1989-01-18
~--
..,~
/~ ~
"----
'JI
QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting: Wednesday, January 18, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Theodore Turner, Chairman
Joyce Eggleston
Daniel Griffin
Jeffrey Kelley
Susan Goetz, Secretary
Michael Muller
Charles o. Sicard
Lee York, Sr. Planner John Goralski, Planner
Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. Minutes from
two December meetings were discussed.
December 21, 1988:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 1448:
Pg. 5, Para. I, .. rides (Condor) appears .. sIb .. rides appear....
Pg. 7, Para. 4, Mr. Turner requested verification of the wording, the
minutes are stated correctly.
Mr. Sicard moved APPROVAL of the minutes from December 21, 1988 as
amended and December 28, 1988 as written.
Seconded by Mrs. Goetz.
Passed Unanimously
OLD BUSINESS
USE VARIANCE NO. 1429
Rosemary Threw
Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Michael O'Connor, Agent for the Appli-
cant, requesting that Use Variance No. 1429, Rosemary Threw, be WITHDRAWN.
On October 19, 1988, the applicant requested an extension of the Zoning
Board of Appeals decision (application was Tabled for 3 months and no
later than January 1989).
AREA VARIANCE 1458
Norman C. Benack
The
buffer
acres.
applicant is seeking relief from the required fifty (50) foot
zone between zoning districts on Ridge Road, HC-1A. Lot size 2.285
(Tax Map 109-3-35.1)
1
r
\.
~.
./
"'-J
The application previously was Tabled, so the applicant could return
with the prospective buyers. Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Herman and
Antoinette Heber (Exhibit A) confirming that, if setbacks were reduced to
hopefully 20 feet, Mr./Mrs. Heber would intend to buy the s~bject pro-
perty, as well as the adjacent dwelling owned by Mr. Ruggles. Their inten-
tion is to build professional offices.
Mrs. Goetz was of the opinion that the subject property is improved,
since it is being combined with Mr. Ruggles' holdings, which is zoned
Highway Commercial. Mr. Ruggles said he does not believe that the
prospective buyers would be interested in one piece of property without
the other. Regarding the southern boundary line, Mr. Turner recommended a
30 ft. buffer along the residential property line to the point where the
line intersects the lands of Benack, Ruggles 'Knoblauch. From that point
to the rear of the property, which is zoned Light Industrial, the buffer
would decrease to 20 ft. and continue to the eastern most boundary line.
The hardship is the shape of the property.
Public Hearing: no comment
Mr. Turner moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1458, Norman C. Benack.
The requirement would be a thirty (30) foot buffer on the South side of
the property, which abuts the residential zone, to a point where the rear
lot line intersects the property of Norman C. Benack, Robert E. Ruggles
and Henry C. Knoblauch. From that point to the rear of the property,
there would be a twenty (20) foot setback. There would be a twenty (20)
foot setback at the rear of the property instead of twenty-five (25) feet.
The practical difficulty is the shape of the lot. If Mr./Mrs. Heber
did not buy the Robert E. Ruggles property, it would increase the diffi-
culty in selling the property as is. Mr./Mrs. Heber's letter will be part
of the motion.
The Environmental Assessment Form was reviewed by the Zoning Board of
Appeals, with no negative impact.
Seconded by Mrs. Goetz.
Passed Unanimously
AREA VARIANCE NO. 1454
Roger and Karen Howard
The proposed project is to remodel an existing four (4) bedroom, three
(3) bath house on Rockhurst Road into a four (4) bedroom, three (3) bath
house on Rockhurst Road, Cleverdale, WR-1A. Lot size: 11,070 sq. ft. (Tax
Map No. 15-1-17). Location: Route 9L to Cleverdale, take Rockhurst
2
\.
',,----
./
"'-J
turnoff, .4 mile towards point from Seelye Road turnoff.
The application previously was Tabled because the Agent was to complete
the Long Environmental Assessment Form, Type I action under SEQR. Mrs.
Goetz read a letter from John Mason, Agent, dated 1/11/89 (Exhibit B), who
noted that Mr. Dusek, Counsel, has determined that the project is a Type
II action and that a vote can be taken at this meeting. Due to a prior
commitment, Mr. Mason was unable to attend this meeting.
Mr. Griffin moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1454, Roger and Karen
Howard. The shoreline setback will be forty (40) feet, a relief of thirty-
one (31) feet. This is an expansion of a nonconforming use. The construc-
tion of the deck on the northwest side will provide an entry to the master
bedroom from the deck. The eight (8) foot side setback will remain, the
relief on the side is twelve (12) feet. It is a reasonable request and
there is no adverse affect on the neighborhood. The expansion is no clo-
ser to the lake than presently exists. The practical difficulty regarding
the side setback is the location of the house on the lot and the location
of the expansion of the deck.
Seconded by Mr. Kelley.
Passed Unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-1989
Edwin J. Tobin
The application is
the West side of the
lot on Lake Parkway,
(Tax Map No. 8-1-5)
for an addition of a 10 ft. x 20 ft. open porch on
cottage located at the southeasterly corner of the
Assembly Point, WR-1A. Lot size: 21,625 sq. ft.
Edwin J. Tobin represented the application and advised the Board that
the north wall of the dwelling on the property to the south (owned by John
H. Owens) does not have windows, the building is located about five (5)
feet from the line. Mr. Owens has no objection to the porch. Mr. Tobin
has not heard from the northerly neighbor, Emil H. Steiner, and he doubts
that there is any objection. A letter stating no objections was received
from Michael A. Cipollo, who owns what is now vacant land on the east.
Mr. Tobin advised
there is no place to
chosen location is
sit and enjoy the
Mrs. Goetz that the practical difficulty is that
put a porch without necessitating a Variance, and the
the most reasonable. Presently, there is no place to
view. The sun comes in through the present picture
3
\.
'''"------
""
-J
window and overheats the living room, the
from this heat. The open porch would be
run along the 20 foot west wall. The roof
will conform to the roof line of the rest of
porch roof will provide relief
constructed on piers and would
would be a hip-type roof which
the building.
There is a slight incline to the lot, and the building is located in
the rear of the lot. Presently, the peaked roof on the west facade pre-
dominates the lot. By putting the porch on the front, the appearance of
the building will be improved and the roof line will be cut down by about
five feet, by bringing the hip roof down. The building will have more
character.
The other existing building
a front porch and is located
lot. The main building is
second building is occupied by
on the lot is a two-story dwelling that
closer to the lake, about the middle of
occupied by Mr. Tobin and his family,
Mr. Tobin's in-laws.
has
the
the
Public Hearing: no comment
Correspondence: Warren County Planning Board Approved. Mrs. Goetz read
a letter from Frederick Tedeschi (Exhibit C), nearby neighbor, stating his
approval on the condition that, after approval, Mr. Tobin could not obtain
a Building Permit to enclose the porch. If a Permit could be obtained,
then Mr. Tedeschi requested that the Resolution be Approved on the condi-
tion that the applicant must return before the Zoning Board of Appeals for
the purpose of enclosing the porch.
Staff
impact
of the
comments were read stating that presently there is no visual
on the neighborhood, however, if the porch causes more intense use
cottage, then there would be an adverse affect on the neighborhood.
Mr. Tobin noted
usage of the cottage
most valuable asset
cannot be done, it is
for the record that the porch will not increase the
and there is no intention for such an enclosure. The
on Lake George is to enjoy the view and, when this
a practical difficulty.
Mr. Kelley moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1-1989, Edwin J. Tobin.
The addition is to a pre-existing building that currently is 2 ft. 9
inches from the southerly property line. The Variance is to add a 10 ft.
x 20 ft. 3 inch porch to the west or lake side of this particular build-
ing. This is a reasonable request that would provide an entrancelexit on
the lake side of the building, as well as enjoyment of the lake for the
occupant. The encroachment on the southerly property is no worse than
what presently exists, there is a fence there. The north wall of the
neighbor's house has no windows facing the subject property. There are no
neighbors objecting to this Variance and it will not be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
The Short Environmental Assessment Form was reviewed with no negative
impacts.
4
\.
~
./
-- -..../
Seconded by Mr. Griffin.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-1989
Victory Markets, Inc.
The application is for a sign to read ·Great American· on the former
Shop Rite Grocery Store, Upper Glen Street, PC-1A. (Tax Map No. 103-1-1).
Mrs. Goetz read the Staff input which stated: ·There are a number of
legal questions pertaining to this property. Paul Dusek, Town Attorney,
recommends that this matter be Tabled until the Town receives documenta-
tion on who is in ownership of the property and who should be acting as
the Applicant.·
Lee Most, of Lee Most Sign Company, represented the Applicant, and is
of the opinion that there has to be clarification of the Sign Ordinance,
as to where a Variance is required (Exhibit E). Reference was made to:
Section 6.102: ·...Buildings which are located within or at a distance
of 100 linear feet from the front property line are permitted to have a
wall sign or a permitted roof sign of up to 100 sq. ft.....A Shopping
Center with a group of stores shall not be eligible for this
permit.·
Section 6.103 (4.) ·Shopping Center - 1 free standing sign, ...Each
occupant of the Shopping Center shall be permitted 1 wall sign on the
portion of the exterior wall....·
Because Section 6.102 states that a Shopping Center with a group of
stores is not eligible for this permit, it would mean that that section
would be totally eliminated. In addition, Section 6.103 (4.) does not
state the required square footage. However, Section 6.102 states the size
and setback, but does not apply to a Shopping Center.
