2004-11-24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 24, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY
ROY URRICO
CHARLES ABBATE
JAMES UNDERWOOD
LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
LEWIS STONE
ALLAN BRYANT
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HAYES-First of all, I’d like to apologize for the delay of the setup of our meeting tonight,
but I guess it was unavoidable, as I understand it.
OLD BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 79-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SEAN JT GARVEY
OWNER(S): PETER, SEAN AND MARC GARVEY ZONING LI-1A LOCATION: 483
QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL 16 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING
SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE NUMBER OF FREESTANDING SIGNS
ALLOWED PER BUSINESS. CROSS REF. BP 2003-403, BP 2003-418, BP 98-3162, BP 98-3163
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
N/A LOT SIZE: 3.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.06-1-5 SECTION 140-6 B3c
SEAN GARVEY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 79-2004, Sean JT Garvey, Meeting Date: November 24, 2004
“Project Location: 483 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
placement of one additional freestanding sign. The sign is proposed to be 16 sq. ft.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief for an additional freestanding sign where only one is allowed per, §
140-6(B3c).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SV 79-2004: 10/20/04, request to tabled received on 10/07/04.
BP 2004-788: 10/12/04, 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign (Kia).
BP 2004-647: pending (applied for on 08/19/04), 16 sq. ft. freestanding sign for Volkswagen
dealership.
BP 2003-418: 06/27/03, changing freestanding sign (VW); new area equals 20 sq. ft. (not installed
being the other freestanding sign was not removed).
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
BP 2003-403: 06/18/03, changing 3 wall signs to 2 smaller signs with a total area of 63.3 sq. ft.
(Garvey & VW).
BP 2000-3454: 02/23/00, 24.94 sq. ft. freestanding sign (VW sign never installed).
BP 2000-3455: 02/23/00, 19.38 sq. ft. wall sign (Garvey).
BP 2000-3456: 02/23/00, 11.17 sq. ft. wall sign (Volkswagen).
Staff comments:
The Garvey auto dealership at 483 Quaker Road is a combined Kia and Volkswagen dealership.
The applicant claims Volkswagen requires its dealers to have a freestanding sign and is being
fined $100 per new vehicle sold for not having one. However, the applicant has not provided
proof of the requirement. The applicant claims the total area for the existing “Kia” freestanding
sign and the proposed “VW” freestanding sign will be less than 64 sq. ft.; however, the existing
“Kia” freestanding sign is 50 sq. ft. Should the board grant the relief requested, the total area
for both signs will be 66 sq. ft.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
November 10, 2004 Project Name: Garvey, Sean JT Owner: Peter, Sean , and Marc Garvey
ID Number: QBY-04-SV-79a County Project#: Nov04-30 Current Zoning: LI Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes an additional 16 sq. ft. sign. Relief
requested from the number of freestanding signs allowed per business. Tax Map Number(s):
303.03-1-5 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to add a free standing sign to an
auto sales site. The new sign would be 4’x4’, 25 ft. in height and contain the Volkswagen logo.
The information submitted indicates the site currently has 1 wall sign, and one free standing
sign where as an additional free standing sign requires a variance. Staff does not identify an
impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county
impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F.
Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 11/15/04.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
MR. GARVEY-Good evening. My name’s Sean Garvey. I’m one of the owners of Garvey
Volkswagen KIA.
MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add, Mr. Garvey, to the application?
MR. GARVEY-Yes, thank you. I have some handouts for the Board that might help me make
my presentation a little bit quicker and easier. My application, of course, is for a second
freestanding sign, and the total square footage of both signs will be 66 square feet if you add
them up. So I’m looking for a two square foot of relief and a second pole relief. I apologize for
an error in my application. As mentioned, I said the total square footage was 64 square feet,
and it’s actually 66. I know if you add 50 and 16, it’s actually 66. A quick brief history. On May
of this year, Hyundai moved out of the Volkswagen store, and we moved them to the Dix
Avenue lot. We moved KIA back up into the Volkswagen store on Quaker Road. We unbolted
the Volkswagen Hyundai sign that was there, and we bolted the KIA sign that you have in front
of you on top of that pole. That was referred to in one of the building permits for a verbiage
change, and we had a Volkswagen sign on the wall already, and identification. A couple of
things have happened to me since then, since May, which has brought me before the Board here
tonight. VW incentivizes dealers a number of different ways. One of the things they incentivize
us is if you have a high customer satisfaction index, over 90%, if you have a high sales
satisfaction index, over 90%, and if you’re 100% trained and if you sell the right number of
vehicles, they incentivize you $100 a car. I did not need to put that on the application, but since
I have to prove it, I have to address it tonight, but I’m going to put that aside for now, the
incentives. VW has brand standards, similar to like a McDonalds or any other chain store.
There’s rules for doing business with Volkswagen that you have to comply with. Volkswagen
had their choice, they will control the tiles on my floor, the color of my paint, uniforms, the
angle of my glass in front of the dealership. The way the dealership’s made, countertops,
stationary, etc., and of course they have rules for signs. They can’t force me to do all these
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
things, but some of them they can force me to do. If you turn to the next page, the second page
of the handout here, it will basically mention about, there’s over 150 brand standards that you
have to, or operating standards that you have to comply with. I’ve highlighted Number
Twenty, which basically states that we need the corporate trademark so they can identify my
dealership as a Volkswagen store. This year, in 2004, they became stricter with the brand
standards, and of course they put a legal clause in the brand standards. If you go to Page Three
there, it’s entitled Legal Effect. I’ve highlighted a part of that that says failure to comply with
the operating standards is a material breach of the agreement. Compliance with the operating
standards by any dealer will determine the extent which the dealer will be entitled to
participate in any discretionary programs offered by VWA, that’s Volkswagen of America.
Basically what they’re saying is that if I’m not compliant, I’m not going to get the money.
Obviously I’m not compliant now because I have a pole sign. I thought having a building sign
would be adequate, but it is not. The next page, which I highlighted, of 2004 Excellent
Benchmark Bonus US, I have to, of course, cross off people’s last name’s on it because that’s
proprietary information, but you can see the monthly awards are zero. If you go to the next
page on the handout, it’s entitled Primary Signage, I’ve highlighted what they require to me as
a Volkswagen dealer. They require a Volkswagen clip, which is the wall sign, which you have a
picture of on Page One. They require, of course, the dealer name, which is on Page One, and of
course the ground sign, which we’re going to call the pole signs. I’m going to ask you to go to
the next page here, entitled Volkswagen Trademark, Volkswagen Logo and I’ve highlighted the
very bottom of it. Basically it says I need to comply or start getting making my store compliant
by the end of this year. So it doesn’t matter that I removed, actually, the existing Volkswagen
Hyundai sign anyway. I was going to have to comply with their wishes. So basically in closing
I’d like to make a few points. KIA and Volkswagen are two separate businesses. They need
separate identification. I’m not asking for anymore signs than Saturn was approved for. I’m
only asking for two square feet over the allowable square footage. Many of my Volkswagen
customers, which I did not think would be a problem, were actually concerned, because there’s
lack of a pole sign in front of the dealership. When they come in for service, and the service
advisers have mentioned this to me many times since May, that they’re concerned. They’re
wondering what’s going on, since there’s not clear identification from the road what sort of
business I have there. Also eventually if you can go to Page One, you’ll see the KIA sign there.
Since I’ve moved the KIA sign, KIA now wants me to buy one of their brand standard signs,
which is a lot less in square footage. It’s oval. It’s reversed. So it’s basically a red sign with
white letters, and it’s just a hair larger than that white oval. So actually eventually that’ll be
reduced in size. That’ll be a factory sign versus one that’s made locally, like that one was, and
basically I don’t think there’s going to be a major impact on Quaker Road if I put this other sign
there. This sign, which is the one which is what I’m proposing, is basically going to be 12
square feet. The size of the logo on this, I think, is very close to the size of the logo that’s on my
building. It’s 40 inches across, and of course it’s about the money, too. So basically I’m asking
for your support.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Garvey at this time?
MR. URRICO-You currently have three different manufacturers that you represent there?
MR. GARVEY-Actually at that location, 43 Quaker Road, the one that’s on the map, there’s only
two, Volkswagen and KIA. Hyundai, in May we moved out to put into the new building on
Dix Avenue.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. GARVEY-We actually always serviced the KIAs at this store, and had a Parts Department
right there. We just moved the showroom, basically.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for Mr. Garvey at this time? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor or against this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. URRICO-I have another question. Volkswagen would be opposed to you sharing a pole
with KIA?
MR. GARVEY-Yes. They want separate signs.
MR. URRICO-They also say, on the signage, the handout you just gave us, that in the event that
the sign is not permitted by local ordinances, they would work with the dealer on an approved
custom solution.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. What will happen is that they might eventually allow it on the same pole,
but they will still fine me, because I’m not compliant. We tried to do that before. It wasn’t
really grandfathered, but a long time ago, 26 years ago, or actually in ’91 is when we got
Hyundai and put them on the same sign. It wasn’t a problem then, but, dealing with
Volkswagen, they’re extremely picky, okay. They think Copernicus was wrong. They are the
center of the universe, and everything revolves around them, and they’ll do it their way, and
I’ve been very fortunate because I’ve had, the building’s been in existence for so long that I
haven’t had to be compliant, but eventually I will have to change everything in the building,
take off the canopy and put new effacia on, put their tile down and paint the bathrooms a
certain way and use their light fixtures and buy their furniture and their uniforms. It’s just a
stepping stone process, but like a McDonalds. When you go to McDonalds, I mean, you’re
sitting on McDonalds furniture. The guy probably could get it made locally, cheaper, but
you’ve got to buy it from McDonalds, and that’s what Volkswagen is like. All manufacturers
are becoming like that now.
MR. HAYES-When are you anticipating the KIA sign being reduced, as you say?
MR. GARVEY-I have to get the final move approved. Probably within months. I would say by
spring easily. I’d like to buy it right away. I’ve given the money already. I’ve given them
$3,000 for it. When I moved the showroom, I had to put a deposit on the sign, but the approval,
since I moved it, that’s got to be approved.
MR. HAYES-So you’d feel comfortable stipulating to the fact that you’re committed to do that at
some point?
MR. GARVEY-Definitely. I want it. It’s a nicer sign.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. GARVEY-It’s shaped like the Ford oval, basically. So there’s no corners.
MR. HAYES-Yes, I think we can tell from your picture what you were referring to.
MR. GARVEY-It’ll be reversed. It’ll be a red sign with white letters.
MR. HAYES-And not a rectangle.
MR. GARVEY-Definitely not a rectangle.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. RIGBY-Can you talk a little bit about where the new sign would be located?
MR. GARVEY-There was a stake in the ground. It’s on the opposite side as you drive in to the
Volkswagen store, on the left there’s a Volkswagen sign, is the KIA sign, the Volkswagen sign
will be on the right. There’s a large grassy knoll there. It’ll be on the opposite side of the road.
Right there.
MR. URRICO-Is there any possibility of KIA and Hyundai put together?
MR. GARVEY-Absolutely not. We built the new store for Hyundai. Hyundai’s the King of the
Road. That’s a brand standard store, if you look at that. I mean, I didn’t pick up a hammer, but
I built it, and it’s a beautiful store.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll poll the
Board and start right out in order with Roy.
MR. URRICO-I’ll be honest with you. I have a problem with this. It’s not just this one
application. It’s, we’ve seen a lot of businesses in the area sought to use utilize multiple brands.
We’ve seen it with the KFC and A & W. We’ve seen it with Taco Bell, and we’ve required them
to share signs, and I know you point to Saturn, and I was not for the second sign for Saturn for
this very reason, in that it would require us, it would be brought up at a future date, and other
dealerships would come back and say we need a second sign, and I can just see other dealers
using multiple manufacturers, asking for the same kind of relief, and I understand your
problem, but I would be against it. Sorry.
MR. HAYES-Leo?
MR. RIGBY-I think that the amount of relief that you’re requesting is not really a lot, and that’s
an important part in what I’m thinking. I understand what Roy’s saying about setting a
precedent, but we’ve also got a requirement here, and I really haven’t decided. I’d like to listen
to the rest of the Board, but right now I’m leaning towards being in favor of the variance.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I agree with Leo. The amount that you’re requesting is somewhat
insignificant. I’m in conflict over this. It’s not the function of this Board to ensure that we cause
businesses to go out of business. That’s not our function. Therein lies my conflict, that and the
fact that it’s an insignificant amount, but Roy made a point. I, too, would like to hear what the
rest of the Board has to say, because I may very well be swayed by something I’m not aware of.
