1999-09-22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE
ROBERT MC NALLY
CHARLES MC NULTY
DANIEL STEC
PAUL HAYES
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHRIS THOMAS
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. STONE-Before I start, if anybody is here for Area Variance No. 76-1999 Donna Hurley and
Charles Wilkison, it’s the last item on the agenda, and it will not be heard tonight, but if somebody
was here, we might have a public hearing. If no one shows up, we’ll just ignore it for the evening.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1999 TYPE II SFR-10 LEWIS & SUSAN OVITT OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 118 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A
SWIMMING POOL IN THE SIDE YARD AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP
NO. 114-2-2 AND 3 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES, AND 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-67
LEWIS & SUSAN OVITT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 84-1999, Lewis & Susan Ovitt, Meeting Date: September 22,
1999 “Project Location: 118 Dixon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of an above ground pool and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant
requests 11 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback, 8 feet of relief from the 10 foot
minimum side setback and 2 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation requirement for an
accessory structure per § 179-67, Accessory Structures and Uses. Further relief is requested to have a
pool in a yard other than the rear yard. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to
construct and utilize an additional recreational area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives
may include a smaller pool, relocation, and eliminating the deck area. 3. Is this relief substantial
relative to the ordinance?: The cumulative requests may be interpreted as moderate to substantial.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The
difficulty be interpreted as self created. However, the pre-existing location of the home may
contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History: (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None
applicable Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
proposed location of the pool with the deck area within 2 feet of the neighboring property may
present a significant visual and audible impact. Consideration should be given to screening views and
sounds from adjacent properties as well as from Dixon Road. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STEC-And nothing from the County.
MR. STONE-Before we start, this is two lots but you own them both?
MR. OVITT-Yes, it is.
MR. STONE-It’s only one residence on two lots?
MR. OVITT-Yes.
MR. STONE-Are they combined for tax purposes?
MRS. OVITT-We had them combined.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. OVITT-Yes, we did have them combined. I believe I brought a notice of that up.
MR. BROWN-There’s a consolidation request in the file.
MR. STONE-Okay. Should that be read, or at least noted.
MR. STEC-Yes. There is a consolidation of Tax Map Parcels 114-2-2 and 114-2-3.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we are talking one parcel of land.
MR. OVITT-Yes.
MR. STONE-Anything you want to tell us?
MR. OVITT-I talked to the neighbor behind us. My name is Lewis Ovitt. I’m the owner of the
residence, and he has no problem, and I talked to my other neighbor.
MR. STONE-You talked to whom? I’m sorry. A neighbor. I heard owner. My fault.
MR. OVITT-I talked to both neighbors, and one neighbor, she’s concerned with the noise, and the
view, too.
MR. MC NALLY-Which neighbor was that?
MR. OVITT-It would be the one on, Mrs. Wilson.
MR. STONE-Is she the one to the left or to the rear?
MR. OVITT-It would be the left, the one of the left side of me.
MR. HAYES-So like 120 Dixon Road then?
MR. OVITT-No. She’d be on Hughes Court. Right on the corner of Hughes and Dixon.
MR. HAYES-So you’re on the corner, then.
MR. STONE-No, they’re not on the corner.
MR. HAYES-The neighbor that he had spoke to. This is the Wilson, then, 114.2.
MR. OVITT-She suggested that I put it in the front yard, in front of the garage.
MR. STONE-That’s more variance than you’d want to consider. I mean, you’re asking for a lot of
relief per the Ordinance. I mean, that’s not to say this won’t be granted, but it is a lot of relief, and
sometimes that does get into our deliberations.
MR. OVITT-Well, I tried turning it, but no matter which way I turned it, I got closer to the garage,
and then when all the snow comes off the roof of the garage, it would be right in the pool.
MR. STONE-That garage, what is the room to the back of the garage, to the rear of your property?
MRS. OVITT-That’s garage.
MR. STONE-With the door there.
MR. OVITT-That’s just an eight foot storage room.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-Isn’t there like a little porch kind of thing or like a little living room on one end?
MR. OVITT-Yes. It’s eight by nineteen.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s the side closest to the house?
MR. STONE-The side closest to the pool.
MR. OVITT-Yes. That’s the side closest to the pool.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-And what is that again, you say?
MR. OVITT-Well, you could use it for anything, I guess. I’ve got a pool table stuck in there right
now.
MR. STONE-Okay, but is there water in there?
MR. OVITT-No, there’s no plumbing at all in there, no.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s just an additional part of the garage, in a sense?
MR. OVITT-Yes.
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. MC NALLY-Did you submit a survey or a map showing exactly where you’re going to place
this pool?
MR. OVITT-Yes, I did.
MR. STONE-It’s in there.
MR. MC NALLY-I didn’t get a copy of that.
MR. HAYES-Neither did I.
MR. MC NALLY-When I visited it, there was yellow tape marked off the property. Is that the
boundary of the pool?
MR. OVITT-Yes, that’s just about where the pool is going to sit.
MR. STONE-I had to work to find it today myself.
MR. OVITT-I have a statement here from a neighbor behind me.
MR. STONE-You can give it to us and we’ll read it into the record.
MR. OVITT-Okay.
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Anything else you want to add?
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got the pieces of the pool there. You bought a used pool?
MR. OVITT-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So, can I ask how much you paid for it?
MR. OVITT-Well, $300 for the pool, and then $450 for the liner. The liner’s new. I’m not going to
put that in now.
MR. MC NALLY-You went ahead and purchased it without having a variance or anything?
MR. OVITT-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So you’ve already purchased the liner, then?
MR. OVITT-Yes. I’ve purchased.
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. OVITT-If the noise is a problem, I will put up a stockade fence.
MR. STONE-We’ll get to that. You show on the drawing here, two-car garage, storage, and then
additional storage, that’s where the pool table is?
MR. OVITT-Yes. The additional storage is what I put up. The rest was all there, and the garage
itself is pretty much on the property line.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-And you did have a permit to do that, then?
MR. OVITT-Yes, I did.
MR. STONE-When was that done?
MR. OVITT-June, maybe, May/June.
MR. STONE-You have no parcel history. Building permits don’t have to be on here?
MR. BROWN-This one really didn’t effect the area of the construction. So I didn’t really include it.
There was a building permit issued for that addition, though.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-And, Craig, they’re asking for two feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum
separation requirement for accessory structures. Where?
MR. BROWN-Between the house and the pool.
MR. OVITT-No, no, between her property line and the pool.
MR. MC NALLY-This drawing shows an eight-foot difference between the house and the deck.
MR. BROWN-The requirement is 10 feet.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So it’s not two-foot. I read this as two feet between the house and the
deck.
MR. BROWN-Two feet of relief, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. STONE-Well, two feet of relief, no, it’s eight feet of relief.
MR. MC NALLY-I read it that way. That’s the way I read it.
MR. STONE-What is the accessory structure? Where is this two feet of relief for the?
MR. HAYES-Between the house and the pool.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, there’s going to be eight feet.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. The pool is two, the deck is two. All right.
MR. BROWN-The pool is proposed two feet from the property line on the other end. So it depends
on which end you’re talking about.
MR. STONE-Yes, I understand. Okay. Any other questions? I’ll open the public hearing, if not.
I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor?
Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JIM WILSON
MR. WILSON-My name is Jim Wilson. I am a resident of the Town of Bolton, not a resident of
Queensbury, and the lady in question, on 2 Hughes Court, which is the neighbor, is my mother. I’d
like to first say that my mother does not object to the construction of the pool. She primarily objects
to where it’s going to be constructed. You gentlemen, and ladies and gentlemen, have looked at the
maps. The way my mother’s house is structured is that there is a deck that my mother has in the rear
of her house that faces directly toward the rear of the cement garage of the neighbor. If you look
north, that’s my mother’s garage. If you look east, that’s the neighbor’s garage. If you looked south,
that is the only visual relief she gets. The pool itself would be placed in that area. Not only would it
effect the visual relief she has, but also it would be very close to her bedroom. My mother lives
alone. My dad passed away a number of years ago. Our suggestion was possibly, and you had
indicated before it would require more relief, if you look at the tax maps, the lot that these people
have is a double lot. It’s to place the pool on the north end of their property, which would face
Dixon Road, would also be adjacent to my mother’s property, which is a big lawn, that would work,
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
or if you place it on the other side of their driveway, that would work as well. I think the neighbor
on their east has a pool in that area, also. It’s unfortunate that the neighbors went out and purchased
this, but because of the relief, the visual and the noise aspect of it, she voices an objection to it.
MR. STONE-So your mother’s lot is the corner lot.
MR. WILSON-Right, corner lot, 2 Hughes Court and Dixon Road.
MR. STONE-Right. Anything else?
MR. WILSON-Would that be feasible? You indicated before that would require more relief than
he’s asking for right now. My mother would approve that.
MR. STONE-Pools in the front yard are very difficult.
MR. WILSON-This is a rather large front yard, if you gentlemen have seen it.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, we’ve all been there.
MR. STONE-We’ve all been there.
MR. HAYES-We’re required to go.
MR. WILSON-How about in front of the house halfway down the front lawn?
MR. STONE-Well, first of all the applicant has to agree to that, and we have to agree to it, and I can
only say in my history on the Board, we have never put a pool in the front yard.
MR. WILSON-There’s always a first time.
MR. STONE-You’re right. There’s always a first time. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed?
MR. MC NALLY-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
JOYCE WILSON
MRS. WILSON-Okay. My name is Joyce Wilson, Town of Queensbury. The noise would be a
bother to me, but I’m sort of, you know, I can’t go out and sit on my lawn, or my deck, you know, if
there’s a party out there. I can’t have any quiet to myself, and I do spend a lot of time on that deck.
That’s my biggest concern.
MR. MC NALLY-Where do you live?
MRS. WILSON-Right behind them.
MR. STONE-That’s the mother.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re at 2 Hughes Court?
MRS. WILSON-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-I see.
MRS. WILSON-But I understand their lot is 72 feet long. That’s what we’re talking about, then.
The pool is only 40 feet. So that gives you some leeway there, doesn’t it?
MR. STONE-No comment at this point.
MR. MC NALLY-Do you want to say that again?
MRS. WILSON-The lot that we’re talking about I understand is 72 feet long, and the pool is 40 feet
long. So you’ve got 32 feet before you get to the road. Why is that a problem?
MR. HAYES-I think it’s more than 72, isn’t it?
MR. STONE-I don’t have a survey. So it’s hard to tell.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. MC NALLY-An inch is 100 feet. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MRS. WILSON-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak opposed or for? Any correspondence?
MR. STEC-I have a Record of Telephone Conversation, dated September 22 at 2:45 p.m., between
nd
a neighbor of Ovitt and Zoning Office, Subject: Area Variance No. 84-1999, Lewis & Susan Ovitt
“Concerned about late night noise and pool parties. Has objection only to noise levels.” Do we
know who that neighbor was? It doesn’t say. It doesn’t say who the neighbor was, and that’s the
only correspondence.
MR. STONE-Okay, and I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Bob, do you want to go first? Lets talk
about it.
MR. MC NALLY-I was actually struck by how little I could tell where the property line was in this
parcel, and I was not sure about your measurements, not only because they didn’t have a copy of
your map that you supplied, but I wasn’t sure where you were placing the pool, and I’m glad you told
me that the tape delineated where it was. There’s a good space between your garage and where you
place the pool. I show 38 feet between the two.
MRS. OVITT-I did that so she could have a view. I didn’t want to turn it the long way, because she
couldn’t see.
MR. MC NALLY-But if you move the pool, what is it, south? North, toward the garage, that would
alleviate the rear setback problem. Would that lessen or worsen the problem for the neighbors?
MR. STONE-We have just a sketch, a GIS drawing of your house. The deck is on the south end of
the house? This is your mother’s house right here?
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. STONE-So the deck is right up against the garage, almost, on the property line.
MR. WILSON-There’s probably about three feet between the garage and the deck, and there’s a
fence that goes up.
MR. STONE-Okay, but if the pool were, and your mother says, you’re saying she looks out this way.
I mean, her span of vision is out this way. Lets say right now it’s from here to here, and if the pool
came up this way, as Mr. McNally was wondering, then it gets closer.
MR. WILSON-It worsens the problem.
MR. STONE-It actually gets in behind the garage a little more, though.
MR. WILSON-If you put the pool up here, you’re really are going to have this space here.
MR. STONE-Yes. It’s just the way they chose, in one sense, and this may very well come up, move
the house or they don’t get a variance. We have that option. We can’t make them move the house.
We cannot do that. We haven’t done that yet. Okay, Bob, I’m sorry. Keep going.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Well, we’ve got that squared away. The other thing, sir, you’re building
your deck right on your neighbor’s line, right?
MRS. OVITT-No, this pool is complete. The deck’s and stuff is attached.
MR. MC NALLY-I understand, but the deck is going to be two feet from your neighbor’s line.
MRS. OVITT-Two feet from our fence.
MR. MC NALLY-From Mrs. Wilson’s line. Did you give any thought to building the deck on the
north side of the property, and again, is that going to make it even worse? Because if you built your
deck on the north side, there would be no variance requirement on that side.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. OVITT-I can put the deck on either end of that pool.
MR. MC NALLY-How about on the side of the pool, though?
MR. OVITT-I can do that and meet the 10 feet from her fence.
MR. MC NALLY-Then you wouldn’t need a variance, there.
MRS. OVITT-No, but it would block her view there. That’s the reason I didn’t do that.
MR. MC NALLY-If they put their deck on the north side of the pool, would that be worse or better?
MRS. OVITT-Can I show her this, so she can see the map?
MR. STONE-Sure. Why don’t you come up to the table, so we can hear what you’re telling her.
MRS. OVITT-They’re talking about, this is the deck, and there’s the two feet between our fence.
They’re talking about taking this, like I told you the other night, and moving it here, but then I
thought that would block you more. What do you think?
MRS. WILSON-Yes, it would. If you do it lengthwise instead of the way you’re doing it.
MR. MC NALLY-Let me suggest this, too. Suppose we have them reconfigure the pool, and put up
screening, screening in the sense of a stockade fence, perhaps, and also some shrubbery?
MRS. WILSON-I’m not going to see anything there from my deck. The garage has got three-
quarters of it already taken, actually all of it, and half of my bedroom window. I mean, really.
MR. MC NALLY-What is your view to right now? There’s not much there.
MRS. WILSON-No, there’s not.
MRS. OVITT-She’s talking about her bedroom.
MR. STONE-The bedroom is on the south end of the house?
MRS. WILSON-Yes.
MR. OVITT-Her window is right in our back yard.
MRS. OVITT-See, right here where that indent goes, the garage, her sliding glass doors are right
there, and then her bedroom’s about right here.
MRS. WILSON-I feel like I’m being gobbled up.
MR. MC NALLY-I think they can reconfigure the pool to meet the Code.
MR. STONE-Well, they can clock the pool.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes. I don’t care about the distance to the house that the Ovitts own themselves.
It’s a minimal variance in that regard. I’m not sure, the only one that complains is the one neighbor,
and they complain when it meets Code. They don’t complain when it violates Code. So I’m not sure
where I stand on that. I’d just as soon see the pool meet Code. There’s an ability to do that.
MR. STONE-Have you considered turning the pool 90 degrees? Making it?
MRS. OVITT-The snow and the ice would come off from where the roof slants and damage the
pool if we turned it completely that way. Then it would take up the whole fence, which she wouldn’t
see anything.
MR. STONE-Well, it would be closer to your house. It would be more behind the garage. I mean,
right now, we’re not supposed to see the pool. Lets talk about the Code. We’re not supposed to see
the pool from Dixon Road. That’s the Code.
MRS. OVITT-And we’re willing to put up a stockade fence, landscaping or anything.
MR. STONE-No. We’re not supposed to see anything related to the pool from Dixon Road. That’s
the Code that you’re seeking the variance from.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MRS. OVITT-Yes, but I have a tree there. I have shrubbery out.
MR. STONE-Listen to me. I’m not arguing. I’m just saying the Code says the pool should be
behind the house so that none of it is visible from the street. That’s the Code.
MRS. OVITT-Right.
MR. STONE-You can’t get it behind the house. That’s obvious. You have a garage, in this case,
which may serve as a buffer, and even if you put it vertically, you probably can’t get it totally screened
from the road, but if you turned it so that it was facing north/south, I hear you about the snow, but I
don’t know how close, see, if the pool is 32 feet long, and you turned it.
MRS. OVITT-It would block that great big window, plus the snow was our concern, plus I have a
tree there.
MR. MC NALLY-But that’s a single story garage. I was there. It’s got an asphalt shingled roof.
There can’t be a great problem with snow coming off that roof.
MRS. OVITT-Yes, it is. It’s all metal. It really comes off.
MR. MC NALLY-And if it comes off, where would it hang off? Would you put the deck underneath
there? With a deck underneath there, how much could it cost?
MR. STEC-Or I would suggest turning the pool 90 degrees and moving the deck to one side. Then
that gets you further away from the garage. I think reconfiguring, there’s a way to get this mostly
into Code.
MR. WILSON-Have we ruled out the premise that they could put it in the front yard?
MR. STONE-I think so.
MR. WILSON-How much of a variance would we have to go through, if everyone agrees to that, if
my mother agrees to that, the neighbors? What do we have to go through to get that approved?
MR. STONE-You have to convince us. Would we be convinced, gentlemen? I don’t think we’d be
convinced. We have never done it, and we would not create a precedence. We just wouldn’t do.
MR. WILSON-You’re talking about visual from the road, you’re going to see it from Hughes Court
as well.
MR. STONE-You can see it from Hughes Court, but it’s across another lot. We’re talking. All they
have is responsibility for their own property, and the Code says that on their property the pool
cannot be seen from the street on which the lot is situated.
MR. MC NALLY-I think they can reconfigure it.
MR. STONE-I would think so. I would like to think you’d try to come back with a, or let us do it,
but I would like you to agree to a configuration that would require less variance. I was struck by the
fact that this requires a lot of variance. When I hear Mrs. Wilson talk about taking away her view,
when there are alternatives which would minimize that, and obviously, we’re going to have to, if we
grant you some relief, we’re going to have to grant you some visual relief from Dixon Road. I mean,
that’s a given, I think.
MRS. OVITT-But that would make her view worse, if we turned it.
MRS. WILSON-If you turned it 90 degrees.
MR. OVITT-I don’t think they understand what we’re talking about.
MR. STONE-I don’t think so.
MRS. OVITT-If we take this and turn it, it’s going to block her whole.
MR. STONE-No, we’re talking about putting it over here, though, a little bit, closer to your house.
MRS. OVITT-Yes, but it’s still going to block her view. Her view is to our house.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-Well, I would think her view is toward the open area, if that’s what we’re talking about
a view.
MRS. OVITT-This never was open.
MR. STONE-Well, there’s a fence back there, I understand, a hedge.
MRS. OVITT-We took it down. There’s trees all through here, a chain link fence.
MR. STONE-I hear what you’re saying, Mrs. Ovitt. I think, and I think the rest of the Board seems
to be thinking, that there would be less visual impact on the neighbor if you put it here, this way,
vertically, and then we would figure out what kind of relief you’d need from.
MRS. OVITT-I have another reason for that. We plan on, next year, trying to put an addition on for
a family room, which would adjoin off that.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s the problem, you see. You’re taking a lot which is a very difficult
lot to do anything on, and you’re asking for an awful lot of relief, and, I mean, we could easily say,
you can’t have it. I mean, that’s an option open to us, and if we discuss this, we may get to that
point, if there’s no willingness on your part to consider another option. I don’t want to speak for the
Board.
MRS. OVITT-But wouldn’t I be legal if the guy okays it and if we turn that.
MR. STONE-The guy has nothing to do with it. It’s what we do. Your neighbors could all say they
love it, and we could say we hate it.
MR. MC NALLY-You can have a smaller pool. You can have a round pool. There’s a lot of options
you can have short of what you’re planning here, which is asking for a lot of relief.
MR. STONE-As I say, we can continue our discussion, and we can listen to each other talk, and we
can make a motion.
MR. STEC-What about moving the deck from here to this side of the pool?
MRS. OVITT-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s a possibility.
MR. STEC-I mean, because that would eliminate the requirement for this side setback relief.
MRS. OVITT-That’s what we want to do.
MR. STEC-Leave the pool in this direction, but move the deck over here.
MRS. OVITT-Right, and that’s what we discussed. She’d prefer it, if it had to be, that it didn’t come
over in this area.
MR. STONE-Well, lets keep talking. Bob, do you hear anything that you can live with or not live
with?
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t like the idea that it’s two feet from one line and they need 11 feet of relief
off the other line, and I think there are options. They purchased a pool so big, it’s self-created.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I guess I feel about the same way Bob does. I’d be a lot happier if the deck
weren’t on the end of the pool where we had to be just two feet from the lot line. It’s a difficult
situation, because this is one of those lots that you could easily argue is, just can’t accommodate a
pool. I guess the way it’s currently configured, I’d be opposed to it. I’d consider it if the deck were
moved around to the side, and eliminate that one problem next to the lot line.
MR. STONE-Dan?
MR. STEC-Frankly, I tend to agree with the other Board members. I think as far as, the Staff Notes
say that we are to consider relief to have a pool in the yard other than the rear yard, and given the
garage, as was mentioned earlier, is a buffer, and the depth of the lot, I’m comfortable in granting
that relief. However, that is to say that I think it would set a dangerous precedent, and we’ve had
people ask, and I think it’s important for us to consistent, in fairness to the others that have come
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
before us as far as pools in front yards. I think that’s definitely not the way to go. I do think that
there is a way to accommodate the size of the pool that’s already been bought, if the applicant is
willing to re-orient the pool in the back, and I would feel a lot better getting it further from the side
line. I’m not as concerned with the relief required from the rear line, but I think that if there’s a
willingness to compromise on the applicant and the neighbor, I think there’s a way to fit the pool in
the yard that they’re talking about. If they shifted it around, that would keep it further away from
that side setback relief. So I prefer to see some sort of variation on what’s proposed here before us.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree with the other Board members. Cumulatively, I don’t think that the test has
been met here in this particular circumstance. The relief is 80%, in one particular case of the overall
setback requirement, and we immediate impact neighbor objection. To me, that would be very
difficult to get over that, as it currently fits. I think that there is something that could be approved
here, and I would be happy to entertain that notion, but at this particular time, I would be against the
pool as configured at this time. I think there’s work to be done.