Mr. Goralski clarified Section 6.102 by stating that a Shopping Center
is not entitled to the extra 10 square feet for every 10 feet of setback,
however, the center is entitled to a 100 square foot sign.
Mr. Most requested a decision on this Sign Variance when ownership is
clarified, the hardship is that the store is due to open shortly. Mr.
Goralski estimated that the Shop Rite sign is about 3 ft. high x 45 feet
long. Great American is asking for 255 sq. ft. for the sign. Comparisons
were made to the Price Chopper sign which has as much square footage, but
there are two stores in the Mall, the Grand Union sign is large and is
stretched out to more than 100 square feet. The Board requested that Lee
York look into the excessive signage for the Price Chopper and Grand
Union.
5
\.
\~
,.,.
-.._,/
Frontage for the proposed store is 400± feet, setback is 300± feet.
Regarding the height of the Great American sign, the G and A are five (5)
feet high and the remainder of the letters are 42 inches high, the height
of the fascia is 12 feet.
Regarding ownership of the store, Mr. Most advised the Board that he
was told that an ownership agreement had been reached, in addition to the
fact that presently workers are renovating the store. Mr. Sicard noted
that the Building Permit states ownership of the building, and he ques-
tioned the legality of the permit, because of the on-going renovations.
Mark Lebowitz, Esq.:
Mr. Lebowitz represents Saul Birnbaum, who holds the legal title for
the Queensbury Factory Outlet Center. He advised the Zoning Board that
the Variance application has been made without notice to Mr. Birnbaum and
is being made without Mr. Birnbaum's consent. A prior application by
Victory Market for a Building Permit to the Town stated Saul Birnbaum
correctly as owner, however, the application was not being made with his
authorization. Mr. Birnbaum has objected to the issuance of the Building
Permit and has requested that it be revoked by the Town on the basis of
misrepresentation. Mr. Lebowitz stated that he understands that the pos-
ture of the Building Department is that they are awaiting further informa-
tion, and the question of the Building Permit has been appealed to the
Zoning Board of Appeals. Under the Town Law, the Town of Queensbury is
prohibited in taking any further action in furtherance of the work that is
being done, ie: no Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. On behalf of
Mr. Birnbaum, Mr. Lebowitz is making an objection to the Variance applica-
tion. (See letter, Exhibit F.)
Mr. Most advised the Zoning Board that he was not aware of the informa-
tion presented by Mr. Lebowitz and requested to withdraw the Application,
as he was misled and did not believe that the Applicant should have misled
him. Mr. Muller suggested to Mr. Most that the Application be Tabled, so
that it will remain on the Agenda.
Mr. Muller moved to TABLE Sign Variance No. 2-1989, Victory Markets,
Inc., in accordance with the request by Lee Most, Agent.
Seconded by Mr. Sicard.
Passed Unanimously
AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-1989
The Whole Donut, Inc.
The proposed use is for a fastfood facility - Donut and Coffee Shop
6
\.
~
-- /
~
with a lunch menu on Quaker Road, between King Fuels and Taco Tom's,
HC-IA. Lot size: .55 acres. Tax Map (107-1-55.2, 55.3). Reference: Site
Plan No. 71-88.
Mack Dean, Morse Engineering, represented the application and intro-
duced Messrs. Bill Corbin and Joe Algiers of The Whole Donut, Inc. Mr.
Dean noted that the major problem is that the parking regulations are
excessive, not only of this location but any location in Town. The inter-
ior of the present building will be renovated to a Donut and Coffee Shop,
with a light lunch menu, there will not be a full restaurant menu. A
drive-thru window is planned for the easterly side of the building. Two
lanes are provided at the entrance on the westerly side of the propertYJ
one is basically for those who wish to enter the facility and the other is
for the drive-thru window. The two lanes will provide a smoother flow,
with fewer parking problems.
Parking space revisions were made to the Site Plan, per the request of
the Town Planning Board, two spaces were added at the southeast corner of
the property making a total of 18. The alternative would be to plan for
diagonal parking, however, it would necessitate cutting into greenery.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, 105 parking spaces are required for
compliance, which would leave no more than 520 sq. feet available for
lights, the dumpster, propane gas tanks, etc.. If the proposed facility
was a club or restaurant, the requirement would be 24 parking spaces, or a
difference of 81 spaces. The former Dairy Queen seating was 76 and the
proposed Whole Donut plans are for 46 seats.
Plans are to remove some asphalt in the front and replace it with
greenery and some small trees.
Bill Corbin: The Whole Donut menu would be very light and the facility
is similar to Dunkin' Donuts, with the exception that the donuts are pre-
pared differently. When asked about his other facilities, Mr. Corbin
stated that seating varies between 26 and 40, depending upon the size of
the building, however, the number of patrons remains about the same.
Trucks and other large vehicles are not encouraged, as they would take up
more than one space within the parking lot and often park along the road
instead of inside the designated parking lot. The access points are
designed for a turn in either direction.
Mrs. Goetz expressed concern about a stacking lane for those patrons
whose drive-in order is not ready. Mr. Corbin noted that the food is
already prepared and a stacking lane is not necessary. Regarding the
first parking space in the lot, he advised that it is quite far in from
Quaker Road and is parallel to the side lot line. The Board was shown a
layout of a present Whole Donut facility that is 17,000 square feet and
operates satisfactorily with 17 parking spaces, the lot and the building
is smaller than the proposed site.
Mr. Corbin advised that approximately one-third of the business will be
7
"
---~
-J
takeout, and is geared toward those persons who need quick service and for
those who have to get to work. With the drive-thru, the patrons are in
and out much faster and the parking spaces are available for those who
wish to eat more leisurely.
Mr. Kelley compared the neighboring King Fuels facility to the subject
site. King Fuels seating capacity is about 20 to 24, Whole Donut is
proposed for 46, parking spaces for King Fuels are five in the front and
five on the side, parking for whole Donut is 18, King Fuels has three gas
islands and takeout is available as well. Mr. Kelley's opinion is that
there are more problems with King Fuels than the proposed facility.
A discussion was held comparing
eating facilities, and Mr. Muller
Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.020.
The Whole Donut to various types of
referred to three definitions in the
80.
-Drive-In
beverages
vehicles,
indoors.-
Restaurant- means a place where food or non-alcoholic
are served or sold for consumption outdoors or in
or where food is purchased at a counter for consumption
(ie: Zack's Drive-In, old A & W»
239. -Restaurant- means a place for the preparation, serving and con-
suming, indoors, of food and beverages other than a tavern.-
240. -Restaurant, Fast Food- means an establishment whose principal bus-
iness is the sale of pre-prepared or rapidly prepared foodlmeals
directly to the customer in a ready-to-consume state for consump-
tion either within the restaurant or off premises.- ( McDonald's)
Public Hearing: no comment
Correspondence: Warren County Planning Board Disapproved due to insuf-
ficient parking and the property is not appropriate for a drive-thru.
Staff input (Exhibit G) stated major concerns regarding traffic circula-
tion both on-site and off-site, traffic backing up on to Quaker Road, and
lack of large truck parking causing trucks to park on Quaker Road.
Some Board members felt the congestion problem had been eliminated
because a patron can enter into the correct lane, park, make hislher
purchases, and then leave with the traffic flow. Mrs. Eggleston ques-
tioned the ability to make a safe left turn out of the facility, because
of the traffic which backs up on Quaker Road from Bay Road. Mr. Corbin
noted that most of the Whole Donut business is people who travel to work
and go with the flow of traffic. Results of his traffic analysis showed
that, in the morning hours, there were slightly more people going towards
the Hudson FallslFort Edward areas. Predominately, most of the business
is in the morning before 11:00 a.m., 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. is slow. Patrons
would have the ability to call in orders.
Joe Algiers: V. P. Whole Donut:
8
\..
'~/
""
'- -..-/'
Mr. Algiers stated that the traffic is going to be in the area regard-
less if the facility is a drive-thru or cars are parked so the patrons can
enter the building. Mr. Turner again reiterated the problem with a left
hand turn, and Mr. Algiers agreed to install a RIGHT TURN ONLY sign, this
had been done at other facilities.
Mr. Muller noted Section 4.020 HC-1A: -PURPOSE: Highway Commercial
Zones are those areas of Queensbury which have already developed fairly
intense and haphazard commercial patterns. The purpose of these zones is
to confine development of this type to these areas, while providing for
minimal expansion, primarily through infill.- He further stated that this
property pre-existed and that basically it was the same use, although
there was no drive-in. The problem is in determining if the drive-in will
relieve or cause congestion. The key is how well the product will be
received by the community. Mr. Muller was also of the opinion that the
Ordinance parking restrictions are unreasonable (105 spaces).
Mr. Dean noted that the widening of Quaker Road will not impact the pro-
posed facility. The sign would be moved to the 15 foot required setback.
He also felt widening of the road will help the traffic flow for ingress/-
egress.
Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 3-1989, The Whole Donut,
Inc. The Variance is basically from the parking requirements and, as pre-
sented, there would be 18 spaces which is a substantial deviation from the
Zoning Ordinance requirement of 105 spaces.