Unless I hear something that really is significant that would have an adverse effect on the
community, unless I hear that, I would be in favor of the application.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think, in looking around the Town, I also noted that when we
granted the second sign at the Saturn dealership, it’s really not offensive. It really depends
upon what the signs look at, and in considering the addition of the Volkswagen sign out there, I
mean, the Volkswagen is kind of a cultural icon that’s been around for years. It’s not like it’s a
grand, gigantic sign. We granted an oversized one for the Ford dealership when they changed
their logo recently at the same time, too, and I think that I really wouldn’t be against this. I
think Garvey’s kind of off by itself on Quaker Road, too, it’s not like you’re adding to a massive
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
amount of light and extra signage in one area or anything like that. So I’d basically be in favor
of it.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to agree with Roy. You mentioned the Saturn dealership. I voted
against that, too, but as I recall, they had one argument, in that they had frontage on two roads,
and I believe that gave them more rights, in terms of signs, but except for the dealership, there’s
no other car dealership on Quaker Road that has two signs. There are several that have
multiple brands on one sign. There’s also a dealership across the road and down just a little bit
from you, Saab and Subaru, that has exactly the same situation you have, and they have one
sign. I would almost bet they’ll be in for a second sign if we give you a sign, and then we can
go back to Della with their GM brands. They’ve got three in there. That would entitle them to
three signs, and I think it’s just one of those things that the Sign Ordinance and the way it’s
written, if you read the instructions in it, it says if somebody is really deprived of use of their
sign that they’re normally allowed, then we should grant a variance, but if they’re not deprived
of that use, it indicates that we shouldn’t, and I think it comes down to switching brands and
what not here. It was a business decision. I don’t think it’s this Board’s job to rescue business
decisions. I’d like to see some solution, two signs on one pole or a bigger wall sign and the one
freestanding sign, but I’m going to be opposed to two freestanding signs.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, I certainly think there’s been good points brought out by all the
members of the Board. As Roy pointed out, we’re certainly heading into a multi brand world.
There’s simply no denying that. I think that that’s definitely coming, but in this particular case,
I think one of the benefits of the Board, and the test that we’re provided with, is that we get to
examine each case on a case by case basis, and certainly if you were coming for another large
sign, another 50 or 60 square foot sign, and wanted another pole, I would be completely
opposed, but in this particular case, I think this is mitigated for two reasons. One, that the sign
that you’re proposing is small, 16 square feet is still small, especially when it’s off the road, and
at the end of the day, that’s going to be a small sign. It’s not going to be something that’s going
to amount to sign pollution, and, two, that when your signs are, you know, put together, you’re
still looking at something that’s relatively near what the Ordinance would provide for one sign.
So I don’t think that you’re trying to take advantage of the situation in this particular case, and
end up with a number that becomes unmanageable for me, in this particular case. At the end of
the day, you’re ending up with 66 square feet, and you’re allowed 64, right? I mean, for a
freestanding sign for one.
MR. FRANK-At a 25 foot setback.
MR. HAYES-Right, at a 25 foot setback. So to me this is minimal relief in my opinion, and I
think that that’s what sways me, if you had come for a larger sign. I also took into account the
fact, and I would want it stipulated in our motion for approval, that you do go forward with the
change in the KIA sign within a certain reasonable period of time, and that amounts to a
reduction in the overall square footage of the signs that we’re going to be presented with there,
from your dealership.
MR. GARVEY-Yes, it will.
MR. HAYES-I think that the fact that you provided us with some documentation as to the
financial problems, that’s not part of our test, but it’s certainly leading me to believe that you’re,
that there’s a need here that’s been demonstrated, and it’s just not simply something you want
to want it. There’s some compelling reasons as well.
MR. GARVEY-Could I make a few more points for the Board?
MR. HAYES-Actually, at this point, we don’t do that. We kind of move to a motion.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. GARVEY-Well, when somebody mentioned about referring to the Sign Code, which gave
Saturn more rights, and that is wrong. I have the Sign Code here. I know this, and if the
decision that that particular Board member is making is based on a falsehood, then it should be
straightened out.
MR. HAYES-Yes. I guess I’m not sure that, he was referring his overall opinion on that
application, too. It’s not just what you’re referring to. It’s a balancing test where we evaluate
several factors, including impact to the neighborhood, need, if any possible detriment to the
neighborhood. So what he’s referring to is only really part of his analysis, I guess.
MR. GARVEY-Okay, because if you are building on a corner, you can have two wall signs, but
only one pole sign. Building a dealership on a corner lot does not allow you to have two pole
signs.
MR. HAYES-All right, and that’s a good point. Well taken. All right, well, based on, right now
I have two noes, two yeses, and two undecided. So I think probably the best way to proceed
with this is to go with an approval motion, and if it doesn’t carry, then we’ll know. With two
undecideds, that seems like that’s the best way to go. We could go for a denial motion, and if it
didn’t go, we’d have to make another motion. So it seems the most straightforward way to do
it.
MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got to do a SEQRA.
MR. HAYES-Yes. This is an Unlisted Action. So we’re going to need to do a SEQRA Short
Form.
MOTION THAT BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM, THAT WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BASED ON THIS APPLICATION, Introduced by Paul Hayes
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Leo Rigby:
Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Would someone like to make a motion?
MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll make a motion, but I’d like some specifics first, Mr. Chairman.
Bruce, you mentioned something about a setback. What was that figure? I don’t see it here.
MR. HAYES-That’s because it is a compliant distance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and what is the exact amount of relief here? Because it’s an insignificant
amount, but I’d like to know the specific amount of relief required.
MR. FRANK-Well, the relief stated in my Staff notes is correct. He needs, it’s an additional sign.
He needs relief for one additional freestanding sign.
MR. HAYES-What about the two feet? Do we need to do that?
MR. ABBATE-Do we need the two feet?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. FRANK-You might want to ask the applicant where he plans on putting the sign. I think
he informed me, and I did ask this question, that it would be set back 15 feet. Is that where you
propose to put it?
MR. GARVEY-I believe it’s around 15 feet.
MR. FRANK-So that’s a compliant location for a sign at 50 square feet. You’re only granting
relief for an additional freestanding sign. So I don’t think you need to grant him any additional
setback relief because the 16 square foot sign is well below 50 feet. Regardless of the total of
two. You’re granting relief for a second freestanding sign.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-And be specific with it’s 16 square feet.
MR. ABBATE-Sixteen square feet.
MR. FRANK-That’s what the applicant proposes.
MR. ABBATE-Sixteen additional square feet.
MR. FRANK-For the second freestanding sign, it’s 16 square feet.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay. I think I might be set.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 79-2004 SEAN JT GARVEY, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
483 Quaker Road. Garvey Volkswagen is proposing the placement of one additional
freestanding sign. The sign is proposed to be 16 feet, and he is requesting relief for an
additional freestanding sign where only one is allowed per Section 140-6(B3c). Based on our
conversation this evening, and based on the fact that Mr. Garvey presented his case this
evening, it was my opinion that it is an insignificant amount of relief, and the Chairman said it
right. We do a balancing act, and each individual application that comes before us should be
unique in itself, and the benefit to the applicant, in my opinion, outweighs any detriment, and I
see no detriment to the health, the safety, or the welfare of the neighborhood, the community, or
the area, in making a determination for an approval. I believe that this approval will not result
in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to any kind of
properties that might be in the neighborhood. I believe that the benefit sought by Mr. Garvey,
basically, could not be achieved by any other type of feasible method, based on contract
language and mandatory requirements to meet the corporate standards. I don’t believe that the
variance is substantial. In my opinion, it’s insignificant. I think that it would have no adverse
effect, and one of the Board members stated earlier that Garvey has been here, not Garvey itself,
but the organization has been here for quite a period of time, and based on its physical location,
I think it would have absolutely no adverse impact on the area. That Garvey Volkswagen
agrees to change the KIA sign within a period of 12 months, subsequent to this meeting, and it
will be downsized within 12 months of this date, and based upon that, Mr. Chairman, I move
that we approve Sign Variance No. 79-2004. I wish to modify and make it quite clear that the
second sign will be a total of 16 square feet.
Duly adopted this 24 November, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-You’re welcome. Thank you for coming.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you, gentlemen.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-2004 SEQRA TYPE II CESARE COLOMBO AGENT(S):
JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. & STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. OWNER(S): CESARE
COLOMBO ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 0 ALEXY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,213 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND A 880 SQ. FT.
DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 10, 2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
YES LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES, 0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-75.9, 252.00-1-75.5
SECTION 179-4-030
JON LAPPER & STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 83-2004, Cesare Colombo, Meeting Date: November 24,
2004 “Project Location: 0 Alexy Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 2,213 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling, and an 880 sq. ft. detached
garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant is requesting 20 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement
of the RR-3A zone, per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes the construction of a single-family dwelling and detached garage on the
two lots in the southeast corner of the Fred Alexy subdivision (1961). There appears to be some
uncertainty regarding the location of the front property lines. The initial submittal included a
site plan depicting the lot as a rectangle with a portion of the asphalt turn-around on the
Colombo property (the road and turn-around were paved this year by the Town of Queensbury
Highway Department). The applicant’s submittal of November 2, 2004 includes a deed
describing the west property line as “…thence in a northerly direction along the road and
turnaround boundary of Alexy Road to the intersection of a line…” If the lot is rectangular,
why isn’t the west boundary line described with a bearing and distance, as are the other
boundary lines? A review of the Town of Queensbury deed of Alexy Lane reveals that an
easement was conveyed to the town for the turn-around at the most southerly end of the road
(Town Board Resolution #133, 12/28/61). A discussion with the applicant’s agent on November
16, 2004 revealed the small pie shaped portion of the paved turn-around, between the Colombo
properties and the Town of Queensbury ROW, is still owned by Fred Alexy. Staff suggests a
survey be provided depicting the actual boundaries of the lots, being an “as built” survey will
be required anyways prior to the issuing of a certificate of occupancy. An accurate survey will
not only clear up any confusion regarding ownership of the lots bordering the Town of
Queensbury ROW, but will also accurately identify the amount of setback relief the applicant is
requesting. Note: an approval of the relief sought would require the condition the lots be
consolidated.”
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
November 10, 2004 Project Name: Colombo, Cesare Owner: Cesare Colombo ID Number:
QBY-04-AV-83 County Project#: Nov04-28 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,213 sq. ft. single-family dwelling
and an 880 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief requested from front setback requirements. Site
Location: 0 Alexy Lane Tax Map Number(s): 252.00-1-75.5 252.00-1-75.9 Staff Notes: Area
Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a residential home and a detached garage. The
new home and garage are to be 30’ from the front setback where 50 ft. is required. The
information submitted indicates the parcel was created prior to zoning and the other homes in
the area are 30 ft. from the front property line. The drawings show the location of the home on
the parcel. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information
submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation:
No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 11/15/04.
MR. HAYES-Would you like to identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Stefanie Bitter on behalf of Cesare Colombo.
Cesare is here to answer any questions, as well. I’ll give you the simple version first and we’ll
see what questions you have. When this subdivision was done in the early 60’s, the property
that Mr. Colombo owns now is two lots, and when he bought it three years ago it was two lots.
So, somebody else, knowing the value of building lots in Queensbury, would come before and
say they want to build two houses and they want to have, build a narrow house on one of the
lots and ask for side setback relief, and he didn’t do that. He’s not trying to max out the
development potential here. He’s just trying to build himself a house and a garage. So he
agreed and we had discussions with Bruce and he agreed to combine the two lots, and in fact
Stefanie’s already submitted that to the County and we have that here tonight. So the lots have
been submitted to the County to be combined. So that eliminates any side setback issue, and
the only question is the front setback, and what’s happened is that the front setback used to be,
the requirement used to be 30 feet. When all the other houses were built it was 30 feet, and now
it’s been changed because the zone’s changed. It’s now 50 feet. Does this lot allow him to build
a house 50 feet back? Technically, yes, it could, but then his house would be built essentially in
the backyard of his neighbor. So it just wouldn’t make sense, that his house would be 50 feet
back. All the other houses are 30 feet back. More important than that, his septic has to be in the
back of the house so that there can be 100 foot separation distance between his house and the
well, his well in the front but also where all the other neighbors are. All the wells for all the
neighbors are in the front yards and all the septic in the back, and if you flip it on one, I mean,
he wouldn’t be able to do it because he would be within 100 feet of the location of the, the only
place the well could be on the vacant lot next door to him, which will ultimately be built with a
house. All the other neighbors have their wells in the front. So that’s a very practical reason
that he’s got to have the leach field in the back and the replacement field in the back, and in
order to do that, he doesn’t have the room to move the house 50 feet back, but all we’re really
saying is that it doesn’t make visual sense to do that, to comply. It just wouldn’t look good,
since everybody else is at 30 feet, and essentially, the part of the road before it gets to the cul de
sac, his house is 42, where he’s proposing it would be 42 feet from the road. So it’s really more
than the neighbors already, because it’s already 12 feet back behind everybody else. He’s at 42
feet. You have to measure the shortest distance to ask for the variance, and because of the cul
de sac, the shortest distance is 30 feet to that cul de sac and the garage, and so that’s why that 30
feet is exactly what his neighbors have, but his house is really 42 feet back, as you look at it
visually. In terms of the issue of ownership, we submitted the deed, and what Mr. Colombo
purchased does not include any part of the cul de sac. I can’t tell you whether it’s owned by the
Alexy family or John Salvador, who bought other parts of the subdivision, but there’s part of
the road that’s owned by the Town, which is the straight of way, and the cul de sac part is, the
Town was granted an easement and the Town paved it on that basis, but it’s certainly not
owned by Mr. Colombo, but in terms of, we’re certain that the relief that we’re asking for is for
20 feet of relief, 30 feet at the minimum at the cul de sac, he would be 30 feet back, and, you
know, we’d certainly agree to submit, this was done by the engineer. We had a certified survey
when he gets his CO, but we know where the property line is from the deed, and that’s really it,
in terms of our principal case, and we’ll answer any questions.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. ABBATE-I have some questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Certainly. Fire away.
