2011.07.20
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 20, 2011
INDEX
Area Variance No. 40-2011 Tom & Pat Burke 1.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-15
Area Variance No. 43-2011 G F Eye Associates 5.
Tax Map No. 296.11-1-33
Area Variance No. 41-2011 Randy Savage 13.
Tax Map No. 301.7-2-4
Sign Variance No. 42-2011 GRJH, Exit 18 Citgo 15.
Tax Map No. 309.14-1-6
Area Variance No. 48-2011 Judith Riccio 19.
Tax Map No. 279.18-1-11
Area Variance No. 50-2011 Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts 21.
Tax Map No. 303.19-1-48
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 20, 2011
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD-Acting Chairman
ROY URRICO, Secretary
JOYCE HUNT
RONALD KUHL
JOHN KOSKINAS
MEMBERS ABSENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI
RICHARD GARRAND, JR.
BRIAN CLEMENTS
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-Pam Whiting
Mr. Underwood-Okay. Okay. I’m going to call the December 22, 2010 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning
Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures, once again, for
anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number.
The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes, and Warren County Planning Board
decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information that they wish to
present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing.
The public hearing is intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issues at hand, and it
functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board
members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers and we will allow speakers to speak again after
everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than five minutes, and only if after listening to the other
speakers, a speaker believes they have new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that
because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking.
Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions.
Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have
an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members will then discuss the variance
request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will be polled to explain their positions on the
application, and then we’ll close the public hearing unless there is a reason to leave it open, if it looks like the
application will be continued to another meeting, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove
will follow. For everybody’s information this evening we have five so only five members seating because a lot
of people are away on vacation so in order for you to get an approval you’re going to have to have at least four
of us looking at if we will approved your project for it to pass. So if we get into a situation where it looks like the
board members are not inclined to give you that four majority vote we’ll give you the option to table to a
different evening when we have a more full board, hopefully they’ll all be back next time. Okay first up on the
agenda is under new business Tom & Pat Burke and their agent is Curt Dybas, the project location is 67 Mason
Road, it’s a 022 acre lot and the applicant is proposing construction of a 264 sq. ft. garage addition and relief is
requested from the maximum allowable FAR requirements and there is a recommendation from the Planning
board last night.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2011 SEQRA TYPE II TOM & PAT BURKE AGENT(S) CURTIS D. DYBAS
OWNER(S) TOM & PAT BURKE ZONING WR LOCATION 67 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 264 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENT. RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF SP 43-2011; BP
6600 YR 1980 SFD; BP 97-595 ADDITION; BP 6568 YR 1980 SEPTIC; BP 96-358 BOATHOUSE WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING JULY 13, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 226.12-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040
CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2011, Tom & Pat Burke, Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 “Project
Location: 67 Mason Road
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 264 sq. ft. garage addition to existing single family home.
Relief Required:
1
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
Parcel will require area variances as follows: Floor Area Ratio – Request for an additional 264 square feet of
Floor Area relief from the allowable Floor Area of 2,120 square feet for a total Floor Area of 2,718 square feet.
Note: Existing Floor Area is 2,454 square feet.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood
may be anticipated as a result of this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than an area variance? Feasible alternatives appear limited due to lot limitations and existing
conditions.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional 264 square feet of Floor
Area Ratio relief from the 0.22% requirement for the water front residential district may be considered minor
to moderate relative to the ordinance. Note: Existing FAR is 25.5% and proposed will be 28.2%. Note: The
determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation
and not subjective reasoning.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. However, lot
limitations may contribute to the difficulty.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 66-00 Dormer Approved 10/29/98
BP 96-358 Boathouse Approved 6/27/97
Staff comments:
?
Existing structure is considered a lawful existing, nonconforming structure as per §179-13-010F and as
such does not require relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure.
?
Planning Board recommendation provided.
Type II-no further action required
SEQR Status:
Mr. Urrico: The Planning Board provided a recommendation, and that was last night, and the recommendation
was to the Zoning Board of Appeals and based on their limited review, they have not identified any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and this was voted upon and
approved unanimously.
Mr. Underwood: Mr. Dybas
Mr. Dybas: Good evening, for the record my name is Curt Dybas. Tom & Pat Burke are in the audience this
evening also. A bit of history on the project is the Burke’s built this home in 1980 as their year round residence
and have resided there on a year round basis ever since and they are reaching the point in their lives that they
realize that parking cars out in the driveway in the wintertime is becoming an issue. Their desire to have a one
car garage to have one vehicle inside so they do not have to deal with snow and ice in the winter and also from
the standpoint of having a secured place to keep one car and if a need should arise they could be out of there
without having to deal with snow and ice and everything else. The project from that view is on the right hand
side of the building we’re going to stay with the character of the building. The house itself it’s a gravel driveway
and we will be building on top of it and basically increasing the permeable of the site and also addressing runoff
on the driveway even though it is gravel. We’re going to be putting a drywell in to handle the driveway runoff
and also the eave drainage. And as far as this building when it was constructed it met all the zoning criteria of
the time. The basements weren’t included for FAR’s back then and up until four or five years ago they weren’t,
there is a front portion of the basement is finished the rear portion is strictly utility and furnaces and everything
else, but the FAR ratio is based on the entire basement first floor and second floor, the numbers that you have
and the one car garage is 12 x 22 is a 264 sq. ft. as being added, the garage does meet all the setbacks, the
house does not, but it’s an existing nonconforming. Other than that if the board has any questions we’d be
happy to answer them.