The facts in support of the Approval are that the site is a pre-exist-
ing, fastfood or drive-in restaurant location. There will be no exterior
structural changes that will make the building larger. What is being done
is to attempt to balance the necessary parking spaces and traffic flow
with the required green areas. This is the most practical compromise,
given strengths of the size of the piece of property. The addition of a
drive-in window will alleviate the congestion in moving the traffic in and
out.
Seconded by Mr. Griffin.
Passed 5 Yes (Kelley, Muller, Sicard, Turner, Griffin)
2 No (Goetz, Eggleston)
(Note: The motion was passed 5:2, a majority plus one, therefore the
vote overrides the Warren County Planning Board's negative decision.)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1989
King Services, Inc.
9
/--
~
"
',"---
-'
--/
The proposal is to construct a motor vehicle fuel sales facility with a
retail convenience store, on the southeast corner of the intersection of
Quaker Road and Dix Avenue, HC-1A. Lot size: 1.5 acres. (Tax Map No.
110-1-20) .
Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Paul Primeau of King Fuels (Exhibit H),
wherein he described the proposed plans and also requested an Interpre-
tation of the Ordinance regarding a SO foot setback on Quaker Road and Dix
Avenue. Mr. Primeau represented the application, along with James
Pollock, also from King Fuels. Mr. Turner advised the representatives
that the Zoning Board has determined that the areas are two front yards,
therefore, a Variance will be necessary.
Mr. Primeau confirmed that the canopy will be fourteen (14) feet clear,
the facade measures about three (3) feet, and signage will conform with
the Sign Ordinance.
He also stated that King Fuels attempted variou~ configurations so that
no Variance would be necessary. However, there is frontage on two major
roads and both highways have to be serviced. The dispensers have been
located so that the traffic would move freely in and out of the facility.
Over 69% of the property is consumed in the setback area, there has been
an attempt to keep everything in the large portion of the site, back from
Dix Avenue and Quaker Road. Presently the site is vacant and there are no
curb cuts. The kiosk is very small and plans are to sell cigarettes, and
snacks such as soda and candy bars, there will be no food. There is no
proposal at this time to make this site similar to other King Fuels. Mr.
Primeau was instructed to design a facility to sell mainly gasoline, the
purpose of the kiosk is to house the attendant and provide sanitary facil-
ities solely for the attendant (not open to the public).
Mr. Muller requested information from the Town Planners regarding set-
back relief where, within the setback, improvements are placed under-
ground. Presently, the two underground storage tanks are within the fifty
(SO) foot and twenty-five (25) foot setbacks. Mr. Turner mentioned that
one consideration would be to place the storage tanks against the property
line. Mrs. York noted there is no provision for this in the Ordinance and
it would be setting a precedent. As a result of a Workshop Meeting, Mr.
Primeau said the present plan was the most favorable.
Public Hearing:
David Jones: Fire Chief of South Queensbury Fire Department.
Mr. Jones requested information regarding the tanks. He was informed
that proposed are five types of products and the largest tanks will be
10,000 gallons. King Fuels uses the double-wall steel tanks with inter-
stitial monitoring.
Public Hearing Closed
10
-~""'--"....
'-
~
~
Correspondence: Warren County Planning Board Disapproved, because there
was no one at the meeting to answer questions regarding the convenience
store, which is not shown on the application, about possible relocation of
the iSlands, about the ingresslegress, and due to the proximity of the
intersection. Mrs. Goetz also read Staff comments. (Planning Board and
Staff comments on file).
Mr. Primeau explained that the tanks were placed in the present
positions because of the piping, vents normally are placed off the driver
surface. The reason the construction is at a 458 angle is an attempt to
make the facilities parallel to each road. The traffic flow is straight
off the major roads and to the islands, and an attempt has been made to
keep good visibility and access from both sides.
Mr. Kelley moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 5-1989, King Services,
Inc.. The Variance is for the canopy, and the Town Zoning Ordinance
states that the required setback from the property line is to be (fifty)
SO feet from Dix Avenue and fifty (SO) feet from Quaker Road, the two
streets are frontage situations and a fifty (SO) foot setback is required
on the front.
The Applicant is requesting to have the canopy extend ten (10) feet
beyond the setback from Quaker Road and Dix Avenue, therefore, the setback
would be forty (40) feet instead of the required fifty (SO) feet. Gener-
ally, the Zoning Board of Appeals does not like to see encroachment into
the setback area. However, this property is unique in that it is close to
being triangular in shape, and it has two front property lines and one
rear property line. The Variance is justifiable because of the uniqueness
of the lot.
The zoning Board of Appeals recommends to the Town Planning Board that
it entertain a suggestion that the fuel storage tanks be moved from the
location shown on the proposed Site Plan to the other side where the pro-
posed kerosene and diesel islands are designated. The reason is to remove
the tanks from the basic traffic pattern, which receives traffic flow from
Dix Avenue.
The Zoning Board reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form,
there were no negative impacts.
Seconded by Mr. Sicard.
Passed Unanimously
AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1989
Glens Falls Cement Co., Inc.
11
'-
~------
-../
The application is for the construction of a new bridge to replace the
existing bridge, approximately eight (8) feet immediately downstream of an
existing bridge, HI-3A. Location: The parcel borders and includes the
shoreline of the Hudson River immediately adjacent to the Cement Plant.
(Tax Map No. 113-2-4).
John Richards, Esq., represented the application and introduced Volker
Sonnabend, Executive V. P., Glens Falls Cement Co., Don Maki, Plant
Engineer, Carl Schoder, Project Engineer, and Sandra Hutchinson, Esq..
Mr. Richards noted that the existing bridge, which was built in 1906,
is about 300 feet long and goes directly to the plant. The Board was
shown pictures of the bridge and the surrounding landscape. In order to
continually upgrade the Glens Falls Plant, he said the bridge must be
rebuilt. All raw material for the plant is presently obtained from the
Moreau quarry, and a new bridge would require some shoreline disturbance.
The neighboring property is owned by the Cement Company, and there would
be no affect on the neighborhood or public facilities. The construction
would be a private bridge for the company's purposes.
The new bridge would be on the Queensbury side, the existing bridge
would be taken down, although it is uncertain if the existing piers would
be taken down. There would be construction of a work road to assemble
cranes and do other work to prepare the abutments and would consist of
crushed stone. After construction it most likely would remain. There is
some uncertainty as to the exact width and shape of the work road, because
other agencies may have specific requirements. The Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (DEC) is concerned about erosion control and shoreline
maintenance. The Saratoga County line runs through the middle of the
river. There will be a 35 foot cutting setback and a 200 foot construc-
tion setback. There is nothing major or unusual in the shoreline vegeta-
tion, which will be disturbed at the point of the abutment construction.
The practical difficulty is self-evident, and the construction is part
of an overall commitment on part of the company to improve its facility
and comply with all the requirements.
Public Hearing: no comment
Correspondence: Warren County approved. Mrs. Goetz read Staff's input
which noted that the applicant appeared to have met all the tests for prac-
tical difficulty, and that there are no feasible alternatives for place-
ment of this structure, as the river widens to the north and south.
Mr. Griffin moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 6-1989, Glens Falls
Cement Co., Inc.. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty, as
it is impossible to construct a bridge without disturbing the shoreline.
The relief is from the restrictions of the shoreline area and the setbacks
from the river. There are no feasible alternatives for placement of this
bridge, as the river widens to the north and south. There are no affects
on the neighborhood or public facilities.
12
'-
"-...--
:1q
\/\1'
-'
~ ------
The Zoning Board reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form,
there were no negative impacts.
Seconded by Mrs. Eggleston.
Passed Uaanimously
AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1989
Irene Weaver
The application is for the construction of an attached garage with a
fifteen (15) foot side setback in lieu of the required twenty (20) feet,
at 29 Bonner Drive, SFR-1A. Lot size: 17,500 sq. ft. (Tax Map No.
75-1-9.13).
Frederick Gibson, Agent for the Applicant, confirmed to Mr. Turner that
the area is a pre-existing subdivision, where the lots measure approximate-
ly 100 ft. x 175 ft.. Mr. Kelley noted that the zoning for the area was
changed to one acre from a smaller zone requirement and formerly the set-
back requirement was fifteen (l5) feet.
Public Hearing* no comment
Correspondence: Staff input commented that the project would have no
affect on public facilities and many of the houses on the street do not
have 20-foot sideyard setbacks.
Mr. Muller
The applicant
formance with
(15) feet from
moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 7-1989, Irene Weaver.
has shown practical difficulty in that the lots were in con-
the preapproved subdivision. The setback will be fifteen
the westerly property line, this is a minimal relief.
Seconded by Mrs. Goetz.
Passed Unanimously
AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1989
Charles Freihofer, III
The application is
garage on Route 9L,
No. 2-1-3).
for an addition of a bedroom and bath, study and
Lake George, WR-3A. Lot size: 1.1 acres. (Tax Map
13
...
'-....---
-..--/'
Joe Roulier, Agent for the Applicant, stated that the biggest concern
is to have the porch extend 8 ft. 2 in. from the house and run parallel
towards the lake for 25 feet and then an additional 36 feet for the master
bath and study. To the best of Mr. Roulier's understanding, any other
work on the house will not require an Area Variance. The land dictates
where the addition to the house should be placed on the property, as there
is a tremendous drop in the land. On the westerly side of the house,
there is a 75 foot setback from the lake, and the applicant does not want
to encroach anymore in that area. The proposed work would be in the back
of the 75 feet. The house was erected in 1979 and, to the best of his
knowledge, Mr. Roulier stated that everything on the house today existed
in 1979.