MR. ABBATE-I have a statement. It seems to me, Counselor, that in my opinion, there is an
appropriate order of business. That is it would appear to me that this appropriate order of
business would be first and foremost a consolidation of the land first, coupled with an accurate
survey to depict appropriate boundaries, and then come to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a
request.
MR. LAPPER-The first part of that we did. We have consolidated the lots. Before we got here,
that’s done, and Stefanie has the documentation which we can submit.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, because that was not included in my notes.
MR. LAPPER-That was done subsequent to our application.
MR. ABBATE-So you’re stating on the record it has been done?
MR. LAPPER-And we have documentation.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Now the second I would have, would be that it seems to me there
should be an accurate depiction of boundaries with the survey.
MR. LAPPER-And my answer is that there is an accurate depiction of boundaries. It was done
by a licensed engineer and stamped by an engineer. So this wasn’t done by a surveyor, but it
was done by an engineer, and it has the boundaries, and we know that it’s 30 feet minimum.
MR. ABBATE-So then the Staff is concerned that a survey be provided depicting the actual
boundaries and they’re basing that on the fact that it would help to clear up any confusion
regarding ownership of the lots bordering in the Town of Queensbury, the ROW. So you’re
saying that what you have there will clear this up?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. The issue is we know that his property goes to the edge of the cul de sac,
and Bruce is correct, and we can’t tell you. We haven’t done the title search, in terms of who
owns the land that the Town has an easement on. It’s not really important to Mr. Colombo. All
he knows is that he doesn’t own it, and whether it’s Mr. Salvador or a member of the Alexy
family, the Town has an easement. It’s not really beneficial to own land under a Town road.
It’s not something you necessarily want, for liability purposes. We know that Mr. Colombo
doesn’t own it, and we know that his house would be 30 feet from the edge of the property line,
or the garage and the part of the house. So I think we’ve got that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. URRICO-I have a question for the applicant and one for Mr. Frank. Mr. Frank, all ten of
these houses are in the RR-3 zone?
MR. FRANK-I believe so.
MR. LAPPER-Now they are.
MR. URRICO-Okay, and they border LC-42A? Is that what is behind it? In other words, they’re
surrounded by the LC-42A.
MR. LAPPER-I think everything south on that map is 42A. That’s because there’s wetlands.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. ABBATE-It’s all State land?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t know if it’s all State land.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Those are my two questions, while Mr. Frank digs that out.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. FRANK-I believe it is, to the south. I’m not 100% sure. I can call up the zoning map, but
it’s going to take a second.
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-Can I help?
MR. HAYES-Yes, Mr. Salvador, please.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. My name is John Salvador. This land is all State owned land. This
land is owned by us, my wife and I. This land here is owned by Dunham’s Bay Corporation
and is zoned RR-3 Acre in this area.
MR. HAYES-So it’s consistent with this development.
MR. SALVADOR-I have other comments to make on this when the time is appropriate.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. RIGBY-Yes, a couple of quick questions. The map that I have shows 48 feet of distance
between.
MR. LAPPER-That’s incorrect. We corrected that. It’s 42 feet.
MR. RIGBY-It’s 42. Okay. So you’re really requesting eight feet of relief from the home to the
road, and 30 feet of relief, or 20 feet of relief from the garage to the road.
MR. LAPPER-Actually, the corner of the house is also 30 feet because the cul de sac turns in, so
it’s 42 feet in front, and at that corner it’s 30 feet.
MR. HAYES-It’s the nearest linear feet.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s a good question. Is there any other questions for the applicant at this
time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor
or in opposition to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-Just some comments, not in opposition. Again, my name is John Salvador.
Staff notes mention the Fred Alexy subdivision (1961). That is not a fact. Although a plan was
made in 1961 to create a subdivision, and this road was dedicated to the Town. The subdivision
plan was never filed, and I was given the task, at the time that we created our three lot
subdivision, if you recall, because the first reaction of the Town was that the Alexy subdivision,
as you see it there, was an illegal subdivision. Three lots had been sold out of the 10 lots, and
the road had been dedicated, but that’s all that was done. The other lots were not mapped.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
They were not mapped until 1999, when I created the subdivision. Now, part of the problem
was that the Town has, in its record, a subdivision map, and I think it’s stamped preliminary.
Now, I have here a map that was done and it is not stamped preliminary. This map was never
filed, and that’s why the subdivision was never created, and so, just by way of correction, the
subdivision was first created in 1999, and we were allowed to create a substandard subdivision.
These are much less than three acre lots. The purpose of the turnaround is to meet the highway
design standards of the State. This is probably the only legal, up to standard road in the Town
of Queensbury, in North Queensbury at least, in North Queensbury, and that turnaround is
required. It’s for purposes of snow plowing. I’m sure that as the successor to Fred Alexy, I do
not own any land near this lot. It was not our intention to retain the ownership of any land, but
the Town does have a superior right of use that is an easement for purposes of snow plowing
and turnaround. The idea is in the event, some day, that that road is extended, because it’s 50
feet wide, three rods, I should say, this easement would be abandoned. There’d be no reason
for a turnaround. It would be a straight road. That’s why it’s only an easement, but until the
time that the road is extended, the Town has the superior right of use to maintain a road, and
Mr. Colombo owns the bed of that, just like any other road by use. Somebody owns the bed of
the road, and we do not. That was not our intention when we conveyed. I cut these deeds, and
that was not our intention to retain any land there.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this
application? If not, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Would you like to come forward again, Mr. Lapper? Are there any further
questions for the applicant’s agent at this time? If not, I’ll ask the Board members to summarize
their position, and it’s time to start with Leo.
MR. RIGBY-Looking at the map that I have, that I think you corrected, I just want to make sure
that I’m clear on it. We’re really talking about, if you look at the, I guess it’s the northern corner
of the home, we’re talking about 42 feet from the corner of the home to the road, which would
mean eight feet of relief from that corner of the home. If we’re looking at the southern end of
the home, if the road were to continue and it were not a cul de sac, that also would be 42 feet to
the road. Correct?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. RIGBY-Which would mean eight feet of relief for there?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. RIGBY-Okay. Looking at the garage, if the road were to continue straight without the
portion of the cul de sac coming out, going from the garage to the road would probably be
almost compliant, or more than compliant. Correct?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. RIGBY-Okay. So the real question then in my mind is, you know, do we consider that
section of the cul de sac which is rounded to be part of this variance or not. That’s just the way
I’m coming to my decision here, and if we say that that didn’t exist, then there would be eight
feet of relief that’s required. So then the question becomes, well, if it’s eight feet of relief that’s
required, then we’re looking at, is that reasonable or isn’t it reasonable. So I look at the depth of
the lot, and I see the depth of the lot is 150 feet, and I say, could you set the house back eight
feet more on 150 foot lot and be compliant, and my thoughts right now are you probably could,
in that case. So the way I’m looking at it right now is that maybe eight feet of relief is a little too
much. Maybe something a little less relief. I’m not opposed to, when you say 20 feet of relief,
that sounds like a big number, but I don’t think that’s what we’re really talking about. I think
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
we’re really talking about eight, but that’s still, I want to listen to the rest of the Board first, but
in my mind it still seems to be a little bit too much.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I think Leo makes a good point. This probably could be resolved
without any opposition if, indeed, the applicant could move the garage eight foot, providing, of
course, it doesn’t obstruct or impact the septic system, that type of thing. So I would stand with
Leo in that, I think at this particular time, there may be a feasible alternative. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The roles may change over the years, but I think we’re stuck with the
realities, and in these pre-existing, nonconforming subdivisions, whether it was done in ’61 or
whether it was done in ’99, or ’91, whatever it was, when we’re looking at the placement of the
other houses along the road there, they’re all set back approximately the same distances as has
been requested in this case, and I think that it makes more sense to keep them all in line with
each other, as opposed to setting one back further than the other one. I think that the reflection
in the amount of relief is, again, a reflection of that turnaround at the end of the road there, and
if, indeed, this road is extended in the future, that’s going to give back some of that relief to the
land owner or to Mr. Colombo if he still, indeed, owns it at that point in time. So I would
basically be in favor of ultimately granting this relief.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I think I’d also be in favor. I think that the point here is that that’s a pre-
existing subdivision. Regardless of when it was legally created, it’s existed for a number of
years. The setback has been what exists for the other homes. The applicant is setting his home
back further than that, but not so far that it looks ridiculous, and whether or not that road will
ever be extended is, at best conjecture at this point. So I think we have to deal with what we
have on hand at the time, which means we’re looking at the cul de sac, but I think that, given
the location and the context of the thing, I think the request is reasonable, and I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. I think it’s a reasonable request. I think what we’re
talking about here is, again, a pre-existing subdivision. The setback is consistent with what
we’ve seen with the other houses. Although it’s conjecture, it’s reasonable to assume at some
point the three acre rural residential that extends by that road will eventually turn into just that,
another subdivision, and when it does, then it will make the situation even better, but I don’t
think it’s a bad situation now. I think it would be consistent with the neighborhood. I’d be in
favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I think a lot of people in the development business would like to
go back to ’61, but obviously that’s not going to happen. This subdivision was created with the
standards at that time of a 30 foot setback, and I think that it appears that they’ve complied. We
have faced this situation several times recently when properties or areas have rezoned and it
changes setbacks or certain standards so that they actually aren’t congruent with an existing
neighborhood or an extension of an existing neighborhood, and I think that’s the case in this
particular case. I think the point has been well made that, at the end of the day, this house
would probably be best placed in alignment with the rest of the houses in the development, and
that the relief here is really more a function of a setback from the cul de sac than any intent by
the applicant to take advantage of a dimensional boundary line or a dimensional requirement,
in this particular case. So I’m glad the road issue has been clarified to the comfort of the Board,
but I would say, on balance, in this particular case, I think that it’s going to be better if the house
is not set way back into the lot, particularly if the road gets extended. Then it could even, in my
opinion, look worse. So I’m in favor of the application as made. I think the relief, in the end, is
minimal, particularly in its impact. Having said that, I think we have four yeses and two noes.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. ABBATE-Could I modify my position?
MR. HAYES-You can.
MR. ABBATE-I’ve listened to my fellow Board members, and I like to think I have an open
mind, and my fellow Board members said something interesting, this is a pre-existing. It’s
substandard. We have to have a realistic approach in this particular location, and they’re right,
Mr. Chairman, and based upon that, I will be in favor of the application.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. RIGBY-I’ve been persuaded, too.
MR. HAYES-Well, this should be easy, then. Would someone like to make a motion that we
approve this variance?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-2004 CESARE COLOMBO, Introduced
by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Alexy Lane. The applicant is proposing construction of a 2,213 square foot two story single
family dwelling and 880 square detached garage, and the applicant is requesting 20 feet of relief
from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement of the RR-3 Acre zone per Section 179-4-
030. It’s the general feeling of the Board that this request is relative to the fact that this is a pre-
existing nonconforming subdivision and that the amount of relief is connected with the
turnaround. The fact that this place is located at the end of the road and it is not likely that
there’s going to be any problem precludes the property being too close to the road. In effect, it
will be the same distance as most of the other homes that have been built along Alexy Road. So
I would move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2004 SEQRA TYPE II AGNES AND STEVEN ROSEN
AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S): AGNES & STEVEN
ROSEN ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 262 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,105 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING TO REPLACE EXISTING DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (AVERAGE SETBACK REQUIRMENT
OF THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES). CROSS REF. BP 91-578 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING MAY 12, 2004 NOV. 10, 2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES
LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-48 SECTION 179-4-030, 179-4-070
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & BOB HOLMES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2004, Agnes and Steven Rosen, Meeting Date:
November 24, 2004 “Project Location: 262 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 2,105 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling to replace the
existing dilapidated dwelling.