Mr. Underwood: The Planning Board looked at this last evening, then?
Mr. Dybas: Yes, they did.
2
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
Mr. Underwood: And they thought that your stormwater would handle, be handled by the drywells in the back?
Mr. Dybas: I did not receive any comment back from them.
Mr. Underwood: Sure.
Mr. Dybas: The have all the calculations that were submitted.
Mr. Oborne: Yes, just to add on to that what they’re focusing on the recommendation stage any issues that the
variance may have on the site plan so they will deal with that at a later date.
Mr. Underwood: Board members have any questions you want to ask at the present time?
Mr. Koskinas: No, sir.
Mr. Kuhl: No it seems straightforward.
Mr. Underwood: Anybody from the public, I’ll open the public hearing, anybody from the public wishing to
speak on the matter; any correspondence?
Mr. Urrico: No correspondence.
Mr. Underwood: Do you guys have any kind of commentary you want to make? Pretty straightforward, not
some grandiose thing, it is going to kick them up a little bit on their Floor Area Ratio, but would you make any
recommendations as far as any more plantings or anything like that? Do you think there’s going to be any
greater effect as an engineer?
Mr. Dybas: The Burke’s I believe have been great stewards of the lake, this house when it was built it has a
thirty foot buffer of crown vetch in front and the from that point up to the house is basically unfertilized lawn the
rear portions of the house are very well landscaped, very well done, they even have a gravel driveway which is
unheard of and minimal hard surface walks. Even the walk down to the lake is wood timbers and grass so
would I do anything to the lake shore no I mean just tearing into something for the sake of tearing into it doesn’t
make any sense and the rear portion of the site is beautifully landscaped. Keith had a picture of it; I don’t know
if you had a picture, there is the view from the house looking down the lawn across the buffer zone down to the
dock. The wood railing on your right, along the grass walkway that goes down to the dock. So would I disturb
something that looks very natural no I can’t see any reason to.
Mr. Underwood: You guys have anything you want to make? All the new construction will be on the back side
of the house away from the lake so we’re not going to impact with construction or anything like that, either. I
would assume you are well away from the water.
Mr. Dybas: That is correct; it’s all in the rear of the building.
Mr. Underwood: Does somebody want to take this one. And I’ll close the public hearing.
Mr. Koskinas: Mr. Chairman I move to approve.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 40-2011 TOM & PAT BURKE
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 40-2011 TOM & PAT BURKE; Introduced by John Koskinas,
seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Granting the following relief:
1.An additional 264 feet of FAR relief over the allowable area of 2,120 sq. ft. bringing the total floor area
for tax map parcel 226.12-1-15 to 2,718 sq. ft.;
2.Findings are that no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby
properties will be created;
3.That the applicant does not have feasible alternatives not involving an area variance;
4.That the variance is not deemed to be substantial;
5.That the variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood;
6.And that the applicant’s difficulty is considered to be self-created- SO I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July 2011 by the following vote:
3
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood
NOES: None
Mr. Underwood: Next up on the agenda is project applicant Glens Falls Eye Associates, again it’s Dr. Mark
Hite, the owners are Brassel-Hite LLC, their agent is Ethan Hall from Rucinski Hall Architects, and it’s a 1.8
acre lot located at 535 Bay Road in the Baywood Professional Park. The applicant is proposing construction of
a 1 ½ story 1,194 sq. ft. commercial building addition on the north side of the existing structure. Relief is
requested from the front and travel corridor overlay setback requirements as well as parking requirements for
the TCO district. Further relief is sought for expansion of a non-conforming structure and there is a
recommendation from the Planning Board.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2011 SEQRA TYPE II GLENS FALLS EYE ASSOCIATES- DR. MARK HITE
AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECT OWNER(S) BRASSEL-HITE, LLC ZONING
OFFICE LOCATION 535 BAY ROAD – BAYWOOD PROFESSIONAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF 1-1/2 STORY; 1,194 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL BUILDING ADDITION ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR
OVERLAY DISTRICT. FURTHER, RELIEF SOUGHT FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE. RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF SP 44-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 13,
2011 LOT SIZE 1.08 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-33 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-030; 179-13-010
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2011, Glens Falls Eye Associates – Dr. Mark Hite, Meeting Date: July
20, 2011 “Project Location: 535 Bay Road – Baywood Professional Park
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a 1,194 +/- sq. ft. office expansion to provide additional exam rooms and storage.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Front setback/Bay Road – Relief requested for 10 feet, 10 inches from the 75 foot front setback requirement
Travel Corridor Overlay/Bay Road - Relief requested for 10 feet, 10 inches from the 75 foot TCO requirement
Front setback/Baywood Road – Relief requested for 44 feet, 4 inches from the 75 foot front setback requirement
Expansion of a non-conforming structure – Must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals
Parking relief – Relief requested from the requirement that the Bay Road TCO be open space.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood
may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to existing conditions and
nature of the project.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 10 feet, 10 inches or 14.5% relief from
the 75 foot front setback and Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirements for Bay Road may be
considered minor relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 44 feet, 4 inches or 59% relief from
the 75 foot front setback requirement for Baywood Drive may be considered moderate to severe relative to
the ordinance. Finally, relief requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as well as for
parking proposed in the Bay Road TCO district must be approved by this board.
Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical
calculation and not subjective reasoning.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
4
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 17-1996 Office addition Approved 5/21/96
BP 96-735: 943 sq. ft. commercial addition
BP 2002-1015: 43.6 sq. ft. free standing sign
Staff comments:
?
Parking expansion in Town R.O.W. requires Highway Superintendent approval. Note: The 4 spaces
located on the northern boundary not to be counted as part of parking requirements as they cannot be
located solely on subject parcel.
?
The applicant proposes to continue business operations on site during the expansion and renovations.
?
Planning Board Recommendation provided.
SEQR Status:
Type II-no further action required
Mr. Urrico: The Planning Board made a recommendation last night that based on its limited review, they did
not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that
was approved unanimously.
Mr. Underwood: Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall: Ethan Hall Rucinski, Hall Architecture, representing Glens Falls Eye Associates. The drawing I have
on the easel to begin with is the existing conditions, the red line her outlines the property itself, the blue line
indicates the setbacks, this is the 75 foot setback from Baywood Drive, front yard and the pink extension
represent the 75 foot yard setback from Bay Road and TCO. The existing building as you can see has a
peaked roof that runs perpendicular to Bay Road on this section, is more of a cape style structure for the
middle portion then this small portion that’s out closes to Baywood Drive looks more or less like a garage would
on a residential building and that’s kind of the picture that Keith has there on the board. It is the intent that, this
portion right now is very rarely used, there is a couple of exam rooms, it’s not really set up to work real well with
their internal layout so what they are proposing to do is to basically take this end of the building and flip it over
and mirror it on the other end so that there would be two identical, Keith do you a picture that looks back
towards that other end? On the far end of the building the peak that sticks out to the front is this piece here and
what we would be doing is taking that flipping it right over and mirroring it on the other side so that we’d have
two peaks facing the road and then the small portion in between would more of a cape style facing the road.
We are reconfiguring the parking lot, currently it’s kind of haphazard as getting in and out it’s kind of two way in
two way out that comes back to the parking area back here, and patients kind of park in and around here, this
section is really too small to be two way traffic in that it gets too congested what they find here is that people
tend to pull in pull through these spots and pull down here. The two way traffic that has to travel through this
back portion gets really tight and you can see where people have actually driven on the grass on both sides
where the grassed islands are and things of that nature in the back. So our intent is to make this a twenty foot
one way in, we have signage so that is one way in here and this would be one way out on this side signage for
do not enter from the Baywood Drive section. We would then change the parking to angular coming in this way
the traffic would then wrap around and be angular facing back the other way and then as you get past the
building a few handicapped spaces that are at the end of the ramp that exist there now so there would be one
way in and one way out, this is set up for two way traffic already its large enough now we did go back and
double check, the grass that’s grown over the top of that, the grass has kind of grown over the top. So we have
two way traffic here, we are intending to add four spaces to the end of this, there is a small amount of space at
the end of that existing parking area that is currently not being the used and that is the four spaces that we’re
intending to add in the TCO. The other four spaces that staff mentions are the spaces that are here now that
come off of Baywood Drive and while they cannot be wholly on there; those are the doctor’s parking, the four
doctors that are involved with the operation tend to park there so it is signed that it is doctor parking only not for
patients so I know we’ve got some work to do on that one and things of that nature. I think that about sums up,
I know that the relief we’re asking for, the major portion of relief we’re asking for is this front corner because it
sticks out closer to Bay Road but we are staying in line with the existing bump out and we are getting closer to
the Baywood Drive side by about six feet we are a little closer to Bay Road simply because the property line on
this side doesn’t go straight out to Bay Road it takes a cut back to the property line on that end so that’s the
relief we’re seeking for that portion.
Mr. Underwood: Keith these professional parks when they were designed in the day how do they compare in
size to the newer ones, like down the road at Baybridge down that way, are they similar?
Mr. Oborne: I think they are much tighter, to be honest with you.
Mr. Underwood: These are smaller?
5
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
Mr. Oborne: Yes, these are smaller, but the need for parking is greater. I do want to make sure that the Board
is aware that the applicant is here requesting relief also for parking within the TCO and that is specific to Bay
Road. Not any other TCO has that green space requirement and the whole idea behind that is for road
widening, eventually, in the future 50 years from now that’s the type of thought behind that.
Mr. Underwood: Because right now Bay Road has the appearance of having three lanes down the whole thing
anyways with that big wide walking lane
Mr. Hall: And basically two break down lanes, yes it’s almost five lanes.
Mr. Underwood: It’s bigger than the Northway already
Mr. Oborne: Yes I think expanding it is not an issue but that’s the idea with it.
Mr. Urrico: I have a question. I know they have a pretty significant staff there, what they do for parking,
between all the doctors.
Mr. Hall: Most of the staff parks in this back portion right here that’s kind of reason that we’re increasing that
the net layout the net change in parking spaces back here is really negligible there is 18 parking spaces
currently and we’ll be at 17 when you take into account the handicapped parking spaces because they really
have no sign or really dedicated parking spaces for handicapped parking so we ultimately wind up having more
spaces but because of the handicap requirements we knocked down by one.
Mr. Urrico: Now is there a reciprocal agreement with any of the other offices in that complex?
Mr. Hall: Not that I’m aware of. The big issue that they have now the big issue that they have with the amount
of parking and problems that they have is because they don’t have enough exam rooms to see everybody and
they have enough staff to see everybody they just don’t enough exam rooms to get everybody in and out so
this hopefully takes care of a good share of that when they get more exam rooms they can turn people over
faster.