MR. STONE-I agree with my fellow Board members, which, to me, a pool does not belong in the
front yard of a house. That’s the zoning code. To me, it’s common sense. A pool is a wonderful
thing for people who own it. It can be an attractive nuisance, certainly in the front yard. Even
though it’s protected, it can be seen by many more people than just the immediate neighbors around,
and therefore, that is why the zoning calls for pools being in the back yards, calls for them actually to
be behind the house, so you don’t even know that the house in question has a pool. Having said that
and listened to my fellow Board members, there are two options. One, we can draft a motion which
says, on the basis of what I heard, that we will deny the variance application, or, you can ask us to
table this application and come back with an alternative plan which meets some of the objections
that you’ve heard. The call is yours. There’s a number of considerations that have been put out
today. Maybe you can work with Mrs. Wilson and her son and find a way to work it best in that
particular area. It is the only area that we would even consider for a pool on that property, but the
way it stands right now, as you heard, the Board members do not feel that they are inclined to grant
this variance. So the call is yours. Do you want us to draft a motion denying the variance, or do you
want to table it and come back within one to two months?
MRS. OVITT-Table it and come back.
MR. STONE-Okay. Is that acceptable to everybody if we do that?
MR. MC NALLY-That’s fine. Could I also point out to the applicant, Mrs. Ovitt, Mr. Ovitt. Did
you know you were building it over your septic tank, in part?
MR. OVITT-No, the septic’s on the other side of the house.
MR. MC NALLY-Not according to the plan you gave us.
MRS. OVITT-I know, we made a mistake on the first one.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. OVITT-Yes. There was a piece of cement there. I thought that was septic, until I dug it up.
It’s not the septic.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. OVITT-But we’ll meet with Mrs. Wilson. We’ll go out in the yard, and her and I will try to work
this out, and draw up another plan and come back here.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1999 LEWIS & SUSAN OVITT,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
The applicant proposes construction of an aboveground pool and seeks setback relief. The applicant
has expressed a willingness to revise the plans presented to us in conjunction with the neighbor, and
having heard the comments made by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This will be tabled for 62 days,
and if a revision is available before the end of the month, it may appear in October, otherwise it
would appear on the November meeting, if the revision gets in during the month of October.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas
MR. STONE-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1999 TYPE II SR-1A THOMAS R. FITZGERALD OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 123 SHERMAN ISLAND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS
SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 150-1-6.17 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 179-19
THOMAS R. FITZGERALD, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 85-1999, Thomas R. Fitzgerald, Meeting Date: September 22,
1999 “Project Location: 123 Sherman Island Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 400 sf addition to a single family residence and seeks setback relief.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 1 foot of relief from the 5 foot minimum side setback
requirement of the old SR-30 zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to
construct an addition and gain living space for the existing home. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may include a smaller, compliant addition and relocation of the addition to the
rear of the house. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6 feet and 3 feet of
relief from the 10 and 30 foot requirements may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None
applicable. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this
action. A letter from the most affected neighbor conveys support for the proposal. SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. STEC-And I don’t see anything from the County.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Fitzgerald come forward, please. State your name, for the record.
MR. FITZGERALD-Thomas R. Fitzgerald.
MR. STONE-Anything more you want to add to your application?
MR. FITZGERALD-I have an additional letter from Tim Brewer who lives in the neighborhood.
MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll read it in during the public hearing, if you want to give it to Mr. Stec. Any
questions of the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-I have questions of Staff. Where do you get SR-30 from?
MR. BROWN-Yes. It was originally misidentified. The SR-30 zoning was the zoning that was
approved at the time, it was enforced at the time the subdivision was approved, and the original
identification neglected to uncover that.
MR. MC NALLY-What is the current zoning, then?
MR. STONE-SR-1A.
MR. BROWN-SR-1A.
MR. STONE-And for the record zoning in operation at the time, since there was zoning, continues
through the life of the subdivision.
MR. BROWN-Right. As long as any proposed construction on property concurs with the setback
requirements at the time the subdivision was approved, it’s considered compliant. If you want to see
it, I have a copy of a portion of the subdivision map that states what the setbacks are. I don’t know
if you’re interested in that or not.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. MC NALLY-I’ll take your word for it. That’s fine. Do we do that just customarily, to maintain
the existing side setbacks? Just customarily, you always have done that?
MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s in the Ordinance.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. STONE-Is this tree going to stay?
MR. FITZGERALD-The Oak tree? No.
MR. STONE-No. Okay. I see it on your picture. All right. Any other questions of the applicant?
I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anybody in
favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Anybody opposed? Would you read the
correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STEC-Sure. I have a letter dated September 20, 1999 “Dear Zoning Board Members: We are
writing in reference to Area Variance No. 85-1999 Mr. Thomas Fitzgerald located on Sherman Island
Rd. As neighbors, my wife and I have talked with Tom upon receiving our notice and feel that the
addition to his home would not be out of character or in any other way be a detriment to our
neighborhood. We feel the addition will be a positive asset to his home and we would like to be on
record as having no objection. Thank you, Tim and Robin Brewer”
MR. STONE-And where do they live?
MR. STEC-I’m sorry, 46 Candleberry Dr. Queensbury.
MR. STONE-Okay. Would you do me a favor, Mr. Stec. Read the name of the person who wrote
the letter before you read the letter.
MR. STEC-I’m sorry.
MR. STONE-No, it’s just something I like done so that I know at least to whom I’m listening to.
MR. STEC-Okay. I have a letter from David McDonald and Joann McDonald, dated August 23,
1999, Town of Queensbury “Dear Sirs: As neighbors of Tom and Mary Fitzgerald, we have been
inform of their planned addition to their home. We understand that this construction will be within
four feet of the property line. We have given them our approval to go ahead as it poses us no
problem. Sincerely, David McDonald Joann M. McDonald”
MR. STONE-And for the record, they are immediately to your south.
MR. FITZGERALD-Correct.
MR. STONE-The most affected property owner.
MR. FITZGERALD-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else want to speak? Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Fitzgerald? Hearing none, Mr. McNulty, what do you think?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any big problem with it, especially considering the existing zoning for
this plot of land. It doesn’t look to me like it’s going to be really close to the neighbor. One foot out
of five foot strikes me as being relatively minimal. I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Mr. Stec?
MR. STEC-Well, considering the five criteria that we’re supposed to consider, there’s clear benefit to
the applicant in the expansion of the home. Feasible alternatives, I suppose one could argue that a
feasible alternative might be to place the addition to the rear of the house. However, the amount of
relief sought, one foot from a five-foot requirement, in my opinion, is minimal, and hearing no
objections from the neighborhood or community, I could think of none to add myself, and is the
difficulty self-created? Well, only in that the applicant’s trying to improve the home. So, weighing
the five criteria, I don’t have any problem with granting this variance.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes?
MR. HAYES-I agree. I mean, it’s extremely minimal relief, that one foot. If we’re a panel charged
with granting reasonable relief under positive circumstances, I think that fits the definition exactly.
It’s a well-kept piece of property. I think I actually myself personally agree that it’s a natural place to
put an addition on this particular parcel. So I have no problem with this whatsoever.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNally?
MR. MC NALLY-I looked at it before I realized it was SR-30, and at that time, I thought you were
asking for even more relief than you really are asking for now.
MR. FITZGERALD-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And I didn’t have a problem with it before, because the distance between where
you’re proposing the addition and where your neighbor’s home is, is a fair distance. It’ll still be
screened by shrubs and a few trees and what not, and I didn’t think it would have any significant
impact whatsoever on the neighborhood at all. So I would be with the other Board members, to be
in favor of the proposal.
MR. STONE-I certainly concur with my fellow Board members. I wish they were all as easy. It’s a
very attractive piece of property. Obviously, the addition is going to be in keeping with the character
of the home and the character of the neighborhood, and I heartily agree that this variance should be
granted. Having said so, I’ll ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1999 THOMAS R. FITZGERALD,
Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
123 Sherman Island Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 400 square foot addition to a
single-family residence, and seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant is requesting one foot of
relief from the 5-foot minimum side setback requirement of the old SR-30 zone. The benefit to the
applicant would be the applicant would be permitted to construct an addition and gain living space
for the existing home. Feasible alternatives may include a smaller compliant addition or relocation of
the addition to the rear of the house. However, the proposed location seems to be a logical location.
The relief is minimal and relative to the Ordinance, one foot out of the five-foot requirement.
Effects on the neighborhood and community should be minimal, as a result of this action, and while
the difficulty can be interpreted as being self-created, again, it’s a logical place to put the addition.
For those reasons, I move we approve Area Variance No. 85-1999.
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas
MR. STONE-There you go. Go and get your building permit.
MR. MC NALLY-Enjoy your addition.
MR. FITZGERALD-Thanks for your kindness.
MR. STONE-Remember, you need a building permit.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-1999 TYPE II SR-1A CLUTE ENTERPRISES, INC.
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF FIFTH ST. EXT., 350 FT. WEST OF
CAROLINE ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES CREATION OF A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION
AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 18-1999 TAX MAP NO. 131-8-26 LOT SIZE:
2.40 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-70
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 90-1999, Clute Enterprises, Inc., Meeting Date: September 22,
1999 “Project Location: South side of Fifth Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
proposes a two-lot subdivision and requests relief from the minimum road frontage requirements.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 15.26 feet of relief, for each lot, from the 40 foot minimum
road frontage requirement of the Frontage on Public Streets, § 179-70. Criteria for considering an
Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant
would be permitted to create an additional building lot. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include acquisition of additional lands. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: A total of 30.52 feet of relief from the combined 80-foot requirement may be
interpreted as moderate. (38%) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate
effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-
created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 18-99 pending review 9/28/99 Staff comments: Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed lots comply with the
area requirements for this zone. This office will be recommending a joint drive onto Fifth Street.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Anything from the County?
MR. STEC-I don’t think so, no.
MR. STONE-Mr. Steves.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves, with Van Dusen and Steves, and I represent
Clute Enterprises, and Larry Clute, President of Clute Enterprises, is with me. As far as the
subdivision that is before you with the variance, it is a two lot, on a 2.4 acre piece of property. As
you can see, with the map that’s in place in front of you, this would keep more in characteristic with
the surrounding neighborhood, create a little bit more of a community, instead of just putting one
house out in back, behind a lot of other ones, kind of creates a little bit nicer atmosphere back there,
and as far as the request from the Staff for a common driveway, we have no problem with that. As a
matter of fact, it is recommended and shown for the subdivision, for the Planning Board, also. So
we have no problem with a common driveway. With a 50-foot lot, we think that’s more of a realistic
alternative anyway.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of Mr. Steves? No questions? Then I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anybody in favor? Anybody want to speak
opposed to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
TRACY WELLER
MRS. WELLER-Hi. My name is Tracy Weller. I live at 48 Caroline Street. The proposed land is
right behind my house. One concern that I have is the wildlife.
MR. STONE-Which property, because I see Neilands. Caroline’s over here. Can you tell me?
MRS. WELLER-Right where Neilands was, we bought his house.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s the Neilands.
MRS. WELLER-We’ve been living at this residence for about two and a half years now. One of my
concerns is the wildlife. Last year, Clute Enterprises put four houses at the end of Caroline, at the
corner of Caroline and Knight Street. When that happened, we have since had two birds fly through
our windows because the birds have no place to go. We also have deer coming up to our back yard,
in the wintertime, and I don’t know where they’re supposed to go, because obviously Queensbury’s
growing, and the housing is just going to make everything go out. Secondly, actually, one of my
biggest concerns is the privacy. Right now, we look out our sunroom, and there’s nice woods, and
pretty soon there’s going to be a house behind my house, and we’re just not going to have any
privacy. I want to be able to go out into my back yard and do whatever without having to worry
about neighbors looking into my back yard. I think that’s about it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
LILLIAN WOOD
MRS. WOOD-My name is Lillian Wood, and I live at 210 Fifth Street.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-You’re right at the corner of that piece of property?
MRS. WOOD-We’re the second house, I’m the second house in from the corner of Caroline and
Fifth, and I feel the same as this other lady did, that the wildlife has been great out there. If they cut
anymore of the trees down and they build more houses, and it sort of disrupts the whole area. Not
only that, but there’s a lot of traffic on that road, with the houses that were built last year, before
houses that were built, there’s like eight or ten cars that are up and down the street now, more than
what we had before. I enjoy being out in my back yard and not having someone else there, looking
into my yard. Side yards are something different. We have to do that. As far as the subdivision, I
don’t feel that we need more houses there. We have houses in the area now that are for sale, and I
don’t think that we need more there to add to it. Our school can’t handle. Well, we already have,
and they just built on. I have a petition here, of 55 people.
MR. STEC-We’ll read it into the record later.
MRS. WOOD-Okay. I have 55 people here that do not want it, for the simple reason that there’s
too much already there. The houses are close, and there’s just too much. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Give this to Mr. Stec and we’ll read it later. Who’s next?
MR. HAYES-Mr. Clute, is this property under contract now, or do you own it?
MR. CLUTE-No, I own it.
SUE JOHNSON
MRS. JOHNSON-My name is Sue Johnson, and I live at 216 Fifth Street Extension. The land that’s
in question is right next to me. I have four small children, grade school age children, and to put a
driveway or a road, an access road of any sort, and to limit how much space you’re going to put
between that and my house, infringes a lot on my property. My bedroom window’s on that side. My
son’s bedroom window is on that side. You could crack our foundation. You could flood our
basement. If he’s going to put homes back there, that’s sewer lines, power lines, traffic. I’m strongly
opposed to it. I’m President of our PTA at Big Cross Street. Our school cannot handle more
children. We’re up to three teachers per grade level now. The wildlife, as everyone else said. I’ll
drag in every Conservationist from New York State if I have to. We have deer. We have videotape
of deer in our back yard. There’s a brook that’s run back there. I’ve lived in this neighborhood since
I was a child. It should be considered wetland as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know what more to
say. I’m just strongly opposed.
MR. STONE-Your property is right next to the proposed driveway?
MRS. JOHNSON-Yes.
MR. STONE-Where Germane?
MRS. JOHNSON-Yes. They were the previous owners. Actually, Taft, I believe, is the previous
owner. She’s a relative of Taft.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re right next to the entranceway.
MRS. JOHNSON-Yes. I mean, I realize in the past everybody had 50-foot frontage. I believe the
Zoning and Planning Boards changed it to 75-foot frontage for a reason. Our neighbors are on top
of us, and that property is very wet and very marshy, and it drops off. I can’t see how it’s going to be
safe for anybody to have a home back there.
MR. STONE-Well, you recognize that the applicant could put one home in there, without even
talking to anybody about it.
MRS. JOHNSON-Right. Yes, I do realize that. That I wouldn’t be happy about, but I can’t do
anything about that.
MR. STONE-Okay, but one home is possible.
MRS. JOHNSON-Yes. I do realize that, and we were told that by our realtor when we purchased
the home. I’ve only lived there for a little over a year, and that’s what we were told was within legal
guidelines. So we realize that that’s always been an existing possibility, but to have some sort of an
access road and have that kind of traffic, I mean, anything’s feasible. If we have a drunk driver on
that road, he’s going to be in my house.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-We’re talking about a driveway that will go to two homes.
MRS. JOHNSON-Which has to be wide enough to accommodate that, which isn’t going to have the
legal footage from my property.
MR. STONE-It will be over 40 feet wide. It’ll just not be 80 feet wide.
MRS. JOHNSON-Right, which means they’re going to be five feet from my bedroom window.
MR. STONE-But again, I only want to remind you, you have a perfectly valid right to say what
you’re saying. I want to remind you that one house could be built there by Mr. Clute without even
talking to us, just getting a building permit. Is that correct?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MRS. JOHNSON-I realize that, but would he be able to build the same sort of driveway?
MR. STONE-Yes, absolutely. He would have a driveway going back to the property.
MRS. JOHNSON-He doesn’t have to be a certain amount of feet from my property with his
driveway?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. HAYES-It’s not a structure, right?
MR. STONE-No, it’s not a structure.
MRS. JOHNSON-Well, as I said, I’ll contact every Conservationist in New York State if I have to.
MR. STONE-That’s perfectly fine. I just want you to know exactly where the situation is, and we’re
not passing judgement at this point.
MRS. JOHNSON-All right. I see. I understand that, but there are various, many, many reasons we
don’t need a subdivision. I also know there’s property all along the whole line, and basically, from
what I can see, common knowledge wise, he’s looking to cul de sac that whole back. That might not
be what’s coming before you now, but that’s where it’s heading, and as Mrs. Wood pointed out, there
are at least 11 properties for sale in our area right now. We really don’t need anymore.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MARIA GAGLIARDI
MS. GAGLIARDI-Hi. I’m Maria Gagliardi. I’m at 220 Fifth Street Extension, which is on the other
side of where he wants to put the driveway, and basically I’m really pretty much opposed, too. The
main reason is just what Sue had just said, that she has four kids, I’m just really afraid that somebody
could just pull in that driveway sometime, because the kids do play right around in that area, and I
hope that they’re real careful when they drive in that driveway because if they don’t see one of the
kids, they could get hit, and there isn’t that much room, as she said, between the two properties, and
I hate to see it all taken up with blacktop, as they said the trees being cut down, and there’s just not
that much room in there. I really am basically opposed to it. I just wanted to let you know.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
VERA KENNY
MRS. KENNY-My name is Vera Kenny. I live on the corner of Caroline and Fifth Street, Number
35 Caroline. I’ve lived in this neighborhood for over 50 years. We have an awful lot of traffic now,
on this road, due to a lot of people coming down Richardson Street, and down through Fifth to the
City, on account of conditions out on the Corinth Road, as you are probably all aware of, and right at
this area where they want to put this driveway in, I don’t know if you’ve checked with the Highway
Department, but they have a dip in the road there. The water runs down from Caroline and the
lower part of Fifth into this area, and then from Richardson into Fifth Street, and the Highway
Department has put like a gully all along Fifth Street there to accommodate for the water, and it goes
into this property where they want to put this driveway. Now what’s going to happen in the
wintertime, with a road in through there, and ice built up. It’s going to cause accidents I’m afraid of,
and that is another consideration. Plus it is very close to the two homes in question, and with small
children in the area, it’s a safety factor.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-This does require site plan approval?
MR. BROWN-Subdivision review.
MR. STONE-Subdivision review. Okay, but the Planning Board does have a chance to look at?
MR. BROWN-Yes. It sounds like most of the concerns that have been raised tonight are more
subdivision related, rather than Ordinance related, yes.
MR. STONE-Right. I understand.
MRS. KENNY-As you know, there are no sewers in that area. It is all septic tanks, and with
drainage off of a driveway, with extra snow banks and stuff, it may create problems with these
homes.
MR. STONE-We appreciate your thoughts. Again, I want to remind you that one home could be
put in there, with a septic system, with anything that the builder wanted to put in there.
MRS. KENNY-No, I’m not so much concerned about a couple of homes going in there, but is it
going to stop at a couple of homes, or are they going to put more in there, in that area where there
are wetlands?
MR. STONE-Okay. This property is zoned one acre, residential one acre. It’s a two-acre parcel.
Two homes, if this variance, I mean, two homes could be built on the property if there were an 80-
foot frontage on Fifth Street, without a question. What the applicant is asking is merely to build two
homes with a driveway which is a perfectly adequate driveway for one home, and having two homes
use it. That’s the only question we’re facing.
MRS. KENNY-There isn’t other property considered in that area for other homes?
MR. STONE-Not with this application.
MRS. KENNY-Because there are vacant lots there, but it’s very wet, and you can get in from
Richardson Street with a road.
MR. HAYES-That would be a separate proposal.
MRS. KENNY-That’s what I’m afraid of, is further on they’re going to do that.
MR. STONE-We understand.
MRS. KENNY-So I wanted that in consideration, and the road conditions in that area.
MR. STONE-Thank you very much.
RON LA CROSSE
MR. LA CROSSE-I’m Ron LaCrosse. I’m a 10 year resident of Fifth Street. I live at 201 Fifth
Street, not too close to the property. However, I share a lot of the same concerns as my neighbors.
It seems that we’re addressing a driveway here and not the subdivision of the properties. I would
say, in the same voice that, I am, however, concerned that that driveway for two houses would
sometime become a driveway for more homes, and there’s a lot of property there, and I hear you
speak of viable alternatives, and if the gentleman owns all of that property, then he owns most of
Richardson Street on that side, and I would say that, in the best interest even of the people that are
going to be building the two, that are going to be owning the two homes, a driveway from a different
location would definitely behoove them. The traffic, like the other woman said, is heavy there now
that the Main Street has become a problem, and you have to keep in mind that a lot of the traffic that
comes from the City is coming up over a hill, through a four way intersection at this time that has
stop signs from the other directions, and then we’re talking about a dip, and then a driveway which is
going to be exiting between two homes. Now, to me, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have
somebody coming out of what’s a blind spot. You’re coming out between two homes with a car
coming up over the hill. I think, just from a traffic impact, that’s a nightmare waiting to happen.
Additionally, I guess more on the topic of the subdivision, there are a lot of homes in that area for
sale for that same price range that they’re building, and I would question how rapidly we need to
develop that land which is quite frankly is a wetland, but I would like to see, like you say, if the
gentleman has the legal right to build a home there, I would like to see the driveway elsewhere. It
creates a problem.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed?
KATHLEEN BRIGGS
MS. BRIGGS-My name is Kathleen Briggs. I live at 228 Fifth Street Extension, kind of at the other
end towards Richardson Street of the property in question. One of my concerns has already been
stated from neighbors, one being the wildlife. I’ve had deer right up inside of my property.
MR. STONE-Let me ask you a question. Are you speaking for the wildlife or against the wildlife?
I’ve heard the deer. Is that good or bad to have the deer there?
MS. BRIGGS-It’s good to have the deer there.
MR. STONE-I wanted to be sure that’s what I was hearing.
MS. BRIGGS-Well, what I have noticed, since the clearing of the trees and stuff, I used to see deer
right in my back yard, right up on the side yard, fox, deer, a lot of wildlife. Since all this has gone on,
I have not seen any. I have seen a lot of it come right up next to the property that is where he wants
to do the driveway. I feel because of a lot of the trees that have been taken down, the deer, I
followed them right up to the road one day. They were eating right from one of the neighbor’s trees.
That’s how close they were getting, because that’s where they were coming to get their food. A lot of
it has been taken away. That’s just one concern I have. The other concern being wetlands also out
behind my south. The traffic is another concern. Because of Broad Street and the Main Street, a lot
of people are coming Fifth Street, to get away from the traffic lights I believe, and a lot of them, I
know it’s not, we’re not policing them, but they do go well above the speed limit as it is, coming
from Richardson down Fifth, and then up. Another concern that was mentioned also was the dip,
and the excessive water build up that does seem to occur there in the winter and in the spring. The
water is not draining well there. So it does cause icy road conditions there. Another of my concerns
is right behind me there is a pathway that can be accessed through Richardson Street. Is that also a
possibility that there will be a road back there? Is one of my questions, as well as on the side of me,
where my property ends, to the corner of Richardson Street, he also has that for sale, Mr. Clute does.
He has a sign there. Is that in question, too? Are there going to be houses built there? That was
another question that I do raise, because it is right on the side of my property.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Keep in mind that all of these questions are for the subdivision approval,
which we’re not granting that. This is a first step toward subdivision approval. Without our
approval, there cannot be a subdivision, but all these other questions will be taken up in subdivision
approval by the Planning Board.