Relief Required:
The applicant is requesting 28 feet of relief from the 78-foot minimum shoreline setback
requirement of the WR-1A zone (average setback of the dwellings on the two adjoining parcels),
per §179-4-030 and §179-070.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 91-578: 08/16/91, septic alteration.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct the new dwelling 10 feet further from the shoreline than the
existing dwelling. The applicant claims setting the dwelling back further than that proposed
would greatly impact the available area for the proposed septic system.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
November 10, 2004 Project Name: Rosen, Agnes and Steven Owner(s): Agnes and Steven
Rosen ID Number: QBY-04-AV-35 County Project#: Nov04-37 Current Zoning: WR-1A, CEA
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,105 sq.
ft. two-story single-family dwelling to replace existing structure. Relief requested from
shoreline setback requirements (average setback requirements of the neighboring residences).
Site Location: 262 Cleverdale Road Tax Map Number(s): 226.16-1-48 Staff Notes: Area
Variance: The applicant proposes to remove a 740 sq. ft. footprint 2-story dwelling to construct
a 744 sq. ft. 2-story dwelling. The new dwelling will be 50’ from the shoreline where 78’ is
required. The shoreline distance in this case was determined as the average setback for the
adjoined lot dwellings. The information submitted indicates the existing dwelling and parcel
are pre-existing non-conforming. In addition the plans show the location of a 3-bedroom septic
system and stormwater and erosion control measures. Staff does not identify an impact on
county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact.
Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F.
Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 11/15/04.
MR. HAYES-Identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm
of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing the applicants. With me is Bob Holmes from the
engineering firm of Tom Jarrett, and also the applicant, Mr. Rosen and Mrs. Rosen are here in
the audience as well. Basically, you have a dilapidated structure, and I’m sure that you’ve all
been up and taken a look at it. That exists on a questionable holding tank system at best. Jarrett
and Martin have gone to great lengths here to design a compliant septic system that will fit on
the residence, or fit on the lot. You have, basically, a four bedroom residence there now. They
are going to replace it with a three bedroom residence. It doesn’t, it isn’t a full build out as to
the floor area ratio to the lot. They are trying to make this as compliant as they can. They get
caught up in the odd ball part of our lakeshore setback that says that for a zone you have a
minimum of 50 feet or a minimum of 75 feet, whichever zone you’re in, and in addition to that
you have to be back as far as the average of the two adjoining properties. The property to the
north of this.
MR. HAYES-Whichever is greater.
MR. O'CONNOR-Whichever is greater, and the property to the north of this, the present
building right now is 39 feet. They’re proposing 50 feet. The building to the north is 40 feet and
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
the building to the south is 116. The building to the south, at 116, is probably a dinosaur. If
they ever do anything with their septic system, they’re going to be in the same position we are.
I think the greater importance is to abide by the 100 foot setback from the lake, as opposed to
the proximity to the road. If that septic system on the property to the south, we’ve got an aerial
map, haven’t we? This is a map, which I’ll hand up. This actually has the residences denoted
on there. The Rosen residence is denoted as having an existing 39 foot frontage, and it shows
you the others. If you actually take a look at that 39 feet, and then you consider the fact that
they’re going back to 50 feet, they’re improving, if you will, any lateral visibility that the
property to the south has, and it’s probably the visibility, laterally, of the south is even
questionable, because if you also take a look at the aerial view that you have, besides the
residences, there are some substantial boathouses that are built in front of each one. The
property that is most affected is the property that is immediately to the south, which is called
the Kruger property. We have, since the time of the application, gone into contract for that
property. It won’t be in the same ownership as Agnes Rosen, who is the applicant on this, but it
is a property that is in control of the family, but we don’t think we have any impact upon
anybody. We basically are improving the existing circumstances. We are building less of a
structure than what’s there. We’re building a structure that is compliant, as far as septic, and
we actually are improving the existing setback by bringing it back to the 50 feet. That’s our
presentation.
MR. HAYES-Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?
MR. ABBATE-More a statement than anything else. The applicant, it says here, and I agree,
proposes to replace the existing dilapidated dwelling. You are absolutely correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m told when Tom Jarrett first went there he didn’t want to walk to the
second floor. If I remember, the stairs are not in too good shape.
MR. ABBATE-I certainly agree. Quite frankly, to construct a 2105 square foot, two-story single-
family dwelling is certainly going to be an improvement over that. I think those are kind
words, dilapidated dwelling. That was my only comment, Mr. Chairman.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would have one comment, and I don’t mean to respond to each one
individually. Some place or other in Staff notes, you’re talking about the 2105 feet. I don’t
reconcile that with what we’ve submitted. We’re building 2129 feet. That includes the back
porch, a covered back porch, which is 15 feet, but it’s not 2105. I didn’t figure out how you got
there.
MR. FRANK-Well, I added up the areas you had on your floor area ratio worksheet, 741 for the
upstairs; 741 for the downstairs; and 623 for the covered, or enclosed porches, and that’s where I
came up with the 2105.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Then maybe we’ve made a mistake. I think we show that the first
floor of the covered porch is 316 and the second floor is 316. So that would be 632 instead of
623, and we have a second covered porch of 15 feet. The total is 2129, which is still 122 feet less
than the floor area ratio.
MR. ABBATE-Well, it’s still compliant.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s compliant. I just didn’t want somebody, later on, to say, hey, wait a
minute, you’ve got a building larger than 2105 and why do you have that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So it’s 2,129 square feet?
MR. O'CONNOR-2,129.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor or opposition to this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-We have a piece of correspondence. One piece of correspondence, from a Jeff
Holden at 256 Cleverdale Road. He says, “The Rosens have requested a variance to build a new
septic system to accommodate a new home that they plan to build. The stormwater runoff in
the area is already a problem. The Rosen’s property is located on the lowest section of
Cleverdale Road in the area. My concern is that the proposed mound septic system will divert
additional runoff water to my neighbor and they will have no choice other than to divert the
runoff water to my property. I have nowhere to divert the water other than into my septic
system and my neighbors septic system. This is not an option. I feel the proposed stormwater
runoff system is inadequate for a number of reasons: 1 . The volume of water being funneled
into it and released near the lake has the potential to wash lawn chemicals and soil into Sandy
Bay. 2. Road debris, leaves and sand will be washed into the system. If the system isn’t
maintained properly it will flood my neighbor’s property and potentially my property. The
Rosen’s may have good intentions of maintaining the drainage system but future owners of
Rosen’s property may not be as diligent. 3. During the winter and early spring when the
drainage system is frozen it will not handle the water caused from winter rain storms and
melting snow. Thereby flooding my neighbor and potentially myself. I strongly oppose the
proposed mound septic system because of the stormwater runoff issue. I am also concerned
with the size of the proposed parking area with respect to the size of the proposed home.
Parking is not allowed on Cleverdale road and I don’t know the Rosen’s plans for parking the
number of cars that is normally associated with the size of the proposed home. Thank you for
taking my concerns into consideration. I would have preferred to attend the ZBA meeting in
person but I have family commitments for the Thanksgiving Holiday. Best regards, Jeff
Holden”
MR. ABBATE-What’s the physical location?
MR. MC NULTY-Jeff Holden. He’s at 256 Cleverdale Road.
MR. ABBATE-Where is 256 in relationship to this?
MR. HAYES-It’s that one.
MR. FRANK-He’s two properties south of the Rosens.
MR. ABBATE-Two properties south. Okay. Thanks. Good. Thank you very much.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is not an application for a septic variance.
MR. MC NULTY-Right. Most of the issues he raised, really, are Planning Board or site plan
review, or the Town Board acting as the Health Department.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Rosens have been at this since some time, since the beginning of the year.
I think I opened in my file in February, or something like that, trying to make sure that they
develop a septic system that would work on site, and not impact somebody else, and this
design, Tom Jarrett says will work. I think the total increase in impervious area is like 164 feet
on the site. It’s not a significant increase, and actually, again, it moves it back further from the
lake. So there’s more likelihood of infiltration if the water is going to go in that direction. The
parking, we have at least three spots for parking on this lot, off site, or off the road We
understand that you can’t park on that road.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? I’ll close the
public hearing.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I guess if there’s no more questions, I’ll ask the panel to summarize their positions.
It’s time to start with Chuck.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Based on the documentation, and the presentation by
Counselor, it’s my opinion this is a reasonable request. If I put myself in the place of the
applicant, would I do the same thing? The answer is yes. I think that you’re getting rid of a
dwelling that really should be gotten rid of, so to speak, and you’re putting up a 2,129 square
foot new two-story, single-family dwelling. I can’t help but think that this is going to make an
improvement in the entire area, and, based upon that, Mr. Chairman, I would go along with the
application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would basically be in favor of it. I think that what you’re trying
to do here is an improvement. I think the septic is going to make a big difference, and I think
that’s always a concern on Cleverdale, where it’s very narrow and very crowded. The only
thing I would add that might be a suggestion would be that Mr. Jarrett or whoever your
engineer is consider some kind of infiltrators for your road runoff, which I think is what that
neighbor was concerned more about. I don’t think it was runoff necessarily from the lot itself. I
mean, I think that could be accomplished with some ADS pipe with perforation, run it down
along the side lines and that way you’re going to put it into the ground instead of having it go
down straight into the lake. I think that on quite a few of these lakefront properties, if you look
at Cleverdale from the water side, too, there’s a general, and I think that they may (lost words)
that there’s a general lack of vegetation and any kind of buffer between the front of your house
and the lake. It might make sense to get together with the Town and your engineer and
consider putting a few trees in, putting in a raised bed of perennials or something like that to
keep a better idea of what’s going into the lake and keep that from happening. Otherwise, I’d
be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’d be in favor. My first reaction, when I first looked at the paperwork
on this, is, well, just because you’re setting back 50 feet is no reason to avoid the 78 foot rule that
comes into play here, but I think what’s proposed is a reasonable use of this lot. Trying to move
back to comply with the 78 foot certainly would cramp trying to put a decent septic system in
there, and I think that certainly is more important than just getting the building moved back a
little bit more. So I think it’s a good plan, and I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. To me this is the epitome of a neighborhood improving itself. Any time you
replace an eyesore with fresh construction I think you’re improving the neighborhood, and plus
we’re gaining 10 feet from the shoreline setback, and it’s also consistent, from the pictures and
from what I saw up there, with other setbacks. So I really would be in favor of the project. I
think it’s a good one.
MR. HAYES-Leo?
MR. RIGBY-I agree with what all the other Board members have said, too. I think it’s an
improvement to what’s there now, obviously. It’s more set back. It’s not a full build out.
They’re short of the full build out by 122 feet, and it’s a general overall improvement. So I’d be
in favor of it as well.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I think on our balancing test, one of the most important things to
keep in mind is where are we now and where are we going, where are we going to end up?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
And certainly in this particular case, we’re going to end up in a better place. We’re going to end
up with a residence that’s further away from the lake, that complies with the 50 foot setback.
We’re going to end up with a compliant, well engineered septic system, and we’re going to end
up with a new building on a site and in a home that possibly that might be the best thing of all,
as far as the neighborhood’s concerned. So I think, I don’t see any negative impacts on the
neighborhood by this proposal. In fact, I think a number of things are being improved
dramatically. If I lived next door, I would certainly be in favor. So I’m in favor. Having said
that, would someone like to make a motion.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll do it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2004 AGNES & STEVEN ROSEN,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
262 Cleverdale Road. I’d like to make a modification. I’d like to show that the description of
the proposed project show that the Rosens are proposing construction of a 2,129 square foot two
story single family dwelling to replace the existing dilapidated dwelling. The Rosens are
requesting 28 feet of relief from the 78 foot minimum shoreline setback requirements of the WR-
1A zone, average setback of a dwelling on two adjoining parcels per Section 179-4-030, and
Section 179-4-070. Now, as the Chairman mentioned earlier in one of the previous applications,
we take into consideration each applicant based upon its own merit, and there can be no doubt
in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that the benefit, not only to the applicant, but there is tremendous
benefit to the local community, in that this will be a tremendous improvement if this application
is approved. I don’t believe there will be any undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood, and quite the opposite. I think there will be a positive change in the
neighborhood, and I believe that the benefit sought by the applicant basically couldn’t be
achieved by any other method, and I think what they’re doing, requesting is feasible. I don’t
believe that the requested Area Variance is substantial, and I think that the proposal variance
will have a positive impact on both the physical and environmental conditions in the
neighborhood and the district, and whether the difficulty is self-created. In my opinion, it’s
subjective, and the answer would be no, and based upon that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we
approve Area Variance No. 35-2004.
Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming.
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you.
MR. HOLMES-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2004 SEQRA TYPE II RONALD & JANE LINSALATO
OWNER(S): RONALD & JANE LINSALATO ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 80 ASH
DRIVE, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING TWO-
STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING CABIN.
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,451 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 474 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2004-637
SFD, BP 2004-598 SETIC ALT., BP 2004-638 DEMO OF SFD LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 289.17-1-13 SECTION 179-4-030
RONALD & JANE LINSALATO, PRESENT
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Area Variance No. 88-2004, Ronald & Jane Linsalato, Meeting Date: November 24,
2004 “Project Location: 80 Ash Drive, Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant has demolished a 1,790 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling with a 416 sq. ft.
attached garage, and proposes to remove from the property a 956 sq. ft. cottage and
construction of a 2,452 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling with a 474 sq. ft. attached garage.