Mr. Urrico: Actually I attend this this is my doctor and I was able to read the notes because of their ability to
examine eyes very well, but I’ve never found it to be overly crowded the parking lot and never an issue with the
traffic coming in or out. So to me the parking is negligible as far as the application. Baywood Drive is basically
used by the businesses in there; we’re not talking about a lot of traffic in and out of there also as far as I can
tell. Is there anything else we can do as far as bumping out into the TCO?
Mr. Hall: As far as?
Mr. Urrico: As far as, I know we’re trying to keep it consistent with the other side of the building but it is an
issue in terms of building out into the TCO.
Mr. Hall: The front portion of the building? We looked at it and it just becomes so unbalanced if I pull it back,
and brought it right straight across.
Mr. Urrico: So it’s a matter of aesthetics rather than.
Mr. Hall: It’s mainly aesthetics of the building and trying to make it look as balanced as we can because right
now the little garage that sits on there doesn’t look like it belongs, in fact it’s got different siding on it, it created
a really false sense that it’s part of the actual structure so we’re trying to balance it out and make it all look like
it’s meant to be one piece.
Mr. Urrico: Keith the non-conforming part of the building is the fact that it’s already in the TCO?
Mr. Oborne: That’s correct, and within the front setback, and within the front setback of Baywood.
Mr. Hall: Yes, actually all of the work being done is within, it’s a little tough it’s a corner lot, and the 75 foot
setback applies equally from Bay Road and from Baywood Drive even though they are not equal.
Mr. Urrico: Do you have a shot from Bay Road on there?
Mr. Oborne: I do, I’ve got some money shots if that’s what you’re looking for. Let me see if I can pull some up.
Mr. Underwood: So you’re not adding more staff, it’s the same number of staff that is in there.
Mr. Hall: Correct, same number of staff.
Mr. Underwood: It’s an efficiency.
Mr. Hall: They’ve realized that when they look out and see the waiting room packed they need to be able to
turn people over faster.
6
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
Mr. Kuhl: When we look at it today with the amount of parking spaces we have today when you’re all finished
is it going to be that number plus four? Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Hall: No actually there is one additional parking space because of the reconfiguration.
Mr. Koskinas: I’d also like to say it’s my doctor I can see you. I don’t have particular problem with your very
comprehensive plan and presentation, the setbacks from Bay and Baywood I don’t see problematic based on
the existing situation but your plan is really awkward when it comes to parking. Staff’s comments
notwithstanding about what a travel corridor is for if we read 179-4-030 its primary purpose of a travel corridor
overlay is to maintain the rural character of the road. Secondary is someday you might to widen the road well I
doubt we’ll be widening Bay but the rural character is of interest to me. When we read the other requirements
in the ordinance specifically the requirements when you get over twenty parking the amount of landscaping
required is 20% of the area. When you get over 26 spaces which you manage to do for every eight spaces
you’re required to provide the area 162 sq. ft. the area equivalent of a parking space in additional landscaping
but your plan if I read it correctly is taking away more landscaping than you’re putting in. You’re removing
those trees in that parking lot which I think are the character of that entire office parking and in keeping with the
zoning intent. What’s the point of having to do that? Mr. Uric points out and so does the ordinance by the way
that in this zone they are looking for neighboring activities to cooperate with each other relative to parking. The
parking lot and insurance agency that’s right behind this building right there is normally empty. I know that
because every time I go to the doctor that’s where I park.
Mr. Hall: Over here, farther down Bay Road.
Mr. Koskinas: The ordinance requested these parking lots doesn’t demand, well let’s see if it does demand it
or not, now shall is a big thing in this zoning ordinance relative to this project the number which is intended to
be mandatory is pretty substantial. And it addresses the setback open space, what open is, how open space
corridors work and that these are requirements not to be taken lightly, they’re mandatory. Relative to the Bay
Road office district and they are talking about parking. Placement of parking areas shall be at the rear of the
building unless the lot has two frontages which you have for which case parking may be allowed on the side.
Adjacent parking lots shall have shared access points, easements should be used to formalize shared access
arrangements, businesses should be encouraged to share parking areas. When parking areas are shared
minimized onsite parking should be reduced or eliminated. Pedestrian and vehicular connections shall be
required between adjoining parking lots. If you’re moving that parking lot, I don’t understand why it’s not
connected to the adjacent lot.
Mr. Hall: This one down here?
Mr. Koskinas: Yes. That’s normally empty. The people who occupy that facility, that insurance agency, has
20, 22 spaces. I think they use a handful. Parking area landscaping, landscape materials, it says what they
will be. For parking areas greater than 20 stalls, a minimum of 20% of the interior parking shall be planted. I’m
sharing all this with you. You probably already know it, but I want you to understand why I’m very much in favor
of your project and very much against your approach to the parking. The areas in front of both your client’s
building on Baywood, and the building across the street, and by the way, the building across the street has a
tremendous amount of parking available. It’s 30 paces over there, and there’s lot of parking.
Mr. Hall: From Dr. Bannon’s office.
Mr. Koskinas: Yes, there’s a lot of parking there. The parking, the blacktop surfaces, which I see you’re not
removing, and I think should be part of your plan, are not supposed to be parking. There’s no parking signs,
and people are parking in them, even when there’s available parking elsewhere.
Mr. Hall: You’re referring to these four right here?
Mr. Koskinas: Yes.
Mr. Hall: Yes.
