2005-01-19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 19, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PAUL HAYES, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
CHARLES ABBATE
LEWIS STONE
JAMES UNDERWOOD
ALLAN BRYANT
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
PLANNER-STUART BAKER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HAYES-We have a bit of procedural housekeeping, which will be very brief, but we need
to do this at the beginning of each year. Stu Baker from the Town of Queensbury Planning
Department is going to come forward. He’s going to make any suggestions that he may to us as
to the normal procedure that we follow during the meetings. I would also like to have other
Board members comment, if they will, on anything they’d like to see changed in the procedure
that we follow, and then we’ll quickly go through that and kind of get it into the minutes, get it
into everyone’s head, and then we can talk about it, and if there’s a consensus, we’ll make a
change or two. So, Stu, would you like to go ahead?
MR. BAKER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. What I wanted to offer to the Board this
evening was a suggestion, and my possible assistance. To date, the Zoning Board has not
adopted formal policies and procedures, although you have a well established pattern of how
the Board operates, at each meeting. What I wanted to suggest to you is that you consider
adopting a formal set of policies and procedures, and I would be very happy to assist in that
effort. If there’s particular, if you’re interested in doing that and there’s particular elements
you’d like to see in it, I can offer suggestions on that, or I can I could come back again, if you’re
interested, with a proposed outline of content for such a document. The purpose of such a
document would essentially be to formalize and institutionalize the procedures that the Board
has used in the past that you’d like to keep and make available in a readable format for the
public’s awareness, and, Two, it gives you an opportunity to make any changes and institute
those in a formal document. This would be a document adopted by this Board. It would not
necessarily need Town Board review or approval. It would basically be a procedural document
for this Board. So I toss that suggestion and that offer out for your consideration.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for Stu at this time?
MR. ABBATE-I’d like to just comment. I think, as standard operating procedure, I think it does
a number of positive things. I think, Number One, it keeps people out of trouble. Number
Two, it provides the guidelines, not only for the Board, but also for the also for the public,
which I think is important, and, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I’ve been working with Stuart,
verbally anyway, on a proposed standard operating procedure, and I would be happy to
volunteer to act as a coordinator, and take all the suggestions, if there are any, put them
together and submit it to you, Mr. Chairman, for your perusal and approval, and go from there,
and of course this extends to the alternate members as well, for your input as well.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. BRYANT-Actually, Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of suggestions. I think, in the past,
this Board has adopted a rebuttal time limit of five minutes, and I think that there should be
some time limit on the original presentation. In that area, I think we need to address that. The
other thing that came up at the last meeting was relative to term limits of the officers, and I
think there ought to be some kind of term limit imposed on the officers of the Board, so that one
individual is not the Chairman or the Secretary for life. Okay. Those are just some basic.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. URRICO-When we talk about standard operating procedures, are we talking about
everything from how we hear a motion, how a variance first gets to the Board? I mean, are we
talking about the actual process?
MR. BAKER-We’re talking about operating procedures for the Board. How applications get to
the Board is dictated by State law and by local law. The criteria you need to use to review those
applications are similar to what’s dictated. By-laws essentially touch upon such things as
membership and terms, responsibilities of officers, conduct and procedure of the meetings and
public hearings. Again, incorporating in parts of that references to applicable local and state
laws, establishing an annual organizational meeting, committees, formation and responsibilities
of committees, that type of thing.
MR. ABBATE-But in addition to that, I think also there are a number of statutes which mandate
that this Board conduct itself accordingly. As an example, when we make a decision, and prior
to making a decision, it’s quite clear in a number of statutes, including Town law, that the only
way we base our decision is based on the evidence that is in the record. Theoretical,
hypothetical, philosophical, if you will, theories, play no role. I think that would be part of a
standard operating procedure as well.
MR. STONE-Would you, like the Planning Board, suggest that we limit the number of
applications that we hear at a particular meeting?
MR. BAKER-No, I don’t think that’s necessary at this time.
MR. STONE-But they did, correct?
MR. BAKER-They did.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions? If not, I’ll make my comments. I certainly would
welcome Stu to formalize the procedures. I would comment that I think that the procedure that
we have now, developed over time, has a lot of quality to it. I certainly would like to
compliment Chris Thomas and Lew Stone for refining that procedure over time. A lot of things
that are there are there for a reason, and I think that, ultimately, they provide a good avenue to
arrive at a good decision. So I do want to say that on the record. So I think more just
formalizing them and getting them into a state that is consistent is absolutely fine, but the
procedure itself is kind of time tested. So I think it’s a good framework for what we’re going to
do. As far as the changes that I intend to make to the procedure, followed by the previous
Chairman, very little, but I do, I would like to pass it on to the Board that I think that the five
minute rebuttal period should be policy. I don’t think there should be any further rebuttal
periods like rebuttals on rebuttals, that we’ve had historically, you know, where people come
back up and speak again and again, even if it’s for five minutes. So I think that that’s, I think in
five minutes that people can say what they need to say, and that’s enough.
MR. BRYANT-I think, though, that if there’s new information, that they should have the
opportunity, be afforded that opportunity to come back.
MR. HAYES-Yes, at the Board’s discretion. I guess I don’t think it’s a vested right to speak
several times from the public’s perspective.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. BRYANT-The only thing that I mentioned earlier, you know, a lot of times we get these
massive presentations, and they go on and on and on with all kinds of diagrams, and a lot of
that is good information, but with a little bit of organization, they could be restricted to a certain
amount of time to make their presentation, and touch on the things that are really relevant, and
not go on and on into left field. I do want to touch on something Mr. Stone said, relative to the
number of cases that we handle. Traditionally, the Town has always restricted us to eight.
We’ve never gone above eight, and if there’ve been some times where we’ve had more than 16
in a month, we’ve had a special meeting. So, you know, I don’t think eight is a magic number,
but I think if the administration, the Chairman can control the flow and the discussion, and we
can do eight or nine or whatever we need to do.
MR. MC NULTY-I guess I’ve got a couple of things to say, if I can remember them all in order.
Regarding term limits, I personally don’t think that’s necessary, as evidenced this last time. If
there’s enough members that want to see an office changed, it changes, and I think some of the
offices, particularly the Chairman, we should probably not have a democratic procedure. It
depends on the mix of members on the Board. You want somebody that’s Chairman that can
run the meeting well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that all of us that are on the Board at that
time would do a good job running a meeting. Another thought I have, which is more of a
probably a note for procedure, but I would like to see the Board be a little more careful in their
side conversations. A lot of times we’ll be listening to somebody that’s saying something to us,
and there’ll be two or three people on the Board having their own conversation off to the side.
That means they’re not paying attention to what the person that’s speaking is saying, and it
certainly conveys the wrong impression to the public, and I think some of those procedures
ought to be written down, and I don’t remember what the other one was, so I’ll pass.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Jaime, I have another comment, if I may. Term limits are important for a number
of reasons. Every individual on any Board should have the right, should have at least the
opportunity to be in a position of leadership. To deny that would be an injustice, not only to the
Board, but to the Town as well. When you have time limitations, even the President of the
United States is limited to two terms, it’s for a good reason, and I don’t have to go into a long
dissertation for that, but term limits are healthy. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I think you’ve got some ideas there, and you can maybe boil those into
some proposals, and then we’ll take it through the democratic process on the Board here and
see what carries and what doesn’t. I think that’s the fairest thing to do, and we’ll take it from
there.
MR. BAKER-Excellent. We’ll move forward from there. I had one other quick item for the
Board. I just wanted to confirm which Board members were indeed interested in participating
in the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal Training Program that I presented in
December? I know Mr. Abbate is participating actively, in fact, he’s completed.
MR. HAYES-I think everybody is.
MR. BAKER-Excellent. Great. That was all I wanted to confirm. You have the materials from
the first section. When you’ve reviewed them and you’re ready for the quiz materials, they’re
available on line. You have the websites and the material I gave you, or I’d be happy to get you
another copy.
MR. ABBATE-Don’t go away. You understand what the operating procedure is? Once you
come to a meeting, you must remain until we finish our seminar this evening, regardless of
time.
MR. BAKER-I’ll request a waiver from that for this evening, please.
MR. HAYES-And you have one.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. BAKER-Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thanks, Stu. We’ll move right into the regular agenda, for the public.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2005 SEQRA TYPE II KATE AND WALLY HIRSCH OWNER(S):
KATE AND WALLY HIRSCH ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 145 BIRDSALL ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY DETACHED
GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2004-819, BP 2004-862 LOT SIZE:
0.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-45 SECTION: 179-4-030
KATE & WALLY HIRSCH, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-2005, Kate and Wally Hirsch, Meeting Date: January 19,
2005 “Project Location: 145 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes the construction of a 900 sq. ft. two-story detached garage. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 7 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A
zone, § 179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004-872: pending,
900 sq. ft., two-story, detached garage. BP 2004-862: 11/29/04, 2,142 sq. ft. single-family
dwelling. BP 2004-819: 10/29/04, demolition of 1,342 sq. ft. camp. SP 45-2001 Modification:
08/17/04, site excavation/removal of earth and associated regarding. AV 27-2004: 06/16/04,
demolition of 1,342 sq. ft. camp and construction of a 3,805 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an
816 sq. ft. detached garage. AV 27-2004: tabled 04/21/04, same as current application except for
19 feet of shoreline setback relief requested. SP 45-2001: 04/24/03, extension of approval to
3/30/04. SP 45-2001: 01/15/02, clearing and grading to facilitate driveway, parking, accessory
structures, and future septic area. Approval includes 10,000 cu.yds. to be cut and 5,000 cu.yds.
of fill to be placed to a finished elevation of 135’. Staff comments: The applicant requests relief
from the maximum height requirement for a two-story detached garage. The applicant claims
the storage space proposed for the second story is needed being the dwelling under
construction will have no attic. The applicant claims the garage will not be observable from the
lake due to the dwelling location. The applicant proposes to set the garage into the
embankment and it will appear to be at a compliant height from the northeast and southeast
sides. Note: The parcel history lists the area for BP 2004-862 as 2,142 sq. ft., while the area
described in AV 27-2004 is 3,805 sq. ft. The area identified in the building permit is for the first
and second floor and does not include the 1,663 sq. ft. basement. The basement floor plan
submitted for BP 2004-862 includes a family room with future bathroom, workshop, laundry
and storage rooms.”
MR. MC NULTY-And there was no County on this.
MR. HAYES-Mr. and Mrs. Hirsch, is there anything you’d like to add to your application?
MR. HIRSCH-My name is Wally Hirsch. I don’t think there’s too much to add. I did include on
my form here a picture of the two neighboring garages. The one Vittengl is obviously, I don’t
know whether it is set up as a residence upstairs, but it has the potential for it, as you can see.
The height is about the same. It sits at road level. The one below it is Dineen. He does have an
apartment in there. I included the picture of the Dineen garage because my garage is similar
size, and on the picture it shows a retaining wall, and basically the retaining wall that he shows
would be part of actually one of the outside walls of my garage. So my garage would actually
be sitting down at the level at the top of his embankment there, and I guess that’s about all,
unless you have any questions.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. HAYES-Well, I think the first and most obvious question is the issue brought up in the
Staff notes as to the main residence. Does that or does that not have a basement?
MR. HIRSCH-It does. I just must have transcribed wrong. It was my error on that. There is a
basement on it. There is a workshop, and it’s a proposed actually, not a family room at this
point, it won’t be finished for quite a while, but there is a potential for that.
MR. HAYES-The Staff notes indicate that that plan includes a bathroom, workshop, laundry
and storage rooms, and that seems to be the crux of your argument.
MR. HIRSCH-Well, the storage rooms will actually be more, by the time you put in the furnace
and the laundry and that sort of stuff, it’ll eat up most of that space that is allocated for the
storage in there.
MR. HAYES-Sixteen hundred square feet of the basement?
MR. HIRSCH-Well, not, because the stairway goes down there, and it’s, actually usable space
for storage would be only about half of that or less, for storage, and again, then once you put in
the furnace and the water heater, the laundry room, then that further, and leaving the allocation
for the bathroom, it really decreases that to probably, my guess is probably less than 600 square
feet of actual storage space, you know, staying away from the furnace for fire safety and
everything of that nature.
MR. HAYES-Okay. It’s just a little bit difficult, in the sense that 1600 square feet is, that might
be the average size house in Queensbury right now. So, I mean, as far as that not being
adequate.
MR. HIRSCH-Right. Well, again, no, I understand. The workshop will be utilized right away,
and then within the next few years we do plan to put in the family room and the bathroom, but
it’s going to be framed out currently, but we’re not going to do anything with it. He’s just going
to stud it out and leave it like that.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the Hirschs by the members of the Board?
MR. ABBATE-If I may, Mr. Hirsch, help me out on this, will you please. There’s currently a
residence on your property at this time?
MR. HIRSCH-It’s being built.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and what will be the square footage of the residence that’s being
constructed?
MR. HIRSCH-I believe it’s 2100 plus the basement.
MR. ABBATE-Twenty one hundred plus?
MR. HIRSCH-The basement, which Mr. Hayes said was 1600.
MR. ABBATE-And have you figured out the square footage of floor area ratio of that basement?
MR. HIRSCH-I did not, no.
MR. ABBATE-That would be in addition to the 2100 square foot. Is that correct?
MR. HAYES-Well, if it doesn’t have a walk out, it wouldn’t be, I don’t think.
MR. ABBATE-No. It doesn’t have walk out?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. HIRSCH-It does.
MR. ABBATE-It does have a walk out?
MR. HIRSCH-Yes.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, if I could remind the Board, when the setback relief and height
relief was granted for Mr. Hirsch for his dwelling, he definitely represented his application as
what’s before you now. He included in his floor area ratio all that space below. They said it
potentially could be developed in the future, and so he was up front about that initially. So he’s
well below the 22% FAR, and all that area in the basement was included as part of living area.
MR. HAYES-So those calculations have been made in the past?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and he was well below the 22%.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So we have 2100 square foot when the home is completed.
MR. HIRSCH-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-And then you’re requesting a 900 square foot two story detached garage, in
addition to the 2100 square foot. Is that correct?
MR. HIRSCH-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-And you’ve made your case as to why you require the 900 square foot this
evening.
MR. HIRSCH-Well, it’s a three car garage with some storage space for the lawn mower and that
kind of stuff in it, on the first floor. The second floor is obviously, it’s small. It’ll be mainly for
off season clothes or things of that nature. Christmas decorations, out of season things. So it’ll
be relatively small, compared to the total footprint of the garage.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to clarify, Mr. Hirsch. The dwelling itself got a variance for height,
that was approved, is that correct?
MR. HIRSCH-Correct, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. HIRSCH-And this garage will actually be lower than the house. It’ll be hidden behind the
house. I believe it’s going to be about three to four feet lower than the house, and it’s narrower
than the house. So from the lake, actually the garage will not be seen.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Bruce, can you comment on the two properties that Mr. Hirsch has pictured here?
Did they get variances, Vittengl and Dineen?
MR. FRANK-Mr. Vittengl definitely did. I did that inspection myself. So I know that one. The
Dineen property was, I don’t know, it definitely was developed prior to my time with the
Town. I’ve been with the Town for three and a half years. So I don’t know exactly for sure.
I’ve never been on that property, looking specifically at it.
MR. STONE-But Vittengl had relief for height?
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. FRANK-Most definitely.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-We did Dineen, Lew, but I don’t know if we did that. He came in for some relief.
MR. STONE-Yes, I remember some.
MR. FRANK-I think he came in for setback relief, and at the time I don’t think there was a 16
foot maximum height restriction for Vittengl. So that was approved.
MR. STONE-There wasn’t?
MR. FRANK-I don’t think believe it was in effect at the time. He got side setback relief.
MR. STONE-Okay.
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 on this application?
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, before we start, are we invoking the five minute?
MR. HAYES-Always.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RUSS PITTENGER
MR. PITTENGER-Good evening. I’m Russ Pittenger. I’m not with the LA Group at this
moment in time, but I own the property immediately south of Mr. Hirsch, and it’s a challenging
site that has a lot of steep slope issues, and I encourage you to seriously consider this. I’m in
favor of this proposal before you.
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-Are there any last questions by the Board? If not, I’ll begin with the polling and
start with Lew.
MR. STONE-Thank you. I’m just concerned about the height. We have been very tough on
height relief for garages. We have 16 feet. We have almost always, I’m sure you’ll find
exceptions, but almost always have said 16 feet is adequate for a detached garage, and we
seldom have given any relief. Particularly the argument that you make, that it’s for storage, and
yet there is storage in the basement that could be used. You choose to use it any way you want
to use it, but storage is storage, and I’m just not inclined to grant the variance because I think
it’s approximately 40% relief on our 16 foot requirement, and I just think it’s too much.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in agreement. When it comes to the height of garages, I think we need to
stay pretty close to the vest on it, and I haven’t been convinced that the height relief is necessary
in this case. So I would be against it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. BRYANT-Initially, in the minutes of the other variance relative to the height of the
dwelling, I was opposed to that, as I’m generally opposed to any height variance. One point I
did want to make was, on a couple of applications, I’ve made the mention that when we make a
decision this Board that sometimes we have to be careful of the precedent that we’re setting,
and of course generally they lecture me and tell me that we don’t set a precedent, that we look
at every application individually, and yet you’re argument basically, you know, is the
precedent set by the other two properties. So I agree with the other Board members, I don’t see
the need for it.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I would have to agree with the other Board members, Mr.