Relief Requested:
The applicant is requesting 165 sq. ft. of relief from the 22% maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
requirement of the WR-1A zone (proposed FAR equals 23.3%), per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2004-637: 10/14/04, 2,386 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 366 sq. ft. attached garage
(existing cottage to be removed).
BP 2004-638: 08/19/04, demolition of single-family dwelling.
BP 2004-598: 08/02/04, septic alteration.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family dwelling and remove the existing
cottage. The previous dwelling recently demolished was not compliant relative to the side and
shoreline setback requirements, and the previous floor area (including the cottage proposed to
be removed) was 3,162 sq. ft. (FAR equaled 25.2% or 401 sq. ft. above the allowed 22%). The
proposed dwelling will be compliant to all setback requirements, and the 165 sq. ft. of FAR
relief is the only relief required (proposed FAR equals 23.3%). Even though the permeability for
the parcel was compliant prior to the recent development, the proposed permeability is 6.9%
more permeable than before.”
MR. MC NULTY-No County.
MR. HAYES-Would you like to identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. LINSALATO-Yes. My name is Ron Linsalato and this is my wife, Jane.
MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to your application as it was read into the
minutes?
MR. LINSALATO-You pretty much covered what I had here, but just to point out that the
house that was removed, the main house, was an eyesore also, and did have a side line violation
and also a water violation towards the water. The cabin that’s still existing there does have a
setback, a side line violation there now. Obviously, the new building that will be going in, that
has been approved, is meeting all Code requirements concerning side line and water. Again,
the only thing we’re asking for is the difference in the garage, to go from a one and a half car to
a two car, which has already been explained in the notes there. Due to adverse conditions in the
winter and so forth, we’d like to be able to protect our two cars from the weather and so forth,
and basically that’s it, really. I think we pretty much covered it there, by what he said.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MRS. LINSALATO-I was just going to state that inside the garage we’re going to be using up
some additional area for the chimney to go up through, so that we don’t use the side lines, and
also for the, like a platform.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. LINSALATO-On the fire wall on the garage a chimney will be going up in that area. So
basically the way it’s set now, it’s 16 by 21 feet. Obviously that would take up some more room
in the garage. That’s what she’s bringing up.
MRS. LINSALATO-Right, and also platform to get down into the basement in there. So we
thought also it would buy us some extra room in there.
MR. LINSALATO-Yes. The proposal, the addition is 19 foot 9 inches wide by 24 foot long,
which will give us additional room to park our cars comfortably in there.
MRS. LINSALATO-Right.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant, based on the presentation? I will
compliment the applicant for providing us with a survey and house plans in this particular
case. It does make it easier to make a judgment certainly reduces the number of questions that
may be asked.
MR. LINSALATO-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Any questions now for the applicant at all? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is
there anyone that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Please come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LORI & DAVE GRAVES
MRS. GRAVES-Good evening. Lori Graves, 82 Ash Drive.
MR. GRAVES-Dave Graves, 82 Ash Drive.
MR. HAYES-And that is?
MRS. GRAVES-To the left of the Linsalatos.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. GRAVES-We have no objections to their proposed plans, and no objections to a two car
garage. If I were building a home and we had two vehicles, I would want the same thing for
myself.
MR. HAYES-So no objections is in favor of, then. Is that a safe leap?
MRS. GRAVES-In favor, yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MRS. GRAVES-I do have one question. Is there anything in the plans relative to the elevation of
the property, raising the elevation at all?
MR. HAYES-Is this going to site plan?
MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so because it’s a tear down, re-build. It’s not an expansion.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know if they would be allowed to raise the grade any higher than it
is now.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MRS. GRAVES-Well, the reason why I ask is to the right of the Linsalatos, where that new home
was built, the property elevation has been increased by.
MR. LINSALATO-Three, four inches.
MRS. GRAVES-Yes, or maybe a little more, and we’re just concerned that if they’re allowed to
raise their elevation, it kind of puts us right in the valley, and we’re just afraid of the
permeability, that everything’s going to drain right into our property.
MR. HAYES-We’ll ask the applicant to answer that question.
MRS. GRAVES-Okay.
MR. HAYES-That engineering is not part of our.
MRS. GRAVES-I’m sorry.
MR. HAYES-No, but it’s a great question. It really is, but we wouldn’t want to give you an
answer and be wrong.
MRS. GRAVES-Okay.
MR. HAYES-So, thanks for coming.
MRS. GRAVES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in regards to this application?
OLGA SAITO
MS. SAITO-My name is Olga Saito and I live on 76 Ash Drive on the right of, towards the right
of the proposed development. I haven’t, one of my things is I haven’t raised the elevation of my
house. We just filled up the driveway. I have no objection whatsoever to the variance, and I
think it’s going to be a great improvement. It will be a very nice house.
MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in regards to
this application?
JAMES POLUNCI
MR. POLUNCI-I live on 74 Ash Drive. I would like to speak in favor of this proposal, for a
number of reasons. First of all, I’m the only Italian located down there. So I’m in the minority.
So when the Linsalatos move in, we’ve doubled the Italian population on that side of the lake.
Seriously, they’re great people, as are all the neighbors down there. They’re just a pleasure to
be around. The structure, I’ve been in the structures. I used to be a builder. When I taught
school years ago I used to build houses and contracted and built many in the Town of
Queensbury. The structure that was taken down was over 100 years old, and I’ve been in there
a number of times, and it was in pretty rough shape, and taking it down really is an
improvement, and also the cabin also. As was mentioned before, the house and cabin are about
3100 square feet total and the structure that they’re proposing is several hundred feet less than
that. Setbacks will be met, from the lake and from the side, along with this structure. A couple
of houses down, next to the Graves’, there’s a huge apartment house which is three stories high
and I’m sure is probably two to three times what the square area requirement, it’s actually very
imposing, and there, just want to make a point that that’s there, and all the properties, my lot
included, we have new wells, new septic systems put in, are really improving the whole area
there. My place, I have the highest ground. So all of the water is going to be coming from my
property down toward that way anyway. My property is elevated about three or four feet
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
higher than my neighbor. It’s just been that way. So I would, again, like to speak very highly
about the Linsalato family, and would hope that you would consider their relief.
MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. Anyone else? Any last people that would like to speak? If
not, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And would the applicants please come forward. I guess we have one open
question, as to what you intend to do with the grade level of your house, proposed home, if you
could address that.
MR. LINSALATO-Yes. They have a property line there that, alongside the garage that sits in a
bit of a valley there. It goes quite down, okay. In other words, they’re property comes up quite
high, as mine does, towards the water, and then it drops down towards the water, but it comes
up quite high as you run along the houses then it drops down. I understand their concern, and
it would be alongside, you wouldn’t see it here. This is the cabin. It would be where the home
was taken down already, but it would be actually, if I could show it. It would be right beyond
this gray bobber where it dips down on along this side. It’s like a little valley.
MR. HAYES-Okay. So, in terms of the reconstruction of your house, is it going to be higher or
the same height? I guess that’s the question.
MR. LINSALATO-Probably approximately the same height of the home that was there. Okay.
The garage is where the concern is, and I’m sure they would kind of agree with that. What I
will do with the garage is I will put some type of retaining wall, whether it’s going to be
concrete. Now this may be two and a half feet or so. I don’t know how high it would have to
be. I would have to get together with the builder, somewhere around there. All (lost words)
lumber would go in over there. To protect it I’d have to do that, you know, just to protect my,
that point, the blacktop, to protect it that side, be it gravel or blacktop from sinking. I’d have to
put some type of retaining wall or find out what’s going to be put there. Beyond that, I will add
I’m about 12 feet from their property line. I will also grade it somewhat towards their property
line, even after that, okay, as best I can. More than that, I really can’t do, but I will put a
retaining wall.
MR. HAYES-I guess I think that she was looking for an assurance that you weren’t going to
raise, that was my impression, raise the grade.
MR. MC NULTY-Raise the ground level.
MR. HAYES-During the construction process.
MRS. LINSALATO-I would like to state something, though. They have a gulley on the
property, and they have an alternative to fill it, so that it wouldn’t be as bad as it is also. It’s a
big gulley. So if we are slightly above them, if they fill that up even, because their property
goes like this. If they fill this gulley up and make it a little bit up further with that hill part, it
would make it a little bit different for all of us involved.
MR. LINSALATO-To clarify that a little more, the property starts out at the street high, it comes
down low, and then it goes up again. It’s a small valley in there, which I’m sure they would
confront.
MRS. LINSALATO-Right.
MR. LINSALATO-Which would be a problem no matter what. Water would sit in there no
matter what, whether I’m a little bit higher than I am now or not. I mean, obviously water
would sit in there. So I’m going to do everything, again, with a retaining wall to make this
right.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MRS. LINSALATO-But they have an alternative, also, to add the fill themselves, then rectify
some of the problem they have.
MR. HAYES-Well, in this particular case, though, we’re contemplating the relief for you, and
that’s going to potentially have impact on them. So we need to know what you’re doing. I
understand what you’re saying, but in this particular case, it’s our job to examine the impact on
the neighbors of what you’re proposing, really.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, if I could add something. As you know, Town Code requires that
your post development stormwater runoff can’t exceed the pre-development levels. So they
have to contain their stormwater on their property. If they bring in any amount of fill, for
whatever reasons, and as you know and others know, typically some fill is brought in to raise
up the grade for putting in a foundation in a basement. Code clearly states you can bring in up
to six feet of fill on your property for residential development. Anything greater than that, the
Zoning Administrator can determine you need site plan review. So if it’s going to impact
somebody then he could say, yes, you’re going to have to be reviewed by the Planning Board,
but clearly they have to contain their stormwater on their property. So, I mean, if the Graves are
concerned about stormwater running off of the Linsalato’s property after it’s developed, they
would have a valid concern. It would have to be contained on their property by Code.
MR. HAYES-Okay. You understand that?
MR. LINSALATO-Yes.
MR. HAYES-I mean, it certainly seems like you intend to comply, but we like to get the best
answers we can, because once decisions are made, they’re made.
MR. LINSALATO-In other words a retaining wall at the garage, with the garage pitching out
towards the street, is obviously going to allow that, whatever water drops on their to go this
way, okay. The normal water that would drop off the sides, whatever sides they are, would be
what’s happening already there. That’s what I’m saying.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. LINSALATO-Okay, because there’s a valley there already. It’s not that I’m creating
something where everything is going to go down there. Everything that comes from the
driveway should pitch towards the street, or at least towards the street.
MR. HAYES-You’re willing to say on the record you don’t intend to change the grade
substantially anyway.
MR. LINSALATO-No. What is substantially?
MR. HAYES-That’s a very subjective word, but I think it’s important.
MR. LINSALATO-It’s certainly not going to be four, five or six feet, if that’s what you’re saying.
MRS. LINSALATO-No.
MR. LINSALATO-Definitely.
MR. FRANK-And the Code would allow you to bring in that amount of fill. Of course you’d
have to still contain your stormwater from that development on your property.
MR. LINSALATO-Correct.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. HAYES-I think we’ve addressed the concerns, and there certainly seems to be factual Code
protection to the end result here. So I think that’s as far as we need to go, as far as the ZBA. So,
are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Then I would take this time
to summarize the Board’s position, and it’s time to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I live right across the lake from him. So I’m watching the whole thing
unfold as to what’s going on over there, and it’s a great improvement, especially the one that
was to the west of you there. That was right, built in the lake at one time. I think what you’re
requesting is pretty minimal, in reflection of the fact that it’s primarily garage and making sure
that you have room for your cars in the wintertime, and I don’t have any real problem with
granting this relief for you. I would make the same suggestion I did for the people in the last
one that was before us here, that you do put some kind of vegetation out in front of your house.
(Lost words) over on Ash Drive there you don’t see any trees over there. If you look across the
lake, you do see trees. It’s a matter of style. You live on a nice lake, and the natural shoreline
was wooded at one time. All those trees were taken down by somebody prior to you guys, and
it does make a big difference for the future of the lake, putting some perennials out in front, to
make a little berm between your house and the lake, and you’re not going to have any kind of
runoff going in there. It will make things better.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-It seems like a reasonable request. Certainly it’s an improvement over what
existed before, and while they’re requesting a little bit of an increase on the floor area ratio. I
think the benefit to the applicant is clear, and probably offsets any potential detriment to the
community. So I’ll be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think it’s a good proposal. I think on the balancing test we have a test that
we have to meet, and I think the benefits have met almost every feasible alternative. They’ve
dropped the side setbacks that were there prior to this, and the shoreline setback requirements.