RAY WOLFE
MR. WOLFE-My name is Ray Wolfe, 231 Fifth Street. I’ve been there for 39 years. We do have
restrictions up there, on all these deeds, and I don’t think they’re being followed right now. It says
no more than one house or one garage shall be constructed on any said premises. It doesn’t say
about dividing the land. That lot that he’s calling 48 feet wide originally was a building lot. It’s got a
number, and there was supposed to be a house put on there, but there never was, and the house
would have to be approximately 24 by 28 feet, which are the small homes down in that area, and
what happened was, you couldn’t have a septic tank and a point in the ground, less than 100 feet. So
they had to change things. So the rest of the houses became 100-foot lots. That’s where that 50-foot
lot comes from. So, now they want to make it into a driveway back to two houses, a subdivision.
That is a building lot which doesn’t meet specifications today. Maybe under the grandfather clause
or something. I don’t know, but it says, if they look in their restrictions all the way down through, it
says only one house and one garage per lot. It doesn’t say putting a driveway back to another house,
or anything whatsoever. I’ll throw in another little thing for Mr. Clute. Mr. Clute, advertising signs
are forbidden in our area. The only thing you can have is a For Sale sign, a house for rent, a doctor
or lawyer saying that is his premises, and that is it. It’s in your restrictions. It seems like nothing’s
being followed. I think our restrictions are pretty strong. That’s about all I have to say, and I’m
against it.
MR. STONE-Let me just say to you that deed restrictions are not enforced by the Town of
Queensbury.
MR. WOLFE-I’m just telling them there’s steps to be taken besides here. These are, we bought
these houses because we had restrictions. We didn’t want like for trailers, it says no trailers brought
in, nothing on wheels, and that’s why we bought these houses. Back then restrictions meant a lot.
MR. STONE-And they still do as far as you and all the property owners are concerned. It’s just that
the Town of Queensbury will not seek to enforce deed restrictions. You still can do it. You have the
right to do whatever you deem necessary.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. WOLFE-Well, what happens if you grant him permission for two lots back there, where right
now it’s one lot, and the restrictions say one house, one garage per lot. That means one.
MR. STONE-We are going by the Zoning Code of the Town of Queensbury, which says that in that
area, you have to have one acre lots, and this is a two acre parcel. Therefore, two homes can be built
if there is access to a public street, and that’s what Mr. Clute is looking for tonight. He is looking for
relief from the requirement that each lot has 40 feet frontage on a Town road.
MR. WOLFE-Well, he did have 40 feet or more on Caroline Street, which would have come off on a
side street, which would not be heavily traveled, and he elected to build four houses there, like
somebody else brought up. Therefore, he’s made a problem on Fifth Street, which everybody says
about traffic. Traffic has gone up I would say 100%. I don’t know if this is the place or not, but I
know the person that owned it before, and he tried to subdivide it and was turned down, and they
said no way. He tried to make a few other deals, about cutting trees, and he was told he only could
cut 10%, but if he donated some land to the Town of Queensbury, he could cut 20%. So I don’t
know, all of a sudden he got mad and moved out and left the area. Now I’d like to know how come
somebody else can do the same thing that he couldn’t do?
MR. STONE-We’re not commenting on whether he can or cannot. He’s asking for a variance for a
lot that he legally owns that is attached to Fifth Street.
MR. WOLFE-Right.
MR. STONE-I don’t know of anything else. I mean, that’s to be considered by other bodies. We
have a situation here. We’re presented with a 2.4 acre parcel of land.
MR. WOLFE-If it’s left the way it is now, one lot, and with the restrictions, that means he could
build one house.
MR. STONE-One house.
MR. WOLFE-Not two.
MR. STONE-One house with the same driveway structure that he’s asking for two lots. That is true.
MR. WOLFE-Well, one house is better than two houses.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. WOLFE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Any other people wishing to speak for or against? Do you want to read that?
MR. STEC-You don’t want all the names.
MR. STONE-No, I don’t want all the names. Count them.
MR. STEC-All right. I have a petition here, it’s not dated, “The signatures on the next page are for
the petitioning against the variance requested for relief from the minimum road frontage
requirements, tax map no. 131-8-26 in an SR-1 Acre zone. Also, we are against the application for
approval of subdivision for a two lot residential subdivision located on the south side of Fifth Street
Extension, Queensbury, NY tax map no. 131-8-6, signed by the residents of Fifth Street Extension
and surrounding neighborhoods on September 21 and September 22, 1999.” There’s a total of 54
signatures. I’m not sure I can make them all out.
MR. STONE-That’s okay. Fifty-four is a good number.
MR. STEC-All right, but apparently most of the addresses are Caroline Street, and Fifth Street.
MR. STONE-Okay, any other correspondence?
MR. STEC-I believe this is the only piece of correspondence.
MR. STONE-All right. Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-I have a question of the applicant. The last gentleman who spoke talked about
previous access, access of this lot having possibly come from Caroline Street. Is that true?
MR. STEVES-Not on this lot. The history on this lot, the current owner, previous owner, was
Villinous Neilands, and he has seven tax parcels, and back in, I think it was ’94, he reconfigured the
seven tax parcels to actually increase some of the lots that weren’t very desirable to be more in line
with the neighborhood, but he didn’t go through a subdivision. He just realigned the lots. One of
the strips of land was the old trolley or railroad that was down through there, cut all the way across
their property, but this lot has been in existence since ’94, I believe.
MR. STONE-I believe it came before us, Craig, some part of that came before this Board. Does
anybody remember that?
MR. MC NALLY-We gave a variance on Wilson’s property, and I think they were building in the
front, or wanted something in the front.
MR. STONE-Well, that one we did, but there was, I thought on that curve on Caroline Street there
was something. Okay. So you’re saying since ’94.
MR. STEVES-There’s been the way it is now, with the four lots that have been developed into new
homes on Caroline Street, and then the lot with the 50 foot of frontage onto Fifth Street Extension.
MR. STONE-And when did Mr. Clute buy this property?
MR. STEVES-Two years ago.
MR. CLUTE-This parcel here I just bought less than a year ago. Larry Clute.
MR. STONE-The parcel in question you bought just about a year ago you say?
MR. CLUTE-Yes.
MR. STONE-So it was in this configuration when you bought it, it was 2.4 acres with 50 some feet
of?
MR. CLUTE-Road frontage on Fifth.
MR. STONE-Road frontage, and it was all connected.
MR. CLUTE-Caroline Street, I owned those lots as well, and they were all connected. I bought the
lots individually, but even if I had elected to tie this property to Caroline Street, it really wouldn’t
have worked well. It’s a drop off from Caroline Street. Those four homes, really you would have
never gotten a usable driveway or access to this property via Caroline Street because of the hills. So I
placed the homes with an exposed back side. That’s feasible, but a driveway to that would have been
impossible.
MR. STONE-What is to the south of this property?
MR. CLUTE-To the south of the property is wetlands owned by the Bishops, and that’s the wetlands
they’re describing, and indeed it’s wetlands. It’s actually protected wetlands. I can’t imagine ever
feasibly being able to have anybody develop it. It’s extremely wet, and the wildlife is nice down
there. So I don’t see any chance of any future homes taking place by me or anybody else for that
matter.
MR. STONE-But your land is dry, it’s not wetlands?
MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. I’m high of that. There’s a contour line on this particular map that
outlines that. There’s got to be a 12-foot elevation difference. If you were to walk back to this
property, it drops off easily 12 foot down to what they’re describing as the wetlands.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s the flag line.
MR. CLUTE-Right. That right there.
MR. STEVES-That’s the flagged wetland lines that were flagged by Department of Environmental
Conservation, and were also reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
MR. CLUTE-And there’s a dramatic elevation difference. I mean, it is a healthy drop off right there,
but my property is high of that, and dry of that. I mean, the same issues, the septic systems and such,
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
I had to contend with on Caroline Street, the four homes that we’ve been talking about, or you’ve
heard about, the same issues, the same soil conditions, the same everything, the same elevation.
Their backyard is essentially right in line with that property.
MR. STONE-Yes, I’ve seen the property.
MR. STEVES-I think we can answer all the questions that were brought forth by the audience and
the neighbors. As far as the wetlands, yes, the wetlands have been flagged. They have been
delineated, looked at by the State and by the Army Corps of Engineers. As far as the driveway issue,
we’re not looking, this isn’t a Town road. It’s not a 24-foot wide pavement. We’re talking a 12-foot
wide driveway into two homes. Now if it was one home, it would be a 12 foot wide driveway. I
don’t want anybody to get the misconception here that we’re going into a cul de sac and developing
homes. There’s only going to be two lots on this property, end of story. We’re not proposing to go
across into the wetlands. We can’t cross into the wetlands and develop somebody’s property that’s
not ours. If Bishop’s want to look at that some time on the road. That’s their option. It is not my
client’s property. As far as, coming back to what we’re here for is the variance for the minimum road
frontage. That lot, you could access off of Fifth Street Extension farther down, and we could still
have two lots without a variance, but then you have a driveway, as you can see, that comes in around
three other lots, behind three other lots, a substantially long driveway in a residential neighborhood
that does not go with the character of the neighborhood, and the fact that the Town of Queensbury
Highway Department wants to talk about extending Fifth Street straight out to hit Richardson Street
and take that big bend out. So they really don’t want us to enter with a driveway from there at this
point. So we look at this as the only solution that is realistic. We could come in with two lots that
don’t require a variance, but then we’re not going with what the Highway Department would like us
to do.
MR. STONE-You said a 12-foot driveway on the centerline of that lot?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and as far as, I think Mr. Wolfe was the last one that was up here. His
concern would be deed restriction. That’s just a standard restriction that would be on any residential
lot in the Town of Queensbury. You’re only allowed to have one primary residence on a lot. That’s
what that deed restriction calls for, and as far as the original 50 foot lot he’s talking about, we’re not
developing that lot, only for the driveway. It is the land that sits behind that original 50-foot lot that
the house would be set on. No structures will be placed on that 50-foot lot.
MR. STONE-All right. Any questions of the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-When you say the trolley line, that’s that raised area that runs along the back by the
boundary of the wetlands?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And that starts at Richardson there?
MR. STEVES-This double dashed line that comes right through here.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s the trolley line.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And Mr. Clute, you own that land along there?
MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir, I do.
MR. MC NALLY-What are your plans for that?
MR. CLUTE-As Matt was describing, in all actuality, I could get my two houses, have one driveway
servicing off of Fifth, one driveway servicing either off of Richardson or further up on Fifth Street
Extension, but the Highway Department has plans. I’ve been talking with them for a while now.
They want to straighten out Fifth Street, which is, that would be a nice thing, a wise thing to do, but
they’re going to need my parcel to do that, and they don’t want a driveway coming in on that corner.
Hence, I’m here for this. They want to straighten right here. I own this, and, I mean, I could bring
the driveway to this second lot via right there, but it would disturb these three houses. I mean, that’s
way out of context, as far as the neighborhood is concerned, to bring a driveway for somebody
behind their houses, rather than beside their houses.
MR. STONE-And you’d still have two houses back there.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. CLUTE-Without question. I have plenty of area. The acreage is there. It’s just this access here
tends to hamper the plans or the intent of what the Highway Department would like to do, and, I
mean, I have no problem giving them that. I can’t really get any use out of that, other than a
driveway, but I’d prefer not to give this as a driveway. I would rather not put this driveway in here
either. So, I mean, this land is useless, other than to the Town of Queensbury.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s not buildable as a sub lot?
MR. CLUTE-No. I imagine I could probably squeeze some setbacks, but it would look very odd.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s the lot where you have your sign on, right?
MR. CLUTE-I have a sign right here.
MR. MC NALLY-Right to the west of the Briggs’ home.
MR. CLUTE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes. Having turned onto Richardson today, I thought we should have two stop signs
coming off of Fifth, one at Fifth and one at Fourth. I mean, it’s a terrible intersection trying to.
MR. CLUTE-That’s what they’re going to try and get rid of, because they got this, you don’t see the
Fourth Street here on this map.
MR. STONE-I know.
MR. CLUTE-But it’s right there.
MR. STONE-Right, that’s what I meant two stop signs. One, and then stop again at another foot.
MR. CLUTE-Right, but if they follow through with what their intent is, which I’m sure they are,
they’d cut that bank, that high bank right out of there, my property, and just simply straighten out
Fifth Street, and that would be the end of that, but in doing so, that eliminates my opportunity of this
driveway to feed this second lot.
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant before we talk about it? Any other questions?
The public hearing’s closed. Any other questions? All right. Dan, what do you think?
MR. STEC-Well, the one question I would have asked is the last question that the applicant
answered. It sounded like there might have been other lands owned by the applicant that might give
him access other than the driveway point that he’s proposing now, but he adequately answered that
concern to me. I, personally, think that this proposal would be better than running a driveway
behind three other lots. So I thought that might be a feasible alternative to consider, but looking at
the way that the area is divided, I don’t think that that’s a very good alternative. We’ve seen, on my
tenure on the Board, about a half a dozen pre subdivision kind of variance requests for road
frontage, and quite frankly, this is the minimal, the most modest number, amount of feet of relief
sought that I can recall. I can remember us granting 40 feet of relief, the full 40 feet before, but the
flip side of the coin is this is the first time that I’ve seen a proposal like this adamantly opposed by a
large number of people that have concerns that live down there. So that certainly gets my attention.
You’ve got to consider the benefit to the applicant and weigh that against the neighborhood and the
community. So if I had a concern, that’s it now. I think that I could be in favor of this, but I’d like
to mitigate it. I’d like to try to address as many of the concerns raised by the neighborhood as
possible. I’d feel a lot better granting the approval if maybe we made some sort of conditions on
limiting the size of the driveway to a 12 foot drive, and perhaps addressing the screening concerns
that they had, as far as a driveway running past the side of their homes. I’m mostly concerned with
the two parcels that that would be on either side of the driveway. So I think that that might be a
reasonable compromise to say, hey, we want to pre-condition this approval with a hedging or
something that would limit the visual impacts to the neighbors, but as far as granting 15 and a quarter
feet from a 40 foot requirement for a driveway, I think that on its face value isn’t asking a lot. I think
a lot of the other concerns, as pointed out by Staff, are more appropriate for the subdivision hearing
that the Planning Board will have, and they’ll deal with that then. So it’s not to say that if we approve
this tonight that it’s a done deal. There are some other concerns that the Planning Board will have to
address, but with those pre-conditioned on a 12-foot width, and maybe some screening, I could be in
favor, but I’ll listen to the rest of the Board.
MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes?
MR. HAYES-I think I agree with Dan. I think he covered all the important points in his analysis in
this particular case. I think the neighbors have brought up a number of important concerns, and
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
they certainly are justified. It’s a nice neighborhood and they want to keep it that way, but it appears
to me that most of what they brought up is, in fact, subdivision approval type issues, and we’re kind
of charged with specifically staying away from those things. Mr. Clute and Mr. Steves have
established, in my mind, on a factual basis, that they could do this without a variance, which, in that
particular case, leads my own thought process to be, there must be a good reason why they want to
make this change, or are here going through the trouble to go through this proposal, and having put
forth their reasons why they want to do this instead of doing something without a variance, which is
permissible, I think that the proposal actually is a good idea. I think, when I examine the traffic
considerations and the point that Mr. Clute brought up, as far as the character of the neighborhood,
in fact, this may be preserving it more than the neighbors are aware, being the fact that he could run
that driveway behind the lots, in a long strip, which I, personally, think would be distasteful. So in
this particular case, I think the balance of the test that we’re charged with falls in favor of the
applicant, because in fact this is a better alternative than he could legally do without a variance. I also
believe that the relief is not substantial compared to the Ordinance. I believe it’s moderate. It’s not
an overreaching proposal. Like Mr. Stec brought up, we’ve granted these type of, this type of relief
before in the past when it was moderate, in this particular case, and I believe, cumulatively, the
effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, being that these lots are actually, they’re
actually compliant with the density requirements, the area requirements, and, in fact, are larger than
most of the lots that surround them, and I think, cumulatively, the weight of this test falls in favor of
the applicant, and I’m okay with this proposal.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNally?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree. I think, for many years, the lot was not developed, and if the owner didn’t
want to develop it, that’s all well, fine and good, but Mr. Clute is entitled to develop his property, as
long as it’s within the confines of our Zoning Ordinance. It’s a one-acre subdivision. He can do
that. He could put a road in behind the Briggs’ land, the Timms’ land and the Wilson’s land, and
bring a driveway in and develop that parcel. They could easily develop the other parcel behind the
Germane, Burrows, Barcomb and Wood property. In either case, he’s going to get a two-lot
subdivision. So we have to balance the alternatives being confronted with, either that way or with a
single driveway that’s 12 feet wide, and in all honesty, this lot is 50 feet wide, and a 12 foot driveway,
I’ve seen them before, is not going to have that much of a significant impact on the neighborhood.
If this were a 12-foot driveway with 50 homes at the end of it, that would be one thing, but this is a
12-foot driveway with two single-family houses at the end of it. The other thing I was struck with is,
I remember when we did the Wilson’s variance, these lots are pretty deep, 150 feet, and the houses
are right up on Fifth Street Extension, in the relative front portion of the lot. So even if homes are
built on these two parcels, there’s going to be a significant distance between the buildings themselves
and their neighbors. So I don’t think there’s going to be a real problem with neighbors being on top
of one another, is what I’m saying. I’d be in favor of it, on condition it’s a 12 foot wide driveway,
and on condition that it’s centered and that there’s no structures on the portion 150 feet from Fifth
Street Extension.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-I can understand the neighbors’ concern. It’s always tough when you’ve had a
wooded area behind your home for years. You kind of think of it in terms of being your wooded
area, and yet somebody else owns it, and they have a right to develop it, and when they come along
to do it, it’s traumatic. I basically agree with the other Board members. Notes that I’ve written down
here, one is, driveway does not equal road, and as the point’s been made, this will be a driveway. It’s
only going to serve two homes. It’s going to come out onto Fifth Street Extension, just the same
way as all the other driveways do, on that street. There’ll be the same amount of site distance, once
they clear the front of the homes. So I don’t believe that really is going to be a serious problem. I do
hear the concern about children and safety, and this is probably something that Mr. Clute needs to
keep in mind, too, if there are a lot of kids around there, even while he’s under construction, to make
sure that there’s no attractive nuisance. On that basis, I think I would just as soon see us not put in a
requirement for screening. Thinking in terms that something that blocked vision could be more of a
hazard for kids running from the houses next door, across that driveway. It would probably be
better for them, whoever’s coming out of that driveway, to be able to see better. It helps me a little
bit to be somewhat assured that there is wetland behind this area that will not be developed, so that
is some protection for wildlife, but I’ve got to agree with the other Board members. When we
balance everything, I think as long as this is a single 12-foot driveway that serves two homes, I’d be
in favor.
MR. STONE-I basically agree with my fellow Board members. I think all the points that I had
written down or thought about were mentioned, particularly the one that open space behind a piece
of property is a wonderful thing to have, but it’s not a guarantee. Woods behind you, the first
question we might ask, and we seldom do, is, will it be forever, and usually the answer is, no, it will
not be there forever, unless we do something positive about it, like buying the piece of property.
That’s one way to guarantee it. I’m not suggesting that the homeowner should have bought this
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
piece of property, but it’s a wonderful thing to have it, but it is a buildable lot. They are two
buildable lots. The traffic consideration that I heard mentioned, all valid considerations, except we’re
talking about a driveway, a 12 foot driveway which will serve two homes, which will probably have,
at the most, four cars, going in and out, probably not very often, considering your own pieces of
property that exist along Fifth Street and Fifth Street Extension right now. Centering it on the lot is
going to give a lot of green space. It’ll almost be as if the lot were the way it is now, except there’ll be
some asphalt going up the middle of it, but it’ll still be that open lot. It’s not going to be a road. I
think the point was made, it won’t be a road. There will not be traffic running up and down.
There’ll be no reason for anybody to go down that road, excuse me, bad word, going down that
driveway except to go to the two homes that are there. It’ll generate whatever traffic any other one
of these homes generates. Having heard all this, again, I think the balance is in favor of the
applicant. There are considerations, valid comments made by the neighbors, wildlife, these are going
to be one-acre lots. One-acre lots are fairly big lots. These homes are going to take up only a small
portion of this lot, of these lots. There will be ample opportunity for the wildlife to ruin all of the
fruits and vegetables and ornamentals that these homeowners are going to build in there, just like
what they do on Fifth Street Extension and Caroline Street I’m sure. Having said that, I’ll call for a
motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-1999 CLUTE ENTERPRISES,
INC., Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
South side of 5 Street. The applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision, and requests relief from the
th
minimum road frontage requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 15.26 feet of relief for each
lot from the usual 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement of the Frontage on Public Streets
Ordinance, Section 179-70 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. The benefit to the
applicant would be that he would be permitted to create an additional building lot that would
conform to the one acre zoning requirements of the current Town Zoning Ordinance. The feasible
alternatives could include the acquisition of additional lands, or the construction of a second
driveway between the homes of Briggs, Timms, Wilson, as shown on the map that has been provided
with the application, but these alternatives, while perhaps possible, are not feasible and would
certainly be a lot more disruptive of the neighborhood and of the privacy and concerns of the
citizens, but also pose more of a traffic concern, coming out near the intersection of Fifth Street
Extension and Richardson Street, or on Richardson Street. The effects on the neighborhood or
community are relatively minimal. Certainly, there is a concern regarding safety. There’s a concern
regarding privacy, but as noted by the other Board members in commenting on this case, the
driveway will only be 12 feet wide and will accommodate only a few cars, that is the cars necessary to
service two single family homes. There’ll be no traffic other than that to speak of. So it’s no more
different than the current traffic coming out of any one of the homes on these streets. Overall, the
effect on the neighborhood would be minimal, and therefore, I approve and ask the Board to
approve this variance, subject to two conditions. First, that the driveway that is constructed on the
lot portion closest to Fifth Street Extension and extending to the rear of the neighbor’s property will
be no more than 12 feet wide and centered on that portion of the lot, and second, that there be no
structures or accessory structures built on that portion fronting on Fifth Street Extension.
Specifically, within 150 feet south of Fifth Street Extension in a southerly direction from that street.
With those conditions, I don’t see any effect on the neighborhood. I move the approval.
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
MR. MC NALLY-Overall, the effect on the neighborhood would be minimal, and therefore, I
approve and ask the Board to approve this variance, subject to two conditions. First, that the
driveway that is constructed on the lot portion closest to Fifth Street Extension and extending to the
rear of the neighbor’s property will be no more than 12 feet wide and centered on that portion of the
lot. Is that acceptable?
MR. STEVES-That’s acceptable.