Hirsch. Approximately 38% height increase is a bit much, and I believe Mr. Bryant said it
properly. We have to start being consistent on this Board, and based on this, I’m afraid I could
not support the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if you look at this in the context of what the maximum is, which is
16 feet, it seems like a grand request, but at the same time, I think that you have to look at the
site restraints there, and as Mr. Pittenger also made the point, it is a slope there, and I think that
a reasonable attempt has been made to set this thing, to make it appear to be lower than what it
is. It is going to be blocked by the house in the front, but you’re not going to see this from the
lakeside, which would be the thing that we would be most concerned about. I think that if you
look at the two previously constructed garages to the east of there, both of those are probably
over height, I would imagine that they’ve got to be up around 22, 23 feet, those two houses
there also. I’m not so much concerned with this one because I think it’s a change over from
what those earlier ones were. Those ones were built up on the top of the hill, at the apex of the
hill, where they do stick up in the air substantially. Certainly if you were going to look at them
from Mud Pond on the other side, you would see them, but I think that our concern should be
from the lakeside, and I think that’s what the statutes are for on lakefront property. This one, to
me, is not going to be a problem, because I don’t think it does stick up in the air high enough to
really kick us in. Although it is a grand request at 38% over height, I think you have to look at it
from viewpoint of, you know, the side and the fact that it’s not going to be seen from the lake.
So look at it from the other sides, and it’s substantially set into the ground for all intents and
purposes. So, I would go along with the request.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to agree with Jim. I think, well, I guess the first place, I’m not going
to agree that we have to be consistent. I think we do look at each application separately, and I
think that’s important because if we are consistent and we approve something, and approve
everything like that, then we’re changing the zoning, and we’re not supposed to change the
zoning. We’re supposed to treat each instance separately, evaluate on its merits and its
detriments, and come to a conclusion. Certainly the increased height, compared to the 16 foot
limit, is substantial, but, at the same time, it’s been pointed out, there are other garages in that
immediate area that have got the same kind of height that you’re proposing, and the difference
with yours is that it will be hidden behind the house from the lake, and it’s going to be built into
an embankment. So from the other side, it’s not going to look like a very tall garage either. It’s
not going to look as high as what your neighbors are. So I think in this case, the mitigation out
balances the potential detriment and considering the balance that we’re supposed to consider,
benefit to the applicant versus detriment to the neighborhood, I think it comes down in favor of
the applicant. So I’ll be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I think the argument does not carry in this particular
circumstance. I think what troubles me the most is the fact that, as Mr. Stone pointed out, that
you have argued that you need this additional storage. Your house has a tremendous amount
of storage, and I think in this particular case, the relief is a large number. It’s balance changing
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
from my perspective. It’s almost 40% of relief from the variance, from the Ordinance, and I
think that that’s troubling, particularly going forward. It’s a three car garage. It’s kind of wide
as well. I will agree that I don’t think there’s a dramatic affect on character of the neighborhood
or the community in this particular case because of the placement of the garage, but in this
particular case, you know, balancing the benefit to the applicant versus detriment or the
amount of relief that’s requested, I think you need to come with a reduced proposal in this
particular case for me to vote for it. Having said that, that’s five noes and two yeses. So, would
someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2005 KATE AND WALLY HIRSCH,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
145 Birdsall Road. The applicant has asked for permission to construct a 900 square foot two
story detached garage at a height of 23 feet, 7 feet above the zoning requirement. In considering
this application, we are guided by the balancing test that we always have, and we are balancing
whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant, and I think we
have said that there is storage space. You, yourself, have pointed out there is storage space. An
undesirable change in the neighborhood is another thing that comes into play. I don’t think this
is terribly undesirable, but if everybody were at 23 feet, if everybody came in with the argument
that, well, we gave 23 feet and even though we did talk about each case is individual, it’s hard
sometimes for people to recognize what we have to do. We also have to consider whether the
request is substantial, and as I said in my remarks, it’s over 40% relief, and I think that is
definitely substantial. Other things that we take into account are adverse physical
environmental effects, and I don’t think there are any necessarily, except for the possibility of
the view shed from the lake, and certainly from the road, this is going to be a massive structure
in terms of what normal garages are, and certainly the alleged difficulty is self-created. So for
all of these reasons, I believe that we should deny Area Variance 2-2005.
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty
MR. HAYES-The application is denied. I’m sorry.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2005 SEQRA TYPE II JELENIK CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC
D/B/A ONE-STOP SELF STORAGE AGENT(S): PAUL F. TOMMELL, L.S., P.C., CLARK R.
WILKINSON, P.E. OWNER(S): FINCH PRUYN & COMPANY, INC. ZONING: LI
LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 4-
SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS TOTALING 10,200 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
THE MINIMUM PARKING AND ACCESS DRIVEWAY WIDTH REQUIREMENT. CROSS
REFERENCE: SPR 3-2005 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-5 SECTION: 179-4-
040 B & C
CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVE JELENIK, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2005, Jelenik Construction Co., LLC d/b/a One-Stop
Self-Storage, Meeting Date: January 19, 2005 “Project Location: Sherman Avenue Description
of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct 4 self-storage buildings totaling 10,200 sq.
ft. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the 24-foot minimum access driveway
width requirement and relief from the minimum parking requirements (proposes zero parking
spaces where 14 are required for the proposed use), per § 179-4-040(B & C). Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 3-2005: 01/25/05, pending this application. Staff
comments: The applicant proposes no parking spaces for the 4 self-storage buildings
comprised of 68 units, when one parking space is required for every 5 units. Additionally, the
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
applicant is requesting relief from the 24-foot minimum access driveway width requirement.
Even though the applicant is not proposing any parking spaces, all access driveways must be a
minimum of 24 feet in width. Additionally, the Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal claims the
fire access roads, which are greater than 150 feet in length, do not provide for an approved area
for turning fire fighting apparatus around, as required by New York State Fire Code Section
503.2.5 (See Fire Marshal memo dated January 11, 2005).”
MR. MC NULTY-And I don’t believe this went to County either.
MR. HAYES-Would you like to introduce yourself for the record, please.
MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson, New York State
registered professional engineer, representing the client, Dave Jelenik, to my left, or the
applicant, I should say.
MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to the application?
MR. WILKINSON-One other piece of evidence that, in discussion about the parking spaces, is
the fact that the vision for this one stop shop is more of like a neighborhood self-storage area,
where the clientele that’s going to access it is really from the neighborhood. They stop by. They
put stuff in, they take stuff out and they leave. There is no proposed office on site which would
generate more of a need for parking, and the pavement area on site provides adequate loading
area for each one of the units. In addition, we believe that we can meet the requirements of the
Fire Marshal and provide a turning area, right near the front access drive where the main drive
turns to the right, in front of the first unit, and goes up straight. We believe we can provide a
turnaround area there that would meet the Fire Marshal’s needs.
MR. HAYES-You say you believe. Have you established that with them or?
MR. WILKINSON-No. I was trying to make contact with them today. I ran the curve templates
through it, the software that I have to run the units that they have, and I can show that it works.
I just need to confirm with him and show him that it works.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-I want to understand this thing about turning around the apparatus. Assuming,
let’s say for example there was a fire in the last storage building in the complex, and they had to
go back in that area. They’ve got 250 feet, some odd feet in the depth of the, 264 feet, how
would they turn around in the back? How would they get out?
MR. WILKINSON-I’m not necessarily talking about turning around in the back. I’m talking
about backing out the access drive and around the front of the other building and then pulling
out as a three point turn.
MR. BRYANT-But if they had to get the apparatus in the back, how would they get out? I
mean, they couldn’t turn it around.
MR. WILKINSON-I’m not sure I understand your question.
MR. BRYANT-And I’m not sure I understand the comments, and that’s why I’m asking the
question. If they had to go into the property to the last building, how would they get out?
MR. WILKINSON-Back out.
MR. BRYANT-I have trouble backing out a small utility trailer on my vehicle. Can you imagine
backing out one of these giant fire trucks?
MR. WILKINSON-But they’re also drivers that drive the trucks all the time.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. BRYANT-But according to this thing that the Fire Marshal provided, they have to have
ability to turn around.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct, and the ability is there, in my mind, there’s some backing
that’s involved, but the ability is there to turn around.
MR. BRYANT-So, what you’re saying is he doesn’t have to have the ability to turn around in
the back. He’s got to only have the ability to turn around out of the lot? Is that what you’re
saying?
MR. WILKINSON-On site. That’s what I was trying to establish with the Fire Marshal is the
direct reading of that part of the Code, and it’s not clear in the Code.
MR. BRYANT-I wonder if that’s a correct interpretation.
MR. HAYES-Do we have a Staff comment on that?
MR. FRANK-Yes. Mr. Chairman, I brought this to the Fire Marshal’s attention because the
initial memo that he had I didn’t think was clear enough, and I wanted to make sure he had
very clear direction. I know these weren’t read into the record, but it’s here in black and white,
and again, I realize this is hearsay. This is what he told me, but the very clear interpretation,
according to him, was that if the access road is going to be greater than 150 feet in length, then
you need to have an approved turning radius for turning the firefighting apparatus around, at
the end of the length of the access lane, not somewhere within there. It needs to be at the end,
and again, that’s what he told me.
MR. BRYANT-At the end being the front of the property or at the end being the?
MR. FRANK-No, ending at the very end of the 150 foot length or greater than the 150 foot
length road.
MR. STONE-The south end of the property.
MR. ABBATE-The south end, right.
MR. FRANK-No, again, I’m not the Fire Marshal. So if the applicant doesn’t feel comfortable
with that, I mean, he could request a tabling and he could get a very clear interpretation from
the Fire Marshal, but that’s the way that it was explained to me.
MR. WILKINSON-I also looked into the possibility of creating a paved area out to the rear of
that to provide a turn around, and I believe that I can do it out there as well, but it adds to the
paving, and one of the things that I was going to talk to him about is would he accept a
delineated grass paved area that he could use in case of an emergency to turn the apparatus
around out there, so we could try to keep the pavement area down.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, and if I’m wrong on this, please bring it to my attention. At the
present time, I read from the record that the Fire Marshal is uncomfortable with the variance, in
that he believes there is insufficient room to meet, to turn the apparatus around, and in turn it
would violate the New York State Codes. If I am correct in my position, then I would
respectfully suggest that we not hear this application until this is resolved.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there needs to be some clarification, because there’s two separate
letters from Steve Smith, the Fire Marshal. One’s December 29 and one is January 11, and the
thth
January 11 one kind of supercedes the December 29 one, and if you look at the language, and
thth
we have not read that one into the record, yet, the January 11 one.
th
MR. WILKINSON-Right, and I did not receive the December 29 one, personally.
th
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-Here, would you like it?
MR. WILKINSON-Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The January 11 one I think explains the one of the 29 of December, and I
thth
think that that one.
MR. BRYANT-Actually, it confuses it in my view.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I don’t think it confuses it. I think it straightens it out. Does the
Secretary want to read it in, or do you want me to read it?
MR. MC NULTY-I can read them in, if you want them read in.
MR. ABBATE-I think it’s critical.
MR. HAYES-In this particular case, I think it, why don’t you read that in, and then.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, let’s read them both, since some of the public didn’t get one,
some didn’t get the other.
MR. HAYES-Okay, well, actually, does the January 11 one kind of supercede? It would seem
th
like the latest communication would be the most relevant, I would think.
MR. STONE-He said it’s a clarification of his.
MR. MC NULTY-The second one’s a clarification, but it doesn’t really explain the whole
situation.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Why don’t you read them both in, Chuck, I guess.
MR. MC NULTY-The first memo, dated December 29, says, “While reviewing the agenda for
th
the January 19, 2005 meeting, I noticed that the referenced applicant is seeking relief from the
width requirements of the access driveway. Before the board acts, I feel that I must make the
Board aware of the code requirements for emergency vehicle access. Section 503.2.1 of the Fire
Code of New York State stipulates that fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed
width of not less than 20 feet. I respectfully request that the board base its decision on the
information I have provided, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles that may be
called upon to respond to this location. Thank you.” Now his January 11, 2005 memo says,
“This memo is meant as a clarification of my comments dated 12/29/2004 regarding the relief
sought by the applicant. I will also address issues in this memo that will affect the
determination by the Planning Board relative to this project. It is my understanding that the
applicant is seeking relief from the width requirements of the access road imposed by
Queensbury Town Code. My concerns relate to the Fire Code of New York State. Section
503.2.1 of the Fire Code requires that fire lanes, or fire access roads must be a minimum of 20
feet in width. Section 503.2.5 of the Fire Code requires that dead-end fire access roads in excess
of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning apparatus around. It
is my determination that the lanes in between the buildings are not defined as fire access roads,
and therefore are exempt from the width requirements of the Fire Code of New York State. A
fire hydrant will be required on the property in question, in accordance with Section 508.5.1 of
the Fire Code, which states that the distance from the furthest corner of the buildings on the
property to the nearest municipal fire hydrant cannot exceed 400 feet. As shown on the
drawing, the distance to the nearest hydrant on Sherman Avenue (at the corner of Sherman and
Arbutus) is over 700 feet away. Please feel free to contact me should any further information or
clarification be required. Thank you for addressing my concerns.”
MR. HAYES-Okay.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. BRYANT-I want to go back to my question again, because I think this second bullet relates
to that question exactly, and that is, my interpretation is that when a fire truck or whatever
comes into the complex, and the complex is deeper than 150, it comes into the complex to the
end, it has no place to turn around, to get out, and according to this second bullet, that’s my
understanding. If I’m wrong, help me understand it.
MR. MC NULTY-I think the suggestion that we need clarification. As I read this, it doesn’t say
that they have to be able to U-turn the fire apparatus. It says turn it around, and the point that
the applicant was making, a three point turn, is turning it around.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but wait, let’s back up, because he made a good point, but he’s talking about
in this front section. He’s not talking about in the back section, and this clearly states, clearly in
my mind anyway.
MR. MC NULTY-At the end. I’ll agree. It needs to be, something at the end.
MR. HAYES-Let me just say this, okay, and I think it makes all the difference. I think it’s the
feeling of the Board that you don’t have the fire access nailed down here, and that you need to
talk with the Fire Marshal, find out what the issues are, and get that exempt, you know, get that
cleared up, okay.
MR. WILKINSON-I’m obviously hearing the same thing, but the one point I would like to make
on his bullet number two is that it says shall be provided with an approved area for turning
apparatus around. It doesn’t specifically say where that area has to be. However, the Fire
Marshal has to approve it. That’s the way I interpret that.
MR. HAYES-There’s enough open-ended things where I don’t think this would go to a vote
tonight, but what I would like to do is to have the Board members comment on the other piece
of relief, so that you don’t get surprised by that, you know, going forward. I mean, you should
know what the issues are that we expect to hear about next time.
MR. WILKINSON-I would request that.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Does the Board have any questions?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one question that kind of fits on that. Does the applicant own this
property now?
MR. JELENIK-It’s under contract.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s under contract. Okay. That leaves me thinking, then you’ve got an
option, and that’s not to buy this property, but buy some other piece that’s more suitable. So,
when it comes back, I’m going to be looking at this in terms of how you provide the parking
places that are required, how do you provide the road width that’s required. Because if you
can’t on this piece of property, then the easy answer, to my mind is, don’t buy this piece of
property, buy a different one.
MR. ABBATE-This is for all times. I agree with Mr. McNulty. There are statutes which make it
quite clear that the applicant has a duty and a responsibility to determine what the Ordinance
and restrictions are prior to purchase of any property, and to suggest, without researching that
duty and responsibility, that there may be a hardship is not sufficient for an approval. So I
agree with Mr. McNulty.
MR. URRICO-I do have another comment, too. You’ve made, under the criteria, you suggest
that this has potential of storing boats, campers and I’m trying to figure out how you would
ever fit a camper in here, with a boat trailer.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. WILKINSON-If we were to provide the 24 foot access and all the parking spaces that are
required, initially, under this proposal, one of the things that the applicant would do to try to
recoup some of those extra costs is to lease out those spaces as storage spaces.
MR. URRICO-Well, I don’t see, even with what you’re requesting, I don’t see enough room
between the sections to allow any backing up.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. That’s what I’m stating now, is that we’re setting it up so it
makes it more of a residential type of storage unit, not a large commercial type of storage unit.
MR. URRICO-Okay. So you’re not considering storing boats or campers?
MR. WILKINSON-We don’t want those stored on this site because we have subdivisions right
across the street that are going to look at this.
MR. URRICO-That’s just one of the criteria you put on this sheet here.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct. I was saying that if we provide the parking spaces, then they will
most likely be utilized for that purpose.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s the argument.
MR. MC NULTY-Don’t confuse parking spaces with storage spaces. If you fill up your parking
spaces with long term storage of motor homes, then you don’t have parking spaces.