Public Hearing:
Matt Jones, Esq.: Saratoga
Mr. Jones represents Eileen Grande, who is the property owner immediate-
ly adjacent on the east side of the subject property, and was of the
opinion that the deck violates the 20 foot setback. After some research,
he could find no Variance for the deck.
Mr. Jones advised that the sUbject property is virtually identical to
Mrs. Grande's property and makes any development on her vacant property
similarly situated in terms of where a residence would go. There is a
problem with rock and elevation in the rear part of the property (near
Route 9L). The value of property on Lake George is the view which resi-
dents can enjoy. As additions on the Freihofer property encroach further
towards the lake, Mrs. Grande's view of Lake George to the west will be
totally obscured. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Jones noted that
the Applicant would have to show that the Variance would not be materially
detrimental to any property in the district. Therefore, he reiterated
that Mrs. Grande would be denied any opportunity to have a view to the
westerly portion of the lake, this would be unfair and would reduce the
value of the property.
Mr. Kelley pointed out to Messrs. Roulier and Jones that, theoreti-
cally, Mr. Freihofer could add two stories onto the existing building by
staying 20 feet off the property line and extend 30± feet without appear-
ing before the Zoning Board, because he is still back 75 feet from the
lake. However, Mr. Jones pointed out that the intent of the Ordinance is
to reasonably restrict that kind of activity.
Mr. Roulier could not understand Mrs. Grande's reasoning to construct a
home 150 feet back from the shore, because it seems that the natural ten-
dency is to get as close to the shore as possible, and any view from that
point would not be obscured by Mr. Freihofer's addition. Further, he did
not understand Mrs. Grande's complaints about the view, when she has had
the property for an extended period of time and has never built at the
location. He stated that Mr. Freihofer lives at the home and is well back
14
\..
~/
~
from the lake. At the time the house was built, Mr. Roulier believes that
the side setback was ten feet (the new Ordinance requires 20 feet). It is
not practical for the Applicant to move the house or relocate the house
back on a cliff-type construction. The addition that would project for-
ward is well within the 75 feet established by the Adirondack Park Commis-
sion (APA) and the Town of Queensbury. In addition, any work completed by
Mr. Freihofer would not decrease the value of the property, it would only
enhance the value of the property. Mr. Roulier did not feel that the
Variance should be denied because of speculation.
Mr. Jones noted that Mrs. Grande's property is the same as the subject
property, in that the cut of land nearer the lake makes it physically
impossible to construct a desirable home. If Mr. Freihofer is permitted
to build the proposed addition, the purpose for which Mrs. Grande pur-
chased her land will be seriously affected. Mr. Jones explained that he
received the notice six days prior to this meeting and did not have time
for a topographical study, he physically walked the property with his
partner. The width of the lot is 51.23 at the back towards Route 9L and
151.5 at the shoreline.
Regarding the topography, Mr. Roulier disagreed with Mr. Jones because
on the west there is a 458 slope to the lake from the edge of the
Freihofer house, and the area from the house to the lake on the north
could not be more than a 108 slope, neighbors to the east have had no
problem building close to the lake. He emphasized his opinion that the
addition to the Freihofer home would not affect the value of Mrs. Grande's
property.
Mr. Jones urged the Board to consider the value of the view from the
lake and drainage considerâtions onto the Grande property. As an altern-
ative to a Denial vote, Mr. Jones urged the Board to Table the matter in
order to permit time for further research. The applicant has shown no
proof that there would be no detrimental affect to the neighborhood. That
burden has not been addressed.
When Mr. Griffen visited the site, he had difficulty seeing the lake in
any direction from the Freihofer house. He noted that all of the trees
would have to be cut down, in order for the lake to be visible in a west-
erly direction from Mrs. Grande's property. Mr. Roulier advised the Board
that it was the applicant's intent to cut down the least amount of trees
as necessary to do the project, he has been there ten years and wishes to
keep the property as rustic as possible. If a house were placed on the
Grande property parallel to the Freihofer house and the Applicant did not
cut any trees, Mrs. Grande would have to cut the trees on the northwest
portion of her property to have a view of the lake.
Mrs. Goetz also urged that the matter be Tabled, in order to give the
involved parties time to research the topography of the land. Mrs. Grande
may find out she does not object to the proposal, which would lead to more
compatible neighborly relations.
15
"
'--
\-- ..-/
Mr. Kelley requested information from Mr. Roulier regarding the build-
ing plans for the addition. Answer: The -Yankee Barn- style will be in
keeping with the present house. The northern most addition will be one-
story with a master bedroom and bath and, because the land slopes, the
basement will be the study area.
When Mr. Muller requested to know if Mrs. Grande has immediate inten-
tions for developing on the property, Mr. Grande stated it was irrelevant,
Mr. Roulier disagreed.
Bill Grande: Mrs. Grande's husband.
Mr. Grande
his wife is
today. Mr.
through the
Grande's are
when no plans
stated his opinion to Mr. Muller that it is irrelevant when
planning to build on his property, it may be 20 years from
Roulier felt that it is relevant to his client who has gone
appropriate procedures to obtain an Area Variance, and the
making speculations as to where their house can be built,
have been made.
Eileen Grande: property owner.
Mrs. Grande advised that, when the property was purchased, it was with
the intent that it would be a retirement home. When the Grande's walked
the property and they realized the configurations and the problems with
the lake frontage, where the rock formation is situated, they decided that
the most sensible and practical place to build a home on the land would be
in the same particular area parallel to the Applicant's house.
Mr. Roulier noted to Mrs. Eggleston that the properties to the west go
back approximately 200 feet and then approach close to Route 9L. On the
east of Mrs. Grande's property, the houses are closer to the shoreline
than the Freihofer house, Mr. Roulier invited the Board to visit the pro-
perties. They have been built on some heavy rock terrain, there has been
the necessity for some fill to be brought in.
Mrs. Grande also noted that the shape of the property is another prob-
lem. She informed the Board that she and her husband are not interested
in building on shelf rock, they would like to build their type of pre-
ferred structure, and Mrs. Grande is not interested in being told where to
build.
Public Hearing Closed
Correspondence: Warren County Planning Board approved. Mrs. Goetz read
Staff input (Exhibit I).
Mr. Sicard moved to TABLE Area Variance No. 8-1989, Charles Freihofer,
II~ for more information regarding the topography of the Eileen Grande
property in relation to the possible location of the Grande house as it
pertains to the Freihofer property.
16
~fÞ
\''' \
/
\
-----
Matt Jones, Esq., confirmed to Mr. Turner that he would secure topogra-
phical maps, designate on the maps the area where the house is proposed to
go, and visit the property as well. The purpose of the request is so that
the Zoning Board of Appeals has all of the information necessary for a
proper review.
Mr. Goralski requested that the Planning Department be notified before
the next deadline submission date, so that the Application can be placed
back on the Agenda.
Mr. Turner stated that the application is Tabled until March 1989.
Seconded by Mrs. Goetz.
Passed Unani~usly
NOTE: The following two applications pertain to the same Applicant and the
same site. Separate Resolutions follow at the end of both discussions.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1989
The application is for the proposed construction of a 60 ft. x 100 ft.
steel building designed for refrigeration wholesale supply warehouse/-
office on the South side of the Boulevard, LI-1A. The request is for a 24
foot setback on one corner of the building, in lieu of the required 30
feet, a Variance relief of six (6) feet.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-1989
The application is for a locationlroad front Variance on the South side
of the Boulevard, LI-1A. There would be a joint entrance instead of two
adjacent road cuts and roadways.
Genesee Refrigeration
David Dyminski
Lot size: 68,266 sq. ft.. (Tax Map No. 112-1-15.3) Reference: Area
Variance No. 9-1989 and Site Plan No. 5-89)
Agent: Morse Engineering
Representative: Mack Dean.
Area Variance No. 9-1989:
Mr. Dean stated that the Niagara Mohawk transmission lines cut across
the property from east to west and severely limit the location of the
building. The only alternative would be a location closer to the northern
access road, however, that plan poses two problems: there would be a
17
--
-~
truck access problem to the building, and the location would put the build-
ing in the backyards of a number of residences along the Boulevard. The
slope of the land is 321 feet from the northern property line at the
Boulevard to the southerly property line along the right of way. There
would have to be considerable excavation to bring the area into grade.
There is a SO foot right of way with Niagara Mohawk where the transmission
lines are located.
The Applicant is aware of the historic value of the Feeder Canal and as
much greenery as possible has been provided. Dale Granger, property owner
to the west, has stipulated additional green area will be maintained along
the property line. The Queensbury Beautification Committee recommended
that a row of cedars be established along the rear of the property line.
Trash will be maintained within the building, bundled and taken to the
landfill. Smaller amounts of trash will be contained within a standard
dumpster. The lot is devoid of most acceptable vegetation. There will be
no paving on the property, as all parking areas and access points will be
graveled, thereby maintaining a high standard of permeability.
The facility operates five days/week and is a wholesale business. The
products are refrigeration parts, which are delivered to the businesses.
To the best of Mr. Dean's knowledge, there will be no fabrication in this
building, the products come in packaged and are warehoused. There will be
two trucks per day, there will be a large van and probably the most fre-
quent delivery will be U.P.S.. There will be provisions for tractor trail-
ers unloading at the northeast corner of the building, and loading the
product for delivery to other points will be just west of that area.