MR. MC NALLY-And second, that there be no structures or accessory structures built on that
portion fronting on Fifth Street Extension. Specifically, within 150 feet south of Fifth Street
Extension in a southerly direction from that street.
MR. STEVES-That’s also acceptable.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas
MR. STEC-There you go.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. STONE-One thing I would ask, Mr. Steves, I don’t know where these names of the property
owners come from, but I don’t think any one of the people who claim to be neighbors were listed as
owner here. It comes from there? Well, we’re behind the times, I guess, in registering names. I
don’t know.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-1999 TYPE II PC-1A NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC. LLC
OWNER: NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC. LLC ROUTE 9, CORNER OF ROUTE 9 AND
QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONFIGURATION OF PARKING
AREAS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
REGULATIONS. CROSS REF. SPR 48-99 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP
NO. 72-7-4 LOT SIZE: 18.34 ACRES SECTION 179-66, 179-22
JIM HAGEN & WILLIAM DUTCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 87-1999, Northway Plaza Assoc., LLC, Meeting Date:
September 22, 1999 “Project Location: Corner Route 9 and Quaker Road Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes reconfiguration of parking areas and seeks relief from the
Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations. Relief Required: Applicant requests 0.5 feet of relief
from the 9 foot minimum parking space width required by the Off Street Parking and Loading
regulations, § 179-66, B. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to increase the number of
available parking spaces. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is
this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 0.5 feet of relief from the 9 foot requirement
may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate
effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-
created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review pending 9/28/99 Staff comments: Moderate impacts
may be anticipated as a result of this action. Attention may be given to the adequacy of an 8.5 foot
wide space to accommodate all vehicle sizes and still allow sufficient access in and out of vehicles.
Striping may be narrowed, but the vehicle sizes remain. Average passenger auto 6 feet wide Full
size pickup truck 6.5 feet wide SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 1 September 1999
Project Name: Northway Plaza Assoc., LLC Owner: Same ID Number: QBY-AV-87-1999
County Project #: Sept99-36 Current Zoning: PC-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: The applicant proposes to repair and restripe an existing parking lot. Smaller parking
spaces are requested; proposed 8’6” x 18” in lieu of the 9’ x 20’. Site Location: Route 9, corner of
Rt. 9 and Quaker Road Staff Notes: Staff is not in favor of reducing the size of parking areas. The
reason for this is the growing number of SUV’s and the proliferation of recreational vehicles. RV’s
will tend to take 2 parking spots and personal experience is that the spar parking areas are not
sufficient. The restriping and reduction in parking space sizes is really a local issue provided that
space is set aside for RV parking that is not in the mainstream of traffic flows. Having a designated
recreational vehicle parking section reduces their maneuvering problems through traffic, reduces
congestion and improves safety and traffic flow on site. Staff is not sure if this is really a County
issue and will leave that up to the discretion of the Board. Staff is therefore recommending
discussion. Local actions to date (if any): Public Hearing set for September 15, 1999. County
Planning Board Recommendation: Deny due to concerns with the negative affect of smaller parking
spaces in this retail/business plaza. The Board could not identify why this applicant should receive
special treatment while other plazas/malls are required to conform to ordinance requirements.”
Signed by Terri Ross, Warren County Planning Board.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Let me remind the Board and the applicant, because of denial by the
County Planning Board, we have to have a super majority, which is five. That means all of us must
agree on whatever action we take tonight. Can we deny with less than five?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I suppose you could.
MR. STONE-I’m not suggesting, it’s just a question that popped into my head. Okay. Talk to us.
MR. HAGEN-Sure. My name is Jim Hagen. I’m the architect. My address is 180 Intrepid Lane,
Syracuse. With me tonight is Mr. William Dutch, who’s one of the principles of Northway Plaza
Associates. He’s also from Syracuse. We are representing a company called Northway Plaza
Associates, which as I said, Mr. Dutch is one of the principles. They’ve owned the Plaza for 10 years
now, and during that time period, they’ve made numerous improvements to the center, and what
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
we’re proposing is a continuation of that process, and his intent is to maintain the ownership and
continue it as viable commercial property. In some respects, we’re here tonight with what I would
consider a very unusual request. Usually when I appear before a Zoning Board of Appeals, I’m
asking for some form of relief that is something less than what the Ordinance requires. Here, what
we’re trying to do is, through the relief from the Board, provide something more than is what the
minimum required by the Ordinance, meaning we’re trying to provide more parking than what is the
minimum required. It does require a change in the size of the parking spaces, and that’s what I’d
really like to try to focus on. However, I think there’s a number of issues you need to be aware of,
some of which the County Planning Board was not aware of when they made their recommendation,
and unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to appear. It was relatively short notice, and with
the distance of travel involved, we couldn’t make that meeting. To begin with, as we stated in our
application, Northway Plaza is over 30 years old, and much of what you see there today pre-dated the
requirements of the current Ordinance, and if we were to come in with a new plan today, I’m sure it
wouldn’t look like what’s there today. However, it is an existing facility. It’s a viable property, and
we’re trying to maintain that viability. Although the property started out as a retail center, the current
nature of the center is anything but that. Currently, the center is probably more office and service,
not probably, it is more office and service than it is retail. Over half of the space is office space.
Some of it is warehouse. There’s a U.S. Post Office branch located in the center. Yes, there is some
retail. Some of it is still functioning. There are vacant retail spaces which the owners are trying to re-
lease as retail space. However, this is not like many of the other mall type uses that exist in the Town
or in the area. It’s more of a mixed use type of center, and it’s something that’s in the transition stage
right now. Mr. Dutch feels that it’s probably an exception to the rule within the Town. One of the
primary tenants of this center is Traveler’s Insurance, and they’re operating a service center out of
this facility whereby they process claims and other business aspects of their insurance business. They
occupy, on the site plan, the large box that’s on the diagonal on the southern end of the site. They
occupy the rectangle at the rear of the center, and a portion of the basement space. They are a very
large employer in the area, and, obviously, in the center. The relationship that the Northway Plaza
has with Travelers does have provisions that will allow Travelers to expand their space usage within
the center. So we’re here tonight talking about what it is now, but what it also may be over the next
several years, and we’re trying to preserve them as a primary tenant in the center, and that’s really
what’s driving this whole application. When the site was built in the 60’s, lets say that there was a
very good utilization of the site. I’d like to just run through the site plan briefly, but I’d also to
circulate an aerial photo of the site that was taken in May of 1997. This was something that was
taken during a week day, and what is shows is not just the site and the buildings, but it also shows a
fairly typical representation of how the parking lots are being utilized right now, and what you’re
going to see in that photo is that there’s a fairly large concentration of cars in a southern/triangular
lot, which is directly in front of the Travelers space. There is a distribution of cars, generally around
the perimeter of the northern parking area, and then there are also cars parked around the back side
of the center as well. Because of the way the center’s laid out, there’s no open space on site,
undeveloped area, that we could say, okay, lets eliminate some green space and pave it some more. If
anything, the site plan review process is saying how can we get more green space, and we are trying
to accommodate that also. As mentioned in the applicant, Northway Plaza has contracted with the
Town of Queensbury to purchase 1.2 acres of land along the eastern property line. This is part of
the Town’s cemetery property, and my understanding is that a zone change application has been
filed. I don’t know if that’s been formally approved by the Town Board yet.
MR. BROWN-Yes, it was.
MR. HAGEN-Okay. So, the PC-1 zone has been extended onto that 1.2 acres. The reason for the
acquisition was to provide room for additional parking along the back of the site, again, adjacent to
the Travelers, and also in doing that, we are creating the required 50 foot buffer from the commercial
to the residential zone. We mentioned that we are negotiating with an adjacent property owner.
Over the years, and this goes back probably 25 or 30 years at least, Northway Plaza has encroached
onto the property to the northeast. If you go back there, there’s probably a drop in grade, and some
of the hills go up on the other side. They have been utilizing a portion of this property during that
time period, both for parking and maintenance equipment and so on. They have negotiations
ongoing. We believe we may have an agreement, although it hasn’t been finalized, to purchase a
portion of this land, and if so, we would be back in to the Town to discuss that, but that is not a
matter of discussion with this application, or really with the application for the site plan review. The
land to the north has frontage on Route 9. This is zoned commercial. However, there’s a significant
grade change between the two properties that would really limit the possibilities of us being able to
acquire any land to be able to utilize it. Plus, it’s a long way away from where our parking needs are
at this end of the property. Obviously, we cannot go out to the east or to the south because of the
existing highways. We had talked about possibly constructing parking decks. However, the cost, the
physical limitations that those create, and the maintenance problems that they create, really are not
viable, given the economic situations we’re having to deal with in this situation. At the same time
that we’re proposing to modify the striping of the parking areas, we’re also proposing a number of
other changes, and again, I don’t want to get into the site plan issues, but just so you understand.
Right now, there’s a main entrance on Route 9, with a traffic light, for access in and out of the center.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
That’s going to be maintained. There’s currently two driveways that come in off of Route 9, at the
southern end of the property, that are fairly wide open, and if you go over there during normal day
time hours, what you’re going to find is people coming northbound on Route 9, coming to the
center, and they do about 35 to 40 miles an hour across this parking lot, and they go, basically,
whichever way they want to go. We feel that’s a hazardous situation. We’d like to correct that, and
we’d like to, in doing so, create some islands and landscaping down in this area that’ll help channel
traffic and also improve the visual appearance from Route 9. We are discussing that with the
Planning Board. We’re also discussing is with the New York State Department of Transportation,
and that plan is still evolving. That’s about all I can tell you at this point. We also have access from
Quaker Road, where we have a driveway coming in, but there’s limitations on the turning
movements to that. We are proposing to provide additional parking in this area of the site, and
additional parking in this area of the site as well. It’s for regrading and landscaping (lost words).
Based on the size of the buildings that exist on the site and again, we’re not increasing the building
area. What we’re trying to do is serve what’s there. We’re required, by Ordinance, to have 1400
parking spaces. Under the current Ordinance, with a nine foot requirement, we can provide 1433
parking spaces. In the drawings I’ve submitted to you tonight, and I’ve got a copy here for you as
well, I’ve prepared a drawing labeled A1A. Now this drawing looks very similar to the drawing
you’ve just been looking at. The only difference is, this is a striping layout utilizing nine-foot spaces,
and it demonstrates that, in fact, we can provide the 1433 that I mentioned in the application. If you
compare the aisles, from one drawing to the other, you will see differences in the number of spaces
per aisle, but basically it’s the same general layout, same general traffic pattern. By going to an eight
foot six space, we are able to increase the total number of parking on site to 1518 spaces, or a net
gain of 85 spaces, and again, the primary purpose of this is to benefit Travelers. Those spaces would
primarily be located in the two lots at the front. However, you do gain a few spaces in this area. You
gain about nine or ten spaces back in here, and about 15 back in this area, and there’s virtually no
change in the parking layout at the northern end of the site. The parking space that we have
proposed would be eight foot six center to center. It would be double striped. We have a drawing
here that’s shows the detail of that, and we feel that that helps the driver visually, coming into the
space, when they see the double stripe, it makes it a little easier for them to line up and get into the
space properly, and I think we all know well enough that there’s no guarantee, and no matter what
you do, you’re going to get somebody coming in at an angle or off center or whatever, but from our
experience in other areas and other communities, we’ve used this striping and we feel it works well,
and does comply with the industry standards.
MR. MC NALLY-What exactly is that, when you say double striping? What do you mean?
MR. HAGEN-Let me give you a couple of drawings here. The top drawing is a new drawing, A4,
which I’ll describe in a minute. The bottom drawing, A2, is a drawing that was submitted with the
application, and shows a detail of the striping that we’re proposing. That’s the detail of the space,
utilizing double corners, not a single line. It’s two 4-inch lines.
MR. MC NALLY-Doubled back on itself.
MR. HAGEN-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. HAGEN-And then this would be the handicapped space, striping. So, visually, it creates a little
bit more of an image for people to see. As I said, what I’m presenting to you is theoretical numbers
and theoretical situations. We recognize the real world, Staff had made mention of vehicle sizes, and
what I’d like to also submit to the Board is a study that I prepared, very unscientific, but I think it’s a
fair representation of what’s going on. My source, Consumer Reports for 1999. What this does is
the listing of various 1999 car sizes, and on this we have documented, this is from Consumer
Reports, the size of the various types of vehicles that exist in the current market. On here, it lists the
make and various models, and I think you’ll recognize a lot of familiar names. I’ve shown the length
of the vehicle, the width of the vehicle, and then the clearance I’m referring to would be the width of
the vehicle, subtracted from the eight foot six parking space. So for instance, at the top of the list, a
Buick LaSabre, the length is 16 foot 4, the width is 6 foot 3, which would leave you 2 foot 3 inches
from the, if the car is parked on one side of the space, to the other side of the space, and if you had
two LaSabres side by side, theoretically, you’d have two foot three inches between them, or spaces
roughly about that wide. You go down through there, I think you’re going to see the majority of the
vehicles are less than six foot. Certainly, the vans, the pick up trucks, the Lincoln Town cars do get
larger than that, but I think when we look at the distribution of those in the overall population, and
you look at the type of employee who’s going to be at the site, that the majority of them are not
going to be driving Lincoln Town cars, and again, I said this is very unscientific, but I think it gives
you an indication of what is out in the field. What I’ve then done is, on that drawing A-4, let me put
one of these up here, is I’ve prepared a diagram, which on the left hand side of the drawing, shows
what the spacing would be, utilizing the current Ordinance requirements of a nine by twenty foot
space, with a twenty foot driving aisle, and on this I’ve indicated some typical vehicle sizes that are a
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
representation of that list, and I’ve also, on the right hand side, shown a diagram of what is we’re
proposing. Now this is a scale one-quarter inch per foot. It makes it a little easier to see than the 40-
scale site plan that we presented to you. I think the significant difference here is that if you look at
the width of the driving aisle, the difference between a 20 and a 24 foot driving aisle really helps a
driver coming down the aisle, Number One, to see the space a little bit better, but, Number Two, it
gives them more room to make a turning movement, which makes it a lot easier to get into the
slightly narrower space. On this I’ve indicated, again, assuming we’ve got an ideal driver who’s
absolutely perfect, how they would align within those parking spaces, and the separations that you
would then have from the vehicles. Because of the nature of the center and the fact that we have
offices, Travelers occupies these areas that are shaded, this entire building at the western end of the
site, backing up to Route 9, is also an office building. The retail areas are currently, in this area, the
Post Office is up in here. I think what we’re saying that a significant number of people who come
here generally come in in the morning, they park, and it’s not a lot of in and out traffic, and I think
that has a bearing on what we’re proposing to do also. We recognize, again, this is an unusual
situation that we’re trying to do something in excess of the Ordinance requirements, and normally, if
I was doing something in excess of the Ordinance, I wouldn’t think twice about coming to the Town
and saying, gee, we’re okay. So why worry about it? But we recognize your concerns, and we want
to be up front about what we’re trying to do. I think the only issue that we can see would be if the
Town were to grant the variance, you might perceive a potential liability on behalf of the Town, that
if, lets say there was a fender bender, somebody scraped a bumper or whatever, and they could say,
well, you guys ratified an eight foot six space. We’ve discussed this, and we’re prepared to offer a
Hold Harmless Agreement, if that be your concern. So that we would hold the Town harmless from
any of those circumstances. The center, as I stated, is very much different than the other centers that
may exist in the community. We feel that, if we had had the opportunity to go to the County, we
probably could have expressed our concern, and as a result maybe their opinion would have been a
little different than what they’ve submitted. I mentioned that because I know that’s a consideration
you’ve got to take into account. We’re not trying to gain any additional building area. We’re just
trying to meet the needs of the existing tenant. We feel that, obviously, the benefit is going to
improve to the owner, to the tenant. We don’t see any negative impacts to the neighborhood or to
the character of the area. We do not see any health, safety or welfare issues, as a result of this. I
think I have explained that we’ve looked at the alternatives and we feel that under the circumstances
this is the most viable alternative. We are requesting a relief of six inches. Staff has labeled that as
moderate. That’s your judgment what you feel that is. We don’t feel it’s a significant difference,
given what exists in the marketplace and the industry standards, and we certainly recognize that this
was a self-created situation. Bill, would you like to add something?
MR. DUTCH-Three things. First of all, my name is Bill Dutch. We’ve owned the center for 10
years, and we bought it, it was kind of an unusual animal. The property was owned by a savings and
loan. It was on the brink of disaster, and as a retail shopping center developer, we’re pretty
diversified into what we do in the development business, being in both office/retail and industrial
real estate, in all three areas, but this is a very unusual property, in that it was a mixed use property,
not one that was easily financable, one that the anchor space in the center, which had formally been
Montgomery Ward, for those who are familiar with the history of this property, and as you know,
Montgomery Ward took bankruptcy, moved out of this property, as did a downsized or undersized
Grand Union supermarket that was originally 18,000 square feet, and as well there was a W.T. Grant
in here, originally. So what this center was conceived as originally is not what turned out to be, what
we like to call in the business or in the trade, the highest and best use of the property. I can’t say as I
would have designed this use for a retail center, in that we would have our anchor space the most
prominent retail space, and the most easily rentable space for retail converted to office use, but when
that commitment was made, it was before our tenure as owners, and this property set the crossroads
as to which way to go, to go office or to go retail. The retail is primarily service in this center. It is
not primarily transient/turnover traffic. Certainly, yes, the Post Office generates some kind of
business like that, if you know what’s been going on, and I’m sure you’re aware of the situation in the
community in the last nine months. We’ve lost the Steinbach Department Store, which was a very
prominent junior department store tenant in this market, under various trade names, having been
sold and acquired and sold and acquired over the past 35 years, several times. They’ve taken a
bankruptcy, and they are out. What will ultimately wind up in there could very well be office. The
key to this issue is the cars do not move, do not turnover. People who come here and park stay all
day, primarily. Another major tenant in the center now is a business called Continuous Care, which
is a division of the Glens Falls Hospital. Again, they’ve been with us for about eight years now.
We’ve just made substantial improvements for them to continue their tenure. More service oriented
than retail. The Warren County Planning Board made mention of space for recreational vehicles.
Nice idea up in the miracle mile up here where we’ve got a lot of outlet, obviously a plethora of
outlet business, and predominantly that is tourist oriented, and more retail. We don’t see this. There
are some very viable retail tenants who have been here for a long time. We had enticed Ben Franklin
stores in here with a major craft store a few years ago. They went bankrupt. We invested several
hundred thousand dollars in fit up for them. It didn’t work. I’m not trying to belabor the issue, but
what I am trying to say is that, about seven years ago, Travelers came to me and said, we might have
to move out of Glens Falls, if you can accommodate us, and what was their requirement at the time?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
We have the need, in a very short period of time, within six months, to add another 200 employees in
this community, 200 jobs here, and frankly, I didn’t know how we could pull it off. We converted
some warehouse space in the back, in a park like setting, came up with a very ingenuous plan, and
I’m not patting myself on the back or our associates. I’m just saying that we were able, through some
creativity, to create a bridge which interconnects all of this space, in the back of the property, which
isn’t even visible from either Quaker Road or Route 9, and without being obtrusive at all, we’ve
created an office park back here, and if you haven’t been through this space, you ought to take a look
at it, because what was once 46,000 square feet of Travelers, is now 112,000 square feet of Travelers,
and Travelers has an option with us, on another 30,000 square feet here, and all indications are
because of the success of this claims service, of these three operations that are running here in Glens
Falls, and the availability of a skilled labor force, that they will continue to expand. Travelers
requirements are rather stringent. Not everybody could meet their requirements, especially
developers. About three years ago we competed in an RFP to keep Travelers with us, and we were
the only ones that were able to justify making the investment to keep them in our location. Right
now there are approximately 800 people working here, where there were two to four hundred
originally, as it continued to grow. Travelers has rather strict parking requirements. As hard as I
tried to negotiate for something different, these are national standards. We do not want, in any way,
to be in default on those standards in our lease, particularly when it comes to what we think will be
an expansion. If you followed Travelers at all, you’d know that they merged with Citi Corp., and they
now call the business Citi Group, and they are studying the possibility of adding other divisions to
this business here in Queensbury. I’m very concerned, and we have spent two years formulating a
plan, which will provide adequate parking. We have very few alternatives. We were able to induce
the Town to sell us a piece of non-impact cemetery property, and I have a contract that has been
indicated to me will be successful and be accepted for another piece of land back here. I think it’s
essential that we have the ability to create more parking spaces without creating any liability for
anybody. What is my background? Half of my business career was spent in the commercial parking
business. My family, my dad and I, owned a business in Syracuse, New York called Dutch Parking
Systems. We had a business in Albany at one time. We operated 50 parking lots. I spent half my
life, half my business life in that business. I never striped a space. I did all the striping in my own
parking lots that was over eight feet wide and eighteen feet deep. I think that what Jim has designed
here is an adequate aisle width, more than Code requires, more than generous to allow for the
turning maneuvers that would be required. If anything, those of you who are observant in pulling in
to parking spaces, you’ll notice that there are, I wouldn’t say the predominance, but certainly a goodly
number of people who do not park between lines, as it is now. These guidelines, with hoops, will
keep people confined within a single parking space, and if you’ve seen this happen, the chain reaction
in the past, people have straddled more than one space, it’s a snowball effect. It happens, just as I
said, in a chain. So I think that what we’re proposing and what Jim has proven with the standard
widths of cars, are things that the Warren County Planning Board was not aware of when they
deliberated on this matter to make the recommendation to you. We all know that the jobs are
crucial, and I’m not sitting here holding that as a hammer over your head. I’m saying we’re all in this
for the same purpose. We are not out of towners who came in here to make a buck in the
community. We pay a lot of tax. We’ve been here for 10 years, and we’re still here, and we plan to
be here for another 10. What we want to do is be able to accommodate a very, very viable employer
in this community, and in closing, just to say, real briefly, this justifiably is a unique animal. To the
best of my knowledge, it’s the only mixed-use property of this type in the Town of Queensbury. I
certainly can stand to be corrected, but I can tell you that it probably justifies a unique consideration
unto itself. We have told Travelers for two years that we’re getting these issues resolved. One of the
contingencies was making this deal with the Town which took us an awful long time to do, and
negotiate. We’re finally at that threshold where we can commit to Travelers and satisfy them for
both their present and future requirements, and we hope you will look favorably upon this request.
MR. STONE-I’ve got a couple of questions. One of the things that worries me is doors. It’s very
nice to park a car in a parking space, and I’m sure it’ll fit in eight foot six, but I know what happens
when, particularly two door cars, when somebody opens them, the doors are almost as long as the
car it seems sometimes, and they can do a lot of damage. Now, I don’t know what happens, does six
inches mean less damage or more damage? I don’t know.
MR. HAGEN-That’s a good question, and I think that was one of the reasons why I prepared these
exhibits is to show that we’re not going to put parking right side by side very tight to each other.