MR. WILKINSON-But the question, in my mind, should be raised of why the Zoning Ordinance
requires parking spaces to that number for storage type of facilities that you come in, you drop
your stuff, and you leave. There’s, I mean, five spaces or five units per space seems like an
awful lot when the peak hours from ITE trips from ITE trip generation for parking, ITE trip
generation for traffic through here, even on a Saturday, the busiest day, is no more than five
cars per hour, and that’s a facility that’s over 200 units, and we’re talking 68 units. So the
likelihood of being more than two or three people on this site at one time for more than an hour
is fairly low.
MR. STONE-Okay, but aren’t you asking for no parking spaces?
MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-That’s not the same as one or two per hour. That’s no.
MR. WILKINSON-But the people that come on to this site come on to this site to drop their stuff
in the units or pick it up, and then leave.
MR. BRYANT-I agree. They’re not going to go into a parking space. They’re going to pull in
front of the hold, and they’re going to put their stuff, take it out, and that’s it, and if you don’t
have an office, I can understand.
MR. WILKINSON-And we do not.
MR. BRYANT-This 24 foot is basically your access driveway is 20 feet? Is that what it is?
MR. WILKINSON-Once we reach the units, the access drives are 20 feet in width. The front
access width is over 24. I believe it’s 30.
MR. BRYANT-Where are you looking?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. WILKINSON-The lanes are 20.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the actual access width here between the building and the chain link
fence is 20, going all the way back.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct, and there’s two foot space between the edge of paving and the fence
as it’s shown.
MR. STONE-So you’re saying between the buildings north to south are 20 feet?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. WILKINSON-North to south are 19 and a half. East to west are 20.
MR. STONE-East to west are only 20. I thought I heard a 25.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s at the access point along Sherman Avenue only.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-What prevents this fence from going over to give you the full 24 feet?
MR. WILKINSON-Of clear width and not necessarily pave it, or of paving it?
MR. BRYANT-Are you having regular paving?
MR. WILKINSON-We’re proposing paving.
MR. BRYANT-Paving. So the question is, can this fence be moved over the four feet? I mean,
was this carved in stone?
MR. WILKINSON-No. I could provide 24.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, so that’s your only access, as far, the areas between this 19’5”, or whatever it
is, that’s not really an access drive. They’re talking about the main drive going into the
building.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct, and that’s in the Fire Marshal’s memo that he is not considering
those a fire access.
MR. BRYANT-So if you can move this fence over and pave, you’ll have 24 feet.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-So that won’t even be an issue, then the only issue is going to be the parking
spaces.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-And in my view, parking spaces in this type of facility, without an office, are not
an issue.
MR. HAYES-Well, I think we still have to get a signoff from the Fire Marshal as far as that.
MR. MC NULTY-And if we’re going to do that, I’d like to request Staff to see if they could
discover the reason for parking spaces. Is it for office, or is it because people tend to show up,
sometimes, with two cars and they need to park one out of the way or something? We’re
guessing at the reason for them.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. FRANK-I think the applicant discussed that with the Zoning Administrator, and is it a
glitch in the Code? I don’t know. What is the intent? I don’t know the answer either. It may
be well, what you just said, possibly when one individual is showing up to pick up something.
I don’t know, and as far as increasing the drive aisle width, I think the applicant has room to,
but he’s going to run into problems with his permeability. So, I mean, there’s going to be some
relief, one way or another.
MR. HAYES-As long as you’ve got that covered, we won’t dive into hypotheticals here. I think
it’s a good point.
MR. WILKINSON-I have like an extra four percent. So it’s going to be close, but I think I can do
it, but if I have to provide the turnaround as well, it might push me over. That’s why I was
discussing like pavers and if I can get something approved by the Fire Marshal, that’s really the
issue.
MR. HAYES-It is the issue, because we really can’t, you know, hypothetically get into what he
might find adequate and might not.
MR. FRANK-And, Mr. Chairman, one other thing. I think the applicant ought to not only speak
with the Fire Marshal, but speak with the fire chief in that district because it really depends on
the equipment, and what I was told is that the first piece of equipment out of that district, it’s a
very large older pumper, and he would have a real problem going to this site. Now that’s what
the Fire Marshal told me. So these are things that really need to be worked out prior to this
meeting, and I encourage them to meet with the Fire Marshal and the fire chief.
MR. HAYES-I think they’ve probably got that covered at this point. All right, are there any
other questions, now, about the access driveway? Because if we had any other questions, we’d
want them to know it, to be fair.
MR. STONE-My only comment, I was going to echo what Mr. Abbate said. The note that I
wrote when I looked at the fact that you don’t own the property and it’s certainly your
responsibility, prior to doing anything, that you should know the Code, and I gather you do,
and you’re still looking for relief. Okay.
MR. JELENIK-I do know the Code and I’m well aware of what I’m asking for. We obviously
have a substantial amount of fees incorporated with hiring Mr. Tommel’s company to provide
you with this mapping and what not. So there’s a substantial investment at this point. So I
have to now weigh where I need to go with this. Is it a reduction of the amount of units to get
the right space for the fire truck to turn around. It’s a mathematical equation I need to figure
out.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s entirely possible, if you listen to Mr. Bryant, he’s already stated his
position. The rest of us are saying it’s confounded by the Fire Marshal’s note. We’d like
clarification before we come in. Mr. Bryant makes a good point about is it really a concern, but
without the knowledge, we can’t really, I wouldn’t want to comment.
MR. BRYANT-I agree. We need to know what the Fire Marshal really is saying, and go from
there.
MR. JELENIK-So there’s two issues. One being turn around, and then one being the location of
a hydrant within the 400 foot.
MR. STONE-That’s Planning Board.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s a site issue.
MR. STONE-It’s a site issue.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. HAYES-You spoke to your investment, so you probably want to get that stuff pinned
down before you.
MR. JELENIK-I’ve got to add it to my total overall cost, if I think it’s going to be necessary at
one phase or the other.
MR. HAYES-Right. Okay. Are there any other questions?
MR. MC NULTY-There may well be people from the public who want to comment, and it might
benefit the applicant to hear those, too, and I know we’ve got at least one piece of
correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone here that would like to come forward and speak? I’ll open the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NICOLE BURTON
MRS. BURTON-Hello. My name is Nicole Burton. I live at 63 Oak Tree Circle, which is located,
as I have a picture, should I bring it to you?
MR. HAYES-Yes, if we could see it that would be great. Thank you.
MRS. BURTON-This is taken from my back deck.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MRS. BURTON-I know you said to stick to the points of the variances.
MR. HAYES-Just do your best, that’s all.
MRS. BURTON-Okay. I have a petition of over 50 neighborhood signatures, that don’t want
this. Some of the neighborhood concerns, one being that it’s an eyesore, detrimental to our
property values. This is located, I am only the second house from the entranceway of our
development. This is smack into the gateway of our neighborhood, as well as the surrounding
streets. There’s no easy way to pull into this lot. There’s a knoll, when you approach the
development, there’s kind of like a little hill, and then it flattens out, and we have motorcycle
races that go up and down Sherman as it is. We’re concerned about fire safety. If there was any
type of structural fire, you’re going to need more than one truck, and they don’t, you know,
they can’t bend in the middle to get around and get out the other side like you were saying, and
being with all these houses right next to this proposal, we think that that is a huge danger.
Also, with the sports arena that’s proposed down the road, we’re going to have neighborhood
kids crossing the street a lot, and now we’re going to have moving trucks that are going to come
in and dump and people helping, and it’s all hours of the night. It can be questionable clientele.
There could be garbage. There’s so many things that are not good for our area, and I am also a
real estate agent. So I have a little idea of the property value and how this could impact that.
These signatures are only the people that are really right on top of this. I could keep going,
throughout the development, as more people don’t want this, and we are actually really
fighting to have this one acre lot rezoned to a residential lot. If you could picture, with the
picture that I gave you, you have woods. You have a NiMo plot, this one acre lot and then
houses. There is no Stewarts and a Mobil or any other business or light industrial looking
business in our residential neighborhood and I believe that this lot was zoned this way long
before Hidden Hills ever came about, or the neighborhood came about, and being that it’s
smack behind my house, I’m extremely passionate about this, and the traffic and being across
from it, and there is no room for parking. Are they going to be backing up to my house, you
know, trying to turn around. I do have a write up that goes into other detail of why we don’t
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
want this, but the way we look at this is that the businessmen can, like you said, buy another lot
and continue with their business, but we can’t move our houses, you know, and to us this is
very personal. I think I covered everything, but I have the signatures. I’m prepared to keep
going with more signatures.
MR. BRYANT-What does the petition actually say?
MRS. BURTON-Please help protect our residential neighborhood. Don’t allow storage sheds to
be at our entranceway and in our own backyard. Rezone residential.
MR. HAYES-Okay. We’ll need to add that to our record.
MRS. BURTON-Sure, and could I get a copy so I don’t keep going back to the same houses?
MR. HAYES-I’m sure you can, yes. You may have to pick it up at the Town.
MRS. BURTON-That’s fine.
MR. MC NULTY-They have a note here asking me to put it in the file.
MRS. BURTON-I’ve been calling all week. So I’m sure they know all about me.
MR. HAYES-I’m sure they’ll give you a copy whenever you want it.
MRS. BURTON-Okay. I think I’ve mentioned all of our concerns.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward and speak, in
terms of this application?
ROBERT SCHILLE
MR. SCHILLE-Good evening. My name is Robert Schille. I live at 400 Sherman Avenue, which
is just three tracks down going west from the proposed storage area. My concerns are pretty
much what have already been stated. I can go on asking about lighting, noise, loitering,
partying, which is pretty heavy in the summer because of the pole lines that run behind that
area, and this would just give another place to go. Larger vehicles are a concern, hours of
operation. There’s also my quality of life. I enjoy a reasonably quiet low noise. You take out all
those trees, I lose my buffer zone between the Northway and my home. Most of our homes in
the area do have their own ample storage for whatever needs the residents have. They can
build their own storage sheds or have garages with their houses. So they won’t be needing to
go to this neighborhood storage facility. I also, most of the people in that area have ample
acreage along with their homes that they can store their own things that they need to run their
lives and run their homes and keep it neat. Fire is also a concern, that it is in a heavily wooded
area, and it could hinder fire preventiveness, and that’s really about all I’ve got.
MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. Is there anyone else that would like to speak?
GLENN PREECE
MR. PREECE-Good evening. I’m Glenn Preece, and me and Laurie just bought the first green
property that’s next to NiMo right there, and we were a little surprised when we found out that
this was a light industrial, being the NiMo and that one acre lot. We were happy with what the
Town did on the next property next to the Northway. It seemed like a good use for that
property with a sports center. You addressed having buffer zones around it, the lighting. The
traffic on Sherman Avenue, it is too much of a speedway as it is now. It makes me nervous
every time I do go in and out of my driveway. I’m very cognizant of what is behind me.
Something’s going to be done with the property, but it’s not my most ideal. So if it has to go,
I’m asking you to keep the lighting down on it. It can be lit, but I don’t want a mall parking lot
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
right next to me, being I’m probably the closest person, if not the people across the street, and I
don’t think Sherman Avenue on that end, you know, needs a lot more traffic or that type of
business, but that’s all I’ve really got. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this application?
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I brought the Zoning Ordinance
with me this evening, and I’ve been thumbing through it in the back of the room there, as you
were chastising the applicant for not knowing the Code. I can’t find anything in this Code
about fire access, fire protection, anything.
MR. BRYANT-It’s in the Fire Code, according to the Fire Marshal.
MR. SALVADOR-This Code is what we’re here for. You grant relief from this Code. The
applicant has to meet this Code. Now, the Fire Marshal has referred to State Fire Code, okay.
This Zoning Ordinance makes a general reference to a fire protection and building construction,
see Chapter 88 of the Town Code. Anybody have Chapter 88 of the Town Code?
MR. ABBATE-I do.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, that’s what the applicant should have, and it’s up to the Staff to make it
available to him, and then he knows what he’s doing. That’s grossly unfair what we’re doing
here tonight, and it seems to me that it’s incumbent upon the Town to provide a utility that
works, be it fire protection, be it storage. I had, in my own case, the need to rent on a short term
basis storage. I never experienced any of the problems these people think are going to come. It
was very adequate, nice, safe, had access, no problem. No vandalism, but in any case, this
Town Code makes reference to Chapter 88, and that’s what I think the applicant is bound to
conform to.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment, please? If you want to quote various
references, Mr. Salvador, the guidelines for variances and the Zoning Board of Appeals make it
quite clear that only the property owner may apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In this
case, the applicant is not the property owner, if you want to get technical.
MR. SALVADOR-He can represent.
MR. ABBATE-That’s not what it says.
MR. SALVADOR-All right. He can have an agent or something.
MR. HAYES-That’s a good point, but I think we need to stay on point here.
MR. SALVADOR-If that’s the case, he has no standing, then he shouldn’t be on your agenda. I
mean, you’re wasting everybody’s time.
MR. ABBATE-Exactly.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak about this application?
MR. MC NULTY-We have one other piece of correspondence. This is a piece of correspondence
from David and Linda Rourke at 20 Arbutus Drive. They say, “In reference to the Wednesday,
January 19 meeting scheduled to conduct a public hearing on the controversial issue of
th
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
“Jelenik Construction Co. One Stop Self Storage” --- We adamantly oppose approval of a
variance which would allow this project to proceed. Major traffic issues already exist at the
Hidden Hills entrance on Sherman Avenue. The neighborhood is exclusively residential and a
light industrial/business would dramatically and negatively change the character of existing
neighborhood. In the interest of our current residential status, please deny the said variance.
Linda M. Rourke David P. Rourke”
MR. HAYES-Was there one other person that would like to speak?
DAN BURTON
MR. BURTON-I’m Dan Burton. I live at 63 Oak Tree Circle. I just want to talk a little more
about getting the fire apparatus in that piece of property. They’re talking, you know, just do a
three point turn. First of all, if you have more than one piece of equipment, to just rip off a three
point turn with a vehicle of that size isn’t going to be that easy. I drive large equipment. It’s not
always as easy as a three point turn, and then just to talk more about, basically there’s storage
right down the way. We don’t need more storage units. We don’t want to look out our back
yard and look at it. It’s a residential area, and the gentleman who just spoke, I understand he
owns a hotel. How about he puts the storage units in front of his hotel and see what his guests
think about that. That’s pretty much all I have to say. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Okay. Then I will
officially close the public record.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant by Board members, brought up
during the public discussion? If not, I will make a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2005 JELENIK CONSTRUCTION CO.,
LLC D/B/A/ ONE-STOP SELF STORAGE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Specifically so that the applicant can address questions brought up by the Board, One, and,
Two, get a confirmation that we can rely upon from the Fire Departments and/or the Fire
Marshal as to the adequacy of the plan under the New York State or Queensbury Town Fire
Code.
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, may I make a point on this, please?
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. ABBATE-Would you also try to determine from Town Attorney whether the individual
has standing? I don’t believe he does.
MR. WILKINSON-The application is signed by the property owner.
MR. JELENIK-It’s signed by the property owner giving us permission.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but has that been introduced into the record?
MR. WILKINSON-The application has officially been read into the record.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. JELENIK-Can I make one comment?
MR. HAYES-Certainly
MR. JELENIK-My name is Dave Jelenik. I’m the owner of Jelenik Construction. If we do
proceed, this is for the people in the audience. I want to let them know that there’s more than
one approved use for this property. One being a cell tower, another being a commercial
building, another being a strip mall. I felt that this type facility would have the least impact in
the neighborhood and create the least amount of traffic. If we can’t proceed with the zoning
requirements that we’re looking to get, the amendments here, we could also come back to
develop this property without any zoning issues, and develop it in a different manner, and they
won’t even be able to have a say in this property. So they need to be aware that, as the potential
owner of this property, I’m probably going to proceed with the purchase of it, there will be
other avenues for me to explore, and I want to just let them know that this was absolutely the
lowest impact for that neighborhood and that’s all I have to say.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. FRANK-And, Mr. Chairman, can I add something? Just so the public knows that any one
of the allowed uses in the zone are site plan review uses. It would go before the Planning
Board. Everybody would be notified, and they would have a say on the proposed use and
project.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
MR. WILKINSON-Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2005 SEQRA TYPE PREVIOUS COORDINATED REVIEW THE
GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC AGENT(S): JOHN C. LEMERY, ESQ. OF LEMERY
GREISLER, LLC ZONING: RC-15 LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO REDEVELOP THE COCO LOCO/JUNGLELAND AREA OF THE PARK,
WHICH INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF 8 NEW CHILDREN’S RIDES. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT. CROSS REF. SPR 5-2005
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 12, 2005 LOT SIZE: 237.64 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 288.20-1-20 SECTION 179-4-070
JOHN LEMERY, JOHN COLLINS, & RUSS PITTENGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2005, The Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, Meeting Date:
January 19, 2005 “Project Location: 1172 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to redevelop the Coco Loco/Jungleland area of the park, which includes
construction of 8 new children’s rides. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16 feet 7 inches of
relief (Rio Grande Train Shade Structure) and 43 feet 5 inches of relief (Kiddie Coaster Pavilion)
from the 75-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, per § 179-4-030 of the Highway
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
Commercial Intensive zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 5-2005:
01/25/05, pending this application. Numerous building permits and reviews including the
Planning Board’s Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Findings Statement
adopted July 11, 2001. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to redevelop the Coco
Loco/Jungleland area of the park, which includes 8 new children’s rides. Two of the new rides
include structures, which are proposed to be within the 75-foot shoreline setback of the Glen
Lake Fen feeder stream.”