Tractor trailer delivery will not be in any great volume.
The proposed building is 60 feet x 100 feet, which is standard, and has
been designed to accommodate the easy storage of the product by a fork
lift truck. In addition, the size of the building on the lot facilitates
movements by the tractor trailers. The truck ingress will be straight
into the property, instead of making a sharp right turn, then swing around
towards the access road and back in towards the loadinglunloading dock.
Mr. Dean noted that the southwest corner of the building is 43·feet from
the edge of the Feeder Canal and and the southeast corner of the building
is 41 feet from the edge of the Feeder Canal.
Area Variance 10-1989:
The reason for the Variance is to have a joint entrance to the site
using an existing drive, instead of two adjacent road cuts and roadways.
This entrance would be used with the adjoining neighbor to the west, Dale
Granger. Mr. Granger intends to maintain sole ownership of the neighbor-
ing property (Exhibit J). Separately, neither road cut would meet the Zon-
ing Ordinance and it would be a more feasible use of the property. The
actual paved width of the road is 20 feet. A 30% radius has been provided
for proper truck movements.
l8
'~
-~
There is approximately 14 feet between the edge of the property line
and the Feeder Canal. Niagara Mohawk was approached as to the possibility
of moving the power lines along the edge of the canal, there was no inter-
est in that proposal. Another alternative was to move the power lines
along the access road, the cost would have been in excess of $50,000.
There is a surface drainage system that would drain into the Canal.
The major portion of drainage would come from the general area in front of
the building and where the drop is located for the loading dock.
Public Hearing: opposed.
Gaynelle Moore: Resident of Queensbury and Chairperson of Feeder Canal
Alliance.
Mrs. Moore read a prepared presentation stating that the organization
has worked with the Department of Transportation for two years and with
local communities and residents. Their goal is to create a seven-mile
long park system, a grant has recently been received from the Department
of Economic Development to help fund the park. The following requests are
being made.
Deny the Variance for the building, as
allow the building to encroach on the Feeder
The building is to be set back 100 feet from
The groundwater management system is to
runoff will not be drained into the Canal.
it would set a precedent to
Canal land,
the Canal,
be redesigned so that the
Thomas Clements, Esq., Representing the Feeder Canal Alliance.
The Canal is actually a waterfront for Queensbury and Glens Falls and,
as of this evening, the Alliance will be taking a renewed interest along
the Canal. The Variance does not meet the legal standards, the applicant
does not need the Variance to have reasonable use of the property, no
practical difficulty has been demonstrated, and granting the Variance
would be detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning. Mr. Clements also
questioned if the setback from the Canal should be 75 feet, as stipulated
in Article 7 of the Ordinance.
David Jones: Fire Chief, South Queensbury Fire Company.
(Conversation with Mr. Dean inaudible.)
Public Hearing Closed.
Correspondence for both Applications: Queensbury Beautification Commit-
tee and Warren County Planning Board approved (see File for recommenda-
tions). Mrs. Goetz read a Resolution from the Feeder Canal Alliance
(Exhibit K). Staff input was also read into the record (Exhibit L).
19
'~
-~
There was a discussion regarding feasible alternatives such as putting
the building north of the power lines. Instead of having the truck
entrance on the north side of the building, Mr. Kelley suggested that the
entrance be on the east side of the building. The trucks would enter
through the access road, go behind the building, head east and back into
the door area. The parking area could be moved south of the power lines,
if it were landscaped properly.
Some members of the Board felt that a building 54 feet x 112 feet would
be another feasible alternative. However, Mr. Dean stated that the the
Applicant is of the opinion that the proposed 60 foot x 100 foot building
was the most functional and economical building to construct on the site.
The sidewalls would be 19 feet high and the peak is 29 feet high. The
current building is too small for adequate storage.
Motions:
Mr. Turner moved to DENY Area Variance No. 9-1989, Genesee Refrigera-
tion, David Dyminski. The applicant has not explored all feasible alter-
natives that the Zoning Board of Appeals believes exists. One feasible
alternative is that a 54 foot x 112 foot building could be placed on the
property. The power line does not necessarily define the limitations of
the property.
Seconded Mr. Muller.
Passed Unanimously
Mr. Muller moved to APPROVE Area Variance No. 10-1989, Genesee Refriger-
ation, David Dyminski, on the basis of the following limitation. There
are special circumstances. A more preferable alternative and a more feas-
ible opportunity is to have one common road frontage or access point as
opposed to two separate, adjacent road cuts, which might require other
Variances.
The limitation would be that the Variance is good as long as it allows
access to the parcel as presented, however, if there is further use of the
adjacent parcel, it will have to be evaluated at that time.
Seconded by Mr. Turner.
Passed Unaaimously
NOTE: To clarify the above motion based on the presentation made by Mack
Dean, Morse Engineering, Mr. Muller stated that he understands the types
of trucks that would enter the facility and the frequency. This Variance
is !Q! carte blanche for Dale Granger or whoever his successor might be,
and that the road is free and open for further industrial development, as
the zoning Board allows. Mr. Muller reserves the opportunity to hear
20
'~
-~
about any trucks which Mr. Granger might want to use and the frequency of
the trucks, before approval is given for the 20 foot wide roadway/drive-
way. There is NO APPROVAL, until a proposal is presented for any future
plans.
Chairman Turner adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m.
Theodore Turner, Chairman
I~
Date
Date
ol·d·R7
,
21
-
-~
HEBER TRAVEL SERVICE
THE BARN
P.O. Box 4744 Quaker at Ridge Road
Glens Falls, New York 12801
518-793-3855
January 18, 1989
Mr. Theodore Turner
Chairman of the Zoning Board
Town of Queensbury
Queensbury, New York 12804
Dear Mr. Turner:
This is to inform the Town of Queensbury that if setbacks are
reduced to hopefully twenty feet, Herman and Antoinette N. Heber
would intend to buy the property of Benack, Ruggles and Knoblach,
as well as the adjacent dwelling owned by Mr. Ruggles. It would
be our hope to build professional offices.
Sincerely,
i!J/VllU24ú é;~ (jJZidviutt!v -?l ~
Herman and Antoinette N. Heber
Owner and Manager
ANH/jl
k'XIf/é/T If
~~i.:
- "'-. ,_ ~ c. . _ . "':'.':"'..-¡¡";¡;'",<'
, I r.. I':·,
, . ,. !'.~ ; \
'- b 2... L'~.., \~¡
. ....~ I., ~
s t¿~ .?"c~.Y~L
January 11, 1989
I ;Ú~Üi)B~Ufì~;
~ JAN l;¡ 19B~~ 1/<,
~:'I'
P.O. BOX 86, CLEVER DALE, NY 12820
(518) 656·9986.656.9956
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, N.Y. 12804
PLANNING & ZONINf
DEPARTMENT
Re: Area Variance #1454
Roger and Karen Howard
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals:
I am writing to you regarding the above referenced
variance application for Roger and Karen Howard.
As you are aware, I appeared before you on December
28, 1988 in connection with this variance application. At
that time, the application was presented to the Board, a
public hearing was held, a motion was then made and seconded
to approve the variance.
The Planning Department then notified the Zoning Board
of Appeals that no decision could be made regarding this
application because the variance was an "unlisted" SEQR
action that had to be upgraded to a "Type I" SEQR action
due to the designation of Lake George as a "critical
environmental area". This upgrade would have prompted
designation of lead agency, completion of full "EAF", as
well as other review procedures. The net result of this was
that no action could be taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Upon further review, the Town Attorney has decided that
the Howard project is a "Type II" SEQR action that cannot be
upgraded to Type I. A Type II action could have been voted
on at the December 28 meeting and can be voted on at your
meeting tonight.
Due to a long standing committment, I am unable to
appear before the Board tonight. It was the suggestion of
Lee York (Senior Planner for the Town of Queensbury) that I
write this letter explaining my absence, as well as the
circumstances that resulted in this application not being
approved at the December 28 meeting.
JAM/jj
Sincerely,
~(Ä~~
}¿hn A. Mason
Agent
Roger and Karen Howard
£'11118/7 13
----.,
,. .. ., '.P'"'r.. ___ ~.-,-..-- ~
~ --
-
F. !fer..; r. C· ."" ". r-. ~.-~'
i" l: ,!. 'I".
fj r . ,~, .,
. .i ¡'.... ',. ,;, ~ ii
." ~, ....t ,ì It
119 Sackville Road
Garden City, J~k 11530
January 17, ì) ~üwr~fn
JAN lð 1989~¿
9LANNING & ZONING
OepA.RTMENT
Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Queensbury
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay at Haviland Road
Queensbury, New York 12804-9725
Re: Application of Edwin J. Tobin for Variance to
Permit Addition of Open Porch
Dear Sirs:
I received the Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on
January 18, 1989 for the purpose of considering Mr. Tobin's
application for a variance to add a 10 foot by 20 foot open
porch to the west side of his cottage. My wife and I own a
camp in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Tobin's cottage.
I believe that the addition of the open porch will enhance
Mr. Tobin's enjoyment of his property and I have no objection
to the grant of that variance, so long as the grant of the
variance would not permit the issuance, following the grant of
the variance, of a permit to enclose the open porch without
obtaining a further variance. In the event that the open porch
could be enclosed without the necessity of a further variance,
I respectfully suggest that the Board of Zoning Appeals
expressly condition the grant of the variance requested in a
manner such that the Board's consent would be required to
enclose the open porch.