There’s still room between the vehicles. Now, does that mean if somebody swings their door open
they’re not going to bang somebody? No, somebody may, but you could do that with a nine foot
parking space. All I’m saying is that we feel that a prudent person, using prudent care, can adequate
enter and exit the vehicle, without doing damage to another vehicle.
MR. DUTCH-Well, plus, remember,. these cars are primarily sitting here all day long. This isn’t a
situation like a grocery store, where it’s basic turning over. You pull in, you don’t know what
somebody’s going to do, but the hoop is also designed, in this eight six space, more than adequately
to provide for the full opening of the door.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-You used that expression before, hoop. What do you mean?
MR. HAGEN-The striping itself.
MR. HAYES-Hairpin style.
MR. DUTCH-Exactly. It’s a hairpin style stall, and scientifically, this eight foot six space would
accommodate any car, and I think the only thing that would be tight would be the Lincoln Town car,
and I don’t know that we have a lot of those, demographically, in Northway Plaza, but I think that it
will comfortably accommodate any car that parks between these lines with the full door open, and
that certainly can be proven to you.
MR. STONE-Another question that I have, and, Bob, you probably have it, too, and I’ll ask Staff.
Hold Harmless, I mean, is this something we have to get our attorney to be involved with before we
say yes or no?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think that could be offered to the Planning Board as well. Typically, there’s
counsel there. I don’t see that as being a big problem.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we could put it in as a condition, and then the lawyer, Town Counsel at that
point, could comment.
MR. BROWN-I think that’s reasonable.
MR. DUTCH-I mean, if the issue was that the Town was going to be sued because it acted in an
imprudent manner.
MR. STONE-We know what happens today with litigation, on many different areas. Any other
questions? Anybody have any questions?
MR. MC NALLY-All summer long, I saw signs about parking for the Great Escape in your lot.
What were the terms of that arrangement with the Great Escape that you were able to offer parking
for the amusement park?
MR. DUTCH-They had asked us if we could accommodate them on weekends only for what they
had projected would be overflow parking, in which case they would shuttle people. We are not
inclined, the economics of the thing were not such that it was going to impact us one way or the
other. It was never utilized. I granted them permission for two reasons. One is that I felt it would
help some of our retail tenants who were still there, and bring some more traffic into the center,
which we sorely needed with Steinbachs leaving and having other vacancy, and secondarily, the
conditions on which we would be remunerated for that were only if they did utilize it, and our
General Manager’s here today, and I don’t know of any one occasion where they ever utilized the
arrangement. So, whatever they forecasted would be their optimum didn’t impact us. We have tried
to cooperate in the community. Those on your Staff will know we have a neighbor, you just
approved a Sign Variance for last week whose sign encroached on our property. The sign
encroached a foot on our property, and we just wrote a letter saying we’re not granting a permanent
encroachment, but we can’t do anything to encumber the deed to the property, but go ahead. We
didn’t come back to the individual and ask him for any money or anything else. That isn’t the issue
here. We have tried to be stalwart members of the community. We try to keep Travelers here, and
we put our money our proverbial mouth is. We’ve invested several million dollars in improvements
to keep Travelers in this community, and frankly, without being redundant, this is where the bread
and butter and the future of this property is right now, and as I said, we’ve got to do everything to
keep them here.
MR. STONE-When you get all done, when you get the Town land, and when you, hopefully, acquire
the land to the northeast, and at eight six on all those spots, how many spaces will you have?
MR. HAGEN-1518.
MR. STONE-That’s the 1518?
MR. HAGEN-1518, yes. It’s a gain of 85 over the nine-foot spaces. It includes the encroachment
that we’re showing on the plan, on the Stone property. What we’re talking about with them,
negotiating, is perhaps a slightly larger parcel, and I don’t have a plan to present to you on that.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just didn’t know if the 1518, because I mean, we obviously can’t grant relief
on that piece of property since you don’t own it.
MR. HAGEN-We understand that.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. DUTCH-We hope to be back in front of you, but we don’t want to cloud the issue.
MR. STONE-Has any consideration been given to mixed striping, eight six and nine?
MR. DUTCH-Yes. We talked at length about this on the way up, and Jim only ran this by me on our
trip up tonight, and, frankly, there’s so much office space here, and so little retail now, and the mix is
over 50% office use now. It would be almost, or virtually impossible to designate which spaces
would be more utilized by the retail tenant, versus the office tenant, if that was your concern.
MR. STONE-As you say, your photo made it very clear. The triangle is Travelers. There’s no
question.
MR. HAGEN-Do you have the photo there in front of you?
MR. STONE-We do.
MR. HAGEN-If you could just look at that for a second. Clearly, this is being utilized by Travelers
employees who will come right into this space. What you’re also going to see is a concentration of
cars lined up in this area, which I can tell you from our knowledge is also Travelers employees
because their main entrance is right here. You do have retail customers utilizing this area over here,
and then the spaces utilized down here are primarily people in this office section of the building.
Now, is it possible that we could stripe one half of this lot as eight foot six and the other half as nine
foot? Yes. Do we really gain that much? I don’t think you really do, and I don’t think you really see
a significant difference in how the spaces are being utilized.
MR. STONE-How about around the Post Office?
MR. HAGEN-Actually, I think I stated that the spaces up in here, the layout, is the same, in either
the nine foot or the eight foot six, and there was no real change in that area. So, certainly, we could
keep those at nine foot in that area, and what I’m saying to you is that, with the length of these roads,
the parking, there was not any significant gain in the number of parking spaces when you would
stripe it.
MR. STONE-Did you indicate in your presentation that, to the north, which is now designated a fire
lane on the wall there, that you were going to do something there?
MR. HAGEN-Yes. What happens right now is there is parking on one side of that drive, but what’s
been happening, for whatever reason, is when Steinbachs was here, people were parking at both
times, and there were still some fire regulations being challenged on this. What we’re proposing to
do, at that point, is to actually excavate into that hillside, and construct retaining walls which will
widen the paved surface area, and allow us room to maintain the parking, and adequate fire lane
access.
MR. STONE-So you’re going to move the retaining wall that’s there now?
MR. HAGEN-There’s no retaining wall there now. There’s the back of the wall, there’s a paved
area, and then there’s a sloped bank going up the hill. I’ve got photographs.
MR. STONE-Okay. I drove that way today and I thought the signs were attached to a wall. I guess.
MR. HAGEN-No, it’s just an earthen bank.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-If I understand you correctly, sir, if you decrease the width and length of these
parking spaces, you’ve only got 1518 parking spaces, but that’s inclusive of the additional area that
you’re purchasing?
MR. HAGEN-That’s inclusive of that area, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. How many additional parking spaces will you get simply by changing the
dimensions of the parking spaces?
MR. HAGEN-Eighty-five.
MR. MC NALLY-So, in other words, the additional parking spaces in that land that you’re buying are
not included in the 85 additional parking spaces, is not inclusive? Do you know what I’m getting at?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. HAGEN-Yes, I understand what you’re saying, and actually, yes. If you compared this plan to
the other plan, I think you’d find that there’s probably a net gain of three or four parking spaces in
this area, that’s included in the 85. So, technically, it would be 81 or 82.
MR. HAYES-Just from the resizing?
MR. HAGEN-Just from the resizing, within the land that they currently own.
MR. STONE-Our parking requirements, Craig, for any lot that the public uses, is nine feet?
MR. BROWN-Nine by twenty.
MR. STONE-Even if it’s an office building or a doctor’s office or anything like that, everything is
nine foot wide?
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. HAGEN-With a twenty foot driving aisle.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. DUTCH-By the way, those standards used to be, in most communities, 10 by 20, and was
reduced as cars became downsized. So what you’re seeing here really, in these charts, is where
they’re downsizing the cars. Am I correct on that? You used to have a 10 by 20 ordinance.
MR. BROWN-I’m not sure of the previous ordinance.
MR. MC NALLY-What effect will the tighter concentration of cars have on snow and ice removal
and on people walking between cars during wintertime?
MR. HAGEN-Northway Plaza is probably unique in terms of most commercial properties, that they
do most of the snow removal themselves with their staff, and there’s no question that when you
plow a large parking lot, you’re going to lose some parking spaces. In the past, they’ve plowed snow
in various directions, but they’ve also, because they’re using their own staff, have also been trucking
snow from out of the areas to areas that are not utilized on the site, to minimize those losses in
spaces. What I’m saying is they’ve got a little bit better control over it, and they try to do a good job,
try and keep it as clean as possible.
MR. STONE-But nobody can handle 24 inches of snow between nine and five.
MR. HAGEN-You are correct.
MR. STONE-Any other questions, before I open the public hearing? I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
AL POTENZA
MR. POTENZA-My name is Al Potenza. I’m one of the owners of the property to the north. I
happen to think it’s a real nifty idea. I would also like to state that Northway Plaza Associates never
contacted me and asked me to come tonight. I’m here of my own free will, so to speak, and I think
that I can’t emphasize the point enough about Travelers. I think that it’s a genuine valid concern,
and I think we should try to do anything we can to keep Travelers here and hopefully expand in this
area, and I might also add that, if anything, they’ve been a great neighbor. I’ve probably been a pain
in the ass to them. So, with that said, I’m in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? In favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed?
Any correspondence?
MR. STEC-No, no correspondence.
MR. STONE-Well, then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant?
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STEC-I have a question, actually, for the Acting Chairman. For the purposes of the record,
you’re not in any way related to the Stone?
MR. STONE-I am not related to the Stone.
MR. STEC-Okay. I know normally you’d like to make that clear, and I just wanted to give you an
opportunity.
MR. STONE-I appreciate that. I should have done that. I said we exclude the lands of Stone, and
they’re not mine. Absolutely right. Thank you.
MR. STEC-You’re welcome.
MR. STONE-Having said that. Mr. Hayes, what do you think?
MR. HAYES-Well, I guess first of all, this is the first case that I’ve been involved with, personally,
where six inches of relief was paramount. That’s pretty unusual circumstances, but I guess starting
out, in this particular case, I agree with the applicant’s premise, that this Plaza is a higher percentage
of office versus retail, and a transition is underway, one that is certainly appreciated, based on the
high level of vacancy in the past, with the property. I don’t think a vacant property in the center of
our Town is a good thing for the businesses or for the neighborhood and community for that matter.
I think that that impacts my decision, therefore, that the traffic or turnover will be less, and I think
that, I agree that in circumstances of analyzing whether eight and a half feet is enough or nine feet
enough, certainly the composition and the nature of the parking being used has to be considered, and
in this case I think it is office parking. I have some personal experience in that Plaza, and the people
that work at Travelers, they park there to go to work, and maybe leave for lunch and that’s about it.
There’s not a lot of in and out traffic, particularly in the triangle that’s in the, would be in the
southern corner of the property. I believe that the applicant has explored alternatives. I don’t
believe that they are coming to the Board just looking for us to grant them relief to solve their
problems. They’ve come to an agreement with the Town for acquisition of lands next to the
cemetery, and they’ve represented to our Board that they also have sought out the land of the Stones
in the northeast, and these seem to me to be steps that a responsible business owner would take to
try and relieve problems, but when they come to us exploring their own opportunities and their own
alternatives and ask for a reasonable one, I think it should be considered. The engineer for the
applicant has demonstrated, and it’s also my personal knowledge, that cars are downsizing under
current trends, particularly with the influence of Europe, and in this particular case, it really boils
down, in my mind, being that I don’t see a change in the neighborhood being caused by this Plaza,
because it is the neighborhood. At some point, it’s on the business owners head, if you will, to live
and die by his own knowledge and experience, and if he feels that 8.5 feet of wide parking spots, with
the additional turning aisles, is adequate, then really his own property is going to be affected the most
by this decision, and therefore, he’s presented to us that he feels compelled to go by that knowledge,
and to go by what he needs to preserve a good employer in this Town, and also a paying tenant, and
I guess in this particular case, his motivation seems justified to me. I believe that the effects on the
neighborhood or community are little, if any, and therefore, the benefit to the applicant would
outweigh that, and therefore, I believe the test would fall in favor of the applicant in this case.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-This is a tough one. You’d think six inches wouldn’t really matter much. I look at
the benefit to the applicant, and I’m not really convinced that there’s a need for these additional
spaces. I go by this parking lot at least twice a day, every day of the week, and usually a lot more
times than that, and when I go by it, there’s a lot of open spaces, even when Travelers is there and
occupied. The portion that is opposite the Travelers building has a lot of empty spaces in it, and
when I stopped by today, I drove a pickup truck. I didn’t drive a Crown Victoria, but I tried parking
it in different places, and I tried looking and seeing what other cars are in that lot, and there are a lot
of family vans. There are a lot of pick ups, and I try to look at the Town’s Code, and when they give
these dimensions for off street parking, they give as reasons that there has to be sufficient space for
adequate parking, and that these are minimum standards. These are not the maximum. These are
minimum standards, and it’s also for the safety of pedestrians, and it’s to ensure egress through the
property for emergency vehicles. We’re talking about a difference of 85 parking spaces, in a Plaza
that is, in large park, unoccupied in many places. It is now occupied as an office by the Travelers,
but I know it’s been Montgomery Wards. It’s been Ben Franklins. It’s been W.T. Grants. It’s been
Steinbachs, and tomorrow it could be those stores again. There’s nothing, if we pass this, that’s
going to obligate you to maintain it as office space. So in the future, there’s a very good chance that
it’s going to return to the retail occupancy that it once had, and certainly I would estimate, just
looking at your diagram, that some 50% of it could be occupied by retail space or is occupied by
retail space now. I found it personally tight, and on the Travelers side, they’re on top of each other,
all over the place, but they don’t park on the opposite side of the parking lot where there’s plenty of
openings. I went on my lunch time, too, and I was there when everyone decided to go to lunch at
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
the same time, and I know that you go to work, you park your car, and you think you leave it until
five o’clock at night, but at noon, there was a mad dash to get out of that place and cars were all over
the place. I’m willing to listen to the rest of my Board members, but I think that I’m not necessarily
in favor of this application.
MR. HAGEN-Do we have an opportunity to respond?
MR. MC NALLY-Sure.
MR. HAGEN-I think what you say is true, that yes there is open space, and I think part of that
reason is that there are vacancies. That if those spaces are vacant, we’re fully occupied with viable
tenants, that you would find a slightly different situation. I think the other issue that we’ve got to
look at is, by lease, we have certain requirements to satisfy Travelers needs. In addition, we also have
to provide the needs of the other tenants in the center, and if we over commit Travelers to the
utilization of the other tenants spaces, that becomes more difficult, then, for the owner to lease those
spaces to potential users, and while, visually, it may appear that way now, that’s not what we hope to
have a year from now. I feel that your comment about mad dash at noontime, yes, it probably does
occur. Some people do eat there. They have dining facilities on site, but I’m sure a number of the
people go out, but the question I’ve got to ask is, what problems did that create? Was there any
accidents or was there any major congestion or problems going out to Route 9, and I don’t believe
there really, you would really find that.
MR. MC NALLY-What I assume is that the Town Board, in setting these dimensions, had some
rational basis for doing so, and I can only assume it’s because they want to avoid problems with
pedestrians, vehicles trying to enter into or get out of spaces where pedestrians are walking through
the parking lot to get to their cars, that they’re concerned about damage to the cars. I know damn
well how you open up a car door and they slam into the one next to you. There’s a certain space
between them that avoids that. There’s a problem with ice and water, today, with the rain. I mean,
half the lot is covered with water, and you can see the people trying to park in one spot and not
another spot, because if they stepped out in certain spaces, there’d be six inches of water that they’d
be stepping into. It’s all those kind of jockeying for positions. For good or ill, this is what the Town
Board has decided, but what I’m thinking in terms of is balance as it currently exists. You’re telling
me, today, you hope some time in the future to have this place occupied. Maybe a year, maybe two
years, maybe ten years, but you’re asking us just to guess, to assume, to hope. If you could show us
these things, I might have a different opinion, but I don’t see it.
MR. DUTCH-Here’s why we’re here, very simply. We’ve got a major employer in the community
who has a demand that exceeds the community’s standard. If that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t go
through this exercise. We wouldn’t go through the exercise to acquire additional land, at a pretty
substantial expense. We also have offered, as a demonstration of our concern about the additional
issues that are related to traffic in this parking lot, none of which we’re compelled to do, but which
are arbitrary, and are very expensive, according to the numbers and the estimates that Jim has
prepared for me, to change the traffic configuration in this parking lot, to eliminate what are existing
hazards by design. So we’re doing some things voluntarily to demonstrate to the Town that we are
good citizens, exactly what the Acting Chairman said, and I believe made the point here, is that, you
know, we’re the ones who will suffer or not suffer. What this shopping center becomes 10 years
from now, I have no idea. I mean, I cannot predict. Where it’s going right now is I cannot attract
the conventional type of retailer to this property because we are predominantly an office center.
That is not a situation that is conducive to leasing retail space right now. So we’re almost committed
to going to this office, back office service center type of future. Can I commit to it? No, nothing is a
certainty of life.
MR. HAGEN-Bill, maybe I could address a question to you and maybe this will answer some of your
concerns. Obviously, we’re addressing our concerns to Travelers. We do have other office tenants
in here. Would you be willing to create a stipulation that should Travelers’ space be vacated, and it
were to divert to retail, that we would have to re-stripe it back to nine foot?
MR. DUTCH-Or what the community standard was at the time. I think this complicates the issue.
We’re not here to take advantage of your Ordinance. We’re here because of our present need,
obviously. When the standard in the community changed, as a result of the standards in vehicles
changing, that standard went down 10%, from 10 feet to 9 feet. One foot is 10% of the requirement,
am I correct? I believe.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, you are.
MR. DUTCH-The standard from eight and a half to nine is, I believe, what, three and a half percent,
not even.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-Yes, but eventually, if you get it down so you could have no width at all, we’re using
the logic that you’re using, and it’s only 1% change.
MR. DUTCH-Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that we’re here with the facts as we know them now, and
we know we don’t have anymore property to expand. We do know that Travelers wants to expand
further, and we do know what we’re agreed to with Travelers by lease. So what we’ve done is
everything, as Mr. Hayes mentioned in his statement of support for us, we have done everything we
can think of, in good conscience, to expand the parking. Certainly, we can’t acquire land across a
public highway, and invite the employees, the tenants of the center to walk across a very busy street,
be it Quaker Road or Route 9.
MR. STONE-Nobody’s asking that. The one thing that I haven’t heard, and we’ve talked about a
number of times, what exactly does Travelers want? They don’t want 1518 spaces.
MR. HAGEN-No.
MR. STONE-So there is a requirement that they have asked of you, and it may be in a, how big a
circle they’re willing to put number of spaces. You haven’t put that on the table. I’m just curious.
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got 1433 spaces at the current condition, and you’re not occupied. So
where is the need?
MR. DUTCH-What is the requirement, by Ordinance, per thousand feet of office space now?
MR. HAGEN-Five per thousand, I believe.
MR. DUTCH-Five per thousand. I think Travelers is six.
MR. MC NALLY-They’re not the one saying you have to have eight foot six wide parking spaces.
MR. DUTCH-No, no. They’re telling us how many parking spaces we have to have available to
them.
MR. STONE-Within a certain distance, or anywhere on the property?
MR. DUTCH-On the property, on site, because all the parking is shared in common.
MR. STONE-Okay, so you certainly have more than adequate at the present time, with nine foot, for
Travelers.
MR. DUTCH-Yes. Well, I’d qualify that answer with the acquisition of the cemetery property.
MR. STONE-That’s only in close proximity to their building.
MR. DUTCH-Sir, my opening remark was that we have been, technically, in default on the terms of
our lease, and we do not presently have the required parking spaces for Travelers. Is it inventory for
the entire shopping center with the Town? Yes, no question, that nine feet. Okay, but at full
occupancy for the Travelers, we would be in default. Certainly it doesn’t present a problem now
because there’s a lot of vacant spaces.
MR. STONE-But I want to know what Travelers have asked for in the lease. What do you say? You
say six parking spaces per thousand square feet, is that what I thought I heard you say or something?
MR. MC NALLY-Do you have a copy of the lease?
MR. DUTCH-Whatever it is, I don’t have a copy of the lease with me, and without wanting to table
this issue, this whole presentation was predicated on being able to meet their requirements, which are
more intense than the shopping center’s, or than the community’s.
MR. STONE-I understand that, but the only way they can be more intense is having a certain
number of spaces within a certain number of feet, as I would understand, because if somebody parks
up by the Post Office, they can still walk, they’ve got parking space. They can walk down to
Travelers. So I want to know, does their requirement say within a?
MR. HAYES-Well, it could be cumulatively, too, being Travelers’ additional requirements, plus the
Plaza.
MR. STEC-Is there an equation? Do they have an equation?
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. HAGEN-Under this type of zone, or this type of use, the Town requirements are five per
thousand, one per two hundred. I am not prepared tonight, we do have the documentation available.
We’d be certainly glad to submit it to you, but what I’m telling you is that they’re requirement is in
excess of that, and when they selected this site years ago, the stipulation was that we have X number
of parking spaces, a ratio in proportion to the square footage they’re utilizing on this site, meaning
the entire shopping center site. There’s no distance from the front door or other limitation. What I
can tell you is that what we’re proposing is to meet their current needs, and as Bill has indicated,
technically is in default of the lease terms right now, and also allows us the flexibility for the next
phase, when they take the next section of space.
MR. STONE-I only have difficulty, I haven’t decided where I’m coming down on this thing. I just
have difficulty understanding this requirement, if you’ve got 1400 spaces in the lot and they only
need six or seven hundred. There’s got to be a formula, as Mr. Stec says.
MR. DUTCH-There is, and to be honest with you, I don’t remember, but may I say this? We
wouldn’t have gone through this exercise if we could conform. I just don’t have it in the
documentation package today. Bear in mind two things. One, when we made the latest expansion of
the Travelers space, they have not filled all of those workstations. There are, I believe, if I’m correct,
150 empty workstations at the present time, which they anticipate filling. So what you’re seeing, on a
typical day in September 1999 is not Travelers at a full compliment. Believe me, I have, as you would
and any prudent businessman would, I had no intention of going out and acquiring additional
property and going through all of this exercise if I didn’t need to, and I’m sure you can appreciate
that I can support and substantiate that the reason we did this, and our spending all this money is to
keep the tenant in the Plaza.
MR. STONE-Good point.
MR. DUTCH-And I can prove that to you. Believe me, I’m not here frivolously, and the several
hundred thousand dollars we’ve committed to these parking renovations were not required by
Travelers. They’re a gesture by us, two things, improve the marketability and the traffic flow,
improve the traffic flow of the property, which will in turn improve the marketability of those vacant
spaces, and I know you would like to see those full. Whether they’re full with retail or office, I don’t
know, but based on the current mix in the center, or the likelihood of attracting the type of retailer
that you’re seeing down here on Bay Road with the Lowe’s type of retailer or the big box. It’s not
going to happen in Northway Plaza, and we’re not an outlet center. We’re not value oriented.