MR. MC NULTY-This was referred to Warren County, and they apparently didn’t do anything
this month, because it came back No Action.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Mr. Lemery, Mr. Collins, would you like to add anything to the
application?
MR. LEMERY-Good evening. My name is John Lemery, Counsel to The Great Escape. With me
is John Collins, Vice President and General Manager of The Great Escape Theme Park. Also
Russ Pittenger of the LA Group, who is here now in his official capacity as a representative of
the LA Group. I’d like to point out, first, with regard to the application, that the structures that
we’re talking about are really nothing more than basically sort of like small gazebos that will
basically provide some cover for people queuing up to the train ride and to the roller coaster
over in the area. So they’re not really, they’re not buildings. They don’t qualify as buildings.
They’re really two little pole structures that will be utilized if we get your approval. I would
also like to point out that this, the family area that is described does not encroach upon the 100
foot DEC wetland buffer. So there’s no buffer encroachment here. I want to make that clear.
The only issue has to do with the Town Code, which has to do with the shoreline setback.
There was a correspondence also provided to the Board that reduced the request from 50 feet
for the kiddie coaster to 43.5 feet, and with regard to the train ride from 25 feet to 16.7 feet. So
we’ve reduced the request from when the original application was filed. This site is in the
middle of the theme park. It’s not near any of the exits, nor visual or for those of you who are
familiar with it, it’s right where Jungle Land come together. It’s an attempt by the company to
basically redesign, redo the Coco Loco/Jungle Land area to provide more attractions for
children. It’s going to be highly themed, and we think will provide a great area for kids and
their families, including, and I’ll have John describe the kinds of rides that are in there. If you
need more familiarity with the site, after John describes the kind of rides and attractions that
we’re trying to fit into this area, I’d have Russ describe exactly where it is, so that you’ll be clear
about that. This is an Area Variance request. There are no SEQRA issues here. This was all
within the 2001 SEQRA Findings. So there’s full compliance with SEQRA as it relates to what
can be done in the Park. So, John?
MR. COLLINS-Thank you, John. The area that’s being developed, as John said, is an area
geared towards a family with kids. A lot of the attractions are going to be able to be
experienced by both the adults and the children. The kiddie coaster is one of those. The Rio
Grande Train is another. We have several attractions in there that also will be able to be
experienced by both adults and kids at the same time, but it’s predominantly a kids area. The
Park obviously has a great history with families with kids. Yet at the same time had a need for
additional attractions for those kids. So we’ve spent a lot of time and a lot of attraction gearing
towards the bigger teens to keep them coming back year after year, and this highly themed
family area will address the core business which is the family with kids, and giving them nine
new attractions to experience going in to the 2005 season, and as John mentioned, it’s just the
two structures that we’re talking about, which are two pavilions. The uses and the layout, I
don’t believe, is in question. It’s just those two shade structures, which we think they will add
an element of themeing to that area that will go along with the forest type themeing.
MR. LEMERY-I just want to point out there’s no environmental impact here to the corridor. It’s
not a building. There’s no wastewater treatment issues involved. There are no stormwater
impacts. Those are addressed, the stormwater management plan has been fully developed and
is before the Planning Board. So there’s no disturbance. There’s no stream disturbance. There’s
no, it’s not a principal building, and because the Ordinance falls the way that it does, we felt
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
that because this is a structure, as defined in the Ordinance, that we had to come in and ask you
for your willingness to grant a variance.
MR. COLLINS-Yes, that’s what we have.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-Yes, I have a question, just for clarification. We’re talking the buildings, the
gazebos, as Mr. Pittenger said. The track is not part, that doesn’t count, right, Bruce, even
though that’s?
MR. FRANK-The way it’s been explained to me, it does not need to meet the setback
requirements.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to get clarification. I think it was in your letter.
MR. URRICO-Where these locations exist, what was there before, prior to this?
MR. COLLINS-The current location of the train structure was the wooden elephant. If you’re
familiar, there was a structure over the top of that. That was existing, and where the coaster
station is going, it’s just a little bit west of what’s the white church that will no longer be there.
So there is existing structures there now.
MR. URRICO-And are you extending any further into the wetlands than previously existed?
MR. COLLINS-No. Anything we do, this is not in the wetlands.
MR. URRICO-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. URRICO-I do have one more question. There’s mention of a concrete wall with a railing
and boat launch and wood chips on one of the maps?
MR. COLLINS-Yes. That was a misrepresentation. There’s existing, just a drive in to where we
launch the swan boats. We’re not going to change that existing launch area which is just
basically a drive down on stone into where they launch the swan boats. We’re not going to add
any docking.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. STONE-That brings a question which is not in our purview, but that’s a ramp, in other
words, where the boats go in?
MR. COLLINS-Yes, it is, where the asphalt.
MR. STONE-Is there a way of catching the stormwater before it goes in the stream, or is that,
was that addressed other times?
MR. COLLINS-I don’t believe we have addressed that in reference to this application because
it’s an existing condition. Is that correct?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Would anyone like to come forward and comment on the current application?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-Good evening, Paul Derby, 86 Ash Drive, President of the Glen Lake Protective
Association. I have read the files at the Town, and it looks like a good project. We do not
oppose the variance. It appears it’ll have no negative impacts on our community, if proper
stormwater is there, and they do hook up to the sewer system eventually, as they say they will,
and this looks like it would actually be better in the long run. We trust the Town will do the
best thing within this Critical Environmental Area that is our inlet, much of it, for Glen Lake,
and the only thing I could ask, that I haven’t seen the physical layout there, is if it would be
appropriate to put additional plantings in, shrubs and trees and things along that inlet stream to
mitigate runoff, for instance along that ramp area or some places where it would make it better
for the environment.
MR. HAYES-That’s probably a Planning Board issue, but yes, thanks for coming.
MR. DERBY-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this application? If not, I will close
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Is there any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. URRICO-I have one more quick question. Will the existing Jungle Land still be there with
the wobbly bridge?
MR. COLLINS-There will be some re-themeing, taking out some of those animated features that
have lived past their life and they need to be updated, but the bridge and the walkways, we are
not changing those at all.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-I’d just like to say that we’ll take Mr. Derby’s comments, and we’ll see that that’s
addressed before we get to the Planning Board.
MR. STONE-I only want to state for the record that the only times I’ve been in the Park is with
my grandson who is a roller coaster fanatic, and I couldn’t even, I didn’t even know where this
area was. I have to admit.
MR. HAYES-All right. I guess if there’s no further questions, it’s time to poll the Board, and
we’ll start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Yes. Having taken a number of groups there, I know this area is definitely in
need of updating. In judging it by the criteria, I think the five criteria were answered, and I will
go through them as well. The applicant would definitely benefit from the granting of this Area
Variance in being able to update a part of the Park probably that’s in great need of updating as
stated, and I don’t think I need to explain it any more than that. It’s just part of doing business
and I think they’ve demonstrated the reason for it. As far as affecting the character of the
neighborhood, I don’t think there’s going to be a change at all. It’s in part of the Park that’s not
seen from the outside, and from the inside those that have been in there will know the
difference. Are there feasible alternatives? I guess a feasible alternative would be not to update
this area, but being that they are in the business of creating new attractions, I think in this case
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
that would not be a feasible alternative. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? I would say it’s moderate, in relation to the Ordinance, but it should be pointed out
that this is not infringing any further or less than previously existed. So I really don’t think it’s
going to have a demonstrative effect on what’s been there or will be there, and as far as having
an adverse effect on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood or district,
I’m convinced it won’t. So I’d be in favor of this application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-As far as I understand the two new gazebos are really not going to impose on the
wetlands any more than the existing structures. So I’d have to agree with Mr. Urrico, and I’d be
in favor of the project.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I agree with both Mr. Urrico and Mr. Bryant. I don’t have
any problems with the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Certainly when we look at the size of the structures, one of them’s
280 square feet, and the other one’s 135 square feet, they’re much smaller than most sheds that
we approve in people’s back yards. So I don’t think they’d have any impact whatsoever.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree. I think that, in this case, the balance of the benefit to the
applicant certainly outweighs, I don’t see any detriment, really, to the community or the
environment, as long as they’re taking care of the stormwater runoff. So I don’t see a problem
with it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Stone?
MR. STONE-I agree with all of the Board members so far. I was particularly pleased to hear Mr.
Derby’s comment, because I know how hard he has worked to protect Glen Lake, and I know
he has looked at this thing upside down and backwards and forwards, and if he feels it’s a good
project, so do I. I think it’s a very good one.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, Glen Lake support, unanimous vote, it’s obviously signs of the
Apocalypse, but I think it’s a great project. I think in this particular case, I agree with what’s
been said. I don’t think there’s any change in the neighborhood or character of the
neighborhood in particular. I think that the applicant has proposed changes that are going to
recycle this area, which they have claimed they need to do, and I think we need to take their
word on that. So, on the balancing test, I just don’t see any negative impact at the end of the
day. So, having said that, I would like a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2005 THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME
PARK, LLC, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
1172 State Route 9. The applicant proposes to develop the Coco Loco/Jungle Land area of the
Park, which includes construction of eight new children’s rides. In doing so, the applicant
requests 16 feet 7 inches of relief for the Rio Grande train shade structure and 43 feet 5 inches of
relief for the kiddie coaster pavilion from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement
under 179-4-030, the Highway Commercial Intensive Zone. As previously stated, in listing my
criteria, I believe the applicant has shown that they would benefit from the granting of this Area
application, without affecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and
welfare of the community. They’ve also shown that there are no feasible alternatives to this
variance, and that the amount of relief although it may be moderate relating to the Ordinance is
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
no greater or less than previously existed before this application was made. There’s also no
indication that there would be an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. I’ll just make the quick comment that the applicant
has listened to the suggestion by the neighborhood association that some vegetation be added
to the Glen Lake Fen side of the location and help shield it on that side.
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
MR. HAYES-Thanks.
MR. COLLINS-Thanks.
MR. LEMERY-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2005 SEQRA TYPE II NASREEN KHURSHID FOR OUTBACK
RESTAURANT AND BUDGET INN AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC
ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 931 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTAURANT AND MOTEL EXPANSION WHICH INCLUDES
RELOCATION OF EXISTING MOTEL OFFICE AND MANAGERS APARTMENT AND
EXPANSION OF PARKING AREAS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE DEVELOPMENT.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.
BP 93-088 4 UNIT MOTEL, BP 90-074 COM’L BLDG. SPR 4-2005 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING JANUARY 12, 2005 LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-17
SECTION 179-4-040
TOM JARRETT, MICHAEL BORGOS & DAVE SCHENK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2005 Nasreen Khurshid for Outback Restaurant and
Budget Inn, Meeting Date: January 19, 2005 Project Location: 931 Route 9 Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct additional parking spaces for the
redevelopment of the motel site, which includes a new 7,725 sq. ft. restaurant and expansion of
the three existing motel buildings including a new office and manager’s apartment. Relief
Required: Applicant requests relief from the parking requirements, which includes relief for 36
parking spaces in addition to the 133 allowed for the combined restaurant/motel use, per § 179-
4-040(B10 & C) of the Parking and Loading regulations. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): SP 4-2005: 01/25/05, pending this application. AV 67-2004: 08/25/04,
construction of a new 7,725 sq. ft. restaurant and expansion of the three existing motel buildings
including a new manager’s apartment and office, with associated parking and other site
development. BP 93-088: 04/09/03, 4-unit motel building. SP 7-93: 02/23/03, relocation of a 4-
unit motel building from adjacent property. AV 7-1993: 02/17/93, density relief for a 4-unit
motel building. BP 90-074: 03/22/90, in-ground pool. SP 70-89: 11/21/89m in-ground
swimming pool. UV 114-1989: 10/18/89, in-ground swimming pool. Staff comments: The
applicant requests relief from the parking requirements. The applicant proposes to construct
169 parking spaces (149 now and 20 to be built in the future if needed). For the proposed uses,
the code requires 111 parking spaces. Per § 179-4-040(B10), the minimum required parking
spaces may be increased by up to 20 percent. Being the applicant is proposing 169 spaces, relief
is required for 36 additional spaces (111 plus 20% equals 133).”
MR. MC NULTY-And this was also referred to Warren County, and again they took no action.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ve got one piece of housekeeping to clarify the issues. I believe that the
sheets provided, the signature pages provided, allow you to speak on behalf of Mr. Ermiger,
too, for the property next door?
MR. BORGOS-That’s correct.
MR. HAYES-So if that does come up, we’ll put that in the application, if that does come up,
we’ll understand that point has been made. Mr. Borgos, would you like to comment on the
application?
MR. BORGOS-Yes. Mike Borgos, Counsel for Nasreen Khurshid, the property owner. With me
today is Tom Jarrett from Jarrett-Martin Engineers, and at the end of the table is Dave Schenk
from Outback Steak House. I know the Board is familiar with this project. You’ve granted Area
Variances back in September for the proposed construction of the addition to the motel at the
north end of the property. Today we’re here seeking just the parking additional spaces that we
need. To justify the need for that, we have circulated a letter that was provided by Outback
Steakhouse, and we have another letter that’s very similar in format from Dave Schenk, who is
here tonight. So if there are any issues, he can address those for you, but essentially, as you can
see in that letter, it lays out the requirements and the actual logistical spaces that are allocated to
their other restaurants, and as you can imagine with a national chain restaurant with over 700
stores, they’re replicating themselves. They’re not creating new unique stores each time a
restaurants. It’s the same format, and they’ve found, through their experience with these over
700 locations, that they require a minimum of 125 spaces, and that’s what we’re asking for for
this project. Some of the different locations that are referenced here nearby in New York have
136 spaces, 144 spaces, 131, 135. So you get an idea that we’re asking for what we think is the
minimum that Outback will need for this location. I would point out to you that what we’re
requesting for the motel is only the requirements from the Town of Queensbury, and that is
essentially one parking space per motel room. We think there’s going to be a little bit of a
favorable relationship between the motel use and the restaurant use, based upon the experience
operating the motel. The owners have noticed that most of their traffic is generated at late
night, even as late as 10:30 or 11:00 before people start filling into the motel. It’s very much a
stop over type facility rather than a destination, and at that hour most of the restaurant use will
be completed. Because of that, we’re only asking for, or we’re only proposing that we construct
an additional 16 spaces initially above what Code permits. We’re here tonight requesting a
variance for the full 36 that may be required, once the additional 20 units get built on in the
future. If we find that the needs of the restaurant and motel really do require all of those, they’ll
be constructed, but we elected to propose that in phases, because we don’t want to overbuild
the parking lots, and we’d rather have less paving along with everyone else, but this really is
the minimal approach, and I think I’ll turn it over to Tom and let him talk about how those
calculations were made.
MR. JARRETT-Thanks, Mike. I think he’s explained the situation very well. We need more
spaces than the Town Code permits, and we feel the strongest application and the best use of
this site is a phasing of the parking as we really need it. As Mike said we’d only build 16 extra
right now, and monitor that use until such time as the motel is expanded and then we would
seek a permit to build the additional 20 spaces if required. So right now the Town allows 133.
We need 149 right now, and we would ultimately potentially need 169, which is 36 more spaces.
I guess we can open it up to questions.
MR. URRICO-How many, the 169, is that how many would be needed by Outback by itself, or
Outback with the motel?
MR. JARRETT-No, that’s the total Outback and motel. One twenty five for the Outback, 44 for
the motel.
MR. URRICO-And in these examples that you gave, how many of those have symbiotic
relationships with motels as well?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. BORGOS-They’re all, they vary. It depends on which location. The examples that are
listed here, I’m not aware of their exact configuration with other motels. Quite often these
restaurants are placed in a plaza, a larger mall.
MR. HAYES-Yes, and out parcel or something.
MR. BORGOS-Yes, an out parcel, exactly. So there are various situations, and some are
standalone, and a lot of them have motels that are on a separate parcel across the street. So I
don’t know if there’s anything that is identical. Are you aware of anything that’s identical to
this?
MR. URRICO-The one in Clifton Park is part of the mall. Right?
MR. HAYES-That’s true.
MR. SCHENK-The one in Clifton Park is attached to a bank, and those together are standalone.
The one in Middle Town is located next to two hotels. The one in Clay is the newest one. That’s
a standalone, the 144 spaces.
MR. URRICO-The one in Clifton Park, the 136 spaces, does that include the Outback and the
bank?
MR. SCHENK-No, that’s Outback’s part of it. That’s what we’re responsible for.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Did I miss something, or do you show which of these are proposed and which
you’d like right now?
MR. JARRETT-I think we show it clearly on the plans. If you look at the Board, you’ll see that
the darker gray is what we propose right now, which is the closest to the road. The lighter gray,
or whitish, toward the rear of the parcel, are the 20 that we would build later.
MR. STONE-Okay, back in here. Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. STONE-Future parking, okay. As I say, I knew it was here.