Mr. Koskinas: The no parking space, this is interesting, Keith. It says no parking space shall be more than 50
feet from a tree with a four inch caliper. Now I don’t know if they intended to say less, but if it’s shall be more,
that means you need trees, and I’m, although I could question whether the Ordinance was intended to read
more or less. Right now it reads more, so I just take it literally. You’re cutting down all the trees that would
make you conform to this Ordinance.
Mr. Hall: Well, yes. It’s our intent that we’re taking these three here. These two here.
Mr. Koskinas: You’ve got five.
Mr. Hall: We have them marked as coming out, and then we’re putting back two here and three up on this side,
and then three along the front. There’s already two here, there’s one down on the back side, and then we’re
7
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
intending more plantings along the front of the building. These are all a mixture of silver maple and white pine
that are along the back line, back there.
Mr. Koskinas: I don’t understand removing those trees, which are elegant on the lot, and meet the criteria and
intent of the Ordinance, why you’re taking those trees down to have a one way drive and net same number of
parking spaces.
Mr. Hall: To improve the circulation for parking going around that. It’s, from talking with Staff, they’ve said that
most of the people tend to congregate up in here, and staff winds up back here, and they’re trying to promote,
to get people to come back into this portion and be able to turn around easily and get back out.
Mr. Koskinas: If you look at 179-4-090, it says, and it tells you what the requirements are for parking. For
offices up to 20,000 square feet, you’re under that, you need one parking space for every 300 square feet, but
you need 21 and a half parking spaces, and you’ve got well over that. You have shared parking potential all
around you. I don’t see the need to do that. The rest of the project, I won’t beat this horse any harder, but I’m
sharing it mostly for my fellow Board members. I think cutting down trees to add parking, in this zone, where
open space is a requirement, and the rural character of Bay Road and that Travel Corridor is to be protected. I
think you should re-think it.
Mrs. Hunt: I have to agree. I go to the same eye doctor, and I also live, I go down Walker Lane. So I see the
parking. I’ve never seen the parking lot filled, except maybe in the snowy weather when there’s piles of snow.
Mr. Hall: It’s funny. I had to pick something up today and I had to park across the street because there wasn’t
a parking space available.
Mrs. Hunt: But that’s because people are backed up. I mean, you know, the waiting room was filled, and I
think if that problem were alleviated, it would make a difference. I’m in favor of the project.
Mr. Urrico: I think it’s a good plan, but I don’t really think, I don’t see it as being needed there. From what
we’ve seen, we’ve been through that parking lot there. I don’t think the access and the travel in different
directions is really a problem because I don’t think people arrive there at the same time. They’re kind of
sporadic, but it does fill up, and other than having your eyes dilated right before you go out to the car. I don’t
see a problem just finding the car. Once you find the car.
Mr. Hall: Once you find the car, you’re okay.
Mr. Urrico: So, I agree with John.
Mr. Underwood: Keith, is there any sense that there’s, I mean, you really can’t compel other operating
businesses along the corridor to share with each other or anything like that. Is that something that you guys
would even want to consider approaching them? I mean, I don’t know, as far as the liability issues and all
those things.
Mr. Hall: Right. It’s not something that we have discussed.
Mr. Oborne: One tool that we use with the Planning Board is to have them install an interconnect to the
property line. So when the next person comes in, the adjoining property owner comes in, we could use that as
a condition of approval, that you must connect with them, but at this case, you are correct. We can’t compel
them to do that. Now obviously during the design phases of these parcels, when they’re first going into the
ground, we definitely, definitely have that as part of the planning process.
Mr. Underwood: Because it would seem to me, you know, you had a lot of these practices that started small
and then they tend to morph into bigger, more partners and things like that. I mean, that seems pretty normal
with most medical practices in Town. So it’s not anything out of the ordinary, but it’s unfortunate that we didn’t
create this possibility earlier on for these earlier ones.
Mr. Oborne: John’s right. I mean, those are things that definitely need to be considered by the Planning
Board, without a doubt, and obviously can be considered by this Board in your deliberations. You can’t talk
about the vegetation that needs to be put in, because you’re here for dimensional relief, obviously, but if it
influences you, it influences you.
Mrs. Hunt: But this will go before the Planning Board again?
Mr. Oborne: Absolutely. Yes.
Mr. Hall: Yes, we have to go back.
Mrs. Hunt: We could approve the variances and not touch the parking, and that would be handled by the
Planning Board.
8
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
Mr. Hall: Yes, absolutely, and I’m certainly willing to take a look and, you know, talk with the docs and make
sure that that’s something that they would, you know, that they’re acceptable to.
MR. OBORNE-As part of your, if you are to approve this, you can make conditions, reasonable conditions, on
this, ask the Planning Board to look at, the Planning Board is highly receptive to what you folks say, to be
honest with you. I know they are. They take it into consideration.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you want to hold off and have them consider feasible alternatives, then, or, such as
that interconnect?
MR. KOSKINAS-I think the Planning Board should consider those things. We can’t require them to do it, but
it’s in the Ordinance. I think that, for purposes of this project going forward in this gentleman’s time and this
Board’s time, we could have a motion to approve the setbacks, but not the parking. Don’t grant that, and that
would put the Planning Board back on notice to look at it
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, our parking relief that we’ve got to, we’re only concerned with the TCO, the Travel
Corridor Overlay, that we’re intruding into.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And we can’t really set the parameters for parking. I mean, I think you made a very valid
argument. The Planning Board, whether they pick up on that, I mean, it would depend if they actually read
what we say or what John had.