They’ve met that as well. In addition, I think rather than an undesirable change in the
neighborhood, we’re seeing a desirable change in the neighborhood. Just like in the previous
application. As far as the request being substantial, I think it sounds worse than it is, 165 square
feet, but it’s only 1.3% Floor Area Ratio, and I think that’s a small variance to pay when you
consider the improvement that’s being brought to that property. We talked about the possible
physical or environmental effects, the adverse, and the applicant has made it clear that they’re
willing to assure that the runoff will be contained, and as far as being self-created, I think this is
not self-created but an improvement that’s been self-created. I think they’re to be commended
for really going out of their way to make this property compliant. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Leo?
MR. RIGBY-I think Roy did a great job summarizing what I was going to say as well. It’s
generally an overall improvement. The only thing I would add to Roy’s comment is that there’s
no objections from any of the neighbors. The neighbors are all in favor of it. So I’d certainly be
in favor of it as well.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I agree with my fellow Board members. One of the important points was
the strong support from the immediate neighbors, and that, coupled with the other remarks
from the other fellow Board members and as well as the applicant’s presentation, I’d be in favor
of the application.
MR. HAYES-I agree. I think really, in most of the critical ways, this property is going to be
dramatically improved from a Code Compliance standpoint. I think it’s going to show there’s a
benefit to the neighborhood and community, and I’d certainly sense some willingness by the
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
applicant to do whatever they need to do to have this work out for everybody around them,
too, which is wonderful. I’d certainly commend that. So I’m in favor of the application. So
would someone like to make a motion?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’ll make the motion.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2004 RONALD & JANE LINSALATO,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
80 Ash Drive, Glen Lake. The applicant is requesting 165 square feet of relief from the 22%
maximum Floor Area Ratio requirement of the WR-1A zone. The proposed Floor Area Ratio
equals 23.3%, per 179-4-030. We’ve gotten to this point because the applicant has demolished a
1,790 square foot two family single family dwelling with an attached garage and is also
removing, or has removed from the property, a 956 square foot cottage. They’ve done so in
order to construct a 2,452 square foot two family single family dwelling, with a 475 square foot
attached garage. When measured against the test, we’re asked whether the benefit can be
achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. I’d like to point out that the applicant has
actually made every effort possible to remove any variances from the property, necessary
variances from the property. The previous property was not compliant with the side setback
nor the shoreline setback, and now it is. The change is a desirable change to the neighborhood,
in that it’s improving a property that had undergone a long wear and tear and this will be
definitely an improvement on that. As far as the request being substantial, it is not substantial.
It’s 1.3%, which I pointed out earlier is a small price to pay for improving a property and
making it more compliant in other respects. The one area that was pointed out as a possible
adverse physical or environmental effect was possible stormwater runoff which the applicants
have said that they will definitely make compliant, are taking care of, and whether this alleged
difficulty is self-created, no, I actually think the applicants are to be commended for going out
of their way to make this property as compliant as possible and so therefore I don’t think it’s
self-created, and the cottage that’s going to be torn down, I’d make the point that the 956 square
foot cottage will be torn down or removed from the property all together to make room for this
project, but it won’t be on the property any longer, in order to allow this construction to take
place. I move that we approve this Area Variance.
Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming.
MRS. LINSALATO-Thank you.
MR. LINSALATO-I appreciate it. Have a good holiday.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2004 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED TARGET CORPORATION
AGENT(S): MARSHALL SIGN CORPORATION OWNER(S): TARGET CORPORATION
ZONING: ESC-25A LOCATION: 578 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
INSTALLATION OF A 35 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN “PHARMACY”. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN FOR AN OCCUPANT IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS
REF. BP 2004-810 WALL SIGN, BP 2004-084 NEW BLDG. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
NOVEMBER 10, 2004 LOT SIZE: 8.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-92.12 SECTION 140-
6 (B3d4b)
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
RICK MARSHALL & BOB ORLANDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 87-2004, Target Corporation, Meeting Date: November 24,
2004 “Project Location: 578 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes the installation of a 35 sq. ft. “Pharmacy” wall sign.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for an additional wall sign where only one is allowed per occupant
of a business complex, per §140-6(B3d4b).
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2004-810: 10/22/04, 216. sq. ft. wall sign.
BP 2004-084: 06/02/04, 127, 125 sq. ft. 3,500 sq. ft. commercial addition to building.
BP 2003-1004: 12/22/03, demolition of a portion of the Aviation Mall building
AV 80-2003: 09/17/03, setback, lot size, and permeability relief for new department store.
SP 44-2002 Mod: 07/22/03, new mall department store and associated changes to mall.
SB 14-2002 Mod: 07/22/03, subdivision of mall parcel to accommodate new department store.
AV 64-2003: 07/16/03, setback, lot size, and permeability relief for new department store.
SP 44-2002: 09/24/02, new mall department store and associated changes to mall.
SB 14-2002: 09/24/02, subdivision of mall parcel to accommodate new department store.
AV 72-2002: 09/18/02, setback, lot size, and permeability relief for new department store.
Staff comments:
The applicant desires an additional wall sign to inform the public the Target department store
includes a pharmacy. The applicant claims New York State law requires a sign on pharmacies.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
November 10, 2004 Project Name: Target Corporation Owner(s): Target Corporation ID
Number: QBY-04-SV-87 County Project#: Nov04-38 Current Zoning: ESC-25A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes installation of a 35 sq. ft. wall sign
“Pharmacy”. Relief requested for an additional wall sign for an occupant in a business
complex. Site Location: 578 Aviation Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.5-1-92.12 Staff Notes:
Sign Variance: The applicant proposes an additional wall sign where one is allowed. The
applicant proposes a 35 sq. ft. sign to indicate that Pharmacy is located within Target. The
information submitted indicates the sign would be located on the left side of the building
separate from the main Target sign. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based
on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning
Board 11/15/04.
MR. HAYES-Please identify yourselves for the record.
MR. MARSHALL-Yes. I’m Rick Marshall, with Marshall Signs, and I’m with Bob Orlando from
Aviation Mall. Pretty much our presentation is what Mr. McNulty just read. We’re looking for
an additional wall sign, a Pharmacy sign. We think it’s going to be a benefit to the community.
There is currently no pharmacy in Aviation Mall, and I think having a Pharmacy located there
would be, you know, greatly beneficial to the people who shop there. It’s only 35 square feet,
which is two foot high letters. We’re not asking for something that we believe is oversized.
We’re asking for something sized to be right by the highway, and I think that would accomplish
that.
MR. HAYES-How far away from the road is this sign going to be?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. MARSHALL-I think we’re thinking about 200 feet.
MR. HAYES-So that’s going to mitigate the size, to some extent, I guess.
MR. MARSHALL-If you take a look at the drawing, and I believe I submitted that, you can see
how small that sign actually appears on the overall fascia of this building. It’s minimal. Now
we did request that representatives of Target, if they could be here, but unfortunately because
of the holiday they could not fly out here.
MR. HAYES-Or they couldn’t get anybody to.
MR. MARSHALL-Probably more like it, yes, and Bob was good enough to lend his time, and if
you have any questions regarding Target and the Aviation Mall that he could answer that I
could not, I’m sure he’d be more than happy to.
MR. ORLANDO-If I could just add, from the Mall’s perspective, obviously, as you all know, we
conveyed this parcel to Target to do this new store here, the complex functions that, you know,
is one shopping center, even though there are two different owners of the parcels, and, you
know, having this extra sign on the front of the Target store I think is a great benefit to, you
know, everybody involved, as well as, of course, the State requires that if you have a Pharmacy
that you have to have it on there, but from the Mall’s perspective, you know, obviously we’re
very excited to have Target come to the center, and this sign, we feel, is of no great consequence
and will be a benefit actually.
MR. URRICO-I have a couple of questions. You mentioned no Pharmacy. CVS doesn’t have a
Pharmacy anymore?
MR. ORLANDO-CVS had a Pharmacy at the Mall years ago, and in 2001, I believe, they made a
business decision to close down that Pharmacy, and they’ve put up some drywall and closed it
up.
MR. URRICO-The other one is I have a concern about what I consider an accumulation of signs
in that area, and, in addition, the only store that really has a sign on its outside is Klein’s, and
we gave you permission to put a Dick’s sign there. Now there’s another banner hanging down
from that sign, which, and I believe, I think we’ve exceeded the grace period on that. Are they
allowed to put a banner up for?
MR. FRANK-I think you’re referring to a temporary sign, does it say Grand Opening or
Opening?
MR. URRICO-It says basically the same thing that the Dick’s sign does, but it does mention
opening.
MR. FRANK-Yes. I don’t think that’s their permanent sign. I think that’s just a temporary sign
they have.
MR. URRICO-How long can they have that sign there?
MR. FRANK-You’re entitled to 60 calendar days per calendar year. So, do they have a sign
permit for that? I wouldn’t know, because I don’t approve sign permits. The Zoning
Administrator does. So, when did they put it up? I don’t know, to be honest with you.
MR. ORLANDO-And that’s a fine point, Roy, and I don’t mind talking to the folks at Dick’s to
say that, you know, I think everybody knows that the store’s open and their temporary thing
can come down. I think that’s reasonable.
MR. URRICO-And the other sign is a CVS sign. There’s a gathering of signs in that area. I just
think they’re spreading and they need to be stopped.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. ORLANDO-Well, the CVS sign was actually located on the fascia of the building, where
the Target store is now going to be located. So, that front, whole area where the Target building
is, of course that was what we would call small shop area about 50,000 square feet, and so we
actually lost that amount of frontage of the building, and therefore those signs did need to be
relocated. So, you know, as you look at the front, you have the Sears building. You have the
Penney’s building, and then a small area where the Food Court is and where our offices are and
the Klein’s, as you mentioned, and really, that’s it, besides the anchor stores in the front.
MR. URRICO-Like I said, I’m concerned about the gathering there, and the way it looks. I think
that the Target itself is, the front of the building looks terrific, and I’m trying to reconcile the
extra sign with what’s there already, but also with the other big box stores. I don’t like using
that term, but the other stores that we have in the area that are also permitted a Pharmacy sign
already. So that’s what I’m trying to balance right now. I’m having some trouble with that.
Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I have one here. Somewhere in here I read that, you indicate that New York
State law requires a sign on Pharmacies. Do you want to quote that law for me, please. Because
I couldn’t find it.
MR. ORLANDO-Well, it’s not in your Ordinance, but it is in the New York State Education
Code. I don’t have a copy of that. I know Jon Lapper, who happens to be here, is familiar with
that law, not that he’s here representing us.
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-We did it for CVS, before this Board. They had to do the same thing.
MR. ABBATE-It is required, Mr. Lapper?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, on the outside.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. It was a question. I couldn’t find it, but thank you very much. I yield to
your knowledge.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of or opposition to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-It’s time for the Board members to summarize their position, and I believe it’s time
to start with Chuck.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ve been struggling with this one. On the one hand you can compare
the Target store to the other big box stores that somebody mentioned in the area, and certainly
some of those have a bunch of signs on them. At the same time, the Target store is part of the
Aviation Mall, and I think there is an alternative here that the applicant mentioned that the
Pharmacy sign could be put next, or under the Target sign, and become part of the Target sign,
and therefore get the legal requirement accomplished by having the words “Pharmacy” on the
outside of the building, but at the same time stay within the zoning codes of one sign on the
building. At the same time, it does strike me that a separate “Pharmacy” sign, somewhere in
the general area that’s proposed, probably would look better than having it stuck right under
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
the Target sign. On the other hand, there’s a lot of tenants in that Mall, and if we start allowing
a second sign for one tenant on the front, then Sears could holler, I want a clothing sign. I want
an appliance sign. I want a tools sign. JC Penney could do the same thing. So I think that, if we
allow this, it’s going to be giving Target a favor, if you will, that we probably are not going to be
willing to give the other tenants in that Mall. Given that, leads me, I think, to fall to saying no
on this, and hoping that they can put the “Pharmacy” sign under the “Target” sign or near the
“Target” sign, in such a manner that it becomes all part of that sign. So I’m going to be
opposed.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Is that an alternative, to put the “Pharmacy”?
MR. MARSHALL-No. I mean, you asked the question, is there any other possible way, but, I
mean, it would literally be “Target Pharmacy”, and it’s not their marketing. It’s not the way
that they’re projecting their store. It would be completely, I know, unacceptable to their
Corporation anyway.
MR. ORLANDO-I think it would also confuse the customers.
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know. I think it could be done in a way that it would be obvious that
the Pharmacy was subservient to the Target sign, but, in any event.
MR. URRICO-Anyway. I’m going to agree with Chuck on this. I’m sorry. I think I’ve been
pretty consistent about the second sign all along, and I’m going to stay consistent. I really think
we have to be careful. This is, if I’m counting correctly, the tenth variance, eleventh variance
request for this particular property, and, you know, I think we have a tough time with the signs,
and I think that that area is starting to show accumulation. It almost looks tacky in that general
area, because of the signs. I think the building is beautiful. I think it’s going to be a great
addition to the Town, but I think we have to be careful with the signs, and what it could do, not
only to other properties, but what it will do there right now. Putting another sign there, I think,
is just over the line. I would be against it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Leo?