MR. JARRETT-It’s a complicated site and a complicated site plan. That’s why we colored this
one in for you.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, one more question. In your application, an alternative solution, just clarify
that. What you’re saying is if we don’t give you 36 spaces, you’re not going to build the
Outback and you’re not going to upgrade the motel. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. JARRETT-Well, definitely the Outback has told us that they can’t use this site. So we lose
the Outback. The motel owner tells us that he would not be in quite as much rush to upgrade
the motel. He would eventually do it, but he would not upgrade immediately. He probably
would upgrade at some point.
MR. BRYANT-So for basically 36 sites, they’re saying they can’t build the restaurant, that’s what
you’re saying?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. BORGOS-Actually it’s only the 16.
MR. ABBATE-Sixteen.
MR. BRYANT-That’s based on the assumption that the motel is always going to use every
single parking space there is in the lot, and in reality, I mean, except for certain specific periods,
that’s not going to happen anyway.
MR. JARRETT-That’s exactly why we’re proposing it in phases because we don’t, we’re not
convinced that the 20 additional spaces will absolutely be needed. Outback is convinced. We
will have to see how that works out.
MR. BRYANT-So can we compromise and say we’ll give you 20 and the 16 we’ll forget about,
and that’ll keep the Outback happy? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. BORGOS-Well, we wanted to make sure that we fully disclosed the full expansion plan. So
when that second story of the motel gets built, if the restaurant’s need is truly 125, then we will
be saying, okay, now we need to go and build the other 20 to meet the Town Code, so we have
one space per room.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I hate to throw a damper on this thing, but my comment’s going to be addressed
to Counsel. There was a case called Clark versus the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Hempstead, and the Appeals Court said basically that the applicant has a duty to discover use
restrictions in a particular area, and that anyone who knowingly acquires land for a prohibited
use cannot thereafter receive a variance. This appears, to me, to be self-created, and I just
thought I’d just bring that to your attention.
MR. BORGOS-I don’t know that there’s any prohibited use that we’re suggesting.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you’re asking for a variance.
MR. BORGOS-We’re asking for an Area Variance.
MR. ABBATE-An Area Variance.
MR. BORGOS-Not a Use Variance. I think that case, I haven’t read that one, but I don’t think
that applies.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-So, go through it again. You’re saying right now, to get Outback to commit to
building, or to occupy this building, I assume that the motel owner is building the building.
MR. BORGOS-The owner has an obligation to provide a site, a pad ready site, and the Outback
will come in and construct that.
MR. STONE-Okay, but in order to do this, we need 100 and.
MR. HAYES-They need 16 more.
MR. STONE-They need 16 more spaces than is currently called for by Code.
MR. BORGOS-Correct, and I think, it just occurred to me a little while ago, that we’re not
talking about just this site. It’s not a problem with the size of the site. If this site was 50 acres, it
would still have the same requirements in the Ordinance and the same limitation. So it’s not a
site consideration. The permeability and everything else is fine. It really is an issue of
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
Queensbury Code not comporting with what Outback has found nationwide to be their needs,
and I believe, and I’m just speculating here, but I believe it’s probably because of their amount
of advertising that they do. It’s not a mom and pop restaurant where they succeed or fail based
upon word of mouth and the taste of the food, that sort of thing.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. BORGOS-It drives a lot of people there. So they’re always busy and always full, and that is
why they need such a great amount of parking.
MR. STONE-What’s the sequence of building, given the optimal condition for this site? What’s
going to happen? If you got a variance of some sort, enough to satisfy Outback, what is going
to happen?
MR. BORGOS-Initially the office building where the restaurant is to occupy, that will be torn
down first, and the in fill in the motel that we presented to you last fall will be constructed.
That’ll give us a total of 24 rooms in the motel, and the restaurant will be built with the need for
125 spaces that by Code requires, with Outback and the Code for the motel would require 149,
which is 16 more than what the Code allows.
MR. STONE-Using the 20% overage that the Code allows?
MR. JARRETT-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-And then we would wait and not build the additional 20 that theoretically we
need with full build out until at least the time when the motel is expanded, and in the
meantime, in that interim period, we would monitor the actual parking use to see if there is a
diversity, see if the motel and the restaurant support each other without needing the parking at
the same time, and if that’s the case, we would propose not to build the additional parking and
would not build it. If, in fact, the parking is at identical times, then we would apply to build the
additional 20 spaces. Now, just to add, Outback has said that they could easily come in and
build, if you deny this variance, they could easily come in and build, but they feel it’s
detrimental to them and to the Town, because if they put in more customers and employees
than this site will support, parking is going to happen offsite somewhere. It’s going to be
potentially dangerous, you know, inconvenient. They’ll lose customers. Their name will suffer,
and the Town will have a nuisance condition. So they’ve told us that they don’t want to
consider it if we can’t get this variance. None of the three of us at the table were privy to the
contract being signed. We didn’t understand this language was in there. We’re now trying to
support it.
MR. HAYES-I’ve patronized these places, and it really isn’t uncommon to have 20 or 25 people
waiting around with those little buzzers and stuff to get in. I mean, it’s just that type of facility.
So the fact that there might be some overflow situation I think is, I’d say is realistic. It can be
that way forever, they don’t know.
MR. STONE-Then you’ve got the blimp overhead pushing people in.
MR. JARRETT-There’s another situation, too, that we think once the motel is upgraded, we
think we’ll get some business that moves from the motel to the restaurant and vice versa, in
which case there’s common parking shared, you know, one space for both uses, in which case
maybe the ultimate need won’t be realized.
MR. BORGOS-And the construction of the additional 20 spaces, that is obviously some
considerable expense that we’d rather avoid. So we have very little incentive to actually go and
build that in the second phase, unless it’s really warranted.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. STONE-So if we were to grant the relief to 149, you would walk out happy for the
moment?
MR. JARRETT-And hopefully happy ultimately.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Okay. It’s time to poll the Board members, then, and we’ll start with Allan.
MR. BRYANT-Well, actually, I’m not opposed to this application, but I really don’t understand
the logic, because you can basically, you can increase your parking by 20% now, and you say
you’re not going to build the rest of the spots unless you need them. A variance is only good
for a year. So, I mean, I just don’t understand the logic, but I’ve been to Outback down in
Albany. I know exactly what you’re talking about, and Mr. Hayes has pointed out that
sometimes you have 20, 30 people waiting in line, and that’s just the nature of the beast, and I
understand that, and you need parking for those people that are waiting in line. So, I would be
in favor of the application. I just don’t understand the whole logic process, but in any event.
MR. JARRETT-If I might add one comment. We just wanted to disclose to the Board what,
ultimately, we might need.
MR. BRYANT-We appreciate that.
MR. JARRETT-If it expires and I have to come back here, at least I will have been upfront with
you at this point saying this is what we might need.
MR. STONE-The 149 wouldn’t expire. I mean, they would do that. They would build that.
MR. JARRETT-We would do that immediately.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, well, they can go up to 20% above the.
MR. STONE-They can go to 133.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, whatever. The point is, if they don’t need it, or you’re not going to build it
tomorrow, why have the variance?
MR. STONE-They need the 149.
MR. MC NULTY-They’ve got to go to 149, because Outback requires 125, and the Town
requires one parking space per motel unit.
MR. JARRETT-So we need the relief. It’s the relief for 36 that we hope we don’t need.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I have no problem with the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-I guess Allan said basically what I was thinking about. I don’t have any real
objection to the application, but it bothers me, and I want to get this on the record. It bothers
me that the Town of Queensbury, in their wisdom, have written Zoning Ordinances for the
Town. It bothers me that the businesses, some businesses coming into Town certainly are aware
of the rules and regulations, and yet they basically state, not in all cases, but in some cases, in
this particular case, I think they do, gee, if you don’t give me what we want, we’re going to just
basically go out of business. That bothers me. Having said that, I’ll support the application.
MR. HAYES-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m basically in favor of it, too. I think that when you look at peak times at
restaurants, you know, if everybody’s returning to the motel, if everybody’s trying to go out to
dinner at the same time, you get into the massive line situation with the flashing beepers, and
having been there with my kids at restaurants like Applebee’s in Town is the perfect example of
that, too, where you’re oversubscribed, and it makes sense to me to have the extra parking
rather than having cars running around in circles entering and exiting, you know, when they
can’t get in, you know, people are frustrated. So I would think, too, you know, barring the
sense that it’s segmentation, it makes more sense to come in and request all the parking at this
time and not come in later and ask for more later on and like you’re piecemeal adding it on. So
I’d be in favor of the request.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree. I don’t think we have got the experience or background
to second guess the restaurant people, and I think this is what the variance is here for is the
Town has set up a standard set of rules, but they don’t necessarily apply to all restaurants or all
business establishments across the board. Sometimes a little more is needed. Sometimes a little
less, and we’re going to get one of each tonight, but I think in this case I’d trust the Outback
people. If they think they need 125, they probably do. Likewise, the applicant has been upfront
and let us know what the maximum might be that they need, and they’re requesting that
tonight. With their indication that they’re not going to build the extra 20 unless they really need
to, I’ve got no problem with approving that, as long as the applicant’s acknowledged that he
may find that that expires anyway and they’ve got to come back, but at least if they have to
come back, they can say they were upfront to begin with to explain what they thought they
might possibly need in the future. So, all in all, I think it’s a very reasonable request, and
everybody’s been open about it, and I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Lew?
MR. STONE-Let me just get clarification, because Mr. McNulty made a statement. I’m for it. I
don’t have a problem, but the 149, you would be happy if we gave you 149, with the recognition
that you might be back to us for an additional 20, after you monitor and expand the motel and
all of the stuff that we talked about? Is that what I’m hearing? You’d prefer a variance for 169?
MR. JARRETT-If the Board said they were not comfortable granting 169, and would grant 149
right now, with the acknowledgement that we might be back, I would be comfortable with that.
I’d prefer, obviously, not to do that, but I would be comfortable with that, if you chose to
condition it that way.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-It strikes me, though, that asking for the 169 may be more efficient, because
should they find, within a year, that they need the 169, then they’ve got to spend, what, another
three months going through the process, and another fee and everything to get the extra 20.
MR. STONE-Yes, well, again, that’s obviously up to them. I mean, I’m comfortable with 149.
I’m comfortable with the fact that you have, very comfortable with the fact that you have
disclosed your future plans. I’ve also heard you saying that there are no firm plans to build the
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
169. That you need a couple of things to happen. One, you need to find out that you’re using
every space that’s there now, with the 149, and that the motel owner is going to put a second
story on, some time in the near future, and that could be, who knows when that would be. I
would be more comfortable with the 149, but I would listen to any motion that’s made. I
certainly am in favor of the 149 as a minimum, without a question. I appreciate the argument
about people parking all over the place because there is a neighbor to your south that we made
the same arguments about parking on Weeks Road. So we’re well aware of the potential for
people parking, quote, all over the place, unquote.
MR. HAYES-Thank you, Lew. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Well, Lew sort of stole my thunder. It’s kind of ironic that not too long ago we
were trying to convince Wal-Mart to add spaces and here you are saying you do need the extra
spaces, but even though I have fears about blacktop and excessive blacktop, I also have fears of
corporations coming in and sort of dictating what they think they need, despite what the rules
are for this Town, but I’m convinced that, in this case, it’s warranted, and probably a good idea.
So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I essentially agree. I think Chuck’s point that, in this particular
case, one of the roles of this Board is to examine the Code, and when relief is requested to use
our judgment and the facts in front of us, and that certainly puts us in a position to grant relief,
minimal relief if possible, when certain circumstances warrant it. I do think the Outback
Restaurant is a unique circumstance, in the sense that at certain times the activity, you know,
Friday, Saturday nights, the activity around these facilities can be pretty intense, and I’ve
waited my hour, like many people have, with other people, and I think that there is some
consideration to the need for additional parking spaces to make this. I’d also like to
compliment the applicant I think in this particular case for being upfront about what you might
have in mind. If anything it complicated your application a little bit, but I think, as a Board, I
think, you know, being upfront with us with what you have intended now and in the future, we
certainly appreciate that knowledge, and try and apply it to the best that we can, not always in
your favor, but certainly we do like to know. I think that, in this particular case, there’s also a
benefit to that neighborhood. I voted for a variance, an Area Variance for the motel, and I think
other Board members would feel the same, that that particular area could use some recycling,
and the fact that it’s going to be updated and upgraded with, I think the Planning Board will
obviously take you through the marches, but if that’s upgraded in the way that I think it’s going
to be, as represented in front of this map, I think there’s actually a benefit to the neighborhood,
to some extent, that this property will be properly finished off, if you will, in this particular
case, and the last thing, as Roy pointed out, we certainly appreciate the information you
provided in the form of information as far as parking spaces. Wal-Mart told us that was
proprietary information and could not be released, which I thought was lame, to say the least,
but in this particular case, you know, we use our own judgment, but we do appreciate being
provided with relevant information. So, examining that balancing test, I think there’s an
improvement, possibly, for the neighborhood, and I think that in the end the amount of relief is
minimal, considering that you are going to evaluate whether those 20 parking spaces are
needed or not, and I think there’s an economic incentive in the sense that if that costs $10, or
$20, or $30,000, you’re not going to really spend that money unless you think it’s a necessity. So
we have a little protection, a little self-interest protection, if you will, to what’s going to happen
there. Having said that, I have what appears to be enough votes for a passage of this
application. Would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2005 NASREEN KHURSHID FOR
OUTBACK RESTAURANT AND BUDGET INN, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
931 State Route 9. The applicant is proposing to construction additional parking spaces for the
redevelopment of the motel site which includes a new 7,725 square foot restaurant and
expansion of the three existing motel buildings, including a new office and manager’s
apartment. Relief required. The applicant is requesting relief from the parking requirements
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
which include relief for 36 parking spaces in addition to the 133 allowed for the combined
restaurant/motel use. Again, as they said, their formula for success as a restaurant, in
comparison to their other successful restaurants down the line further in the State shows the
need for this additional parking, and as agreed to at this time, we would grant relief for 169
parking spaces, 149 of them to be built now, and 20 to be built in the future, only if needed. The
Code currently requires 111 parking spaces, and the minimum required parking spaces may be
increased by up to 20%. The applicant is proposing 169, and so they need the relief for the 36
additional spaces. The 111 plus the 20% equals 133.
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-I would like recognition that they’re going to monitor the use of these spaces, just
so that, with the possibility of not making, building 20 more, as they stated. It’s in the record. It
probably could be in the motion.
MR. HAYES-Would you like to amend your motion to that extent, Jim, or are you comfortable
as is?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m happy with it the way it is.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-What’s the purpose of that? What’s the purpose of it? You’re going to give them
the variance for X number of spots anyway. What’s the purpose of monitoring? You’ve already
given them the variance for up to 36 spots.
MR. STONE-I understand. Well, I’m not totally happy with that, because they’re recognizing,
we haven’t given it to them yet, we have a motion, that they made the statement that they’re
going to watch and they’re going to look, and then may not build it. I think we can reflect that
in the motion, but if Jim doesn’t want to do it, that’s fine.
MR. BRYANT-I’m just trying to understand your purpose. It doesn’t really affect my
agreement with the motion.
MR. HAYES-All right. We have an existing motion. Do we have a second?
MR. BRYANT-Second.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. Thank you for coming.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2005 SEQRA TYPE II TRACTOR SUPPLY AGENT(S):
JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. MATT STEVES OF VAN DUSEN
& STEVES OWNER(S): NIGRO COMPANIES, INC. ZONING: HC-MOD LOCATION:
751 GLEN STREET, PRICE RITE PLAZA, GLEN STREET APPLICANT UTILIZING 18
PARKING SPACES ADJACENT TO FENCED STORAGE AREA FOR DISPLAY/STORAGE
OF TRAILERS FOR SALE AND OTHER SITE MODIFICATIONS. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM THE MINIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS USE. CROSS REF.
SPR 47-2003 MOD. AV 84-2003, BP 2003-963 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY
12, 2005 LOT SIZE: 6.33, 0.48, 0.46, 1, 0.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-25, 26, 24, 22, 23
SECTION 179-4-040
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
JON LAPPER, STEFANIE BITTER, & STEVES POWERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2005, Tractor Supply, Meeting Date: January 19, 2005
“Project Location: 751 Glen Street, Price Rite Plaza, Glen Street Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes to utilize 18 parking spaces adjacent to the fenced outdoor storage
area for the display/storage of trailers for sale and other site modifications. Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from the Parking and Loading regulations, per § 179-4-040 (C).
Specifically, the applicant requests relief to eliminate 18 parking spaces. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 47-2003 Modification: to be reviewed 01/25/05
pending this application. BP 2004-494: 07/12/04, 35 sq. ft. addition to the existing 49 sq. ft.
freestanding sign for Tractor Supply Company. SV 16-2004: 03/24/04, size relief for a 35 sq. ft.
addition to the existing 49 sq. ft. freestanding sign. BP 2004-035: 02/05/04, 100 sq. ft. wall sign
for Tractor Supply. BP 2003-963: 01/16/04, 18,437 sq. ft. commercial interior alterations. SP 47-
2003: 10/28/03, 20,000 sq. ft. outdoor display yard for the Tractor Supply Company retail store.
AV 84-2003: 10/15/03, relief from the minimum parking space requirements for a 20,000 sq. ft.
outdoor display yard for the Tractor Supply Company retail store. Note: This application
includes several parcels on which the parking needs and locations of spaces are dependant.