Thank you for your consideration of my views on the
application for a variance.
Respectfully submitted,
~_.
~''uk;¡ e d~kc¿'
derick C. Tedeschi
£ XH/IJJí e
'----
Jown 0/ Queenjbuf''fj
rILE [ 'f
'"--------'
'..,;;:..{
r.::>-'
"NOTE TO FILE·
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
Jan. 16, 1989
DATE
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 1-1989
Applicant/Project Name:
Edwin J. Tobin
The applicant is seeking a substantial variation from the side yard setback
requirement. The existing cottage is a preexisting nonconforming structure. The
new porch will be set back the same distance as the existing building (2ft. 9 in.).
The porch will not be easily visible from the road and should have little visual impact
on the character of the nei~hborhood. However. if the porch causes the use of the
cottage to become more intense. they would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
There does not a,ppear to be a clear practical difficulty in this case. The lack of a
porch does not d~prive the applicant of the use of the cottae:e or the land.
~"
.. . .
e
John Goralski
Planner
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY. NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763. . . HOME OF NATURAL BfAUTY . . , A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
~XH-IßIT~
\...-.-
:f.CI'ION
',.100
'-r:CTION
1".. 101
. F.L'T J ON
1,.102
-~
ARTICLE 6
SI.GNS FOR WHICH PERMITS SHALL DE REQUIREU.
G_I~!~I:r~I}. - No sign or other device for advertising purpose shall be erl'ctcd,
I'$télbl isIH.'d, constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, extended, moved or structua 11y
.,lll'rl'ù after tlw effective date !,I.. this Ordinance without npplicntion fOI' and
Issuance of .1 p('rmlt, except as provided for by this OrdinarIC'·.
_Sy_t.Þ~a.c .k_,_ :C)} _~t~,. }'} :,.c_ eme !'. t.~n~.u.mb~ Ij. _H.c i(t}~ t. !1.I~d. Y. r. f_-.r.ry~m.l_s_(>.s_ }~ iT.e.c.t} .o.n.a}. .S. {J~.I~
Limitations of Permitted Signs -
_ ... _ ... - - -. _ . _ . _~_ _ _ _ ø ..,.._ ___ ____
SHback:
1. Free Standing Signs - The setback for fn'c standing signs shall he a
minimum distance of 15 feet from any property line.
Si7.c:
1. Frcl' standing signs - The surface area of 1 sld(' sh.,11 not C'xceed
',u ~< . It. at 15 ft. setþack, or, 64 sq. fL ¡It 25 fL. f-;l'tb.1Ck.
2.
Sir.n¡ attached to buildings (wall si~n5 and ·pcrmiUí'd roof signs) -
surfabe area of signs attached to any buil ding shall not exceed
(a)
The
2'iì. 01 Lilt' area of the wall or roof to which such sign is attaclll'd.
^ .minimum area of 3D sq. ft.. shall be allowed in ilny C¡¡S(.'. Size of
will! signs and permitted roof signs will be further ["egulated by the
I
,
ùistanu: br the building from the front property line. Buildings
which arc located within or at a distancc of 100 linear feet [rom the
Ira III J["() !erly line are permitted to hav<.' a Wó1L1 sign 0[" a permitted
lonf ~;ir.lI¡ of up to 100 sq. ft. BuildIngs wilh mor<' 1.11;111 100 1I.'I,t
I
selback frum lhe front property line will hl' p(.·rlllilu'd all aùdilional
1U sq. fl. of sign surface for each lO adùitional ft. of fi(.,tback tu
; maximum sign size of 300 sq. ft. A ShuppinR Cellter with a group
ul slorcslor sales or service buildings shall lIot be ('ligildc for
'I
I
¡Ç '1#/8/ T é
'--'
;ECTION
G.103
~- ------
this permit.
(b) In order for a roof sign to be permitted, there must be compliance
with all other provisions of this ordinance. If a roof sign is pernaltte
under this ordinance with"respect to a particular building or structure,
only either a roof sign or a wall sign shall be allowed. not both.
and the total permitted surface area of either such roof sign or wall
sign shall be as set, forth in subdivision (a) above.
Placement and Number:
J. Free standing signs shall be allowed in C and H zones only. except
as provided for in this ordinance.
2. Signs attached to buildings shall be allowed in C and H zones only,
except as provided for in this ordi~nce.
). ^ business located on a parcel of property shall be granted a permit
for 2 signs: I free standing, double-f.')ced sign and I sign attached
to ü building (wall sign or permitted roof sign). or 1 si~ns attached
to a building. ^ build ing on a street corner lot or contiguous to 2
str{-'ets shall be allowed l building signs and one free standing sign.
Where a bu 11d ing is situated on a corner lOll one wall sign will be
allowed on each side of the building facing a public street. Only
one freestanding sign will be permitted in the!>e circumstances.
4. Shopping Center - 1 Cree standing sign. denolin~ lht! name of the
shoppinR ccntt!r shall be pe~mittcù for (',"1~h ('lltr:JlH t' ) rOlltjll~ a
l.Iif{erent strcel or highway.
E.:it.:h occllpant 0) thc shopping center
shall be permitted 1 wall sign on th~ portion of tl1l' exterior WitJ].
Wall signs for eal:h occupant of a shoppin~ c"ntl'r shiJII he> coordin;¡tcd
as to material, shape, lettering. color and/or dccor.1tivl' I!lcmcnts.
¡çXIf/~/rl:1
"
'--~,--
/
~---../.
s.
Hotels, motelsþ golf clubsþ ski areas, boat ~torage, amusement centers
anô other substantial facilities in all zones shall be permited 2
61gns of 50 sq. ft. maximum each.
6. Roads:lde stands in all Eanes shall be permitted 2 siglls: I for
ldent if lca tion and 1 for current p: oduc ts for sale; each s igll not to
exceed )2 sq. ft.
7. Apartment complexes in all zones shall be permitted 1 sign for each
l'ntrance on a different street or higllway, each sign not to exceed
5U sq. ft. Apartment complexes :;ha11 also be pcnnitted 1 sign, to
lnclude changeable text, not to t!xcecd 6 sq. fl.
S 1: I. ''I' 1 ON
L 104
"ei~ht :
1. No frel! slanding sign shall exccl·d a.height greater than the following;
a. R zones 12 feet
II. (' .Ind M zones 25 feet
Tilt! Iw1ght of such signs shall' b(' meilsllfl'd from gr,u e ll!vl'l or entry
It'vl'l of the building or structule, wllÍ.-IIl'vpr is lowt·,'. and shall
illclude supporting structures.
<; ECT J ON
(..105
Off-Premises Directional Sign:
1. Signs for the convenience of the gelleral publ ic :lnd for the purpose
of directing persons to business, activity, service or community
facil íty may be erected in any zone, providing SlIch sign do.es not
(>)(Cl!c·J 10 sq. ft. area per cstabl ishull'lIl, not to eXCl'l'J a lota I of
lUOsq, ft.
2. Text shall be limited to name or identification; arrow or direction;
distance. Advertising messages shall be prohibited.
).
rCrtnits for such signs shall be subject to the approval of the TOWTl
I
Planning Board.
4.
Such signs shall be limited to -aJ'or
'M and collector streets.
RICHARD J. BARTLETT
PAUL E. PONTIFF
ROBERT S. STEWART
ALAN R. RHODES
H. WAYNE JUDGE
ROBERT S. McMILLEN
PHILIP C. MciNTIRE
MARK A. LEIIOWITZ
J. LAWRENCE PALTROWITZ
MALCOLM B. O'HARA
BERTRAM J. DUllE
THOMAS A. ULASEWICZ
PATRICIA E. WATKINS
JOHN W. CAFFRY
GARY C. HOIIIIS
MARK E. CERASANO
MONICA A. KOWALEWSKI
SUSAN E. DECKEII
~ û-h it o~ 4ppuL~("
/ - { I _-.-'
BARTLETT, PONTI FF, STEWART, RHODES Be ..JUDGE, P. C, f¿,r ?e.b. ~ IC¡~ '-ì J
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,I 7. ~ip ....
HUDSON FALLS OFFICE '..)-'.' Þ
ONE WASHINGTON STREET
167 MAIN STREET
HUDSON FALLS. NEW YORK 12839
(SIB) 747-3224
P. O. Box 3BO
GL.ENs FALLS, NEW YORK 12801-0380
~~'
LAKE PLACID O,.,.ICE
BREWSTER PLACE
51-53 MAIN STREET
LAKE PLACID, NEW YORK 12946
(518) 523-9772
TELEPHONE Uilll' 782-2117
TELECOPIER 15111' 782-3308
January 18, 1989
RICHARD A. PEIISICO
COUNIIEL
¡ ''-'¡ (Vi:.. -,1("""... <'''- ,-,.,
.;¡;'. 7i f<¡": -. - ¡;J (" ; ..' ~
!\, '\..;' t" ¡, H.:'," 'f
M ~!L.t.. vl,~ ~
'fOWN OF aUECNSaURV
'i~~~!
PLANNING &~ONIN,M/. ~~ /
DSPARTMENT r.!:/'
Mr. Ted Turner, Chairman
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Queensbury Town Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, New York 12804
Re: Appeal of Building Permit of
Victory Markets, Inc., #88-956
Dear Mr. Turner:
This firm represents Saul Birnbaum, owner of the property in
the Town of Queensbury known as The Queensbury Factory Outlet Center.