MR. RIGBY-I don’t think we have an option but to allow a second sign. New York State law
says that’s what we have to do. That’s what we have to do. I’d like to see the Code on that or
get confirmation on that, if we could. It’s just a matter of how big the sign has to be, how small
can it be. I mean, those types of issues. So I don’t think there’s any question that we have to
allow another sign that says “Pharmacy”. I don’t think there’s enough information, yet, though
on that, what the Code requires and how big it has to be, color, whatever the case may be. So
I’m in favor of, and I think we’re going to have to eventually grant this variance, but tonight I
don’t think we have enough information to make the decision. So I think I’d be opposed to it.
Maybe a suggestion that we table it or something.
MR. HAYES-At the risk of, Mr. Lapper, do you have any understanding of what the Code is, as
far as the size of the sign or any of those parameters?
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-No, but I know I could get you a copy of those, of the law.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Question. When you submitted plans to the Town, in your plans, did you
include the fact that there was going to be a Pharmacy? I’m asking for a reason. I wonder who
can answer that for me? Here’s where I’m going. If you did, then it was an implied, as far as
I’m concerned, there was an implied consent by the Town to obey the laws. If you stated to the
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
Town that you were going to have a Pharmacy, then at that time the Town should have said,
well, wait a minute, if they had any objections they should have said something. So did you, in
the plans that were submitted to the Town, the original plans, did it include a Pharmacy?
MR. MARSHALL-Target submitted their plans for a building permit for this building, and
certainly in the detail of those plans there was Pharmacy.
MR. ABBATE-Well, okay, thank you, and I’m sure you’re probably right. Then I have a little
problem with denying this thing, Mr. Chairman. I have to support it, because if the plans
submitted to the Town indicated there was a Pharmacy, if there were any objections, I think the
objections should have been raised at that time, in terms of a sign. I will yield to Counsel, and I
will yield to you folks, when you indicate that the law requires a Pharmacy sign be stated, but
based on the limited information I have, I would support the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m willing to accept the fact that a sign is needed on the outside. I mean,
if it is a requirement of State law, and I think keeping in mind that we don’t like to have a
million signs on the side of buildings, it’s not a request for many signs, as in the case of Wal-
Mart and K-Mart, the other big stores in the Town. I think that this one, when viewed from
coming down the hill in your car, is going to look pretty small, 200 foot plus set back from the
road, and I think it is necessary because, you know, if you’re going to have a department store,
people are going to include the knowledge of the fact that a Pharmacy is contained within there.
unless you go inside the store for that reason, I think that you can also rationalize that since CVS
did have a Pharmacy sign up at one point, I assume, on the outside of the building.
MR. ORLANDO-They did.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That this would simply just be replacing that sign that was there. So I can
live with the fact that we’re going to put this one back on.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, you know, I agree with both wings of the decision here tonight.
Certainly we’re very protective of our Sign Ordinance, and I think it’s Roy’s point that, whether
intentionally or unintentionally, we’re starting to get toward that saturation point, with this side
of the Mall, but I think you have to couple that with the fact that, in the unusual circumstance
with malls, that the tenants in the back tend to want some representation, and that causes a
desire or a need for the leasing body to provide them with some accommodation and perhaps
even the Town. Whether that’s a good idea or not, I don’t know, but it certainly is part of
what’s behind that side of the Mall, I think in this particular case. I think that, again, we get to
examine each case by its specific merits, and in this particular case, if there wasn’t a statutory
requirement to put a Pharmacy sign up there, I’m not sure I’d be in favor, but I think that does
make this a unique application, versus another store in the Mall wanting another sign for
another line of products that they have, and again, I think this is a very, very narrow decision,
at least on my part, and perhaps other people’s as well, but in this particular case, as I look at
the depiction of what this is going to look like, in effect, I think that that’s, it’s a fairly small sign,
and I don’t think it’s going to contribute to the corporate side of things, as far as advertising and
that being maybe a pollution to the visual impact of the neighborhood. If they’re required to
have “Pharmacy” on the outside, it says “Pharmacy” that’s as far as it goes on this sign. There’s
no more dots or bullseyes or Dick’s or whatever, in this particular case. So I’m going to be in
favor of this as depicted, very narrowly, primarily for the reason that if it’s statutorily required,
I think this might be the best case scenario that we can live with.
MR. MC NULTY-Could I make one more comment?
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. MC NULTY-And then we want to remember, we’ve got the SEQRA. I just want to make
the point that I think the decision should be made on the basis that locating a separate sign
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
would be more attractive. The issue here is not whether or not they may have a “Pharmacy”
word on the front of the building. It’s where they’re going to put it. When I was voting against
it, I wasn’t saying they couldn’t have a Pharmacy sign on the building.
MR. HAYES-So your position is it would be better under the “Target”?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m just saying it would be compliant if it were worked in with the “Target”
thing, but I can also see the point that it probably is going to look more attractive and certainly
be more attractive to the applicant for it to be a separate sign.
MR. RIGBY-Can I ask another question? What’s the timing of when this sign is required? I
mean, is it required immediately?
MR. ORLANDO-It needs to be covered up, I believe, until the Pharmacy is actually opened,
because the way the thinking goes is if someone has an emergency, and they’ve got to get some
medication, and they jump through hoops and try to get into that Pharmacy and they’re
wasting time and there’s no drugs and there’s no pharmacist in there, that’s why they’re
covered up until it’s actually opened.
MR. MARSHALL-But the answer, the direct answer to your question, Leo, is that the sign will
probably be installed some time within the next 30 to 60 days and covered up until the opening.
MR. RIGBY-So, the only reason why I ask, and I don’t want to extend this, but I’d just like to be
assured that there is a New York State Law that says there’s a Pharmacy required.
MR. MARSHALL-I’ve done about 20 of these Pharmacies for Targets in New York State, and
every one of them, yes, New York State does require a Pharmacy sign.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, you could condition it that that be a requirement, provided that at
time of applying for the sign permit.
MR. RIGBY-That’s fine.
MR. HAYES-That’s a good point, but I think you can cover it that way. I mean, if you’re
provided with absolute factual proof that that requirement exists.
MR. MARSHALL-Which is certainly reasonable, and, Mr. Chairman, could I make one
comment to Mr. McNulty’s concern?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. ORLANDO-And it’s the initial one, as opposed to the last one that you raised. If someone
that’s in the Mall right now has some desire to put up signs on the front of the building, that’s
something that they would need to cover with me, and with the Pyramid Company, as the
property owner, prior to ever coming before this Board, and, for example, one of them wanting
to say that they’ve got appliances in their store, not only is it going to get rejected at this Board,
as I think it should be, but it’s going to be rejected at my level as well. So I wanted to try to give
you a little better comfort level that you can’t, you certainly wouldn’t expect to see us or
someone else from my company in front of you asking you to put the word “appliances” on the
front of the Mall. I don’t think that’s right, and I wouldn’t be in favor of that myself.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. I guess right now, Leo, I have you as a table.
MR. RIGBY-I’m yes, as long as the provision is in the motion.
MR. HAYES-Is there anybody else that would like to add, Roy, you sound like you wanted to
add a comment or something.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think I’ve had a chance to hear some of my fellow Board members, and I
think, like I said, I was having a tough time reconciling the word being put there, but, having
heard their testimony or their opinions, I think I would be in favor of it at this point.
MR. HAYES-Okay, all right, and I think Chuck’s position is a hybrid one as well, but, all right.
Irregardless, I think, right now, there seems to be an inclination toward a favorable motion. So
would someone like to make that?
MR. MC NULTY-SEQRA first.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Excuse me.
MOTION THAT BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT
RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT., Introduced by Paul
Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2004 TARGET CORPORATION,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
578 Aviation Road. The Target Corporation is proposing the installation of a 35 square foot
Pharmacy wall sign. The relief required, the applicant is requesting relief for an additional wall
sign where only one is allowed per occupant of a business complex per Section 140-6(B3d4b).
Mr. Chairman, I make this motion that we approve based upon what I believe to be a rational
and a reasonable approval, and I would like to base the approval on the fact that Target
Corporation will provide the Town with the necessary New York State citations dealing with
pharmacy signs. In addition to that, I don’t believe that the pharmacy sign will be any detriment
to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or the community. I don’t believe it will
result in any undesirable type of change. I don’t believe it can clearly be achieved by any other
method, particularly in view of the fact, if in fact, and I do yield to the applicant that there are
statutory requirements for pharmacy signs. I don’t believe the Area Variance is substantial, and
I don’t think it will have an adverse effect or impact on the Town. I move that we approve Sign
Variance No. 87-2004.
Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming.
MR. ORLANDO-Happy Thanksgiving, guys.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2004 SEQRA TYPE II DELLA AUTO GROUP AGENT(S):
JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. & STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. OWNER(S): FAMIGLIA
BELLA ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 293 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,610 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SHOWROOM.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP
92-025 ALT. TO BLDG. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 10, 2004 LOT SIZE:
4.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-5 SECTION 179-4-030
JON LAPPER & MICHAEL DELLA BELLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 89-2004, Della Auto Group, Meeting Date: November 24,
2004 “Project Location: 293 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to construct a 1,610 sq. ft. building addition (vehicle showroom with two handicap
bathrooms).
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 45.2 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement of the
Highway Commercial Intensive zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 62-2004: denied 08/25/04, 46.79 feet of front setback relief for a 1,775 sq. ft. building addition
and permeability relief for the expanded parking area at the rear of the property.
Staff comments:
The proposed showroom expansion is planned in an area currently utilized for parking and
access aisles. What effect would this variance have on the health, safety and welfare of the
community? Does the applicant have permission from Niagara Mohawk to occupy NIMO
lands with their use? Typically, NIMO will grant an access easement to cross NIMO lands;
however, occupation of NIMO lands, especially where high voltage transmission lines are
located, is uncommon. It would appear as though there are alternative areas for the
construction that would require little or no relief from the setback requirements.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
November 10, 2004 Project Name: Della Auto Group Owner(s): Famiglia Bella ID Number:
QBY-04-AV-89 County Project#: Nov04-29 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,610 sq. ft. addition to
the existing showroom. Relief requested from the front setback requirement. Site Location: 293
Quaker Road Tax Map Number(s): 296.20-1-5 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
proposes to construct a 23’ x 70’ sq. ft. addition as a showroom to the existing Della Auto
building. The addition will be located 4.8 ft. from the front property line where 50’ is required.
The property is adjacent to a NIMO property row of 129 ft. where access to the site is over this
NIMO property from Quaker Road. The information submitted indicates that the addition is
over 129 ft. from Quaker Road. The applicant had submitted a similar proposal that was denied
at the local level for a 1,775 sq. ft. addition. The information does not indicate if there is an
existing easement between Della and NIMO to use paved surface in front of proposed addition,
if there is not access around the proposed addition limited (3 ft.). Staff does not identify an
impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county
impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by
Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 11/15/04.
MR. HAYES-Please identify yourselves for the record.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Michael Della Bella on behalf of Della Auto
Group. I guess I’d just like to start off and explain a few things. Mike wasn’t here and I wasn’t
here, but when this was presented in August, he had his contractor come in and I don’t think
that he did a thorough job. I’ve reviewed the minutes, and I don’t think he explained the whole
situation to the Board at that time. I guess, to start out with, those of you who were here last
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
time will recall that the neighbor to the rear had a big problem with this or was alleging that
this was going to create all sorts of impacts on his area in the back, and as a result of that.
MR. HAYES-That was the Kruger piece?