Numerous other reviews and building permits are associated with the plaza. Staff comments:
The applicant desires to utilize 18 parking spaces along the fence of the west side of the outdoor
storage/display area. The area was approved for the parking in SP 47-2003 and in AV 84-2003.
In AV 84-2003, the relief granted from the parking requirements allowed the site to operate with
587 spaces. The applicant now proposes to eliminate 18 of those spaces, resulting in the request
for additional relief.”
MR. MC NULTY-This was referred to Warren County, and again they took no action.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Stefanie Bitter, with Steve Powers from Nigro
Companies and Chris Brown, the Store Manager from Tractor Supply. Very simply, Tractor
Supply, as Chris will put on the record, has a need for some outdoor storage. It’s much like
Lowe’s and Home Depot, and Ace Hardware, which have a little bit of outdoor storage for
similar type equipment. However, in this case, instead of being in front of the store, it’s on that
back side next to the NiMo power line, under the hill from the Mall. So it’s not a visual impact.
The Planning Board, at site plan review, asked us to visually screen the fenced in area with
some vegetation and this modification would require Planning Board review as well. So we’ll
see what they might require. I think our application pretty much stated what’s going on. It was
something that we didn’t have on the original site plan, didn’t anticipate it, but Tractor Supply
has the need for it and asked us to come back and modify the site plan in this way. Let me just
ask the Store Manager to get on the record and tell you why he thinks he needs it.
CHRIS BROWN
MR. BROWN-My name’s Chris Brown, Store Manager. Basically, we just want a spot to display
our sheds so that they’re more visible to the customers and it gives us a little bit more room to
maneuver around.
MR. LAPPER-From the standpoint of the Plaza, this area is an area, the 18 spaces that nobody
ever uses. It’s just not close to the front door, and that Plaza has plenty of parking for all of the
uses. Obviously the Taco Bell is always busy, but the parking lot by Tractor Supply is
frequently empty, or not completely empty, but has many more spaces than it needs. So we’re
not, there’s no harm to the neighborhood, in terms of taking away spaces that are needed, and
there’s nothing unusual about a little outdoor storage, because it’s just what the other similar
stores in Town have. They just had it on their original site plans, and we didn’t anticipate it. So
it wasn’t on our site plan.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. POWERS-I’m Steve Powers with Nigro Companies. We’re just trying to accommodate the
tenant that would like to have some additional business, and again, try to compete, and do
similar things like Lowe’s and Home Depot does, on a larger scale, obviously, as well. Thank
you.
MR. BRYANT-I have a technical question. Back in October, we granted a variance to eliminate
140 parking spaces, and then if you look at the totals on your drawings, it doesn’t come to 140.
Where did you get the extra spaces from? Am I missing something? Because maybe you don’t
need that variance, because in reality, if you read the minutes.
MR. LAPPER-Here’s what happened. The map that you have shows re-striping, but what this
Board asked for was that the spaces stay at the 10 by 20, rather than the 9 by 18 that the Code
allows in Queensbury, and so the map you have shows more spaces than there are because
we’ve got the larger spaces, because that’s what the issue is. In the Zoning Board resolution,
you asked that we keep the larger spaces. So the map is wrong. Otherwise we wouldn’t need
the variance.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the zoning resolution is very clear. It gives you 140 spaces of relief.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, and that’s what we have, and that’s with the numbers that Staff read, and
that’s why we need 18 spaces from the 140 relief. I believe we submitted with a plan that
showed re-striping to smaller spaces which would have reduced the variance, and this Board
said, you don’t need those spaces. It would be better to have the larger spaces, and that was
what was in the resolution.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t remember seeing that to tell you the truth, Mr. Lapper. I don’t remember
that.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I remember that we did do that. That was an issue that was brought up,
and we asked them to keep the larger spaces, and they said they would.
MS. BITTER-I actually have the resolution for you that was actually made by, it’s in the last
section. It says that the approval is based upon the existing 10 by 20 feet parking spaces and the
relief of 140 spaces is based upon the same.
MR. BRYANT-So how many spaces did you actually have with that 140, you had 587?
MS. BITTER-Six seventy five was required, five thirty five is now existing, because of the 140
relief that was provided at that time. Five seventeen is being proposed. So that was an error
with regard to the map, because the map that was presented.
MR. BRYANT-So your existing number is 535, that’s what you’re existing number is?
MS. BITTER-Right. That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-That covers the entire parking lot?
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Toys R Us?
MS. BITTER-No, Toys R Us isn’t part of the parcel.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-This space, the 18 spaces that you’re taking away, it’s near this storage area
where you have the trailers?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MS. BITTER-It’s immediately adjacent.
MR. LAPPER-It’s that area.
MR. BRYANT-Because you don’t show any spaces here.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why.
MS. BITTER-They’re eliminated.
MR. BRYANT-So there used to be 18 spaces here?
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. STONE-Along the west side of the chain link fence.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. STONE-Okay. A question that I want to ask about, what about that cargo box. I call it a
cargo box. It’s huge, that sits on the westerly property line, and also the garbage, I can’t think of
a better word for it, that is in the corner of the lot?
MR. POWERS-The box is a temporary, it was a seasonal storage box for the Dollar Tree store.
MR. STONE-Did they get a permit for it?
MR. POWERS-I don’t know.
MR. STONE-Bruce, did they? Do you know of one?
MR. LAPPER-That’s a tenant.
MR. FRANK-Yes, that’s correct. Actually, Nigro Properties did address this in their letter to me,
based on my inspection report, they said if that needed to be removed, they would have Dollar
Tree remove it. That was stated in a letter to me. So they did address that. They don’t have an
approved site plan. They’re going back before the Planning Board. Before they do so, they’re
here before you now. So that’s been addressed. So I don’t think it’s really an issue here.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it will go, or be permitted.
MR. FRANK-If they went through site plan approved by me, then those spaces need to be freed
up. If they have a blue cargo space, or container in it, then I can’t say they’re in compliance.
MR. STONE-Okay. So in other words, they have to be opened up for us to grant this relief. Is
that what you’re saying, for you to approve it?
MR. FRANK-For me to approve, to have them pass inspection of their approved site plan. They
have offered, to me, that they will rectify it.
MR. STONE-And what about the garbage? I mean, there is a dumpster there, but there’s a lot of
stuff outside the dumpster. It’s just a matter of, I’m concerned about it.
MR. FRANK-The dumpster’s not taking up parking spaces. So I’m not sure what your concern
is.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. STONE-I’m just talking about the appearance. That’s all. I’m not saying it has anything to
do with the variance, but it is an eyesore.
MR. FRANK-I think it’s more of a site plan concern. I mean, if it’s an enforcement violation, we
could bring it to Mr. Hatin’s attention. Is it existing today?
MR. STONE-It was yesterday.
MR. LAPPER-In Queensbury, you’re supposed to have your dumpster enclosed, and you’re not
supposed to have trash outside of it. So that’s not Steve Power’s and Nigro Companies’,
although, obviously their lease requires that tenants comply with Town Code, but that’s a
Dollar Store issue that we will communicate to them.
MR. STONE-That’s all I’m trying to do. I’m not saying it’s going to affect my decision.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a legitimate issue. It’s an enforcement issue that, you know, obviously
tenants need to keep it clean.
MR. FRANK-I don’t enforce that Section of the Code. So I will bring it to Mr. Hatin’s attention
tomorrow.
MR. LAPPER-Steve will also, to the tenant.
MR. POWERS-Absolutely, yes.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak towards or about this application? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I guess it’s time to poll the Board, and I believe it’s time to start with Chuck.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I think the request for the Area Variance is a reasonable request. I
don’t find it outstanding in any manner, and if, in fact, it helps a business and what have you,
then I’m all for it, and I will support the application.
MR. HAYES-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would think your success formula would mean that you would
constantly be adding and tweaking, and, you know, selling other things besides what you’re
selling at the present time. I think we’ve all ventured into that mall at other times, and I’ve
never seen cars parked over on that side of the lot ever. So, I don’t think the loss of 18 spots is
going to change anybody’s business over in that area. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree. I am a bit concerned about continuing to reduce the
number of parking spaces for that plaza because some day they may get a different store in
there that really attracts people and then you’ll have another problem, but that can be
addressed down the line, if necessary, and I’ll agree that the parking spaces involved are rarely
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
used. I was over there this afternoon after it snowed some, and my car tracks were the only
ones in the area. So that says something about it. I would add a caveat, though. I promised
somebody I would carry a message to Tractor Supply and Nigro Companies that Tractor
Supply apparently has a habit of parking their tractor trailers randomly out in front of the mall
at times and leaving them there for a while, whether it’s an attempt to advertise or whatever,
but the message is it’s a pain in the neck and it’s dangerous and they wished you wouldn’t do
it, but anyway, I’m in favor of your request.
MR. HAYES-Lew?
MR. STONE-I agree. You stole my thunder. I was there yesterday, and the snow was a dead
giveaway. There were, well, there were tracks, but there were no parking tracks. There were
people who did the circle around, probably some of us may have done that. I think it’s fine.
The one thing about parking spaces, and I don’t wish you bad, I hope business is good and I
hope you’re going to survive, parking spaces can be put back, in this particular case. So I think
if it’s going to help your business, and help the mall and keep business going, I’m all for it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I essentially agree with my fellow Board members. I think if it helps I think
there’s something that can be done here, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-The other Board members make legitimate arguments, however, I’m going to
come down on the down side because I’m looking at the track record, and basically a year ago
we gave you a 20% plus reduction in your parking spaces, and now you want another 2%, and
then next year we’re going to want to put a pavilion with telephone poles or something out
there, and there has to come a time where, you know, we’ve said enough is enough, and I think
there is a balance, but the question is, right now you don’t have parking, I mean, you don’t have
the need for all that parking, but who knows. I mean, the Tractor Supply Company might be
the biggest thing since Wal-Mart next year, and you might not have enough parking. So I think
that I’m going to vote no on this particular application.
MR. HAYES-Well, I think I’ll agree with the rest of the Board in this particular case. We
certainly like to see applicants use their imagination to improve their businesses, improve their
sites, particularly when there’s no, as I see it, no real implication as to the number of parking
spots that are needed. I think anyone who’s been around this plaza over the years, or even
recently, would hazard that there’s plenty of parking, even if we eliminate the ones that are
being proposed to be eliminated, particularly in that area. I think that this plaza has been
recycled, and I think that’s great for the area, great for that neighborhood, and I certainly
wouldn’t mind being a part of that. So I don’t think the relief being requested, in this particular
case, is so significant that it would trouble me, versus the benefit to the applicant, as it’s been
stated, and as long as these trailers are maintained in an orderly fashion, I think it would
actually be a compliment to the area. So I’m in favor. Hopefully Mr. Powers will report to the
people in Albany that the Queensbury Boards are not too tough. It seems like he’s done all
right the last few times here. So, having said that, would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2005 TRACTOR SUPPLY, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
751 Glen Street, Price Rite Plaza, Glen Street. I’m cognizant of the fact that the Zoning Board of
Appeals has the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against its impact on the area, as
well as the fact that State Statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully
considered in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance, and in making my motion to
approve, I address the following. One, will an undesirable change be produced in the character
of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting of this variance,
and to this point it is my opinion that the appeal will not violate the character of the
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. Two, can the benefit sought by the
applicant be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the
variance? Possibly, however, would the demand for an other remedy, excluding a variance that
the applicant is seeking be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and
still rally the standards of fairness and reasonableness. It is my opinion that the request by the
applicant is rational. Three, is the requested variance substantial? In my opinion this appeal is
neither significant or extensive. Four, will approval of this variance have an adverse effect or
impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? Based on the
documents submitted and the verbal testimony of the applicant, it does not appear that the
approval of this variance will adversely effect the physical or environmental conditions of the
neighborhood. Five, is it self-created? Well, in the realm of reality this may be subjective.
However, listening to the testimony and reading the documents submitted to this Board, one
could possibly make a case for, yes or no. If, perhaps, a case could be made that it is self-
created, then that in itself, however, should not necessarily be fatal to the granting of this
variance. I’ve concerned myself with the evidence and the testimony, and I move, Mr.
Chairman and Board members, that we approve the Area Variance.
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Bryant
MR. HAYES-Thank you. The motion is carried. Thank you for coming.
MR. BROWN-Thank you very much.
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2005 SEQRA TYPE II KENNETH AND DIANA KAMBAR
AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. & STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. APD
ENGINEERING C/O CHRISTOPHER KAMBAR OWNER(S): KENNETH AND DIANA
KAMBAR ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 27 HANNAFORD ROAD APPELLANT IS
APPEALING A DECISION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RELATIVE TO THE
REBUILDING OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON THE PROPERTY AT 27
HANNAFORD ROAD. CROSS REF. AV 18-2004, AV 1-2005, BP 2004-666, BP 2002-466, BP
2002-143, BP 2001-659 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-16 SECTION: 179-
16-50
JON LAPPER, STEFANIE BITTER, & PAT BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 1-2005, Kenneth and Diana Kambar, Meeting Date:
January 18, 2005 “Description: The appellant is appealing the determination rendered by the
Zoning Administrator regarding the rebuilding of a structure. Information Requested:
Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the decision made by the
Zoning Administrator that the single family dwelling at 27 Hannaford Road cannot be rebuilt
without an Area Variance for setback relief. Staff comments: Historically, the Town has held
that the removal of a structure, which violates the minimum setback requirements, can only be
rebuilt with the issuance of an Area Variance for reconstruction in the original “violating”
location. An alternative in these instances may be construction in a compliant location. § 179-
13-010, Continuation, A. states that a single family dwelling may be enlarged or rebuilt if all
setback provisions of the zoning code are met. The Kambar proposal does not meet this
requirement and therefore cannot be rebuilt in the original location without an Area Variance.
Removal and rebuilding of the exterior walls, floor and foundation does not qualify as
reasonable repair (see December 14, 2004 letter from Brennan – Kambar contractor). Such
activities are considered rebuilding, which is an activity clearly addressed in the above
referenced section of the town code. The argument that the water damage was “driven
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
completely by nature” does not qualify for the exemption referenced in the code (179-13-050).
Such exemptions are reserved for actual disasters rather than situations of poor maintenance.”
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess, Mr. Lapper, would you like to outline your position on the Appeal,
and then we’ll give Mr. Brown a chance to rebut those comments.
MR. LAPPER-Sure. For the record, Jon Lapper, Stefanie Bitter, Ken Kambar. Mrs. Kambar is
here behind us, and Pat Brennan the builder. I guess, in general, Craig’s trying to make a
determination what he thinks is right and I guess I think he was being a little over technical in
this case. What’s unique here is we appeared before this Board. We got a variance to build the
exact house which is under construction. We went to the Planning Board to get Site Plan
approval for this exact house, and the house involved, the variance involves a second story
addition and also an addition on the north side, and what happened was that when Pat got out
there to do the construction, just before winter, it was the first time they removed the siding of
the house, and he determined that the studs were, and the sill plates, as he put in his letter, were
rotted. So what’s really unique here is that it is no longer a prior nonconforming, because it’s a
variance use, because it’s approved with an Area Variance by this Board. We’re here tonight
seeking only to build the same house that this Board saw and approved. It’s been sitting there
for a couple of months in the weather. They would have liked to have had it built by now.
Based upon the Zoning Administrator’s determination, we had to stop and come before you.
So, you know, we’ve applied for the exact same variance that we got last time for the exact same
house, if you will, but first we’re here saying that if you are in the situation where you apply for
a second story addition, an addition on the north side, and you get in there and rip the
sheathing off and find out that the studs are rotted, that you’re not doing anything different
than what the Board already saw and approved, because it’s the same house. If we have to get
to the Area Variance, if the Appeal is denied and we have to get to the Area Variance
application, which is next, we’d get into discussion of exactly why you granted the variance and
why all the houses are sort of cocked on an angle there, and for the reasons that the Board
justified granting the variance last time, but the bigger picture is just that you did grant the
variance and because you granted the variance, it makes it a variance project rather than a prior
nonconforming. So the wall that came down, which was previously an exterior wall and
would now be an interior wall, that didn’t do anything because that was no longer the
northernmost wall that was approved, because now we have approval for an expansion on the
north side, but once we got into it, the builder got into it, he determined that it would be best to
take all the studs down, once they already started doing that. The foundation is going to stay,
so I mean, if you’re going to take the whole foundation down, you could say, maybe the whole
thing should be moved, and we would argue that you shouldn’t because it would be bad for the
neighbors, but that’s a variance issue, just because it’s better that the house is parallel to all the
other houses, but it’s not a case where they’re taking down the foundation. So, we cited the
Collins case because that was another case where there was storm damage, water damage, wind
damage, much like this, and then that one, in that case the Board recognized it, and in the
application Stephanie also included the definitions of what was repair, because as to the walls
that we’re talking about, they need to be repaired, and that’s not part of the expansion. That’s
part of what was already there, because obviously they haven’t started building the expansion.
Pat Brennan, the builder, is here to verify what he put in his letter, that there was damage, and I
guess I should put him on the record, just to cover that issue. I don’t think this is overly
complicated. It’s just really a kind of a technicality as to how the Zoning Administrator viewed
it and how we view it.