MR. OBORNE-They do, absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. URRICO-I just want to ask them, we’re gaining one space.
MR. HALL-Losing one.
MR. URRICO-Losing one space, and the building is expanding. So that’s going to increase the activity that’s
able to flow through the building, but as far as accepting more patients, is that something they’re anticipating?
MR. HALL-Are they anticipating getting more patients?
MR. URRICO-Yes, you know, at a time, at a clip. Are they going to have more people in the building at one
time?
MR. HALL-I guess I can’t answer that one way or the other. I mean, every business would hope that they’re
going to gain 50 customers a day.
MR. URRICO-Well, it might stretch out. It might stretch out during the day, but they might have a portion of the
day where they have prime access, where people are.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How many examining rooms do you have now?
MR. HALL-There’s nine now. There’ll be 15 when we get done. So we’re increasing by.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re going to have more turnover.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Instead of people waiting, it’s going to be quicker.
MR. HALL-Right. Yes, and, you know, do the docs see every patient every time? Some do, some don’t.
Sometimes it’s the nursing staff that takes care of them, if it’s something like a fitting or something that’s
relatively straightforward.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have a problem with the intrusion into the Travel Corridor Overlay and the
Bay Road setbacks and all that? I mean, I think it’s pretty much going to be what it is, because if it’s going to
mirror the other side of the building, it already pre-exists, it’s going to be one more.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s the building you’re talking about, right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And we’re not really affecting vegetation on the Bay Road side, per se.
MR. HALL-No. I’m increasing it because I’m adding, once we get this part done, we’re going to re-landscape
out in front. I’m going to add some trees along this side over here. I’ll be honest with you. I’m completely
amenable to leaving the back parking area just as it is. I’m just, we were just trying to increase flow and help
9
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
traffic move a little better, because if two cars are coming in and out that basic one lane road that runs down
through the back side here, one basically has to stop and wait if there’s one coming the other way.
MR. KOSKINAS-That’s life in a car.
MR. HALL-True.
MR. KOSKINAS-And your proposed alteration of the parking, you know, you’re reducing the landscaping in that
area dramatically.
MR. HALL-Yes. This block here and this block here.
MR. KOSKINAS-And again, if you read the Ordinance, you’re not asking for a variance from it, but you are far
from the area required for landscaping in that parking lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If we leave it as is, would that be your recommendation?
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, I think they should leave that alone.
MR. HALL-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And that’s, to me, you know, like Irongate and some of those ones where it’s like the maze
when you drive in there, it’s the same situation here, and, you know, I understand why you want to improve it,
but at the same time, people have lived with it all this time. So, you don’t need to totally re-invent the wheel.
MR. OBORNE-So as far as the parking goes here, if I’m hearing this correct, it is the TCO encroachment that
you’re not for?
MR. KOSKINAS-Correct.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HALL-For adding these four spaces down here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just those four out front.
MR. OBORNE-Because you still plan on re-configuring the parking in the rear, because that’s part of the Site
Plan. That’s not part of your purview. That’s part of the ZBA purview.
MR. HALL-Well, I mean, if it comes down, I’m sure that the docks would be, in fact they’ve mentioned to me
they’d prefer not to have to do all that. It’s a cost expense on their end. I mean, obviously if they’re tearing it
up, they’ve got to build all new parking lot. If it’s just a simple matter of re-surfacing what’s there, they would
certainly far prefer to do that, and I would have no problem.
MR. KOSKINAS-Succinctly put. Leaving that parking lot alone is good citizenship.
MR. URRICO-What you’re saying it’s not our call. The TCO is our call.
MR. OBORNE-The TCO is your call.
MR. HALL-I totally agree.
MR. URRICO-That’s really not our call. The TCO is our call. As far as what you do with the rest of the parking
lot, that’s up to you.
MR. KUHL-But functionally they’re going to keep the lobby and the entrance into the business the same?
MR. HALL-Correct.
MR. KUHL-Yes. I’ve been there. My mother-in-law goes there.
MR. HALL-Actually the intent is, if you’ve been there several times, that this ramp, the flat roof comes off of that
ramp and drops water, and we’re actually going to build a new vestibule over that, so that you can actually use
that in the wintertime and use it year round, as opposed to two or three months out of the year.
MR. KUHL-I think John’s got a good point.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public wishing
to speak on the matter?
10
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything?
MR. URRICO-There’s no correspondence that I can see.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So just to briefly poll you guys, would your recommendation, I mean, we can make
a recommendation to the Planning Board that we think that the parking is adequate as it exists and it preserves
the nature of the corridor as it is described in the Codebook, too?
MR. URRICO-If you’re asking me, I would okay the project as is, with the exception of the encroachment on the
TCO.
MR. UNDERWOOD-For the four parking spaces.
MR. URRICO-And that relieves us of our responsibility, and then it’s up to the applicant to pursue anything they
want to do with the parking. Whether they want to pursue it with the Planning Board, that’s their issue. My
recommendation is that they leave it as it is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. John, you want to leave it as it is?
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. I’d be for a motion approving the relief but denying the parking relief.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron, you’re also the same way?