MR. HAGEN-Since I prepared the application, I apologize for not having the documentation.
Certainly we could have it in your hands tomorrow morning.
MR. STONE-I’ll listen to the rest of us. It’s just a point that I wanted to get on the table, because I
keep hearing they’ve got requirements, and I don’t know, in a sense, what they are, except you make
a very good point. You’d be spending a lot of money to meet whatever they are. Okay. Let me go
on. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I see a couple of things here. The applicant is either saying that the Town
Ordinance, the way it’s structured now, is not current and really should be revised so the parking
spaces are eight and a half feet rather than nine, or they’re saying that the Town Ordinance should
differentiate between retail spaces and office spaces. I think in either case what they’re really asking
is for a revision of the Ordinance, and if we grant relief in this particular case, then we should be
prepared to grant similar to relief to any other office space, office building, that wants to get more
spaces in, and I think the appropriate place to go for relief in this would probably be back to the
Town Board and revise the Ordinance, rather than having us grant a variance. If they could show us
that all the people that work at Travelers were going to small cars, then it would strike me they had a
unique situation, but they’re going to be coming in with all size vehicles, and I don’t think we’ve got
justification for granting relief in this situation, versus granting relief for other areas or granting relief
to, partial relief to say Aviation Mall for their office workers and their store staff versus their
customers. So on that basis, I’m inclined to disapprove.
MR. STONE-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-Well, this is the first parking size variance request that I’ve seen in almost a full year that
I’ve been on the Board. I do think that this Plaza is unique, in its composition of tenants, and I think
that that is a factor. I agree that when I drive by, the lot is not full. I also agree that, or I understand
that there’s a lease requirement that apparently calls for more than is currently available. Myself,
personally, I don’t think that six inches of relief from the lot size is very significant, given the other
factors. I agree that apparently we’re only gaining 85 spots, but apparently, that makes all the
difference in the world to this particular applicant, and given the conditions, the unique
circumstances that I see, I think the applicant has gone out of their way to pursue ever other feasible
alternative. I know it took the applicant a long time to acquire the lands from the Town. I’ve been
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
watching at the Town Board meetings, and so I think that the applicant is definitely here on good
faith, and I think they’re trying to accommodate their tenant. I think that this is in the interest of the
Town, in addition to the interest of the tenant. I don’t think that anyone is going to complain or lose
any sleep or I don’t anticipate any further difficulties in the parking lot, because of changing the
width of the spot by six inches. I just don’t see it as that big an issue, and I frankly don’t have a
problem approving this. I look at the parcel history, and it strikes me that they’ve never asked for
anything. We’ve had some applicants before us that have a good four, five inches long of history. So
I’m willing to concede six inches on the lot space. I really don’t think that the relief is substantial. I
don’t think there’s any negative impacts on the community. I think there would be a negative impact
on the community should we disapprove, and lose a major employer. I don’t think the applicant’s
held it over our head. I think that some other applicants that we’ve seen before would hold it over
our head in a heartbeat, but I think they’re speaking very plainly and frankly, and I think that there
could be negative repercussions, and I don’t think it’s worth our sticking to our guns on six inches on
a lot size. So that’s how I feel.
MR. STONE-I’ve heard a number of things in the discussion tonight that cause me, provide a great
deal of food for thought. On the one hand, I agree. It is a good project, if, in fact, it keeps a good
tenant in Town, if, in fact, that is a requirement of their staying in Town. I do not doubt the
applicant’s sincerity in saying so. I also don’t think that reducing at least a lot of spaces, and I don’t
know the number, in width for those people who are going to be there all day, even though as Mr.
McNally says, they do run out to lunch, but they get used to it. They know the parking lot. This is
part of their home. This is where they work, and they’re aware if it’s going to be a little narrower,
they’ll know it’s going to be a little narrower. So I don’t see that as a tremendous problem. I am
concerned, however, that while there are still retail outlets in the mall, particularly Convenient
Medical, and I’ve been in there recently, with the sling, and I’ve seen a lot of the people who go in
there. These are people who go in there for a reason, to buy medical devices of one type or another.
Some people are in walkers. Some people are in wheelchairs. Yes, I know we have handicap
parking, but not everybody has a handicap tag, and I’m somewhat concerned that if we constrict
these spaces, in that particular area, we cause more problems than solutions. Having said that,
basically I’m in favor, I’m struck by something that Mr. McNulty said. We have a requirement of off
street parking that applies to public buildings, private buildings, all kinds of buildings. Even if
Travelers were to build its own mall on its own property, they would be required to have nine-foot
wide aisles. Is that correct, Craig?
MR. BROWN-That’s the requirement.
MR. STONE-That’s the way I read it. I mean, so in other words, even if it were their own property,
they could not build anything less than nine feet. I’m concerned, we talk a great deal here about
precedent. Usually we’re not creating precedent because the conditions are so varied or so different
between the applicants who come in here. At home you heard a number here tonight, a swimming
pool here, a one foot side setback there. Here we’re talking about a parking lot. Every business in
Town has a parking lot, an off street parking lot. Every business in Town could be in here
tomorrow, if we grant this, and say, well, I’m so busy, I need more spaces. I know the applicant has
stated that usually you’re pushing to get to the Town limit for parking. Usually everybody is under,
but we’re in a situation, hopefully, where economics are changing around, and people are going to be
going more places and doing more purchasing of one thing or another, and I can see every mall
owner, particularly strip malls, that do have limited parking, because they were never big enough in
the first place coming in here and saying, well, you gave Northway eight six. I want eight six. That’s
the concern that I have. I certainly am sympathetic to Travelers’ needs. I wouldn’t want to lose
Travelers. I mean, they’re very important to the Town. There’s no question about it. They’re very
important to your livelihood, and we recognize that. I’m just wondering, and I don’t know if it
would affect my Board members or not, if we could somehow make a portion of the property a
Travelers parking lot. I don’t even know if this is feasible, make it eight six, and leave a goodly
portion at nine foot. This is where I came in before the evening, I’ve heard some things, as I say,
that cause me some concern. I want to approve this. I really do want to approve this, but I’m afraid
that if we just say, guys, go make your parking lot eight six, that there’ll be, Craig will be inundated,
possibly.
MR. DUTCH-I think we can offer you, Mr. Chairman, some justification.
MR. STONE-I would much rather hear a compromise than justification.
MR. DUTCH-Well, compromises are complicated because enforcement and regulation and
definition of what’s retail and what’s, you know, what area do we reserve, and I still think you have a
problem, and we appreciate the position you may be put in as far as setting a dangerous precedent, or
one that at least might change the community standard and certainly we don’t have the timing, the
ability, because time is of the essence for us in this whole project, to go back and go through and
change the entire zoning requirement, and profit more or less a public interest or public action kind
of thing. What I think our justification is that we didn’t anticipate, when we bought this property,
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
ever having to need anymore spaces than we were providing. Through the ingenuity, as I said, and
our creativity, we were able to convert warehouse space to office space, higher and better use. It
would increase the tax base in the community, brought more jobs in, but that space that we
converted was used by the postal service center as a warehouse facility originally. It remained, there
was 40,000 feet vacant warehouse underneath our Building Number Four. We were able to convert
25,000 square feet to productive office use, creating 125 to 150 new jobs down there. We did a
similar thing in the back end of that space, taking another 15,000 feet and creating another 75 to 90
jobs upstairs. We didn’t anticipate this, or I wouldn’t be in front of you. I mean, we didn’t anticipate
that we’d run out of parking, but if I couldn’t say yes to Travelers, Travelers was looking at Albany,
on the last go around, saying if you can’t provide the space for us, maybe (lost words) and if you
know these insurance company tenants, they don’t sign long term leases. They look to the developer
to assume all the risk, put up all the money. So I didn’t have a chance to say no. Selfishly, I’d lose
my property if I said no. We have enough other afflictions with the erosion of the retail base in this
center. So we said yes, and when they came to me and they told me their parking requirement, and
they said, can you do it, I said, somehow we’ve got enough. We’ll take care of it. I knew we were
tight, but I didn’t realize until Jim and I sat down how tight we were, and then when they took
options on additional space, I knew we couldn’t deliver. So we scrambled to go out, and the only
place we could go, we didn’t have any alternative, was to go to the Town and say, would you
acquiesce and sell a piece of non productive land that can never be used for cemetery, and we are
working, as I said, toward a deal. Also, we don’t have any other options.
MR. STONE-No, I hear that.
MR. DUTCH-This was not contemplated when we bought this property.
MR. STONE-I mean, I don’t think anybody on this Board, and I don’t want to put words in their
mouth, I don’t think anybody on this Board wants to see Travelers go. That’s a given.
MR. DUTCH-Least of all us.
MR. STONE-But I did hear two members of the Board express negative feelings about this
application, at least two.
MR. DUTCH-Sometimes, sir, there’s a trade off, and we think we made a trade off in creating some
more green area, and reserve space for.
MR. STONE-There are two gentlemen down here you’re really talking to. I mean, I don’t mean to
put them on the spot, but you need all five of us tonight to vote.
MR. HAGEN-Could you excuse us for just one second?
MR. STONE-Surely.
MR. DUTCH-Could we ask a question, informally, without going on the record here.
MR. STONE-Well, you’re on the record.
MR. DUTCH-Well, I mean, off the record, can we go off the record for a second, and can I ask, is
the inclination here, I mean, will this be defeated, otherwise? I don’t know what a compromise is
right now, and we almost have to walk out of the room with some agreement, and we didn’t, because
of the complication of striping some spaces some way, and then what if the rest of it becomes office
and what if Travelers takes the whole property? Which, you know what, is not so far fetched. It
could happen. As you pointed out.
MR. STONE-If it all became Travelers, that’s a different issue than it is now. The concerns . It
could happen. As you pointed out.
MR. STONE-If it all became Travelers, that’s a different issue than it is now. The concerns I heard,
I heard two concerns. I heard a concern about precedent. I heard a concern about that they’re
narrow, but I can’t speak for Bob. I don’t know whether he’d be willing for a compromise. The
compromise is my thing, but I hear two people, who when we went around the room and why we go
around the room is to know what kind of motion to make. I know that if we made a motion to
approve, I heard two negative votes.
MR. DUTCH-Are those two people who were dissenting still of the opinion that they would defeat
this proposal at this point?
MR. MC NALLY-Why can’t you find out what your lease says, and if you can convince me that what
you say, that Travelers absolutely has to have this property, they have to have 1518 spaces this
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
month, all right, or that you have a need for this in your business, I can understand it, but if we’re
talking 10 years down the road that they’re going to need this.
MR. DUTCH-No, no, no. If you’ll trust my credibility here, and without being able to substantiate
that, in terms of producing the lease document, I am not one to spend possibly a half a billion
dollars, when I don’t need to do that. That is a real tough amount of money to come by, for us, with
all the vacancy we have in this center. So, I mean, I’d just as soon not be here today, if I didn’t need
to do it, we did all this homework over two years because we did need to do it. So, trust me on that
one. If, personally, you need me to substantiate that to you, I’d be happy to do that, but we only
entered into these discussions, negotiations, acquisitions, and possible commitments to make all
these improvements because we felt that we couldn’t comply with Travelers’ requirements, not with
the Town of Queensbury’s, with Travelers.
MR. STEC-Question. If we conditioned a motion that by the end of the week or close of business
tomorrow, you could provide the Town Planning Department a copy of the lease with the
highlighted section, whatever, that specifies why this is required now and is not a forecast for 10
years from now, is that something that you could do?
MR. DUTCH-Definitely. Absolutely.
MR. STEC-I don’t need convincing, but that might help some of the others on the Board.
MR. STONE-But is there any compromise, it would make me happy if I could say, in terms of
somebody who comes up here next month, and says, I want eight foot six, I can say, well, this was a
special situation, in that we made a certain number of parking spaces that Travelers required to
maintain their lease, eight foot six, and we left the rest at the Town standard, I have a much better
leg, we have a much better leg to stand on, in terms of turning down another.
MR. HAYES-I think also, though, we have a decent leg to stand on by the fact that they’re already
compliant. They’re not asking for a stretch to get to compliance. They’re asking for a stretch for a
reason that they feel they can demonstrate. I think that’s totally different than somebody coming in
and saying, hey, we don’t have it and we’ve got to do this to make it work. I mean, that’s a different
thing.
MR. STONE-Yes, but everybody in Town is legal, in terms of the amount of parking spaces they
have.
MR. HAYES-No, I don’t think they are. I mean, there’s a lot of developments that don’t go through
because when they do the plans, they.
MR. STONE-That don’t go through, but I’m saying ones that have gone through, are they not
compliant for parking, or have there been?
MR. BROWN-If there was any relief given, it would have come through this Board.
MR. HAYES-We granted it on our Plaza. They grant relief for parking requirements.
MR. STONE-Yes, we did it on yours, you’re right.
MR. HAYES-And I can also tell you, and obviously everybody’s going to make their own decision,
but there’s no doubt in my mind, being a developer of property myself, that there’s no way that any
developer is going to spend money unless they feel they have to for sound business reasons. He’s
not in here to spend a half million dollars because he likes the idea. I can guarantee you that.
MR. DUTCH-And I appreciate your support on that, and that is the issue. Maybe I can help you
with your precedent here, and again, I think I can document this, but between the time the first lease
with Travelers was signed, which I did not negotiate. It was negotiated by the predecessor/owner,
and the time this expansion came around, their parking requirement changed. Since they were
already a tenant of the property, the parking requirement became more stringent and became a
national standard, as these often do for major tenants like this, and I believe the parking requirement
became more intense. Travelers, unfortunately, wouldn’t permit us to be grandfathered in, if the
ratio had been five to one, lets say, and is now six, or five per thousand and is now six per thousand,
what they agreed to two years ago and what they agreed to two years ago when I renegotiated were
two different things, and we did renegotiate the entire lease, not the original lease.
MR. STONE-Okay. One of the things you’re saying is that this business, I hate to use the word
“unique”, but is unique to Queensbury, in the number of people per square foot, probably.
MR. DUTCH-Yes.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STEC-Yes, way more than the Mall.
MR. DUTCH-And again, I may be talking out of school, if this is a self-imposed hardship or how
you look at this self-created, but I think it is a relatively unique situation.
MR. STONE-As I say, I’m not adverse to the thing, I’m only concerned about the precedent.
You’ve given me something that at least I can use, in a next argument, that if you had a tenant like
Travelers, we might be able to give you relief. Nobody has a tenant like Travelers.
MR. DUTCH-A major employer in the Town expanded and changed their parking requirements.
MR. STONE-I’m not putting pressure. I just want you to know that if we vote, if we’re going to
vote, we’re going to vote. I have no problem with voting.
MR. HAYES-Well, the applicant has to consider he needs a thing here, and that’s part of his own
hardship.
MR. STONE-Right now we only have six members on our Board. We had a resignation, and the
Chairman was out this month. He would have been out even if he wasn’t going to be because of the
storm, I’m sure, because he works for NiMo, but if you can wait until next month, there will be at
least six of us. There may be seven. I doubt it, but there would be six.
MR. STEC-Mr. Chairman, if I may ask this question, please. The northern corner, near the Post
Office. A while back, we were talking about how much are you gaining up there, and you said we’re
not. So are they eight and a half-foot or nine-foot spaces right now? The design, the proposal
they’re still nine?
MR. HAGEN-Still nine.
MR. STEC-So the parking lot is a mix of eight and a half parking spaces and nine-foot spaces. I
don’t think the Board was necessarily clear on that.
MR. DUTCH-Also, may I just interject this? We are in compliance now, which is a unique situation.
I doubt there are very many developers, office tenants, anybody in Town, who would come to you
and ask you to change the parking and create more parking, who had land available to do it. I mean,
obviously, they want to make things as convenient as they can. I think we’ve demonstrated both the
initiative and sincerity to acquire and invest in whatever other land was available, but we’re also, and
as a justification, if you can buy into this, so to speak, there’s nothing, there’s no false façade about it.
We have more parking than you require us to have now. What we’re asking you is to allow us to
create enough to keep a major tenant in Town.
MR. STEC-How many of those rows are nine feet? That’s the only thing I want to know is how
many of those rows are nine feet wide, near the Post Office?
MR. HAGEN-Okay. Because of the way that the site is laid out, and the way it’s been for 30 years,
when you have a row that has 10 parking spaces in it, and you reduce it, each one by six inches, I’m
only gaining five-foot.
MR. STEC-We’re working in multiples of eight and a half feet.
MR. HAGEN-That’s right.
MR. STEC-I understand that.
MR. HAGEN-So it’s only where I’ve got longer rows of parking that we can take advantage of that.
MR. STEC-So how many rows, I think that would really help the Board out if you could say, hey,
those two or three rows near the Post Office are all nine feet wide.
MR. HAGEN-They are.
MR. STEC-Two rows, three rows, how many?
MR. HAGEN-Probably the easiest way would be, I’ve got two diagrams here, and I’m comparing
this diagram to this one, and then with that you can see where the differences are. I don’t know, I
don’t want to take everybody’s time by going through row by row and saying, here’s where they are.
MR. STEC-I think, 10 minutes ago, the impression was that every space was eight and a half feet.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. HAGEN-No, it’s not.
MR. STEC-Well, I think that’s significant to point out. I’m trying to help you, here.
MR. HAGEN-I appreciate that, and what I’m saying to you is the spaces up in this area are generally,
are nine foot. Certainly areas back in here where you have rows of four, six, those would be nine-
foot. The shorter rows within these parking areas, we would still have nine-foot spaces. These larger
rows running through the center area is where we would (lost words) eight foot six.
MR. DUTCH-What would be the minimum length of a row, where you would be less than?
MR. STEC-There will be windows where the multiples work out.
MR. HAGEN-It would be 20 feet for 20 parking spaces, 18 parking spaces, I guess.
MR. STONE-That picks up nine feet.
MR. DUTCH-So, if you could re-phrase, maybe even, the variance, any row that is greater than 18
parking spaces could be eight and a half feet.
MR. STONE-We could do that.
MR. DUTCH-Maybe that gives you the justification.
MR. STEC-Again, although we usually say that we consider each variance on its own merits, but
occasionally we get the precedent, and we all do it and it is important because we’ve had applicants
come before us and say, you let so and so do this. I think, for the purpose of what you’re trying to
accomplish here, we want, our job is to give the minimum relief required, and no more, no less, and I
think that it would be a lot easier for the Board to tell the next applicant, look, we didn’t give the
whole parking lot eight and a half feet. We gave just enough to give them what they needed, and
they demonstrated. I think it was worth pointing out that it’s not all eight and a half feet, for the
purpose of precedent in the future.
(Discussion ensued)
MR. STONE-What’s the square footage of the property, total buildable?
MR. DUTCH-281,000 square feet, gross, which includes.
MR. STONE-What’s the requirement of the Town for that piece of property, at five per thousand?
Okay. It’s right here.
MR. HAGEN-There’s your building area. That’s exterior wall area. This is gross floor area. Based
on that.
MR. STONE-You need 1400 spaces.
MR. HAGEN-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay, and you’re saying that, Travelers has 112,000 or something, you said?
MR. DUTCH-Travelers themselves, yes, has 112. There’s more office space in the center.
MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s an extra 112 cars, one per thousand. So you need 1512 to satisfy
Travelers and to satisfy the Town, and you won’t get that unless we make a number of them eight
foot six, the 1518. Okay, that kind of clears it to me. In other words, their requirement to get it is
six per thousand. You have a residual that you’ve got to meet, which makes it a total of 1512 parking
spaces, and the only way to get to that is by reducing the number that you want to reduce to eight
foot six, in conjunction with the acquisition. I understand that. Okay. Does that help anybody, in
terms of, that’s what his requirement is? If you want us to vote, we’ll make a motion, and we’ll see
what happens. You always have the option, obviously, of withdrawing the application for the
moment. You have the option of asking us to table it, or taking the result of whatever this motion is.
You can hear the motion.
MR. DUTCH-May I ask you this, because it’s been a long day for all of us, and your night isn’t over
yet. Can I ask you to ask members of the panel here if there’s anybody who would still be opposed
to this? I mean, you could informally do that, couldn’t you?
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-I can do that. Is anybody going to say no?
MR. MC NALLY-I can say this. I’m not convinced, I’m still not convinced, in spite of all that you’ve
said, that Travelers is going to walk, or that you absolutely need this number of parking spaces, okay,
but as an experiment, all right, I’d be willing to vote in favor of the thing, just to get it approved, and
then we’ll see what happens.
MR. MC NULTY-I’m sorry, but I’m still opposed.
MR. STONE-Okay. So your best thing to do is to wait until next month, we’ll hopefully have six of
us here, or seven.
MR. DUTCH-Can I ask Mr. McNulty, if this is all right procedurally, what you’re opposed to? Is it
the precedent more than the principle here?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, it’s the precedent, but I don’t want to emphasize the precedent. It’s still
back to the same thing. I think what we’re doing, the only thing unique, that I see, is you’ve got a
tenant that’s demanding more parking spaces than what you can give with what land you’ve got right
now, and I don’t think that that’s a situation, for me, that makes it unique for your situation. I mean,
if all these people drove, planned this, or something like that, and you could say, yes, all these people
that are going to have cars that are four feet wide, then I would think it would be unique and we
could say, okay, as long as they’re all going to be driving those cars, we can give you some parking
spaces that are narrower, but that’s not the case. You’re asking us to make an exception to what the
Ordinance is. The Ordinance is based on retail and office space, and all kinds of off street parking.
MR. DUTCH-But I am, we are in compliance now. I mean, you have to bear that in mind, that we
don’t need to be here. We’re only here, and I hate to use the word, because it’s probably not
germane to what you’re deliberating here, a hardship. We’re here, hardship, because the tenant
changed its parking requirements mid stream. I didn’t change them. They changed their national
standards, and in order for us to keep the tenant in the Town of Queensbury, both for our purposes
and the Town’s benefit, we had to be in compliance, and if I’m technically in default, I don’t want to
run the risk of the millions of dollars of investment we’ve made to keep this tenant in the
community, for the benefit of the community, for the taxpayers, because we are paying taxes here,
and I’m not, believe me, this is not, I’m not here to ram this down your throat. I’m here because I
had no option, when we did this deal. It was either keep them or lose them. It was that simple.
MR. STONE-No, we hear that, and four of us are willing to say, we would grant the variance, based
upon the fact that, with the requirement, you need to reduce the size of some spaces, in order to pick
up the required number, and I would suggest to you that the sixth member of our Board, who is not
here tonight, I don’t know where he would come out on this thing, but the odds are that you have a
much better chance of getting a five to one vote, needing five votes, next month, when six of us will
be here, and we may have a seventh person.
MR. DUTCH-I take that under advisement, and it’s probably great advice, and I’m only asking Mr.