MR. LAPPER-The Kruger piece, yes, and so as a result of that, Mike has contracted to purchase
the entire Kruger parcel in the back, you know, it’ll probably make it easier for him, with site
plan, to have the extra land to deal with wetland impacts in the future, but, you know, it’s
something that he certainly didn’t anticipate, but as a result of the neighbor just being so
worked up about it, it was deemed the most efficient way to address it, and the neighbor’s
happy. He should be, or the former neighbor. So we have that under contract, and that’ll close
once we’re through with the Town process. As a result of that, we have more than sufficient
permeability, and that variance is not required. It’s worth noting that the small addition that
we’re talking about in the front, of 1600 square feet, is on an area that’s already paved and
parked. So it’s already impermeable now. So in terms of the site plan, it’s really minor, but
what wasn’t communicated to the Board the last time, and part of the reason why Mike’s here
as well, is just to explain that he previously had Cadillac in what is now the Honda building
next door, and when he consolidated all of the GM franchises in one building, he needs to have
each of the automobiles, an automobile from each of the brands displayed in the front, so that it
properly looks like a GM dealership with a number of different brands, but all, compared to, of
all the different choices that you could have, to try and say that, all he’s trying to show is to
have three windows so that each of them can display a car, and that’s not a real significant
change, but as we stated in the application, the way the building is laid out, because it’s
primarily a service building with a small showroom in front, he can’t put the showroom
anywhere else, other than in front, because it would block where his service is, or the vehicle
access. So this was deemed the most modest way to go about it. It certainly, if it weren’t for the
NiMo power lines, this would seem like a very substantial variance, because he’s going pretty
much to the property line, but it’s a very unique situation when you have 129 feet of NiMo
property. It’s not unusual, in response to the Staff notes. I can recall that when we did Staples
that was built right to the property line, and in order to get the fire separation, we had to get
NiMo’s permission to actually pave under there, the same transmission line, they had to pave
under the line so that fire trucks could go around it, and that was how we made Staples fit in,
and when we just re-did John Nigro’s Plaza behind Taco Bell that, most of their parking lot is
under the NiMo transmission lines that go up to the Mall. So it’s not unusual for NiMo to allow
commercial property owners to operate under their line, and in fact Mike’s engineer, Tom Nace,
had to address this again. Permission was granted many years ago for the site, but he had to
address it in 1999. They had to go out and measure, and to verify to NiMo that there was
enough clearance between the pavement and the electric lines so that cars and trucks could pass
under that. So there’s nothing that’s unusual about that, in terms of using the NiMo lands, but
what is unusual is having a commercial building on Quaker Road that’s actually set back 129
feet. In comparison, when you look across the street, Hewitt’s Garden Center, the transmission
place, and Mack The Knife’s body shop, those only had to comply with the 75 foot Travel
Corridor Overlay and the 50 foot building setback, which means that the building should be 75
feet from Quaker Road, and in terms of the benefits of that setback, it’s the visual benefits. You
don’t have crowding because you don’t have a building right along the road, and that’s
certainly not an issue here, even with the small addition, because it’s still going to be more than
130 feet from the road, 129 feet on NiMo property and a few feet on Mike’s property.
Substantially farther back than the buildings across the street. So you’re not talking about any
kind of visual clutter, and in terms of the intent of the Ordinance, the NiMo lands are never
going to be developed, obviously, with buildings. That’s a major transmission corridor. You
always have that green space, which he maintains and mows. So that’s not an issue. The other
reason would be if someone were going to, if the Town or the County were ever going to widen
the road, and there’s plenty of land to do that within the NiMo right of way if that had to get
done to add another lane, which is unlikely, but there’s certainly room for that, and the building
would still be substantially farther back from the setback. So it’s really important, in terms of
the benefit to the applicant, to be able to properly show each of these vehicles. It’s under 2,000
square feet. Really a small addition, small but important addition, and in terms of the Town
and the variance, by purchasing the land in the back, Mike tried to eliminate the relief that he
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
needed, in terms of the whole permeability thing, and we think this is minor relief because of
the NiMo power lines, and hope that you concur, but I want to ask Mike to just say a few words
about his need for showing the different brands.
MR. DELLA BELLA-I think you did a pretty good job. When Oldsmobile was terminated, GM
owners decided to terminate that division, Cadillac couldn’t stand by itself. That’s why we
move Cadillac and Oldsmobile back to the Pontiac Buick store. When I did that, I did that with
an agreement from General Motors that the only way they would allow that if I had a separate
variable, and I’ve been stalling them for about three years, but a separate variable is a separate
show space. So on the plan that we presented, we’re going to have the entrance to the building
in the center. Now it’s on the side, and we need to bring that showroom forward to fit one
more car, is really what it is. It’s going to be a center entrance, and there’s going to be four
different manufactures in the showroom, Pontiac, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac. Cadillac wanted
their own separate variable. So that’s going to be on the left hand side, if you’re looking at the
building, but it’s all on the same footprint of the width of the building. I can’t widen it
anymore. If I widen it to the right, I’ve got to change the whole service department. That
means we’re losing all that lot that I can’t drive around the building. If I move it to the left, I’m
going to encroach on the other guy’s property, which I don’t own. So the only place we can go
is in the front, and if I put it in the front, because it’s so far back, I’m going to the property line, a
little bit over. I’m inside my property line, but don’t have quite that setback. So when I looked
at it, that’s why I didn’t come the last time, because it was so far back, I didn’t think there would
be a major problem, but there were so many questions that were unanswered, the last time,
that’s why I wanted to come here today. It’s going to be a showroom extension of about 20 to
25 feet, whatever that square footage is. We cut down the square footage because people had a
concern at the last hearing, saying that maybe they shouldn’t park cars there, or I would be too
close to the road, as far as parking is concerned. We’ve got plenty of space in the front. A lot of
space from where the blacktop starts and where the building starts. There’s quite a number of
foot, but I don’t know how far it is, but if you’ve ever driven by it, we could put seven or eight,
maybe ten car lengths, from the showroom to where the blacktop stops in the front. So I’m
asking for the permission to move that forward, and at the same time, when I go to move this
forward, I can renovate the showroom. So I don’t have handicap bathrooms in there. I don’t
have sales consultants work area’s there. Everything is done on the floor. It’s a real nice new
venue that they’re using with customer lounge. It’s in the middle of the showroom. It’s just a
very, very nice approach that General Motors has, and I can solve all those other problems that I
can’t solve now, if I don’t have the extra room, and the main one being the handicap bathrooms.
So we’re going to put those in, too.
MR. HAYES-Anything else, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-I think that’s it for us. Any questions?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. It appears that Della Auto Group reduced its initial request from 17.75 to
16.10. Well, that’s great, because it shows that you’re willing, you have some flexibility and that
was one of the feasible alternatives. You’re to be congratulated for that. Additionally, I was
here, as a matter of fact, at that last meeting, and I was concerned. We had an individual appear
before us and express some concern about the permeability, but it would appear, and correct
me if I’m wrong, based upon what I’m reading, it would appear that you have resolved that,
and you have purchased that property. Am I correct in that statement?
MR. DELLA BELLA-We resolved the whole permeability issue, by purchasing substantially
more property than we need to address, and I only needed eight percent more of the total
property. I probably bought fifty.
MR. LAPPER-It’s about two and a half acres that he purchased.
MR. DELLA BELLA-So we bought, yes.
MR. ABBATE-And why did you purchase that much property?
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. DELLA BELLA-There was a permeability issue that had come before the Board, and they
addressed it last time, and instead of asking the Board for a few extra feet, plus a few percent,
only a few percent, a permeability issue, I thought it would be best to come in with the best foot
forward.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. URRICO-I have a question. The space that would exist between the green space and the
edge of the building is about four, five feet, in front of the showroom, it’ll be about five feet?
MR. LAPPER-Four and a half feet.
MR. URRICO-What will be done with that?
MR. LAPPER-Just pavement. It’s seamless, because there’s pavement on the NiMo property
that’s Mike’s pavement. So you won’t be able to tell the difference.
MR. DELLA BELLA-It won’t be, I’m not going to put anymore blacktop. I’m just going to put a
little extension of the showroom.
MR. URRICO-I think one of the concerns also at the time was that, this is a better picture, but at
that time I think there was some more cars parked on the green space.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. URRICO-And the feeling was that, with the showroom pushed up, the cars would be
pushed up also. That was one of the concerns.
MR. DELLA BELLA-We’re trying desperately not to crowd that front, and because we have so
many different cars on display, it becomes a pain. In the spring, we can’t park them up there
anyway, you know, but in the summer and when the ground gets really frozen, we can.
MR. URRICO-Yes, and also, how did the sign end up being where it is?
MR. DELLA BELLA-That took me seven years to get that sign there. When you guys decided,
you weren’t here, but when you guys decided to widen the road, you told me I had to take my
sign down. So I did, and when I took my sign down, they said, this is the only, you’ve got to
have a smaller sign and it can only be a certain amount of square footage, and they wanted me
to put it probably right where Della is now, 140 feet back, and that wasn’t, you know, they
granted me the approval to do that.
MR. URRICO-Okay. You’re not going to have to add anymore signs now to Cadillac?
MR. DELLA BELLA-We’re going to have to change it, because we have to put Cadillac on it, but
I don’t have to make it any bigger.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-So you’re not requesting any additional signs or anything?
MR. DELLA BELLA-Not at this time.
MR. URRICO-I’m out of questions.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor or opposition to the application? Any
correspondence?
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And it’s time to summarize positions by the Board members, and I believe it’s time
to start back with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I’m in favor of the application. I think you’ve made some concessions.
You heard what was said the first time. I think this is a better plan. I think it works with the
land that’s going to be there. Assuming, and I think we’re going to have to make sure we get
the NiMo permission somehow conveyed to us, that it’s okay with them, then I would be in
favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Leo?
MR. RIGBY-Yes. I’m in favor of it as well. I mean, you’ve made an effort to make some of the
changes that we requested last time that you were represented here, and I have no problem
with the application the way it is.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I’d like to congratulate the Della Auto Group. They showed a
willingness to work with the Zoning Board of Appeals. You’ve reduced your request. You
purchased additional property to address the permeability relief, and for that I congratulate
you, and I would certainly support the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m in favor of it, too. I think that it makes sense, if you’re going to
consolidate all your GM dealerships into one place to have the room that you need, and I don’t
think that there’s any affect, net affect on Quaker Road by moving it a little bit closer. It looks
nice.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to uphold my reputation. I think it’s somewhat of a
reasonable request. It sure looks like you’re going to get an approval, but at the same time I
don’t think it necessarily deserves a unanimous approval. You’re coming out almost to your lot
line. The way it looks to me, looking down that road, you’re out further now with your existing
building than any of the other buildings on that side of the road. Your sign’s out closer to the
road than any of the other signs, and I think there is an alternative. It’s not an inviting one, but
that you could add on to the side. It means you’d have to reconfigure the entrance to the
service area, certainly, but I think there is an alternative there, and I guess the other part of the
whole thing is, as we’ve said before, I’m not sure this Board should be rescuing business
decisions. It was a business decision made to incorporate more brands into that building, and
maybe it was the right decision, maybe it wasn’t, but anyway, for those reasons, I’m going to
vote no.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I’m inclined to certainly agree with the rest of the Board
members. I think in this particular case, I think sometimes the way facts are presented does
change the way the facts are viewed, and certainly there’s been a very good explanation of
where we were and where we’ve tried to arrive at in this particular case, and I think there’s
been a need presented by the applicant that is understandable, and that certainly weighs in my
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
judgment when we balance neighborhood interests versus the benefit to the applicant. I also
feel the fact that the applicant was able to go out and purchase the property behind and
eliminate, in this case, half of the relief that, half the number of pieces of relief that we were
being asked to examine in this particular case has to weigh in their favor. As other Board
members have said, we asked for some things to happen, if possible, and they did, and I
certainly respect the fact that the applicant is willing to take that in hand and in fact accomplish
that. In this particular case, the property is well maintained. I think the fact that, at the end of
the day, we are still going to be significantly away from Quaker Road in its lasting effect.
Certainly, is the relief substantial? Forty-five feet I would say is certainly moderate in this
particular case, but I think it’s very mitigated by the fact that in the end we’re still very far away
from Quaker Road in the actual physical construction and appearance, and I think in this
particular case I don’t think there’ll be any negative impact on the neighborhood, at the end of
the day. So, on balance, I’m certainly in favor of the project. Having said that, would someone
like to make a motion?
MR. ABBATE-I will. I’d be happy to.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2004 DELLA AUTO GROUP,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Leo Rigby:
293 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,610 square foot building addition,
vehicle showroom with two handicap bathrooms, and he is requesting 45.2 feet of relief from
the 50 foot minimum front setback requirements of the Highway Commercial Intensive zone.
Mr. Chairman, I base my motion to approve on a number of items, most of which we have
already mentioned, but I’ll reiterate some of them. I believe that the willingness of the Della
Auto Group to work with the ZBA by the reduction from 1775 square feet to 1610 convinced
me. Also what convinced me was the fact that the Della Auto Group was willing to purchase
excess property to address the permeability relief. In addition to that, it would seem to me that
the presentation was well made and both counsel and the representative from Della Auto
Group certainly answered many of the questions that were left unanswered from the previous
hearing. On balance, Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that each application is unique in itself,
and I believe that the benefit to the applicant will outweigh any detriment to the health, safety
and welfare of the neighborhood or community, and I believe there is no such detriment. I also
believe that there will not be an undesirable change. As a matter of fact, I would like to, again,
commend Della Auto Group, based upon the pictures that were submitted to us, they are to be
congratulated. I also believe that the benefit sought by the Della Auto Group basically couldn’t
really be achieved by any other feasible method because it would deny what they’re attempting
to do. I think that the requested area variance, based upon the size of the lot, is not substantial,
and I believe it will not have any adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions in
the neighborhood. Whether the difficulty is self-created? I go back to the fact that it’s
subjective, and in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it was not self-created, and based upon all these
factors, Mr. Chairman and fellow Board members, I move that we approve Area Variance No.
89-2004.
Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and Happy Thanksgiving.
MR. ABBATE-On the record, I would like to congratulate the interim Chairman, Mr. Hayes, he
did an outstanding job.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/04)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I officially adjourn the meeting.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman
41