MR. BRENNAN-In the plans, we were supposed to leave the south wall of the house up,
southern most. It’s a bearing wall. As we got into tearing down the walls and siding, we saw
that the studs were rotten on the bottom. In hindsight we could have gone back and replaced
one stud at a time, down the road, but this was a whole length of maybe 30 feet. So we took
that down. What’s left now is just the southeastern corner of the house. So it looks like a lot of
the house has been brought all the way down to the foundation, when essentially it’s down to
the sub floor framing, which Mr. Kambar has replaced throughout the years. So that’s all brand
new. We just propose to rebuild 30 feet on the south wall back up again. That’s where our
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
problem came in. When we took that down is when we got in trouble with removing too much.
That’s the only wall that was on the plan that was scheduled to remain.
MR. LAPPER-Any questions?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I need a timeframe. Are you ready? Okay. Let’s go back to May 19, 2004.
Is that when you initially submitted your Appeal?
MS. BITTER-That’s Collins. That was the Collins Appeal, May 19, 2004.
MR. ABBATE-That was the Collins Appeal. All right. Give me the timeframe on this Appeal.
When was it initially submitted? What’s the date of the initial?
MS. BITTER-Craig Brown’s letter that we were appealing is dated December 10, 2004. Are you
talking about this Appeal we’re having this evening?
MR. LAPPER-When it was approved?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MS. BITTER-I’m sorry. March 2004.
MR. ABBATE-March 2004. Okay. You submitted your Appeal, okay, what date. What was the
date of that letter, on your appeal to Craig, or to the Zoning Board of Appeals?
MR. LAPPER-The March date?
MR. ABBATE-Was it March?
MR. BROWN-The Appeal that you have before you tonight was submitted by the Appellant on
December 15.
th
MR. ABBATE-That’s what I was getting at, December 15. Okay. All right. Good. The
th
problem was that we don’t have to hear an Appeal that’s 60 days or more. I just want to get the
timeframe correct. So December covers it. You’re okay.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for Mr. Lapper?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-This Appeal basically is about the question of whether, once it’s torn down, is it
maintenance versus rebuilding completely. That’s the whole Collins issue again, right? You
went into this thing about the fact that we already granted you a variance based on the addition
to the structure, and so forth and so on, and I think that that is not even a discussion tonight
because that, there’s a whole other determination by the Zoning Administrator. In my view, it’s
not a valid variance anymore. I mean, I don’t know what the technicality is, but, you know,
now you’re reconstructing something that originally was only going to be added to.
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s what Craig’s saying.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-But that’s not our position.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I understand that. That’s why you’re here and that’s why we’re having
this discussion, but I just want to make it clear that we’re really not talking about that variance
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
that exists, that you have for the addition. We’re just talking about the determination that the
Zoning Administrator has made.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but all we’re saying, by getting that variance, that if we take down the wall
that’s part of the old part of the house that was to remain.
MR. BRYANT-That variance has nothing to do with the determination, though. It’s a variance
for an addition.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if it’s a use by a variance, it’s no longer a pre-existing nonconforming use,
it’s a variance. It’s approved with a variance. So you approved the expansion. So it’s no
longer.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, we approved an expansion, not a reconstruction.
MR. LAPPER-But when you get into a project and you find out something’s rotted, you don’t
rip the wall down, when you apply to the Board.
MR. BRYANT-So that’s what we’re talking about. That’s the only issue we’re really talking
about.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s all.
MR. LAPPER-Because when we applied to you the first time, we didn’t rip the walls down
because we didn’t know if we’d get the variance. So we didn’t know that they were rotted until
the builder was on the site.
MR. ABBATE-What does the term rebuilding, what does that imply to you? Rebuilding, what
does that mean, that term?
MR. LAPPER-Again building something.
MR. ABBATE-Again building something. Yes. Well, the reason I ask is the Zoning
Administrator’s decision is relative to the rebuilding of a single family dwelling, and so I
wanted to get your position on that. You almost confirmed what he said.
MR. LAPPER-We’re saying that some of those walls were rotted and did have to be rebuilt, but
the foundation and the floor plate stayed the same. So we weren’t starting from scratch. It was
just because of water damage. Yes, and Stefanie also, did you submit the Building Code?
MS. BITTER-No, I have it.
MR. LAPPER-The New York State Building Code, which was also an issue that we talked about
in Collins. You can’t have structural members that are unsound, and that’s what happened
here. So in terms of Dave Hatin was looking at this, he’d say, yes, those walls have to be
replaced because they’re not sound, not structurally sound, as part of the building process.
MR. ABBATE-So the building came, the majority of the building came down and it was
discovered that the wall, I hope I’m right, facing Lake George, right, the wall facing Lake
George, the window, what have you, was causing structural damage.
MR. STONE-No, the south wall.
MR. ABBATE-The south wall.
KEN KAMBAR
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. KAMBAR-First of all, the west side, which is facing Lake George, was an enclosed porch
the width of the building. The enclosed porch had to come off, in any case, because it was being
replaced with a higher roof, and two feet further out. So that had to come off.
MR. LAPPER-That was part of the variance.
MR. KAMBAR-That’s part of the variance, and the interior wall to the porch was being
eliminated forever. So that came off. So now, just, and of course above is all gone, and now it
looks like a lot is gone. The north wall, which would become an interior bearing wall in the
finished product, had to be changed from two by four to two by sixes, and all of that is in the
original plans. So not changing anything from what the structural engineer has told us to do,
but then in the remaining portion, which is on the south and east side we found the rot, the
other portion really wasn’t all that bad, and some of the foundation is brand new, on the north
side. The west side does not need replacing. Most of the south side does not need replacing.
The east side where the water continually runs down the ledge is what had the most pre thaw
damage, but we didn’t find that until we uncovered the house.
MR. ABBATE-Help me on this one other thing. Then I’ll keep quiet. How do you respond to
this? Historically, the Town has held that the removal of a structure which violates the
minimum setback requirements can only be rebuilt with the issuance of an Area Variance for
reconstruction in the original violating location, period?
MS. BITTER-Could I actually respond to that? It’s interesting that you make comment to this
sentence, because as he described it in his Staff comments, he says removal of a structure, and
during the review in Collins, it was discussed on a number of times that we’re not talking about
an entire structure. There are walls remaining that will continue to remain, and the foundation,
and the floor. There’s just certain walls that were found to be damaged and have to be rebuilt
because they’re not structurally sound to hold the second story which was approved by this
Board.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions?
MR. STONE-Yes. I’m having problems with something Mr. Brennan said. Our motion back to
grant the variance said the applicant proposes to expand the existing 1570 square foot dwelling
to 3838.6 square feet, which includes an 880.6 square foot attached garage. The existing 257
square foot detached garage is to be demolished. They’re specifically requesting relief for 14.6
of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement and that relief, again, is the result
of a 5.4 foot setback on the side, and that would be for the new second story addition above.
Additionally relief is required from the Continuation Code. I don’t see anything about the
construction of this thing. I don’t hear anything about expansion. Our understanding was, you
were going to take the, and that’s what I was thinking, was you were going to take the existing
house and put a second story on it that was going to be 5.4 feet from the south neighbor’s line,
and that’s what we approved.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s correct, but when he got to the building plan stage, for a building
permit.
MR. STONE-You didn’t build what we gave you a variance for. That’s my position. I looked at
the house yesterday, and I’m not even sure what it is anymore.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s the identical, the finished product, as Ken said, would be identical to what
you granted the variance.
MR. STONE-I guess I need more help than that. I just think that it was, a lot has been taken off
that thing, and I certainly feel that the Zoning Administrator’s determination was a correct one,
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
and this is not to say that I’m going to vote against a variance, but certainly I think we have to
get by this, as far as I’m concerned, get by this point, get the Appeal denied, if you will, the
Zoning Administrator’s appeal, and then talk about the variance.
MR. ABBATE-Would I be out of order if I asked Mr. Brown to explain?
MR. STONE-Well, he is.
MR. HAYES-No, no. I just wanted to finish any questions for the applicant, and then we’ll go to
Mr. Brown and give him equal clear time.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Yes. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions, then, for Mr. Lapper? I guess, then, Mr. Brown.
MR. BROWN-Thanks. I guess I find myself agreeing with Mr. Lapper, to a certain degree,
when he made a statement that this isn’t a difficult issue, and I agree with that. My position is,
and it’s pretty clear in the Staff notes, that the proposal that the applicant wishes to do is a
rebuilding. It’s gone beyond the reasonable repair that’s referred to in this Continuation Section
of the Code. A nonconforming structure may be continued in reasonable repair. I don’t think,
you know, demolition and reconstruction of the majority of, if not all, actually all of the walls,
as I look at the December 14 letter from Mr. Brennan, that also talks about, you know,
th
removing the walls, parts of the floor and the foundation. I think that’s beyond reasonable
repair, and that’s really the hinge point of this determination, that it’s not repair. It’s rebuilding,
and I think we’ve continuously held that the Zoning Board, when I say we, that that type of
project, that type of application requires a variance to be completed.
MR. HAYES-Any questions for Mr. Brown?
MR. ABBATE-Could that also be explained if I used the term expanding, as well? Would you
object if he expanded the building?
MR. BROWN-Well, it depends on where the expansion is. If the expansion is on a portion of
the building where the expansion meets the setback, you could certainly do that without a
variance. The nonconforming part could stay in violation, but if you expand on the other side
that it meets the setbacks, no, you don’t need a variance for that.
MR. ABBATE-All right, and one other thing. Then are you suggesting that the tearing down,
that’s probably a terrible word, but the taking down of that structure was, in fact, destruction of
a nonconforming structure, and that based upon that, then you go with your decision?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Am I right on that?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I mean, you know.
MR. BROWN-I consider what happened there to be demolition of a nonconforming structure.
A nonconforming structure can be rebuilt, provided that all the setbacks are met.
MR. LAPPER-I guess we’re saying it was no longer nonconforming, because a variance was
granted.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-A variance was granted for the addition, right. I agree with that.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. LAPPER-Ken had a question.
MR. KAMBAR-Yes. This is to clarify something in my mind, and I don’t know if this is
something for the Board or the Building Department, or who it is, but the plans we’ve
submitted all along show the construction, to the Building Department and even the Zoning
Board, the construction plans show two by six walls where existing two by four walls are.
Now, my only question is, nobody ever brought that up, all through the whole process of how
are you going to change from one to the other. We have to follow, One, the New York State
Code, Two, the Structural Engineer’s plans as they were presented, but no one ever asked the
question of how are you going to get from A to B, before we started this.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, and I don’t want to be rude about this, but it’s really incumbent upon the
applicant to explain to the Town rather than the Town explaining to the applicant.
MR. KAMBAR-Okay. I’m just asking the question.
MR. ABBATE-That’s my personal opinion.
MR. LAPPER-I guess he got his building plans approved by Dave Hatin, and then he started
building it, and that’s when this happened, but in any case.
MR. KAMBAR-But nothing’s changed from the whole project.
MR. LAPPER-I think it’s a question of whether it’s a nonconforming or it’s a variance, once a
variance is granted, and then the unique case.
MR. STONE-And did the variance go away. That’s what Mr. Brown is saying. You’re saying
the variance went away with the amount of tearing down?
MR. HAYES-No, I think he’s saying, not the variance on the addition, but the allowability of a
rebuild of the nonconforming structure.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. KAMBAR-Most of what was left.
MR. HAYES-Right. There’s a difference.
MR. KAMBAR-Most of what was left standing was inside the setback line, the other portion,
within the building envelope.
MR. ABBATE-Help me out with this, please. Here’s my question. There was, in fact, initially, a
nonconforming structure. Correct?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Number One. Number Two, did you, in fact, remove, alter, or modify
that nonconforming structure during your reconstructing?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-You did?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. LAPPER-But I think it lost its character as a nonconforming structure after this Board
granted a variance.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but in other words, the nonconforming structure, after you began, lost its
identity?
MR. LAPPER-We’re saying it was no longer a nonconforming structure. It was now permitted
with an Area Variance.
MR. ABBATE-I’m willing to listen to anybody.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Well, I guess what we need to do now is, if there’s no more
questions.
MR. LAPPER-I guess we know what the issues are.
MR. HAYES-We need to take a poll as far as everybody’s position, as far as the Appeal. Did
Mr. Brown make the correct determination or did he not? So you’re either supporting the
Appeal or denying, or moving to not support the Appeal. We’ll have a motion, but that’s what
we need to talk about right now. I’m just trying to keep it right in a box. All right, and I guess
it’s time to start with, I guess we’re back to, Chuck, it’s your turn to start first here.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess to address one part that Mr. Lapper was raising of whether or
not the variance we granted back in March made this a compliant structure or not, my view is
we granted a variance for the second story, and if he can figure out how to build a second story
without putting the first story in there, then he’s home free, but the first story was a
nonconforming structure, and I think in Collins, as I recall, there was a good half of that
structure left standing. They took off one end, but there was a substantial part left standing.
This one, when I looked at it today, I looked at it and said, why didn’t they just leave one two
by four standing there? It’s the same effect. There’s next to nothing left there, and as I think is
indicated in some of the paperwork for, I guess it’s for the variance, that the builder’s indicated
he really would like to tear everything down, put two by six walls in there, and that obviously
is the thing to do at this stage. It would make no sense to try to build around what’s left
standing there now. Given that, the structure is basically torn down, and on that basis, I would
support the Zoning Administrator. I think he’s correct, that the thing is basically torn down,
and we need to look at the variance rather than at the Appeal. So I’ll support the Zoning
Administrator.
MR. HAYES-So you’re denying the, you’re voting to deny the Appeal?
MR. MC NULTY-Correct.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-I agree for basically the same reasons. I think, looking at the picture, and recalling
what I saw yesterday when I drove up, it was like, what are we talking about, there’s no house
left, as far as I was concerned. Technically, yes, there’s a house there, but certainly, as Mr.
McNulty said, we granted a variance to build an addition on to a nonconforming structure,
which in itself was nonconforming, and we granted a variance for that, but what has been done,
as far as I’m concerned, as negated the variance, in my words, and I certainly support the
Zoning Administrator in this particular case.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m also in agreement that the Zoning Administrator made the correct
determination in this case. I think the variance that was granted is no longer valid, and needs to
be revisited, this case needs to be revisited.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I’m going to be in favor of the Zoning Administrator, but for different reasons,
and my reason, primarily, is when we first started this meeting, I mentioned the idea that the
Board should be consistent, and of course it was impugned by a few of the Board members, but
in my view, if we’re not consistent, and I’m referring to the Collins issue. I was the only Board
member who voted against the Collins Appeal. If we’re not consistent, we render the Zoning
Administrator impudent, because he doesn’t know, is this a tear down, is this a reconstruct, is
this an addition, or what is this. So, I think this is just one of these cases where we need to be
consistent, and so I’m in favor of the Zoning Administrator, as opposed to the Appeal.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I agree with Allan. I think any Board must demand consistency, and
I say that for the following reason, that consistency guarantees, in my opinion, fairness and
reasonableness and acts in the spirit of the actual Code. Now, I’m going to agree. I’m going to
support the Zoning Administrator, but I think, as Allan indicated with the Collins case, we have
to start having consistency. If I may go one step further, there was a Town Board meeting
recently that I watched on Channel 8, last week, and a lady got up before the Board and she
basically chastised the Zoning Board of Appeals, and do you know why? She said they lacked
consistency. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t think there’s any doubt in my mind that they superceded the
allowance that was granted in the original variance, and I think that Craig is correct in pointing
out that an addition is an addition, and a complete re-do is a complete re-do. Whether we
would have approved that, whether we would have approved a complete re-do on this
property is, you know, up in the air, and that’s to be decided on the next Area Variance that
we’ll hear this evening, I guess.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you, Jim. Well, I think sometimes this is an area of the Code that
does require examination of the facts. There’s a continuum, obviously, here, of rebuild to repair
or repair to rebuild, in this particular case, but I think when we talk about continuation rights
for a nonconforming structure, I think when the structure isn’t there anymore, I think the
continuation rights extinguish. I mean, I think that’s the logical implication of that, and so we
have to determine whether that nonconforming structure still exists or in a way that’s
meaningful or in a way that’s is fair to the applicant as well. The old adage that a picture tells a
thousand words, as I look at that picture, it occurs to me that that nonconforming structure just
isn’t there anymore, and then to talk about continuation thereof I think is kind of folly in this
particular case. So I think Craig made the correct decision in evaluating that set of
circumstances and I would vote to deny the Appeal as well. Having said that.
MR. SALVADOR-Do you have a public hearing?
MR. HAYES-Do we have a public hearing on Appeals?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. HAYES-Traditionally we don’t, John.
MR. BROWN-I think it’s been advertised, and you do need to have a public hearing for an
Appeal.
MR. LAPPER-On an Appeal?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. HAYES-Mr. Salvador would you like to come up and address this group?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, and I agree, there has to be a degree of fairness,
and I agree that you should uphold the Zoning Administrator’s determination in this case.
However, you should uphold it for the correct reason. This Code is woefully inadequate when
it defines renovation, new construction, expansion, remodeling. It just doesn’t do the job. Now
Mr. Brown mentioned the building code. The uniform building code in the State of New York
defines very clearly the difference between a renovation and new construction. It is very clear.