McNulty if he would take a minute to reconsider, and if he’s inflexible, then we have no choice.
MR. STONE-Well, don’t use the word “inflexible”. He has a position.
MR. DUTCH-His position, I respect it, okay, but I think I’ve given you enough (lost word) here to,
again, I reiterate the fact that the requirement was changed after the fact.
MR. STONE-Enough is in the eyes of the beholder, and you helped me by talking about the
numbers that are nine foot. Obviously, you didn’t help Mr. McNulty. Therefore, you have two
options. We can make a motion to approve, because the majority of the people will vote to approve,
but since you need five, it’s apparent you will not get five votes. Therefore, the best advice I can give
you, if you really want this, is to table it and see what happens next month. I mean, we don’t like to
table things, but this is a case, I think, where.
MR. DUTCH-I don’t think I have an option.
MR. STONE-Well, I would think that, but I didn’t want to say that.
MR. DUTCH-I didn’t want to think, when we came up here, that this was our only option, but, you
know, I don’t have an option, and I’m sorry we’re in this, I respect your position on this, but I don’t
think this is a dangerous precedent you’re setting here. I respectfully differ with your opinion.
MR. STONE-Well, you’re looking at me and I’ve gone to that side. So you’ve convinced me.
MR. DUTCH-I want to ask Mr. McNulty a question.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-I don’t want to put too much pressure on him. He has a right to his vote. I mean, this
is one of the few Boards in our area that tells people where we’re coming from, and I want you to
recognize that if you went, if you tried to do this in Lake George, you would never hear this kind of
conversation. You probably wouldn’t hear it in Glens Falls. We do discuss it, and we’re very serious
about what we do, and Mr. McNulty has a position. He feels very strongly about it. I have been in
the same position that he has, on a number of occasions. I have been in the minority, but if we feel
something, that’s the way we have to vote, and we tell you where we’re coming from.
MR. DUTCH-I respect it. I would like to Mr. McNulty one question. Is there a compromise
position that he would be comfortable voting in the affirmative on this tonight? Does he have any
compromise that he would formulate in his own mind that would satisfy him, because I don’t know
what we can come up with in the next month that would change this issue. It will complicate things.
I don’t know what kind of formula you’d come up with, but I want to know if you personally, sir,
have anything in mind that would sway your opinion, as to justifying being able to vote for this this
evening.
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t think there is, very honestly. I think it’s, as I said before, I think really the
proper resolution for this would be to change the Ordinance, and I understand you not wanting to
take the time to attempt to do that.
MR. DUTCH-I’ve taken two years time just trying to negotiate the acquisition of additional land.
MR. STONE-I’m suggesting you take another month. We’ll have another member. I can’t speak for
the Chairman and where he’d come out on this thing. We might have a full Board, because we just
lost one and we will hopefully, the Town Board will appoint one I hope within the next month, if
they can. If they can find another person willing to put up with us.
MR. DUTCH-I appreciate your time.
MR. STONE-Do you want me to table it?
MR. DUTCH-Yes, we would, and we appreciate your time.
MR. HAGEN-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-1999 NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC.
LLC, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
Applicant proposes reconfiguration of the parking area and seeks relief from the Off Street Parking
and Loading regulations. The applicant has asked that we have a more full Board for consideration
of this application at the next meeting in October, if possible. We’ll table it to the first meeting in
October, or the time when we have at least six members of the Board.
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas
MR. STONE-So we’ll see you next month.
MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask the applicant, when you do come, there was some confusion as to what
the lease actually requires and does not. Maybe I could understand it better if perhaps someone
presented.
MR. HAGEN-I’ll give you a chart of what we’ve got, for tenants and for the other tenants
themselves.
MR. MC NALLY-But the rationale as to why you need what you do.
MR. HAGEN-The numbers, sure, absolutely.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Thank you.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
USE VARIANCE NO. 88-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A F.W. WEBB OWNER:
ELEVEN COUSINS LIMITED 3 HIGHLAND AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A
WAREHOUSE ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 50-99 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 9/8/99 TAX MAP NO. 110-4-1.2 LOT SIZE: 2.45 ACRES SECTION 179-23,
179-79
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 88-1999, F. W. Webb, Meeting Date: September 22, 1999
“Project Location: 3 Highland Ave. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a
warehouse addition and seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming use. Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief for the expansion of a non-conforming use. Criteria for considering a
Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a
reasonable return, provided that a lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent
financial evidence? The applicant submitted no financial evidence. 2. Is the alleged hardship
relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial
portion of the district or neighborhood? The hardship may be interpreted as unique as properties
in the neighborhood are zoned LI-1A, a designation that allows this type of use. 3. Will the
requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. 4. Is the alleged hardship self-
created? The alleged hardship could be interpreted as self created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review pending 9/28/99 Site Plan Review 87-
90 res. 1/15/91 Plumbing/Heating Wholesale & Dist. Site Plan Review 79-90 res. 10/25/90
Plumbing/Heating Wholesale & Dist. Use Variance 68-90 res. 10/24/90 Plumbing/Heating
Wholesale & Dist. Staff comments: With the lack of financial evidence to support this claim, it
may be difficult to defend the position of reasonable return. Of the many listed uses in both the HC-
1A zone and the PC-1A zone it appears as though several may be viable uses for the lands in
question. Evidently, the applicant has contracted to purchase additional lands with the knowledge of
the difficulty with regards to compliant uses. This alone makes the request a self-created hardship.
SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 1 September 1999
Project Name: F.W. Webb, Inc. Owner: same ID Number: QBY-UV-88-1999 County Project #:
Sept99-31 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant
proposes a 14,700 sq. ft. expansion of an existing non-conforming use building to serve as additional
space for larger showroom and warehouse. Site Location: Quaker Road to Highland Avenue; right
onto Highland; site on left Tax Map No. 110-4-1.1, 1.2, 2 & 3 Staff Notes: see agenda item #32.
The applicant states that the use is not listed in a Highway Commercial Zone but is listed in an
Industrial Zone as far as wholesaling. The applicant is surrounded by industrial uses, and as such,
would be compatible with adjacent uses. Staff therefore does not identify any issues with the
granting of a use variance. Local actions to date (if any): No County Impact” Signed by Terri Ross,
Warren County Planning Board.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s it?
MR. STEC-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Given the hour, we’ll try to be brief, but this is a very important issue
to F.W. Webb, and so we’re going to try and lay out our case as quickly as we can. For the record,
I’m Jon Lapper. Sitting with me is Tom Nace from Nace Engineering. Mike Burns is here on behalf
of F.W. Webb, as is Bob Sears, a commercial realtor. I’m going to lay out our case, and then ask Bob
Sears and Mike to testify on some specific issues, so that we can create a record.
MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question. Do you agree that a Use Variance is required?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I was going to start out and explain that. It’s sort of a nuance. If F.W. Webb
did exactly what they do, which is sell plumbing supplies to the general public, that would be a
Highway Commercial use, but because their business is restricted to selling to contractors, they’re
considered wholesale, because selling to the general public is within the definition of Retail in the
Code, and the regular Retail use would be something like a Lowe’s, that can sell the exact same
plumbing fixtures, but in that case, because they sell to the general public, Lowe’s is in a Highway
Commercial Zone. F.W. Webb sells to contractors. They have to be, under our Code, in a Light
Industrial Zone, which is unfortunate, or else we wouldn’t have to be here talking about it. Financial
data that’s required for a Use Variance was not submitted with the application, but we’re going to
present that tonight. In a nutshell, the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return provided that the
lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. What we will show,
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
with Bob Sears testifying, is that, for the most part, the property has been listed for two and a half
years. The two parcels in question are not owned by F.W. Webb, and so just to jump to the Staff
comments about whether it was self-created, we’re here on behalf of the property owners, and the
property owners have distressed properties that they have been trying to either lease or sell for some
time, and have been unable to. F.W. Webb is the applicant, who’s the project applicant with the site
plan, but the variance is on behalf of the owner, and it is the owner that has the hardship, because
they have properties that they’ve not been able to move.
MR. STONE-Can you put their name on the record?
MR. LAPPER-Scorincio is the owner of the house, I’m sorry, of the parcel on the corner.
MR. STONE-Do you have a full name for that?
MR. LAPPER-Mark Scorincio, and Carol Perkins is the owner of the house parcel.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-They’ve signed the applications. So the property has been sitting vacant. The
automobile use has been sitting vacant for two and a half years, which is on the corner, and the
house parcel’s been vacant for the better part of this year. What we want to show is that it is the
hardship, the reason that these are sitting vacant, is because this is the Highway Commercial Zone,
but the Highway Commercial Zone, or the Highway Commercial area in the Town, has now moved
to Quaker Road, so that people that Bob has shown the property to have not been interested. There
have been inquiries, but no one has made an offer, other than F.W. Webb, because it’s not
considered suitable as commercial property anymore because of the location, because of just
development patterns within the Town. It’s funny, when we show you the zoning map, there are all
these corners there, and the highway between Glens Falls and Hudson Falls, previously, a
commercial corridor, there’s heavy industry to the south, the old Cieba Geigy site, Light Industrial
around the parcel, and there’s just a small sliver that is Highway Commercial adjacent. There are
some Highway Commercial uses there that are successful, like the swimming pool distributor next
door, but at the same time, there are other vacant uses, including a vacant use that used to be
Boulevard Auto Sales, which is on the point to the south of these parcels, which arguably, is a better
suited commercial parcel. If someone were coming to do a commercial use, they would probably
buy or rent that site first, because that has frontage on the main thoroughfare, Warren Street between
the two communities. So that gets better traffic count, substantially, than what we have here, and yet
that parcel has been sitting vacant, and we think that that shows that, in terms of the hardship, that
also goes to the character of the area, but why this has been a hardship. There’s just no takers.
Nobody’s interested in doing a commercial use. So when we turn to the Code and see that in the
Highway Commercial Zone there are 18 uses and then 24 Type II Site Plan uses, including all uses in
the Plaza Commercial Zone, which is another 18 primary uses, plus 21 Type II Site Plan uses. All of
these uses, to go down the list, gas station, drive-in theater, public parking garage, amusement center,
golf driving range, miniature golf course, these are all uses that have located elsewhere in the Town,
but this section is not suitable. This is not where you’d want to go if you wanted to do driving ranges
and we’re talking about because of the size, but gas station, day care center, I mean, there just, people
have built these uses recently, and they’re all on the Quaker Road corridor, which is the commercial
corridor in the Town. So there’s no financial return because the properties are sitting there vacant.
So the investments that the owners have, they’re covering the taxes and for a significant period of
time, they’ve had no tenants whatsoever. They’re not getting any return. The alleged hardship
relating to the property in question is unique, does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or
neighborhood. In terms of the neighborhood, it’s a mixed-use neighborhood. Industrial, there’s
successful industrial use, F.W. Webb, there other successful industrial use, there’s a contractor who
has his business there, which is considered an industrial use across the street. There’s commercial
property that’s successful, Charlie’s Office Furniture. That’s on a substantially larger parcel. One of
the problems here is that we have two parcels together, actually, three, in question, that all total an
acre, with the configuration is a triangle. An acre with a triangle doesn’t give you a lot of land when
you are required to comply with the Queensbury parking, the Queensbury green space requirements.
There’s just very little land, front setbacks. So the fact that we’re trying to annex this to an existing
parcel, it lets us utilize what would otherwise be an awkward shape located lot. In terms of, does it
apply to not only the neighborhood but also the district, there are, in the Highway Commercial
district, such as the pool supplier, that there are other successful Highway Commercial use there. So
it’s not the whole district. It’s just that it’s sort of a limited area. That particular user has sort of a
mixed use of both commercial and industrial, because he also stores the pool installation stuff on
site, which is really leaning more toward an industrial. So most people, most of the businesses in that
zone, with the exception of the automotive uses, are leaning more toward the Light Industrial, and
the automotive uses, which one of these parcels, the predominant portion of this parcel was formerly
an automotive use, those uses have moved to Quaker Road now also. So that, that seemed like a
natural tenant, and Bob Sears has talked to people, but no one has been interested. The previous
user, the last user on the site, was an auto dealer, and he’s gone. The requested use variance, if
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. We believe that it’ll substantially
improve the character of the neighborhood, because what you have are two distressed properties.
The house is certainly fit to be demolished. The other use, we’ll give you some photos of what that’s
looked like, but as a now vacant lot that used to be an auto lot, what we’re proposing, and Tom will
go through this, is a substantial grass area at the corner, which will be attractive compared to what’s
there now. It’ll be better for visibility. The rest of the site, no part of the building would be on these
two lots, subject to the variance, but the parking area, there’d be there, which would be a brand new
paved parking area, re-graded, a fence, a hedge along the whole fence, and then grass on the rest of
the corner. So it’ll be neatly maintained. If you been to the site, and I presume that you all have, you
can see that F.W. Webb keeps a very neat facility. We think that this will be an improvement to get
rid of those two buildings, those two uses that are there, and probably have a positive effect on the
property value of the neighborhood, and the alleged hardship, we believe, has not been self-created,
because it’s due to these market forces that this area is no longer suitable for the uses that are on the
site. The house is, I mean, that’s a very old, prior nonconforming use, when this used to be
residential, and the automotive use as well, because that’s no longer where automotive user’s tenants
want to be.
MR. NACE-Okay. Very briefly, what we’re doing, the properties that are involved are the house
property, which is the parcel that runs through here, and the corner parcel, with the metal building
on it, actually, it’s two parcels, but that is through here. What we’re doing is expanding the existing
building out to the end. As Jon said, the new building will not encroach into either of those
properties, but in order to have adequate parking, truck movements into the loading dock area, and
to replace some of the outside lay down area, outside storage area that they’ve got, we expanded the
paved area down into those parcels. I’ll talk about it a little bit later, if we progress onto the Area
Variance, but one of the things we felt was important was to maintain as much green space here in
the corner, both for traffic safety, to open up visibility, or keep visibility open with the traffic at that
intersection, and to provide some sort of a buffer into the property. So we kept all this as green. As
you can see on the landscaping plan, we’re using some of the area down in here, some of this outside
storage area, as stormwater detention, and that’ll have a concrete, small concrete retaining wall
around it with a fence on it, and in order to buffer that, as well as the storage area and the parking,
we’re creating a hedge around here, with some arborvitae and different types of planting, as well as
some trees out from that to give it a little relief, give it a little depth, again, to hopefully provide a nice
looking site.
MR. LAPPER-This is what it looked like with the last tenant, and you can see the house in the
background, and the corner of the F.W. Webb building for perspective. This was probably two
winters ago.
MR. NACE-I don’t know if the site plan really spells it out for you, but right now, that whole area
down at the corner, which (lost word) whole area down into the intersection here, is pretty much
paved, and right at the intersection there’s a little triangle of leaves and junk, but that would all be
cleaned up, right out to the sidewalk. We would seed.
MR. STONE-So the proposed contract, F.W. Webb is to buy all the way to the point of the island,
everything?
MR. NACE-It would, in essence, be buying three tax map parcels, the one here with the house. Two
would constitute the business, and here, the old metal building and the pavement.
MR. LAPPER-This is probably easier to read in color. The only area that’s Highway Commercial is
right in the center, and it’s on both sides of Boulevard, and the triangle that we’re talking about
between Highland and Boulevard. Everything to the south is Heavy Industrial. To the west is Light
Industrial. Plaza Commercial is K-Mart, and the lands down the hill from K-Mart. So it’s somewhat
of an island of Highway Commercial, in an otherwise Industrial zone. Okay. Bob Sears. The case
law that I’ve reviewed, when you’re trying to establish a Use Variance, based on an inability to sell
property, indicates that you need to establish not only that it’s been multiple listed, but what efforts
have been made to try and market the property, how long it’s been multiple listed, and so I’m
presenting Bob Sears, who specializes in commercial real estate. He doesn’t sell residential real
estate. This is what he does. Bob, if you could just put on record, in terms of your experience, to
start with, and how long you’ve been in the business in this area.
BOB SEARS
MR. SEARS-Okay. My name is Bob Sears. I’m with Prudential Blake Atlantic Realtors. I’ve been
with the same company for 23 years. We’ve changed the name a few times, but I’m still the same
person. That’s unique in itself. Anyway, 23 years in the business, I’ve been a residential broker for
12 of those years, and all I did was residential real estate in the area. I averaged about three and a
half million dollars a year in residential sales, and then I switched to strictly commercial brokerage,
and I’ve done that for the last 11, 12 years, and that’s all I do here in the area. I do specifically,
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
basically, between South Glens Falls, Exit 17 and Exit 21 of the Northway. I did over 10 million
dollars worth of commercial real estate in this area last year. I’m going to probably get around seven
million this year. It’s interesting, this year I’m doing a lot more of these kinds of deals than I have in
the past three or four years. The economy’s improving in the area. Last year I did a major deal, and
that was Lowe’s over here. I put that deal together, on the corner of Bay and Quaker. What have I
done to market this property? Well, let me give you a list. This is basically a handout sheet, a sheet
that I sent out to possible users of the property. I also put it into two different Boards, one Board
being the Albany Commercial and Industrial Real Estate Board. That is a Board that consists of only
commercial brokers, commercial and industrial brokers between Hudson, New York and Plattsburg.
I’m one of the few brokers up here in this area that is a member of that Board, that MLS service. I
also put it into the Warren County MLS service, and that consists, principally, of residential real
estate people and commercial real estate brokerage firms here in the area. Between those two
Boards, there’s approximately around 700 agents and brokers, which is a substantial number and it
gives substantial coverage, both on a local basis as well as on a regional basis. I’m also a Prudential
Blake Atlantic Realtor, so I’m Vice President of the Company. We have 11, approximately 11 offices
between here and Albany, commercial offices, and we have around 15 agents, commercial brokers, in
the Capital District.
MR. LAPPER-What kind of contacts have you had, in terms of prospective tenants?
MR. SEARS-Well, just to give you an example, the person who was in here before was N Newton’s
Auto Sales. Newton’s Auto Sales is a good used car dealer. He moved out of this building and went
up to Quaker Road. I’ve peddled this building to a number of automobile used car dealers in the
area, and every one of them said, that’s the wrong side of Town to be on. The exposure we need is
upper Quaker, upper Glen Street, maybe Route 9, but they’ve said no to me, and I don’t take no for
an answer. I go back to them three or four times over the course of a two-year process. If I took no
for an answer, I would never get anywhere in this business, but I couldn’t generate any used car
dealerships for that particular lot. I’ve worked with people for anything from aerobics classes to
heating and plumbing outfits, I’ve shown the property to. I’ve shown the property to an RV person.
Probably averaged a showing, or at least an inquiry on that property once every three weeks, which is
typical for commercial real estate, and it’s probably above the average of showings or inquiries out,
any commercial, or most commercial real estate here in the area.
MR. LAPPER-Did you ever have an offer on that property?
MR. SEARS-We had one proposal on the Scorincio piece, which is the yellow building, for a lease,
and it was a very weak proposal with a very tentative tenant who was tentative in business, and we
did not consider that proposal because we did not think it would be a good business proposition for
the land owner. Other than that, we did not have any proposals. I tried to lease that building out as
well, sell the building. That’s about the story on the yellow building, which is the one that is back a
little ways from the road.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of the house.
MR. SEARS-In terms of the house, I had a very limited relationship with the house. The house was
on the market in the Warren County MLS for, according to the owner, Carol Perkins, for a year, at
$110,000. She had no offers on the property. I approached her for the sale of her property as the
result of F.W. Webb’s momentum to buy it, and that’s how we structured that particular sale, but I
will say this. That house would be very hard to sell, because it is in total disrepair. It’s totally out of
character with any type of industrial or commercial use. You would have to take the house down.
The land is the value, and unfortunately, that land has limited frontage on either road. So it would be
restrictive in the nature of the use for that particular property, commercially speaking.
MR. LAPPER-We would acknowledge that the failure to maintain the house would be a self-created
situation, but the reason why the owners didn’t put money into the house to keep it up is because it’s
in this industrial district, where you’re just not going to get any residential purchaser, or renter that
wants to be sitting there, in the midst of all these businesses and the traffic. Mike Burns.
MIKE BURNS
MR. BURNS-My name’s Mike Burns. I’m the General Manager of F.W. Webb Company.
MR. LAPPER-Mike, I’d just like to ask you some questions about the character of the neighborhood
to begin with, and then how you run your business and why you think that the expansion on to these
two sites would be an improvement of the neighborhood. Just explain that.
MR. BURNS-Okay. Number One, the house, to say it’s an eyesore is to put it mildly. It is, I look at
the thing every day, driving in to work, and looking out the window of my office, it’s certainly not
something that’s becoming to the neighborhood whatsoever. The way we do business is we believe
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
very strongly in having a neat, clean operation, and if you’ve looked at our property, we spend a lot
of money every year keeping the landscaping up, keeping the place looking good, and this project I
know would be a great benefit to that whole area, to that whole point, putting grass into the point
and really cleaning the whole area up.
MR. LAPPER-Any questions for Mike, from the Board?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. LAPPER-The only other thing that I want to point out at this time is just in terms of the impact
on the neighborhood. Right now you have multiple sites with multiple curb cuts, and this would be
an improvement, in terms of traffic, by reducing this to only curb cuts for the whole parcel, if you
take a look at the site plan, compared to what’s there now, or compared to what could be there, if
you could lease it out for what the two separate parcels that are there. It’s important, just because
you’ve got this intersection of five different roads, which is somewhat of a traffic situation. That’s it
for our principle case.
MR. STONE-Let me ask you a question, as an officer of the court, Mr. Lapper. What’s case law say
about the kind of evidence you gave us? Because we are told to look at competent financial
evidence. I appreciate the fact that it didn’t sell. I appreciate all of the information you’ve given us,
but have the courts accepted that as competent financial evidence?
MR. LAPPER-I believe that in this case when you have property that is zoned commercial and you
can’t use it all when it’s sitting there vacant, that that is strong evidence that you can’t get a financial
return, and I think that I have a case highlighted that’s pretty close.
MR. STONE-I figured you would. That’s why I asked the question. I mean, I’m reading something
here. An applicant for a Use Variance must show lack of a reasonable return from a permitted use
by dollars and cents proof.
MR. LAPPER-And the simplest answer is that there is no reasonable return because there are no
dollars, and there are no cents, because nobody wants the property because of the zoning, because
the area has changed, but what I’m looking at it Citizens for Gent versus Zoning Board of Appeals
which talks about the inability to sell property for a use permitted in the zoning district is relevant
evidence of the impossibility of realizing a reasonable return.
MR. STONE-When was that case?
MR. LAPPER-Third Department 1991.
MR. STONE-Okay, that’s, I think what we have here is probably older than that. Okay. I
understand. Obviously, it’s a very difficult piece of property to sell. My concern is you dismissed the
gasoline station as a possible use there. It is on a State Route, Route 32, which goes right by the
property.