Pursuant to Section 12.010 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance
and Town Law §267 we hereby appeal the issuance of Building Permit
Number 88-956 to Victory Markets, Inc.
On or about Tuesday, January 10, 1989 we were advised by our
client that construction activity was then taking place at the former
Shop Rite store in the Center. This construction activity was under-
taken without the knowledge or authorization of Mr. Birnbaum. A re-
view of the building permit issued on January 5, 1989 for the work
reflected that it had been obtained by Andrew Mancini as agent for
Victory Markets, Inc. The related application contains a fraudulent
declaration that the permit was obtained with authorization from the
owner. Al though the application correctly identifies the owner as
Saul Birnbaum, no such authorization was ever given by him. On
January 10 we advised David Hatin, Director of Building Code Enforce-
ment, that the application was fraudulent. Both he and the Town At-
torney, Paul Dusek, have refused to stop construction work at our
client's property. During all of this time, from the date of our
initial advice to the Town that this construction activity was occur-
ring without the owner's consent, the construction work has proceeded
at a frenzied pace. Substantial unauthorized alterations continue to
be made to the premises, and work continues during the evenings and on
weekends. This has and continues to cause substantial damages to the
owner.
provides:
In pertinent part, Town Ordinance Number 30 section 4(b)(7)
EXf.I IIJ' í F
~~
I
-
I
-....../
Mr. Ted Turner
2
January 18, 1989
Applications shall be made by the owner or lessee, or agent
of either, or by the architect, engineer or builder employed
in connection with the proposed work. Where such applica-
tion is made by a person other than the owner, it shall be
accompanied by an affidavit of the owner or applicant that
the proposed work is authorized by the owner and that the
applicant is authorized to make such application.
No such affidavit was
invalid. Furthermore,
this work.
submitted and the application is therefore
the owner, Mr. Birnbaum, will not authorize
In pertinent part, Town Ordinance Number 30 Section 8
provides:
The Building Inspector may revoke a building permit
theretofore issued in the following instances:
(a) Where he finds that there has been any false
statement or misrepresentation as to a material fact in the
application, plans or specifications on which the building
permit was based; and
(b) Where he finds that the building permit was issued
in error and should not have been issued in accordance with
the applicable law.
In pertinent part, the Town Zoning Ordinance provides in
section 13.030 MisreDresentation as follows:
Any permit or approval granted under this Ordinance which is
based upon or is granted in reliance upon any material mis-
representation, or failure to make a material fact or cir-
cumstance known, by or on behalf of an applicant shall be
void. This section shall not be construed to affect the
remedies available to the TOwn underSêctions 13.010 anã
13.020 of this Ordinance.
part:
section 12.070 of the Zoning Ordinance provides in pertinent
No building permit, or where applicable, certificate of oc-
cupancy shall be issued for any building, structure, use or
sign where said construction, addition, alteration, or use
would be in violation of any of the provisions of this
ordinance, or of any other Ordinance or Local Law for the
Town of Queensbury.
The application by Mancini falsely states that "such work is
authorized by the owner." Saul Birnbaum is the owner of Queensbury
Factory Outlet Center and he is the sole fee title holder of record of
those premises. He did not authorize the application for a building
permit made by Victory Markets, Inc., and he objects strenuously to
~'---
-~
Mr. Ted Turner
3
January 18, 1989
the issuance of such a permit by the Town. The application contained
a material misstatement of fact, and the permit was issued in apparent
reliance upon this misrepresentation. It is therefore void.
Victory Markets, Inc. and Andrew Mancini Associates are
trespassers who are occupying and altering the premises illegally.
They do not now nor have they ever had any right to take possession of
these premises. They have no contractual relationship with the owner
of the property. The lease of the prior tenant, Big V Supermarkets,
Inc., has been terminated for a series of defaults under its lease.
We understand that the Town has been in touch with attorneys
for the Estate of Mr. Birnbaum's deceased brother concerning the
Estate's interest in the Center. The nature and extent of that in-
terest is the subject of extensive and complex ongoing litigation in
surrogate's Court, Monroe County. Such litigation has no bearing on
the dispute here in issue between Saul Birnbaum, as record owner of
the property, and Victory Markets, Inc. and Andrew Mancini Associates,
who are illegally occupying and altering the premises. This firm has
been engaged on behalf of Mr. Birnbaum in the litigation with the
Estate in Rochester. There exists no court order which provides that
Saul Birnbaum may not act to protect his interests as owner of the
premises against the conduct here occurring. If the Estate is ag-
grieved by Mr. Birnbaum's actions in that regard, it is a matter for
the surrogate's Court in Monroe County to consider, not for the Town
of Queensbury to become embroiled in. The Town should immediately act
to revoke this fraudulently obtained building permit based upon the
advice of the record owner that it was secured without his authoriza-
tion, particularly in view of the Town ordinances which require this
result.
We request that the Zoning Board of Appeals revoke said
permit and order that the premises be restored to its condition prior
to the issuance of this permit. Pursuant to Town Law §267 (4) all
further proceedings on this matter are stayed pending the outcome of
this appeal. We therefore request that a stop WO):J~ ot"der be issued to
Victory Markets and its contractor Mancini. This' stay also prohibits
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the store. We further
aver that pursuant to Zoning Ordinance section 12.070 no certificate
of occupancy may be issued for the premises because the issuance
thereof would be in violation of Town Ordinance No. 30. Please place
this on the docket for your FebruarY(5. meeting. . (. .'"/)
. 1~~erelYf \.'{-/i'
/19VV\, lit ,~>" tJvJ vl,---"
MAL:aw a 'A. Lebowitz
cc: David Hatin
Paul Dusek
Victory Markets, Inc.
Andrew Mancini Associates
Saul I. Birnbaum
MAL: 100
'-----
Jown 0/ Queen:Jbur~
./
"
fiLE C[n-(
.....-:::.i
r.::>'
-NOTE TO FILE-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
Jan. 10, 1989
DATE
Application Number: Area Variance No. 3-1989
Applicant/Project Name:
The Whole Donut
The proposal is for a variance from the parking requirements for a Drive-In
Restaurant. To comply with the reQuirement the applicant would have to provide
approximately 100 $,paces. The applicant is proposing to meet the reQuirement for
commp.l"cial or sho,ppin¡ centers. They are therefore providin~ 18 spaces.
Staff has raised concerns about traffic circulation both on-site and off-site. The
two !>pacp.s in thp. southeast corner of the site will allow for only 8 feet between the
parking ¡q>acp. and thp. Drive-Thru lane. There was also concern about traffic backin~
Q.p on to Quaker Road· if the Drive-Thru is busy and if cars are backin~ out of the
"'PacPR ar1jacp.nt to thp. entrancp.. Anothp'l" concern was that the lack of lar¡e truck
p",rk;ng may t"al1!;\p trat"tor trailorR to park on Quakpl" Road.
Although this use is similar to the previous use. there is a significant difference,
that is the Drive-Thru lane on the new plan. The Drive-Thru will cause more congestion.
than a .conventional parkin~ lot would.
r .,.
John Goralski
Planner
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763... HOME OF NATURAL afAUTY... A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
EX#IlJ..¡r ~
·-- --~. -_.._-"- ---
~
./
/
~.
. .
~~
Architect:'
PAULD. PRIMEAU
Eastern Union Turnpike
P.O. Box 640
Averill Pork, N.Y.·12018
(518) 674-2895
December 27, 1988
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Queensbury:
Town Hal..L
Queensbury, New York
Re: AREA VARIANCE: KING FUELS INC.
Corner: Dix Ave. and Quaker Road
Zone: HC-1A
Gentlemen;
We respectfuly request that an area variance be granted for the
above referenced site. This variance is requested on the grounds
that strict interpretation of the set back requirements for the
zoning ordinance would cause a practical difficulty in operating
the site with an allowable use.
We wish to construct a moter vehicle fuel sales facility, which,
is an allowable use, on the site. We propose to construct two
fuel dispenser islands serving each highway. Between the two
sets of islands a four hundred square foot kiosk is to be
constructeã. The kiosk is for an attendant.
The site is provided with frontage on both Dix Ave. and Quaker
Road, and this is where the problem orginates. By the zoning
ordinance for the HC-1A zone, there is a 50' foot setback
requirement for front yards. If the Zoning Board of Appeals
determines that this site has two front yards, then two 50 foot
setbacks are required. The configuration of this site is such
that if both 50 foot setbacks are used, and the rear yard
setback of 25 foot is used, over 69% of the site is consumed
within the setbacks.
In order to provide the most convenient access from the highways
to the gasoline dispensers, we have oriented the fuel islands
1
?'XfhØIT If
/~~
,
I !
- ---J
parallel to the highways. We are able to keep all of the
islands within the 50 foot setbacks, but the overhead canopies
will project into the setbacks. The greatest infringement of the
canopies is 10 foot on the Quaker Road side. Since this is a
roof overhang and not a wall we feel that there will be no
adverse impact on the neighborhood character or on public
facilities. We have examined many alternatives and we find this
solution the best suited for the site.
If the Zoning Board determines that this site does not have two
front yards, then we will not be required to have a 50 foot
setback on both sides. With a slight adjustment of physical
features, we will not require an area variance.
