the Fire Marshal relative to access to the motel, the canopy will be removed and
documentation from the Fire Marshal will be provided to the Town no later than May 2.
nd
We’re tabling it for up to 60 days, and we’ll have that documentation by May 2. Relative to
nd
some of the other things that we addressed, in the Floor Area Ratio, the Board would generally
like to see the Floor Area Ratio stay at the 38% granted in March of 2004, and also for the
applicant to come back with an alternate proposal for the conference rooms, a feasible
alternative, staying at what’s already approved, the 38%.
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. BROWN-You may look to add some detail to that tabling motion, so the applicant goes
away with some direction and we know what to expect.
MR. ABBATE-Good idea.
MR. BROWN-They’re going to come back with Fire Marshal certification, or whatever you want
them to come back with. If there’s a list associated with the relief items, you may want to just
follow that. Conference room changes in the plan, whatever you want to see different.
MR. STONE-Well, refer to the comments that we all made.
MR. BROWN-When we pick up this application or this file, we’re going to look at the tabling
motion. We’re not going to need to go back through 25 pages of minutes to figure out what you
wanted. Paraphrase it, put it in the motion.
MR. BRYANT-Are we tabling this for 60 days, or what are we doing?
MR. BROWN-It’s up to you.
MR. LAPPER-We’d prefer 30.
MR. ABBATE-Here we go, guys. Don’t get me started again. You’re talking about 60 days.
You’re talking about 60 additional days of potential liability.
MR. LAPPER-We’d prefer to be back here quicker, and we’ll get the canopy down, Sam will, in
two days.
MR. ABBATE-Would you agree to the next available, next meeting, not available meeting, not
available meeting, but next meeting, a special meeting if necessary, Staff?
MR. BROWN-No, I would suggest you certainly do not do a special meeting.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-You don’t have a meeting next week. It would be the first May meeting.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t object, if the Board members don’t object, I don’t object.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Fair enough?
MR. BROWN-Okay. If that’s your desire, I’d prefer that you also include in your tabling motion
a date when this new information is submitted to us so we, and you, don’t get it the day before
the meeting.
MR. ABBATE-So what you’re suggesting is that you want a package deal. That sounds fair
enough to me, and quite frankly, I agree.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-So, in the motion, you should include what we have suggested, and also include
in there the fact that we would like documentation to be reassured that liability no longer exists.
MR. BRYANT-What about the length of time to take down the canopy?
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. ABBATE-Well, it’s going to be between now and the next meeting.
MR. URRICO-Can we make the motion up to 60 days, and it’s up to the applicant to make that
meeting? If they can get their act together in time for the next meeting.
MR. BROWN-No, they really can’t get their act together for the next meeting. The submittal
deadline was April 15, and they’ve missed that. So, by tabling it to the first meeting in May,
th
you’re giving them a little extension on the deadline, and it’s okay with me, but I’d just like to
have it clear.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, make it quite clear what we expect of the applicant, prior to the meeting.
MR. BROWN-For a list of information, and pick a date when you want that information
submitted.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Mr. Chairman, could I interject?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. JARRETT-Could we suggest two weeks to get the information in?
MR. BROWN-How long is it before the next meeting? It’s about a month before the next
meeting.
MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t have to go to the County.
MR. BROWN-No, it doesn’t have to go to the County. How about May 1?
st
MR. JARRETT-And tonight is the 20.
th
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. JARRETT-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Actually, May 1 is a Sunday, so how about May 2?
stnd
MR. BRYANT-So the submission of all documentation will be submitted no later than May the
2, to Staff.
nd
MR. JARRETT-And we will have the canopy down prior to that submission.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that will be included in all the documentation we were talking about, with
a letter from the Fire Marshal acknowledging this.
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven to zero to table with stipulations.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you for your time.
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. STONE-First of all, let me just say that I’m very proud of all of us tonight.
MR. ABBATE-That’s exactly what I was going to say. I was going to congratulate this Board on
an outstanding job, because it shows, as far as I’m concerned, credibility. It shows integrity,
and it shows a sense of responsibility for the Town, and I want that on the record, too.
MR. STONE-Okay. It’s on the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We still have Mr. Salvador. He had something.