MR. KUHL-I’m in agreement.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll go along with you, too, and I don’t go to this eye doctor. I just drive past it when
I go to Dr. Kissel’s up on the hill the other way. So that’s as close as I get. Then what I think what we’ll do is
we would appreciate it if, in the motion, that the Planning Board is aware of the commentary that was made by
Mr. Koskinas and the rest of the Board in regards to our take on the parking, even though we don’t have a say
in that, but our recommendation would be that the majority of us feel we would like it to remain as is.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, and that’s just a recommendation.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And that’s just a recommendation from us because of the preservation of the character of
the Bay Road corridor.
MR. OBORNE-Again, it’s reasonable. That’s the key word, reasonable.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. And I think that the Board in general feels that there’s no net change because the
setbacks from the corridor, for the addition, the mirroring, the other side, are going to be the same. It’s not
going to increase that or take down trees in front that are not (lost words) make it look like a clear cut out in the
front. Does someone want to take this one?
MR. KOSKINAS-I’ll do it.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2011 GLENS FALLS EYE ASSOCIATES
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 43-2011 GLENS FALLS EYE ASSOCIATES, Introduced by John
Koskinas who moved its adoption seconded by Mrs. Hunt:
GRANTING: The expansion of a nonconforming structure in the following relief:
1. 10 feet 10 inches relief from the 75 foot front setback requirement for Bay Road;
2. 10 feet 10 inches from the Travel Corridor Overlay requirement for Bay Road;
3. 44 feet 4 inches from the front setback requirement for Baywood Road;
DENYING: Parking relief from the requirement that the Bay Road Travel Corridor Overlay be open space.
Findings include:
1. No undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be
created;
2. That the applicant does not have feasible alternatives not involving an area variance;
11
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
3. That the variance is not deemed to be substantial;
4. That the variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood;
5. That the applicant difficulty is self-created – I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of July 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: None
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much, folks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, thank you.
MR. HALL-I appreciate your time and effort.
Mr. Underwood: The next item is Randy Savage, 303 Aviation Road, Area Variance 41-2011 and I’ll turn it
over to Roy.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2011 SEQRA TYPE II RANDY SAVAGE OWNER(S) RANDY SAVAGE
ZONING MDR LOCATION 303 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 168
SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING 168 SQ. FT. SHED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS
REF BP 2010-172 SFD; BP 2011-080 INGROUND POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE
0.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.7-2-4 SECTION 179-3-040
RANDY SAVAGE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2011, Randy Savage, Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 “Project Location:
303 Aviation Road
Applicant proposes construction of a 168 sq. ft. addition to existing 168 sq.
Description of Proposed Project:
ft. shed.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.Side setback relief – 12 feet, 11 inches of side setback relief from the 25 foot setback requirement for
the MDR District.
2.Expansion of a non-conforming structure – Relief must be approved by the ZBA.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood
may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to expand the shed to the east to avoid
the relief requested.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 12 feet, 11 inches or 52 % of rear
setback relief from the 25 foot setback requirement for the MDR District as per §179-3-040 may be
considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Relief requested for the expansion of a non-
conforming structure must be approved by this board. Note: The determination of whether the requested
area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
12
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 10-172 SFD 4/27/10
BP 11-080 Inground pool 4/8/11
Demo 10-016 1/25/10
Staff comments:
According to the applicant’s narrative, shed to be used to store tools, power equipment and pool/yard furniture
as well as for outdoor entertainment.
Type II-no further action required
SEQR Status:
MR. UNDERWOOD- Okay. Anything you want to tell us about?
MR. SAVAGE-It’s really just expanding our shed so that we have more storage. It’s a brand spanking new
house, and I think you guys got a picture of the shed. It looks like heck. We’d just like to make it sided, the
same as the house, and that’s really about it. The neighbor’s pretty agreeable, the closest neighbor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It is what it is on this one.
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, it is avoidable, but I think they have to do it this way.
MR. KUHL-It’s making an improvement.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think the only other way would be to run the shed out the other way, and that
wouldn’t make sense, either. I think if it was any one of our own places, we’d do it exactly the same. I’m going
to open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have one letter, right?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m seeing, I’m looking at, “I, Rodney Green, homeowner at 299 Aviation Road, do not seen
any problem with the proposed shed and its placement on my neighbor, Randy Savage’s, property. I do not
feel this will impose undue restriction on the use of my land, nor adversely affect property values for myself or
others in the community.” This is Rodney Green.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, in essence, it’s going to upgrade the old shed, make it look like a new one, double the
size, not any big deal to me or anybody else.
MR. SAVAGE-Absolutely, make it look a lot nicer.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, does somebody want to take this one?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll do it.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE-AV 41-2011 RANDY SAVAGE
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 41-2011 RANDY SAVAGE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved
its adoption seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Location: 303 Aviation Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 168 sq. ft. addition to an existing 168
sq. ft. shed. Relief required-Side setback relief: 12 feet 11 inches relief from the 25 foot setback requirement
for the MDR district; Relief required for the expansion of a nonconforming structure.
1. There will be minor impacts on the neighborhood;
2. The feasible alternatives are limited and the next door neighbor has no reason to complain about it
3. The request is 12 feet 11 inches, 52% from the 25 foot setback may be considered moderate to severe but
the configuration of the buildings and the pool on the lot make it difficult to expand anywhere else
4. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood would be anticipated; in
fact this will void the benefit to the neighborhood.
5. The difficulty may be considered self-created only in that the Savage’s want to improve their property-I
APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 41-2011.
13
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
Duly adopted this 20th day of July 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood
NONE: None
MR. UNDERWOOD-Does he need these?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You might want to take four of them, because you’re going to have to have a final
submittal. That’s pretty self-explanatory. Do you guys have your permit in? Have you submitted a permit yet?