We offer our situation, for consideration at the next meeting, of
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Paul D. Primeau, R.A.
cc: James Pollock
King Fuels
2
~
Jown 0/ Queenjburtj
fiLE C~
\
'.~'--
r.:>-'
"NOTE TO FILE-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Jan. 16, 1989
DATE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 8-1989
Applicant/Project Name: Charles Freihofer. III
The request is for a variance from the twenty foot side yard setback
requirement. The relief being sought is 7 ft. 6 in. This is a three foot increase
from the existing encroachment.
The house is well screened from neighboring houses by vegetation and
topography. This screening should be maintained if a variance is granted. If
sufficient screening is maintained, the addition should have little effect on the
neighborhood character.
Due to the topography of the site and its proximity to the lake, there are
few options as to location of an addition of this size. It mày be feasible to locate
the addition three feet to the west so that the distance from the structure to the
property line would remain the same.
..
ý£-!~~- €J
~ohn Goralski
Planner
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY. NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763... HOME OF NATURAL ß[-AUTY...A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
~Ý.IfI~1 ï
-
~
.. ~~--._...............
/~~
-~
~~lNTENANCE AGREEMENT
D41e T. Granger. Seller. h~~ê1n referred to aa Granger. and David
Dyminsld J Buyer. herein refért"ed to ao Dyminsl<1 J agree aD follows:
1. Gran~er shall construct anù DaVe a roadWAY 20 fAAt in wi~~h
\,
f1:"oP\ tho public b1Shwùy .kll~ts ;h,~ t1Ul~v3rd 1n the 'town of QUètmsbury,
Warren County. New York ~~V.ß ~~~lft~~f.~(:> by Dymlnak1 from Granger. and
t¡;,~G& I!z:,-$t:'" t.
ahall continue the pav~ment to the northerly boundary of premises serving
thQ buildins of Dym1ncl~1. and ohal1 proceed in a wcðterly direction with
pAv~Mént for 100 feet. ~nd ohQl1 continué in $ wcctcrly direction olong.
the remainder of the northerly boundary of lands of Dyminski to retained
lands of Granger to the west of lunda of Dyminaki.
2. The parties hereto shall equally share 1n the eXpenßeR of rn~1nrA1n1ne
SAid ro~dwäv includinu anohnlt n~d ~~tt~h~d A~nn~ .~nAi~ AnA ~~~1Ar._."Þ
when necessary for nonudl tL·d..c r 1t.:, tHLVW ~lId .Lc~ removal, normal removal of
r--tI(D <j-)).'1i
d0:1a"10 in. C/I.:del.: co keep cltç: 0<\.1.1.1 I.vtHlwt\Y fLt::t:: vf .Ùt:1.JLJ.tI ê\w.t tiCCt!I:HHb1.e, ~IDi~6'"
ßo T"'N þ" 11. TI t;~ t:"'. }
and any other repa1r and ml1inten.o.nce determined necessary by .e:J...I.;.~ 'pwP-t-y ~ ~1 '((-¿;;l~
for the normal passage of vch1clQS and pcdc9tri&na to the premisee being
sold to Dym1nskl and the premises being retained by Granger.
À
. , C?1\/G) I
t>Yv ~'1?f"(d~~ ':) ~
* /lir-u-d.. 1;" rrN~~q '1. .
( ;í0/ ... q,g
q--z. /. :J
d _~.,~ 'A~rJ1~~,flò'
(-d:) ·~.:w1~~1nsk1 7
9- 22-SZ
ud 4)
Dale T. Granger
E'l.H/ßlr ::r
/
~~
Utilizing Our Heritage
ïOW,..U:W Wa;':NSBURY
¡l5)~~wÆlm
~ JAN l~}eÞ W
PLANNING~AÔEE
DEPARTMENT
14 Clark Street, Glens Falls, NY 12801
(518) 793-0150
A RESOLUTION
regarding
REFRIGERATION VARIANCE APPLICATION
Whereas Genesee Refrigeration is applying to the
Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals for relief from the
setback requirements of The Town of Queensbury's Zoning
Ordinance. and
Whereas this setback is an encroachment on the lands of
the State of New York. Department of Transportation. operator
of , the Glens Falls Feeder Canal. and
Whereas the Feeder Canal is an Historical site. and
Whereas the Feeder Canal Alliance Inc. has applied for
and received a grant for a master plan. to study. plan and
organize improvements to the area. and
Whereas the Feeder Canal Alliance Inc. intends that the
canal. its towpath and surrounding area be developed as a
recreational area, for residents, tourists and visitors, and
Whereas the Feeder Canal alliance feels that the
granting of this variance would not be in the best interest
of the Feeder Canal Alliance, the general public. and present
and future recreational development plans.
Be it, therefore, resolved that the Feeder Canal
Alliance is opposed to any construction closer than 100 feet
from the property line bordering the Feeder Canal, and then,
such construction should be developed in a manner which would
not detract from this historical area or its recreational
potential. Any construction should include suitable visual
barriers.
Passed by vote of the Feeder Canal Alliance Executive Board
and Officers at it's regular meeting Wednesday, January 11,
1989
Signed:. /J:v.J~ .~ mA0~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SecretJry, Feeder Canal Al~~~~~: Inc.
,ÊIII/OIT K
-.,-.
;~~":* V
.....,,~~~__~_,l1m.'\'.'II""''''·''''···
:~~~.~>..,:...~.....,,:.o.-,",......,,¡&J<,4
'--.....-..---
Jown 0/ Queen:Jbuf'lj
FILE r 1
--~
'...::-t .
r.:ç.
-NOTE TO FILE-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Jan. 12. 1<)8<)
DATE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
Application Number: Area Variance No. 9-1989
Applicant/Project Name:
J
Genesee Refrigeration/David Dyminski
The applicant is requesting a six foot variance from the thirty foot rear
yard setback requirement. The setback is from the State owned property containing
the Feeder Canal. The property is maintained bv the Dept. of Transportation.
The proposed building will have a significant impact on the Canal and future
plans for the Canal. The Feeder Canal Alliance has recently received a Grant to
develop a Master Plan for the Canal. The Alliance intends to promote the Canal
and its Tow Path as an Historic and Recreational Area. Although this is a Light
.n.;_~ ~
. ,,_~ '"1<..L~
Industrial Zone it is in the best interest of the Town ta.:maiatalR any impact on the
HistQric and Recreational potential of the Canal.
Bec;:¡llse of the power lines on the site it would not be possible to construct
;:¡ ';0 ft. hy 100 ft. hui1cHng on the site ;:¡nc'l meet ;:¡11 of the setb;:¡ck requirements.
Howevpr, ;:¡n ;¡ltern;¡te loc;:¡tion on the site m;:¡y he less intrl1s'f¿-ve th;¡n the proposen
nn"'T It m:::.y h", pr",f",r:::.hl", to pl::1r'" th", ht1i1c'1ing to th", north nf th", power lin",!':.
A variance from the front yard setback would be required, but a 50 ft. separation
from the residential uses could be maintained.
Another option would be to change the dimensions of the building. The setback
and the size of the building could be maintained if the building were 54 ft. by 112. ft.
",.
.. .
~'£'@L.
John Goralski
Planner
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY. NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763... HOME OF NATURAL BrAUTY... A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
fJ.-I; IJ$I T"L
'''-_/-------
Jown 0/ Queendbupt¡j
fiLE ~
'.~
r.:;:..õ
IONOTE TO FILE-
Jan. 12, 1989
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
DATE
Application Number: Area Variance No. 10-1989
Applicant/Project Name:
Genesee Refrigeration/David Dyminski
The request is for a variance from Section 7.077 A. Having one access onto
the Boulevard would have less impact than two adjacent road cuts. However, there
are several other issues which should be of concern to the Board.
The road which the applicant is proposing to use is not built to Town standards.
The width of pavement is only twenty feet wide as opposed to the reQuired twenty-four
feet. The South Queensbury Fire Department has some concerns abouth their ability
to access the property.
Another issue is the pre-existing drainae:e pattern. It appears that the newly
constructed roadway has blocked a culvert which drains the properties to the north.
If this situation is not cOITected it could cause floodini on the a<ljacent pra,perties and
possibly a danierous potential for icing on the roadway.
It also appears that the prqper permits have not been received from WaITen
r.onnty for a roan C'nt.
It is obvious that the property to the west (Land N/F Dale Granger) will be
developed in the future. In effect a "Mini-Industrial Park" is being created. It is
forseeable that this roadway will see intense use. For this reason. some desie:n
alternatives should be investi¡ated. For example. a roadway installed to Town
",.
~
:,,:-..
John Goralski
Planner
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY. NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763. . . HOME OF NATURAL Bf:AUTY . . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
k'Ý-Y-¡ß¡ r . ~
'"- ---
Jown 0/ Queenjbuf''t!
"
- ...--'
. .,;::A
r.:;>.
-NOTE TO FILE-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Jan. 12, 1989
DATE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 10-1989
Page 2
Applicant/Project Name: Genesee Refrigeration/David Dvminski
Standards with a draina¡e culvert under the road.
Also, Mr. Stanley Gran~er has been in touch with the Plannini Department and
h~!'; ;n(Hr~tpil th~t hI" h~!'; ;m p;¡!,;pmpnt to usp thp drivpway in question.
f1I'N
~ .
John Goralski
Planner
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (SI8) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763. .. HOME OF NATURAL ßfAUTY . . . A GOOD PLACE TO LiVe