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me, Mr. Salvador has requested five minutes of time for a special
presentation.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-A conference room of the sizes they’re talking about makes no sense. There’s
no economy in that small a room. The reason I’ve asked for a couple of minutes tonight is to
refer you to your meeting of February the 16, where we were given up to 90 days so that our
th
application could be deemed complete by Staff. Now the key here is it’s got to be deemed
complete by Staff before we’re allowed to come back to you, and we’re supposed to do it within
90 days. We’re making some progress. We had a meeting quite a while ago with Staff and
talked about all the open issues. We were kind of faced, at the last minute, with the County
denying our application. Remember this is the less than 120 foot, 120 square foot hunting and
fishing cabin. The County had a lot of concerns, and I don’t know if you recall them, but they
denied. Now, the problem with a denial is that it forces us into a supermajority of this Board,
and that’s another hurdle we have to get through, but in any case, you know, one of the issues
that the County brought up was the project site does not have a defined access for users or
emergency service. Now, this is a lot bordering a State highway, and it’s a residential lot. I
mean, it’s a small lot but it’s in a residential zone. Isn’t there a strong presumption on the part
of all of us in this community that if you have such a lot on a State highway that somehow,
some way emergency services have access to this lot, or if they don’t, somebody better do
something about it, and it’s not us citizens, but my point is that the County takes the trouble, on
this issue, to list six or seven problems they have, one of them being this emergency access, and
yet the one you just heard, there was No County Impact. So, anyway, we’re working on that.
One of the other things we discovered, after the meeting, that the Town Historian had put in a
letter and some and substance she says there are most likely Native American archeological
finds on the site which would need to be assessed before any building could be undertaken. So,
we’re faced with identifying that, before, I think, we can submit our application, our
information, so that the Staff can determine that our application is complete. So that’s
something where.
MR. STONE-You’re looking for an extension, Mr. Salvador?
MR. SALVADOR-Maybe not. Yes. The most important thing that came about, after the
hearing, was on March 4 the Town received a letter from New York State DEC, and I took the
th
particular trouble to notice the DEC and the DOT and the County on this project. Now
normally they get noticed sort of left handed, and they never really raised any comments, but I
wrote a special letter to the DEC and the DOT and Warren County, as they have property
interest bordering this lot, and property ownership bordering this lot. Well, I was able to get
the attention of the DEC, and the letter was sent to Craig Brown, and there’s a sentence in here
I’ll read. The Salvadors are presently challenging the State’s claim of ownership to this parcel in
Salvador v. Estate of Allison Ellsworth, currently pending before Judge Allicey, Warren County
Supreme Court, and that was a true statement when that was written. Judge Allicey has
rendered a decision in that case, just yesterday, or the day before, very recently, and of course
he dismisses everything, and one of the things he said in this decision was that we didn’t have
standing in that particular case. Now, parallel to this, and this issue, we brought an action, filed
a motion, excuse me, at the Appellate Division, seeking permission to sue the State of New York
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
for allowing inappropriate use of the forest preserve. Now, the lands that we’re talking about,
that border this lot, are titled in the People of the State of New York, and are supposed to be
administered as the forest preserve. As you know, the forest preserve is protected land. It’s not
supposed to be used, leased, rented, anyway, and the DEC does this. They allow this, and so
we have gone to court and asked permission to sue them, as we have to under Article V of,
Section V of Article 14 of the State Constitution. We got a notice on that just today, the
Appellate Division called, and they asked us to withdraw our motion. Withdraw our motion,
because Judge Allicey had said we had no standing. We had no standing. So what’s necessary
for us to do is to withdraw that motion, which, and we’ll have to file a new lawsuit, okay. Now
that all impacts this project. In any case, I really don’t think that that, what’s going on there,
with the Appellate Division, should disturb this at all. I think, since Mr. Brown has received
this letter from the State, and I have answered it, and I think I sent a copy to all of you, this is
our position, but I think it’s up to the Town, because they have entered the arena of this
application, it’s up to the Town to sort this out, who’s right. Now, I have, on my side in this
whole thing, and you were talking about that today, this one application about these Warren
County tax mapping agency. We’re here, in this application, because we have a tax parcel
number assigned to us by Warren County. Warren County tax mapping agency has the job to
determine the ownership of the land. They take deeds. They do title searches. They take maps.