MR. LAPPER-I think we could put Bob on to address that.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. SEARS-The property is three quarters of an acre. As you say, it’s on a point. There has been
some discussion. I’ve talked to Stewarts about that property. There would, obviously, be a logical
place maybe for a Stewarts. Now, I know they have one down the road but I wanted to glean some
information from them. They ascertained the property as being too small with the current
ordinances and requirements for lot size for gasoline tanks. It’s not big enough. They need a
minimum of an acre, and that’s an acre that can be usable. This is less than three quarters of an acre.
MR. STONE-Is that the total or the one property?
MR. SEARS-That’s the one property that I was marketing. Both properties might work, but the
issue is, I still think it’s going to be awfully tough, and the other thing I found out from marketing
this, they thought that to most visible tenants that wanted visibility, that’s who you would market for,
they thought that that set too far back from the road, that the real corner was the front piece, where
the car rental place is.
MR. LAPPER-Not this piece, the other piece.
MR. SEARS-The other piece on the other side of the road, and in fact.
MR. LAPPER-But the corridor is Warren Street.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. STONE-Well, I know that, but Hess sits on a very similar type piece of land, their new station.
This is on a State highway, which was never mentioned.
MR. NACE-Yes, it is on a State highway, on 32. Highland Avenue is a State highway, but the traffic
counts on 32, in this section, are very low. Okay. The real traffic counts are out on Warren. The
real issue, for a gas station use, or anything, is the shape of the property. It’s not even a 45-degree
triangle. It’s a very acute triangle, and by the time you get back far enough in the property to get
front setbacks from both streets, and try to put a structure of any size in, as would a Stewarts or any
other gas station require, along with the parking adjacent to either the pumps or if it’s a Stewarts,
adjacent to the store, convenience store area, there’s just not enough room, even with both
properties considered.
MR. STONE-Any questions of the Board? No questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody
here wishing to speak in favor? Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed? Anybody opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. STEC-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Lets talk about it. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of the Use Variance. We’ve not been presented with a balance sheets,
with the books of account that show dollars and cents, but I know the property, and I’ve seen it
vacant for a long time, and I’m satisfied with Mr. Sears testimony and anecdotal evidence to the
effect that there was no return, which, as Mr. Lapper said, is in itself solid figures, 0. So that’s not a
concern to me. The property is also subject to a hardship which is unique. It’s funny how all the
zones meet at this one little intersection. The Highway Commercial is only a tiny portion of it, and if
this were a retail business, there would be no question it would be allowed there. So I think it’s
unique to the particular property in question. There’s no way that this variance, if granted, is going
to alter the essentially character of the neighborhood. The existing businesses around it are all Light
Commercial, or Light or Heavy Industrial, and certainly commercial in nature. Retail is allowed, and
this is, in a sense, a retail business, only its customers are contractors, selling a product which is akin
to many retail businesses, and I think it won’t have any impact on the neighborhood except to
improve that point. I would agree that the Webb Company does maintain their property in a decent
fashion, and the two parcels that we’re looking at tonight are basically decrepit and terrible, terrible
properties, and I don’t find the hardship to be self-created. On the house, this is a residential
neighborhood no more. There’s no reason anyone would ever want to live there. The neighborhood
has changed, not something that the owners did to change the area around them, and that’s also true
about the business at the point. The facts about the size of the gas station and need for a gas station
in that area, the businesses moving to Quaker Road, all these things lead me to believe that a Use
Variance should be granted, on balance.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically echo Bob. I think although there hasn’t been specific figures
offered for this request, the fact that it has been marketed, it’s been listed and marketed for two and a
half, three years, and I have to assume actively so, if it’s been listed in two MLS systems, and taken
care of by a broker that has substantial sales, I think that’s proof in itself that there’s no other viable
use for the property. So, I’d be inclined to go along.
MR. STONE-Dan?
MR. MC NULTY-I agree with the other Board members. Zero return is pretty substantial evidence
that they haven’t had a return. I don’t think the hardship is self-created either. They had no control
over what the zoning was. It’s clear that the house doesn’t belong there anymore. Anything they
could do would improve those parcels, I’m sure. So I’m not concerned about the effect on the
character of the neighborhood, and I think that, again, this is a funny corner where all the zones
come together, over time. I think that I have no problem granting the Use Variance.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. I think Bob really hit it on the head, right from the out set. It’s always been
my belief that first impressions of plans and stuff often provide you with a pretty good outline, and
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
this looks like a good project, right from the outset, all things considered. Although the financial
information that was provided asked for a certain amount of faith, I think that they’re on the money.
I believe that if you compared the purchase prices, or even the listing prices, in this case, with
property up on Quaker Road, the dramatic difference is evidence in itself that in fact Mr. Lapper is
correct, the development patterns have shifted to Quaker Road. Everybody knows it. Everybody’s
trying to jump in, including, you know, super developments such as the one with Hess and these
other properties. So, in my mind, it boils down to, you know, what kind of change or impact will this
have on the neighborhood, in this particular case, and I think Bob was right there, that, all things
considered, there would be a dramatic clean up of this property, which might not otherwise be
accomplished, outside of the fact that there’s an opportunity to F.W. Webb, a responsible business in
our community, has a desire to expand. I think it’s a win/win for the neighborhood and for F.W.
Webb. So I guess, all those things considered, I think I could be in favor of this proposal.
MR. STONE-I agree with the rest of the Board members. I mean, I’ve been looking through the
book while they’ve been talking. Use Variances, obviously, are very difficult to grant. I mean, the
State and the courts have made it very difficult. The fact that these properties have been on the
market and one even tried to be what it was allowed to be, and didn’t make it. Obviously, the house
is a property that nobody would buy it, even if probably the other two businesses were doing well.
They wouldn’t buy it for any particular thing, any use that’s allowed. Obviously, it is a unique
situation. The world has passed this area by, and that makes it unique. I’m sure at one time it was a
very viable spot to be, but it’s not anymore. No question about that, and that certainly indicates that
the hardship is not self-created in that standpoint. I mean, things change. Time goes on, and
certainly this is not going to change the character of the neighborhood. It’s going to make it better,
when we get to the Area Variance, which we’re already talking about, but I think, not on balance,
because this is not a balance situation. You’ve got to keep in mind that a Use Variance, we have to
meet each one of these requirements, not one, not two, not three, but all four, and I think we have,
and I think the Board has so stated in varying ways, and having said that, I’ll call for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 88-1999 F.W. WEBB, Introduced by Paul
Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
3 Highland Avenue. The applicant proposes a warehouse addition and seeks relief for the expansion
of a nonconforming use. The relief required, specifically, the applicant requests relief from the
expansion of a nonconforming use. Specifically, we are granting relief for light industrial use of
Section 110-4-1.1, 2 and 3, namely a wholesale plumbing business as currently operated by F.W.
Webb. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law, can the
applicant realize a reasonable return provided that a lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by
competent financial information? The applicant, through representations and testimony by a
commercial real estate person has demonstrated that there has not been able to be any successful
business in that particular parcel in the recent history, nor has there been any interest in leasing or
renting that amounted to a close. Therefore, no revenue was generated, and therefore no financial
success has been demonstrated as being possible at that particular parcel, by any allowed use. Is the
alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique and does this hardship apply to a
substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? I believe that it is unique, based on the special
configuration of how the zoning classifications merge in this particular area, and this happens to be
one of the only Highway Commercial sections in that neighborhood. I believe that it is a unique
hardship in that way. Will the requested Use Variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the
neighborhood? I don’t believe that it will. In fact, I think that it’s been pointed out that, based on, it
will probably amount to an improvement in the area, based on the recycling of the property. Is the
alleged hardship self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I believe that the substantial change, over
time, in the commercial patterns of development in Queensbury and in the areas in which these
roads lead to and come from has made this parcel not viable as a Highway Commercial parcel. So I
don’t believe the difficulty is self-created, and therefore, based on having met all four criteria of a Use
Variance, I move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
MR. HAYES-3 Highland Avenue. The applicant proposes a warehouse addition and seeks relief for
the expansion of a nonconforming use. The relief required, specifically, the applicant requests relief
from the expansion of a nonconforming use. Now, do we have to say, specifically, what we’re
rezoning it to?
MR. STONE-Not rezoning.
MR. BROWN-You’re not rezoning.
MR. STONE-We’re allowing the use.
MR. HAYES-The use as so described?
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. LAPPER-Industrial, yes, because the variance would be specific to the plumbing wholesale
business.
MR. LAPPER-We need to describe somewhat.
MR. MC NALLY-Expansion of the existing use.
MR. STONE-Expansion of a neighboring, nonconforming.
MR. HAYES-I guess we can leave it just as worded, then. I mean, expansion of a nonconforming
use, right?
MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s not nonconforming, because there was a Use Variance granted on t he
original F.W. Webb in ’91. So it’s an expansion of a use permitted by variance.
MR. STONE-Yes, that sounds.
MR. HAYES-Is that acceptable? I just don’t want any question on the motion, that’s all.
MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if you really want to ask me a question, because I might give you
something you don’t want to hear, but just to be secure in your own minds what you guys are doing
here, Mr. Lapper represented that he was representing the property owners to get a Use Variance to
use those properties for a non permitted use.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BROWN-Or, are you giving a Use Variance to expand the F.W. Webb use?
MR. LAPPER-It’s to allow these two properties to be used for the same type of use that’s on the
adjacent F.W. Webb.
MR. STONE-So I think that’s the best way to say it.
MR. BROWN-I think they’re two different things.
MR. HAYES-Yes, I think they are, too.
MR. BROWN-And if it’s for the expansion of the F.W. Webb, is it self-created in that they knew that
the properties couldn’t be used for that without the Use Variance, I think maybe. If it’s for a Use
Variance for the individual parcels aside from F.W. Webb, I don’t think it’s self-created.
MR. HAYES-So if we give you a variance on the individual parcels, it’s not going to be a, they’re not
going to need a variance for what they’re using it for when they expand. Because currently it is a
conforming structure.
MR. STONE-No, by variance.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s not so much the, because the expansion is on a site that is allowed to be light
industrial.
MR. HAYES-Yes, it says on the notes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, but it’s really a
conforming structure because it has a variance.
MR. BROWN-It’s a nonconforming use.
MR. LAPPER-It’s a conforming use because it has a variance. If we were talking about the existing
Webb site.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-But we’re not talking about that site.
MR. BROWN-But by what we have in our Ordinance, in order to expand this use, because it has a
Use Variance, you can only do that by Use Variance. You can only expand a nonconforming use,
which this is, a wholesale distributing use, in a Highway Commercial zone. This isn’t allowed in
Highway Commercial zone, by other than Use Variance.
MR. HAYES-Okay, but if we already have a Use Variance, it’s no longer Highway Commercial.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. LAPPER-Right, yes. So I don’t think that it is an expansion of a nonconforming use.
MR. STONE-Should we have two motions?
MR. BROWN-I don’t know if two motions, it took a whole different direction here once the whole
discussion came up.
MR. STONE-No, it was saying these properties, as I heard the discussion, these properties, the
owners of these properties say they want to be permitted to put a nonconforming use on it. A
nonconforming use.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not an expansion of a nonconforming use. It’s a Use Variance.
MR. STONE-I’m not talking about an expansion. The owners of these two properties have asked
for a Use Variance so their property can be used for a nonconforming use, and that’s why it’s a Use
Variance.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. STONE-We know that if this Use Variance is granted, then another applicant will step forward
and say, we have now purchased these properties for whom you’ve given a Use Variance, and we
want an Area Variance to expand our business.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. The Use Variance runs with the land.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-So that’s okay. So there’s nothing that you’ve said that I disagree with.
MR. STONE-Okay. Do you agree with that, Craig?
MR. BROWN-I just think the applicant here is Eleven Cousins, and you may be granting a Use
Variance to these other three individual property owners to have a nonconforming use.
MR. LAPPER-The applicant is doing it as agent for the property owners.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-So by action it’s correct anyway.
MR. STONE-We’re granting a Use Variance to those two parcels.
MR. BROWN-Three parcels, yes.
MR. STONE-You’re right. We’re granting a Use Variance for those three properties.
MR. STONE-Bob are you happy with it?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m happy with it. If Mr. Lapper is happy with it, I’m happy with it. You just
want to make sure that they can use it, even though it’s a non allowable use in this zone, for whatever
F.W. Webb’s current commercial.
MR. HAYES-The relief required would therefore be that the applicant, as agent for the property
owners.
MR. STONE-Why don’t we spell out the property tax map numbers, and that’s what we’re granting
to, because they’re not even included in here. We’re saying that these three properties can put a
nonconforming use on them, for example, a wholesale plumbing.
MR. HAYES-I think we’re granting a Use Variance, aren’t we, for those three properties. I mean,
that’s all I’ve got to say is we’re giving a Use Variance for a Light Industrial use on those three
properties.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine.
MR. STONE-Craig, are you happy with the motion.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. STONE-If you’re not, tell us.
MR. HAYES-Maybe I should put the nonconforming use in there, too, stating the intention. I guess
the point here is to get a resolution of the matter. I mean, if counsel, that’s up to them.
MR. LAPPER-I want him to be happy, too.
MR. BROWN-Don’t get me wrong, I think this is the best use for all these properties to expand the
use in there, but it’s the, and these things always are confusing for me. You’ve got the three
properties that you’re getting a Use Variance for. Maybe this is two separate issues. The three
properties you’re going to get the Use Variance for to allow a Light Industrial use in a Highway
Commercial zone. That’s a Use Variance, no question, and is that, can you meet the financials and all
the other things. I don’t think it’s self-created. The other issue is, is F.W. Webb expanding into
those parcels, you know, going in knowing that they’re going to have a hardship, in that it’s not an
allowed expansion, it’s not an allowed use, then I think it is self-created, and whether you guys think
that’s an issue or not, and you’re comfortable with it, that’s up to you guys.
MR. STONE-They’re buying a Use Variance, is what they’re now buying. We’ve put on this
property, or we will when we vote, a Use Variance that says you can build a nonconforming use, such
as a wholesale plumbing operation, and Webb is coming along and saying, I’ll buy that.
MR. NACE-Without the variance, they’re not going to purchase it.
MR. STONE-Right. So I think it works.
MR. BROWN-And then my next question would be, do you think that, if those three properties
have the variance now, in order for F.W. Webb to expand on there, does F.W. Webb need to come
in to expand their Use Variance? We’ve done that in the past with Antigua, same property, no
additional properties purchased. They want to expand the commercial use.
MR. STONE-They’re going to put a parking lot on that lot.
MR. LAPPER-No, but that might have been a prior nonconforming use, under that 179-79, and
we’re a prior conforming use, with variance, a prior Use Variance, because a Use Variance takes it
out of that nonconforming. It’s no longer expansion of a nonconforming. It is conforming, because
with the Use Variance, you’re allowed to have a Light Industrial use on there.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-I mean, I can add to the motion that we understand that they’re going to be expanding
their use, and maybe that covers it.
MR. MC NALLY-I think your motion was limited to their expanding onto this property an allowable
use that is the current business, wholesale plumbing.
MR. STONE-I think it works.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas
MR. STONE-Now lets go to the Area Variance.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-1999 TYPE II HC-1A F.W. WEBB OWNER: ELEVEN
COUSINS LIMITED 3 HIGHLAND AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A
WAREHOUSE ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE BUFFER
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. 50-99 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/8/99 TAX
MAP NO. 110-4-1.2 LOT SIZE: 2.45 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-72
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 89-1999, F.W. Webb, Meeting Date: September 22, 1999
“Project Location: 3 Highland Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a
warehouse addition an increase in parking area and requests relief from the buffer requirements.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 35 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum buffer required by
§ 179-72, Buffer zones. By definition, a buffer zone is an undisturbed natural area landscaped to
provide a sufficient screening from adjoining uses. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to increase an existing wholesale business. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives
may include a reconfiguration to meet the buffer requirements. 3. Is this relief substantial relative
to the Ordinance?: 35 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate
to substantial. (70%) Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The
difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.): Site Plan Review pending 9/28/99 Site Plan Review 87-90 res. 1/15/91 Plumbing/Heating
Wholesale & Dist. Site Plan Review 79-90 res. 10/25/90 Plumbing/Heating Wholesale Dist. Use
Variance 68-90 res. 10/24/90 Plumbing/Heating Wholesale & Dist Staff comments: Moderate
impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Significant landscaping may help mitigate the
buffer relief requested. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 1 September 1999
Project Name: F.W. Webb, Inc. Owner: Same ID Number: QBY-AV-89-1999 County Project #:
Sept99-32 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant
is proposing to place an addition on an existing building to serve as space for a larger showroom and
warehouse. An area variance is required for paving within the 50’ buffer zone. Site Location:
Quaker Road to Highland Avenue; site on left Tax Map No. 110-4-1.1, 1.2, 2 & 3 Staff Notes: a
copy of the applicant’s site drawing is included with the summaries (see agenda item #31). The
applicant is proposing a 35’ setback on the northern boundary of the building which will encroach
15’ into the buffer travel corridor. The structure itself will not be within the 50’ buffer zone, but
there will be surface paving that falls within this area, and as such, an area variance is deemed
necessary. Staff does not identify any issues that are significant to County resources within the
inclusion of the paved surface 35’ from the edge of the property line. The precedent is set in a
number of other structures and developments in the Town where paving goes along almost to the
property line. Those projects have not appeared to have an adverse impact on County resources and
Staff assumes that this variance will not create any additional hardships on County resources. County
Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact.” Signed by Terri Ross, Warren County
Planning Board.
MR. STONE-Okay, talk to us.
MR. NACE-Okay, very briefly. We could do this without a variance. However, when I laid the site
out, I felt that it, there was a significant benefit to the overall aesthetics, and to the operation of the
site, if we did have it, and what it entails is the fact that, because we’re in a commercial zone, and this
is an industrial zone, we require that 50 foot buffer. The uses are the same. If this were industrial,
we wouldn’t have the issue. The actual way the land is being used, in the whole area, is similar, and
in fact, if you go across the street and take a look, a lot of these properties, some recently developed,
don’t honor that 50 foot buffer, because that’s a 50 foot buffer from both sides of the zone.
MR. STONE-Where is the zone?
MR. NACE-The zone has been interpreted by the Planning Department to be the center of
Highland Avenue, okay. What we are asking for is, instead of having to have the pavement 50 feet
back from the center of Highland, we be allowed to have it 35 foot back. So we’re asking for 15 foot
of relief, and what that effectively does for us is allows us to get some additional parking up here, and
have our paving and storage area in a portion of the site where it’s fatter and more usable, more
serviceable. We could get the same amount of area and the same parking, and honor that setback, by
moving down in here to the point, but then we’d be paving way down into here, in an area where
we’d rather leave that open and allow that to be a buffer for visibility of the site. We have, I believe,
as I expressed earlier, by doing some substantial landscaping right along the fence, and this is all, Jim
Miller’s done it, the plants he’s using are designed to hide the fact that there’s a fence there, or that
there’s a retaining wall down here, and in doing that, it’ll help hide the fact that there’s pavement and
cars back here. So we are buffering, to mitigate the fact that we’re encroaching on that setback. Any
other questions, I’ll be happy to answer them.
MR. STONE-Let me ask Craig. You agree it’s 15 foot of relief?
MR. BROWN-I think the buffers are measured from the right-of-way, isn’t that the zone line?
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. NACE-I asked Chris specifically for an interpretation of that.
MR. LAPPER-I agree with Craig, and we should ask for the most relief. In the buffer zone section, I
think it says from the zone line or from the road right-of-way.
MR. BROWN-Adjoining lot line or street right-of-way.
MR. NACE-Okay. Then could we amend our application to ask for, I did question Chris on this,
specifically, but better to be safe than sorry.
MR. BROWN-I scaled it at 15 feet from the right-of-way, Tom. It should be 35 feet of relief.
MR. NACE-That is correct, 15 feet from the property line.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. STEC-So the notes are correct.
MR. STONE-The notes are correct.
MR. STEC-The County was wrong.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? No questions? I’ll open the public hearing.
Anybody in favor of this application? Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed? Anybody opposed?
Any correspondence?
MR. STEC-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant? Okay. Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Normally, I’d be a real objector to cutting into a buffer area, but in this
case, I see no real need for the buffer, given the use that we’re allowing on this property. So I have
no problem with it.
MR. STONE-Mr. Stec?
MR. STEC-I agree with Mr. McNulty. In fact, I kind of thought he was going to feel that way,
because of the shape of the lot and the use that we’re allowing in there. I really don’t see any
negative impact on the community. The relief is substantial, it’s 70% relief, but I think that the
feasible alternatives really are limited, and I think this actually optimizes the situation. There is a
benefit to the applicant, and is the difficulty self-created? Only in that the applicant is trying to make
the most aesthetic appeal to the property. I think the pluses outweigh the minuses. I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think buffers are necessary devices between zones, when there’s different
distinctions or characteristics between those zones, but in this particular case, I don’t think those
distinctions exist, and that dramatically lowers, so I think the amount of relief is really insignificant,
based on that fact. So I don’t have any problem.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNally?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree.
MR. STONE-I agree also, not because of the hour, but because I think it’s a good project. However,
in structuring this motion that I’m going to ask for, part of the buffer is on property to be acquired,
under contract?
MR. LAPPER-Under contract.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STONE-So we should state that.
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/99)
MR. LAPPER-It will be purchased.
MR. STONE-So who’s going to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-1999 F.W. WEBB, Introduced by Paul
Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
3 Highland Avenue. Applicant proposes a warehouse addition and an increase in parking area and
requests relief from the buffer requirements. Specifically, applicant requests 35 feet of relief from the
50-foot minimum buffer requirement of Section 179-72, for buffer zones. Criteria for considering an
Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: Benefit to the applicant. The applicant
would be permitted to increase his existing business. Feasible alternatives: I believe the feasible
alternatives are limited, based on the configuration of this particular lot, being narrow and triangular.
Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that the relief is moderate, particularly
considering the character of the surrounding properties. Effects on the neighborhood or
community? I believe that granting this variance will further what has already been decided as an
improvement in the neighborhood or community, and therefore, on balance, I believe the application
should be approved.
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
MR. NACE-I’ve been thinking here, while you were making the motion. That 50 feet that I was told
applied from the center, or from the zone line, or from the center of the road, on the south side,
turns out to be only 10 feet to the property line. On the south where you had 50 feet from the
center of the road, well, it’s a wide road, because of the sidewalk and all. So it’s 40 feet on the south
that we will need.
MR. BROWN-Actually, on the south, the zone line’s on the other side of the property, is on the
other side of the road.
MR. NACE-That’s right.
MR. BROWN-So you don’t need any relief on that side.
MR. NACE-I apologize.
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas
MR. STONE-Due to the lateness of the hour, we will do minutes when Mr. Thomas comes back.
The meeting is adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Acting Chairman
56