Now, it’s almost impossible to touch a structural element without calling it new construction, a
wall stud, a window lintel, any utility. Maybe you could paint the place and call it a renovation,
but other than that, you start building, you start cutting wood, pounding nails, you’re involved
in new construction. That’s the Uniform Building Code, and that’s what I think Mr. Brown is
relying on. That’s where he’s making his determination. This document doesn’t cover it. Look
through the definitions, and that’s what’s unfair. Now, these applicants, I can’t tell you how
many of these cases I’ve heard. It started with the Morse property. That was a renovation, Mr.
Stone. You remember that. You don’t remember that?
MR. STONE-Yes, you’re right. It was.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stone, how could you forget. That was a renovation. What did they
leave standing, the fireplace inside. Everything else came down.
MR. STONE-It was a conforming structure at that point.
MR. SALVADOR-They needed six Area Variances. Remember that? The Takundewide
operation. Remember that one? Structural integrity compromised, and so we get a whole new
building. These people who are improving their property, developing their property, do not
enter into a project without knowing what they’re going to be doing. Contractor’s don’t bid the
work without knowing what they’re going to be doing. Material suppliers don’t prefabricate
and deliver without knowing what the ultimate design is going to be. Just can’t do it, and so
this discovery of, you know, the wall studs are not adequate, that’s ridiculous, but fairness, I
don’t know where you’re going to, I don’t know how you’re going to approach this, because
we’ve got a lot of problems.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on this Appeal? Okay. Then I’ll close
the public hearing. There’s no correspondence, I presume?
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Someone needs to make a motion.
MOTION TO SUPPORT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION AND DENY
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2005 KENNETH AND DIANA KAMBAR, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
27 Hannaford Road. My motion to disapprove is based on fact, the balancing ratio, and goes to
the realm of what’s referred to as reasonable doubt, and as such my motion to deny is not
considered, in my opinion, irrational or unreasonable. The rationale. The record indicates that
the Zoning Administrator feels that once the nonconforming structure, as a result of what we
see up there, has moved to that position, then the nonconforming structure has lost its identity
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
in terms of being described as a nonconforming structure, and as such, then, historically, as I
indicated earlier ,that when you remove this nonconforming structure, in fact, then, you must
request a new type of Variance. The Zoning Administrator based, I believe, his decision on the
fact that when the structure was removed, it violated, if you will, the location, and when it
violated the location, it lost its true identity as a nonconforming structure, and the Zoning
Administrator has just stated on the record, to reconstruct then it would violate the setbacks.
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. BROWN-I guess I wouldn’t say when it’s removed it violates the setbacks, because once it’s
removed, there’s no violation there at all. The reconstruction would violate the setbacks.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
MR. HAYES-The Appeal is denied.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2005 SEQRA TYPE II KENNETH AND DIANA KAMBAR
AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. & STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. APD
ENGINEERING C/O CHRISTOPHER KAMBAR ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 27
HANNAFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH THE REMAINING
WALLS OF A MOSTLY DEMOLISHED DWELLING AND PROPOSES TO REBUILD
PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING FLOOR SYSTEM AND FOUNDATION AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,839 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY DWELLING, WHICH INCLUDES AN 881
SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. AV 18-2004, AV 1-2005, BP 2004-666, BP 2002-466,
BP 2002-143, BP 2001-659 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 12, 2005
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-16
SECTION: 179-4-030
JON LAPPER, STEFANIE BITTER, PAT BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2005, Kenneth and Diana Kambar, Meeting Date:
January 19, 2005 “Project Location: 27 Hannaford Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to demolish the remaining walls of a mostly demolished dwelling and
proposes to rebuild portions of the existing floor system and foundation and construct a new
3,839 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling, which includes an 881 sq. ft. attached garage.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 14.6 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback
requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004-666: 10/15/04, 1,944 sq. ft. residential addition with a 3-car
attached garage. AV 18-2004: 03/24/04, side setback relief and relief from the continuation code
for the expansion of a 1,570 sq. ft. dwelling to 3,838.6 sq. ft., which includes an 880.6 sq. ft.
attached garage (the existing 257 sq. ft. detached garage to be demolished). AV 57-2003: denied
06/18/03, request to rehear AV 27-2003. AV 27-2003: denied 04/16/03, 14.6 feet of side setback
relief and the relief from the continuation code for the expansion of the existing dwelling to
3,977 sq. ft. BP 2002-460: 06/24/02, three decks totaling 1049 sq. ft. BP 2002-143: 03/14/02, side
setback relief for 235 sq. ft. dock. BP 2001-659: 08/30/01, septic alteration. Staff comments: The
applicant proposes to construct a dwelling the same size and in the same location as that
approved in AV 18-2004. Being the current proposal is to demolish the remaining walls and the
south side foundation and the floor framing at the southeast corner, relief is only needed from
the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement. The relief from the continuation code, granted
in AV 18-2004, is not needed for this application.”
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. MC NULTY-And this was referred to Warren County, and again, they took no action this
month.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Stefanie Bitter, Ken Kambar, and Pat Brennan. Very
simply, the variance that we’re requesting is designed to be sensitive to the neighbors. The
same square footage that we’re proposing tonight can be located within the building envelope,
within the setback, so that no variance would be granted. However, that would not be a good
result for the neighbor to the south, because as you can see from map that we submitted, all
three of these houses, the Kambar residence, the house to the north and the house to the south,
are all built at an angle to the property line, to take advantage of the view of the bay, and if this
house were constructed within the building setbacks, but farther to the west, it would block the
neighbor’s view of the lake. It would not require a variance, but it would certainly hurt the
neighbor’s property value and quality of life, and we submitted with this application, as we did
last time, a petition which includes John Beals, who’s the owner of the house to the south, who
would be most impacted if this house were built closer to the lake, and therefore block his view,
so, yes, Ken wants to use the same foundation because he’s already previously, over the years,
invested in fixing the foundation and rebuilding the floor system because that was rotted, and
he doesn’t want to have to remove that and start from scratch, but our main argument is that
starting from scratch would hurt the neighbor’s view, and that’s why we’re asking you to grant
this variance. Most of the house is within the building setback lines. It’s just that area on the
south that is parallel to the neighbor’s house but not parallel to the property line.
MR. STONE-How much would you gain by moving the whole structure, on its angle, to the 20
foot setback line on the north? I mean, we’re going for minimal relief.
MR. LAPPER-Right. So that would be a couple of feet, and it would mean replacing the whole
foundation.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the foundation is, all right. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-What is that angle. I don’t have my protractor here. What’s the distance from the
westerly corner to line, do you know? About 18?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re going from 5.4 to 18.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. So it’s only really that corner that’s 5.4.
MR. STONE-I know that.
MR. ABBATE-A question. Is my memory accurate? If I recall in the minutes of the meeting
way back, that the existing nonconforming structure was 1500 and something square feet? 1570.
Now you’re suggesting that you’d like to put a 3,839 square foot two story single family
dwelling.
MR. LAPPER-That includes the garage, that number.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I understand. On the same footprint?
MR. LAPPER-Not on the same footprint, but we’re not asking for a floor area ratio variance.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-I understand. Right. The only thing you’re requesting this evening is 14.6 feet of
relief from the 20 foot minimum. Correct?
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-And just for the corner.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I understand.
MR. HAYES-Are there any additional questions for the applicant at this time? None? If not, I’ll
open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on this application or
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-I have a question only. Mr. Stone, you asked a question as to the distance
from the dwelling to the property line?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s not on the drawing?
MR. STONE-No, it is. No, no. I asked the angle.
MR. SALVADOR-You asked the distance, after you asked about the angle.
MR. STONE-From the western corner.
MR. SALVADOR-Isn’t it on the drawing?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. SALVADOR-Then the drawing is not complete.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this application?
MR. FRANK-Just for the record, the setback is clearly labeled, and the 20 foot envelope for the
side setback is clearly labeled. So, I mean, it’s a simple matter of subtracting the 5.4 label from
the 20, if you want to know the distance. So the information is there, for the public’s
knowledge.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess, is there any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. There’s a couple of things. We have one quick handwritten note on the
notification that was sent out from Bruce and Kim Hanson. They’re the neighbors to the
immediate north, and they say, “We support the applicant’s proposed project.”, and then as
Counsel has indicated, there is a short petition that says, “With regard to the expansion plans of
the property of Diana and Ken Kambar at 27 Hannaford Road, I do not have any objections to
this”, and it’s signed by Mr. Harris, Judy Schaffer, the Hansons again, it looks like Beals,
Hopper, and Vasiliou.
MR. HAYES-Beals is the other immediately affected person?
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. LAPPER-Yes, he’s the most affected.
MR. HAYES-All right.
MR. BRYANT-I have another question, please.
MR. HAYES-Yes, certainly.
MR. BRYANT-I want to just follow up on Mr. Stone’s question relative to the positioning of the
building in the lot. Assuming that the foundation weren’t there, and you didn’t have to deal
with it, could the building in a compliant location?
MR. LAPPER-Well, the building clearly could be put within the setback, but it would block the
neighbor’s view. I mean, yes, we’re saying this is, it would block the neighbor’s view. Can I
come up and show you on the map?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, please.
MR. LAPPER-This is the building envelope here, and this is the neighbor’s house, which is
parallel to this, and parallel to this. So this house would have to be completely redesigned, but
a house could be built within that setback line, so that the house would be here, closer to the
lake, and it would block this guy’s view of the lake. So it would be conforming, so it wouldn’t
need a variance, but it wouldn’t make Mr. Beals happy because he would be looking at the side
of a house instead of looking at the lake. That’s why it’s being done sensitive to his needs.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, but basically this structure is about fifteen plus feet from the next door
neighbor’s structure?
MR. LAPPER-Right, and he would rather have it there than have it here. The neighbor would
rather have it there.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions?
MR. URRICO-Just one question. This house, is this house any closer than the previous variance
that was granted to you?
MR. LAPPER-This is the identical house, because the plans are all, the building plans are
approved by Dave Hatin, which means not having to change it.
MR. ABBATE-You indicated that the neighbor had no objections. Do we have that in writing?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. It’s a matter of record?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-He appeared before us, too, for the first variance.
MR. KAMBAR-Can I make a comment in regard to the last question?
MR. BRYANT-My question?
MR. KAMBAR-Yes. The house to the north, Mr. Hanson, recently got a variance to tear his
house down and rebuild it with a 10 foot higher roof. So essentially a two story roof on a one
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
story building. Before that I could see right over his house, and his house sits, that one to the
left, sits about 50 or 55 foot, the front of it, forward of my house, with regard to the view. So, I
lost a substantial amount of my view already. If I had to move my house north towards his
house, I would be looking at their back yard, and the back of their houses, and I would have no
view at all. That’s where I’m at. That’s why we asked for where it is now.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Does your son know this
is back up for review?
MRS. KAMBAR-Unfortunately he had to be somewhere else tonight.
MR. LAPPER-We didn’t want to drag him out from Rochester.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant?
MR. ABBATE-Who’s the young lady, since she spoke?
MR. LAPPER-That’s Diana Kambar, the other property owner.
MR. HAYES-She’s been here before.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant? We closed the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-It’s time to talk about it, and believe it or not we’re back around to Lew Stone.
MR. STONE-I approved it the first time. I have no reason to not approve it this time. I think,
particularly I think in the minutes we were swayed by Mr. Beals who is the man who has to face
the wall, so to speak. He did not have a problem. The fact that we’re here again is because of
the circumstances surrounding the construction of the nonconforming stairs, and I see no
reason not to grant it. I would prefer, obviously, for this to be conforming, but I also
understand Mr. Kambar’s desire, and the value of using the existing foundation for at least part
of the house, particularly, as I say, with both neighbors on either side saying they have no
problem. So I would vote for this variance.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. My major concern, the first time and this time, had been
the neighbors, and the possible wall effect that could be created by a house too close to the
neighbors, but being that there’s no objection, and they seem to be in favor of it, I’d be in favor
of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I was not here on the original application, but I have to agree with the other
Board members, since there is no objection, but getting back to what Mr. Stone said, there is a
feasible alternative, and that is to build it in a compliant location, but that being said, I’d vote in
favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The application, in my opinion, is reasonable, it’s rational. It’s
practical, and I will support the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I, too, would be in favor of the application, as proposed here. I don’t think
it’s any different than what would have been built, had the construction continued on. I would
think also that at some point in time that the Town, as Mr. Salvador aptly put it, needs to get its
act together on these projects, because, you know, whether it’s a refurbishment, a rebuild or a
complete re-do, things have to be built at Code construction, and as you pointed out in your
explanation, the two by six walls would have had to have been built anyway. It’s a semantic
call, but it would streamline the effect of doing these projects. I think that in the future if we’re
going to hear projects for additions of a second story, if it’s a known fact that it’s a two by four
wall downstairs, as almost all those old original camps are up on the lakefront, then we should
assume that it’s a complete re-do, right from Square One, and not assume that it’s going to be
just an addition built on to the second floor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I, too, will be in favor. I think, again, this is a place for a variance. The
conditions are unique in this particular section with all the houses being built on an angle, and
it really wouldn’t make sense to build this particular house in a compliant location, and I will
agree partially. I think the Town should be a little more diligent on some of these things, but I
think it’s also up to the applicant. If the applicant has somebody that designs a house and
they’re designing a two by six wall, at least the designer should be able to identify a two by four
wall when he looks at it, and realize that that wall’s got to come down, so you can’t suggest just
building on top of it. At the same time, commenting Mr. Salvador’s comment, sometimes you
can’t tell whether a wall is rotted or not until you’ve ripped it apart. So, if you’re in a situation
where you can build on a two by four wall, a second story, then you know there may be a
surprise, but you don’t have the surprise until you open the package up, so I can understand
that kind of a mistake, but, all that being said, I think this is a reasonable proposal, and I’d be in
favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I think it’s as reasonable proposal as well. Without getting into too
much of the history of the project, the Kambars were asked to make changes with their proposal
several times during the application process. I believe they’ve even reduced this house in size
and scope several times, and they’ve cooperated in that process over time, and I think that the
Board got comfortable with the size and the placement of this camp at some point there when
we approved the original variance, and I don’t think the circumstances have changed, that
would change my mind on that either. So, I think the benefit to the neighborhood, to the
placement, can’t be placed where it is, and to the applicant, certainly outweighs, in the
particular case, the amount of relief that’s being granted, which is one piece of dimensional
relief. So I think the balancing test falls in favor of the applicant, in this particular case. So,
having said that, would someone like to make a motion?
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2005 KENNETH AND DIANA
KAMBAR, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
Abbate:
27 Hannaford Road. The applicant is proposing to demolish the remaining walls of the mostly
demolished dwelling, and proposes to rebuild portions of the existing floor system, and
construct a new 3,839 square foot two-story, single-family dwelling, which includes an 881
square foot attached garage. Specifically, the applicant requests 14.6 feet of relief from the 20
foot minimum side setback requirement per Section 179-4-030, in the WR-1A zone. In
considering this application, we’re considering whether an undesirable change would be
produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties would be
created. In this particular case, granting this variance accomplishes exactly the opposite. It
avoids creating a detriment to the nearby properties and keeps the proposed construction in
character with the neighborhood, because in this particular area, all the houses seem to be built
on an angle to the lot lines, and placing this particular dwelling within all the setback lines
would both diminish the view for the applicant but also diminish the view for one of his
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
neighbors. Second, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other
method feasible for the applicant to pursue, and I think we’ve already covered that. Yes, he
could make it a compliant construction, but it would cause problems. So it’s not really a viable
alternative. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. While the figures sound
substantial, the 14.6 foot setback is only for one corner of the building, and as you go down that
particular wall, the relief becomes less the further you go down the wall. So I think, sum total,
that the request is probably moderate at most. Considering whether the proposed variance will
have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district, I think it will not. Again, if anything of that sort it would be the view,
and placing the house where it’s requested preserves the views, and whether the difficulty is
self-created, again, the request is based on existing conditions, and partly due to unexpected
conditions that were found in the original house that they had proposed to simply add on to.
So I think, sum total, there’s clearly benefit to the applicant, and the applicant’s proposal
preserves all the other features that we would want to preserve for the neighborhood, and on
that basis, I recommend that we approve this application.
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, all, very much.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you for coming.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I’ve learned two things tonight. Mr. Salvador is the conscience of
the ZBA, and I don’t ask real questions.
MR. HAYES-The real question comment, that was not for you. We have some housekeeping
here. We have minutes to approve, but before we do that, I want to make a special recognition
that Chuck McNulty voted yes on all applications tonight.
MR. MC NULTY-Al Bryant substituted for me a couple of times by going the opposite of what
the rest of the Board did. So, I’ll have to take that back over next week.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
November 17, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZBA MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 17, 2004 MEETING,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes
November 24, 2004: NONE
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/19/05)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FOR
THE MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 24, 2004, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant
December 15, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES FOR THE
DECEMBER 15, 2004 MEETING, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood
December 22, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FOR
THE MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 22, 2004, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr.
Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. HAYES-Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Paul Hayes, Chairman
57