They put this together, and they determine who has good title, and in this case, we have the
title. The DEC doesn’t agree, and this is the first time, this is great, that they’ve come out and
taken a position.
MR. BRYANT-Do you pay tax on that property?
MR. SALVADOR-Not yet. Yes, we did last year. Helen Otte has us assessed at $10,000, for this
lot, and we’re seeking to find out if we can build on it. That’s our lot and it’s being assessed. So
we’re trying to, you know, the smallest, least, that we can do something with this lot. So, in any
case, we’re in this position where the Staff must determine whether or not our application is
complete before it can come back to you, and we had this letter from the DEC on the record,
addressed to Staff, and I have written Craig Brown, and this is my side of the argument.
MR. ABBATE-Which letter addresses the fact that you’re an activist?
MR. BRYANT-I want to ask Staff a question. How come we didn’t get a, we got the Salvador’s
response, but we didn’t get the original DEC letter.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, it came in after the, it didn’t come in until after March 4, and there was
th
nothing, it’s in the file.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but we didn’t get that in our package. We did get Mr. Salvador’s letter.
MR. BROWN-Well, you received Mr. Salvador’s letter because he copied you on his response to
the DEC letter. You didn’t get the DEC letter because you haven’t received anything on the
application.
MR. BRYANT-That’s all going to be included in the application?
MR. BROWN-That would all be included when the application materials come back to you after
there’s another submittal. I don’t know when that 90 day time clock runs, or runs out, but.
MR. SALVADOR-This was February 16, so it would be May 16.
thth
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-When should I ask for extra time, tonight? May 16?
th
MR. BROWN-Well, there’s no other meeting before tonight and after May 16.
th
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
MR. BRYANT-Tonight’s the night.
MR. SALVADOR-This isn’t going to be settled in that amount of time. It took the Appellate
Division from early March to respond to our motion. Anyway, should I write a letter to you?
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m going to make a statement to you, which will, in effect, give members
of this Board an opportunity to think what they want to do. So it’s a stalling tactic, but I really,
sincerely mean this. You and I don’t always agree, but I do want to congratulate you and the
missus this evening, because you really have made a significant contribution on that last appeal
that we heard this evening, and I truly appreciate what you had to say, because I never even
thought of it that way, and I want to thank the both of you for that.
MR. SALVADOR-And, Mr. Chairman, we could have done an even better job if we’d have had
a couple of more minutes.
MR. ABBATE-No, five minutes.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Salvador, you have to learn to spit it out in five minutes. That’s all.
Consolidate your thoughts.
MR. STONE-Wait a minute, Mr. Salvador. We have always said, at least I always said, if you
have new information, you can speak for another five minutes.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you’re not the Chairman anymore.
MR. ABBATE-Sorry, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-The other thing you should appreciate, okay, we come here, you have the
packet, you have the drawings. We’re hearing it for the first time. We’re trying to put this
thing together. First you hear, a conference room, two conference rooms, in the cellar. We
know what it’s like to try to operate a conference room in the basement of a building. Upstairs,
that’s incredible.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s why it’s important to have public input, because I was concentrating
on the liability, and I never thought about what you folks had to say. So it’s critical that we
have input.
MR. BRYANT-Can we address the topic at hand, please?
MR. ABBATE-What’s the topic at hand?
MR. BRYANT-Is to give this gentleman his application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Salvador, are you officially requesting from this Board a 60 day
extension? If so, state it?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, we’re requesting a 60 day extension, variance request.
MR. ABBATE-Then I will put it to the Board for a vote to extend Mr. Salvador’s application for
60 days.
MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2005 JOHN SALVADOR, JR., Introduced
by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Extended for a period of 90 days from April 2005.
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/05)
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 3-2005 has been granted a 90 day extension.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Now, gentlemen, ladies, we have a couple of things we have to do before we go, I
do believe, minutes of the meeting. Do you want to read them for us?
MS. GAGLIARDI-The minutes of the meeting of February 16, 2005.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Who was here?
MS. GAGLIARDI-I don’t have them with me.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have February’s. I was here. Mr. Stone was here. The safest way to do
this, we’ll do them next time.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to hold off on the minutes of the
meeting because we have no records at the present time as to who was here.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Acting Chairman
63