MR. SAVAGE-I don’t think so, but we will.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. You know, you can look me up and we could try to close this out for you.
MR. SAVAGE-Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Underwood: The next item is GRJH, Inc. Exit 18 Citgo, Sign Variance 42-2011 and I’ll turn it over to Roy.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 42-2011 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED GRJH, INC. EXIT 18 CITGO AGENT(S) W.
LLOYD HELM OWNER(S) GRJH, INC. ZONING MAIN STREET LOCATION 107 MAIN STREET
APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN . RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE MAIN
STREET ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2011-103 FS SIGN; BP 2008-054 NEW COM’L BLDG; SP
52-2007; AV 23-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 13, 2011 LOT SIZE 0.98 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 309.14-1-6 SECTION CHAPTER 140
LLOYD HELM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 42-2011, GRJH, Inc. Exit 18 Citgo, Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 “Project
Location: 107 Main Street
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant has constructed a 35.7 sq. ft., 19 ft, 3 inch tall freestanding sign within the front yard setback for
freestanding signs.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. Front setback – Relief request for 2.1 feet of front setback relief from the 15 foot setback requirement for
freestanding signs as per §140-6B(2)(a).
2. Sign Height – Relief request for 7.3 feet of height relief from the 12 foot maximum allowed as per §140-
6B(4)(a)(1).
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1.
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood
may be anticipated.
2.
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives short of placing the sign 15 feet from the
property line and reducing the height down to 12 feet appear limited due to existing as-built conditions.
3.
Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 2.1 feet or 14% relief from the 15 foot
setback requirement for freestanding signs as per §140-6B(2)(a) may be considered minor relative to the
ordinance. The request for 7.3 feet or 61% relief from the 12 foot height requirement for freestanding signs
as per §140-6B(4)(a)(1) may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance.
Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical
calculation and not subjective reasoning.
4.
Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
14
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
5.
Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
S.P. 52-07M Site Plan Modifications Approved 8/19/08
S.P. 52-07 2,400 sq. ft. Gas station/Convenience store Approved 12/18/07
A.V. 23-07 Setback relief Approved 4/18/07
No comments at this time.
Staff comments:
Unlisted – Short Form attached
SEQR Status:
MR. UNDERWOOD-We didn’t have any Planning Board on this, either?
MR. OBORNE-No, this does not require Site Plan Review. It’s strictly a Sign Variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So, Keith, my understanding is that this sign was something that was approved, or
unapproved?
MR. OBORNE-My understanding is that this sign was erected without a permit. Is that correct, Lloyd?
MR. HELM-No, this was an existing sign, and basically the County took a portion of our property for the Main
Street corridor upgrade, and as part of our Site Plan Review for re-doing the building, we were required to
move the sign when they did their work. So the short story is, we had an engineer. He staked out a location for
the new sign. The sign company came and moved it to where he staked it, and when the Town, we’re still in
the process of getting our CO. So when the Town inspected it, they questioned whether it was too close to the
property line. I had our engineer write a letter to the Town certifying that it wasn’t. It was in the required
distance from the property line, and the Town asked me to get it surveyed. I had it surveyed, and it turned out it
was 2.1 feet too close.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And you’re sort of in limbo because you’ve got the on ramp and you’ve got Main Street.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-That explains how we need relief for the 2.1 feet.
MR. HELM-I agree. I don’t understand about the height because it was always, there was never any change of
height. They just physically picked the sign up and moved it from the old location to the new location.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, what has happened is the Sign Code was updated recently, as you all know, and the Main
Street relief dropped down to 12 feet.
MR. URRICO-But by moving the sign, doesn’t that negate the Sign Code?
MR. OBORNE-No, not according to the Zoning Administrator.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Was it anticipated, I remember when we reviewed this a long time ago, when we did the
re-do of the gas station there, but at that time, I don’t remember the sign was an issue that we even discussed
it.
MR. OBORNE-It was not, and then obviously, you know, you have to do an as built survey for the CO, and
that’s what happened.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it actually was closer towards Main Street. It got moved in further back? I don’t
remember.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m not 100% familiar with the sign aspect of it. Lloyd’s more familiar with it than I am. I’d
have to rely on him. What he says is consistent with what I understand. Especially the part with the engineer
not being a surveyor, basically, and that’s pretty much what happened.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So this never came up with the Planning Board when they reviewed it, either? I assume
they must have gone through the whole, yes.
MR. OBORNE-That was three years ago. I don’t recall.
MR. KUHL-So the long and the short of this is the engineer they used picked out the wrong location. I mean, to
me the sign was always there, but it was moved. Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it was closer to Main Street.
15
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
MR. KOSKINAS-No, you can see the old stanchion where the sign is located. There’s no question about that,
but in moving the sign, I mean, we’re talking about Main Street. It’s not like it’s the perfect project, but it
certainly is close to ideal in the Town plan, the long term plan, and the Main Street corridor plan is close to
perfect. It’s a nice plan for that part of Town, and if we’re going to start throwing away the zoning today, it’s an
interesting concept.
MR. OBORNE-It’s funny that you categorize the Main Street as almost perfect. The reason I chuckle at that is
because I’ve had Site Plans before me on Main Street, and it’s a bear.
MR. KOSKINAS-Okay, not the execution, the concept.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. KOSKINAS-Is my comment, and conceptually, Main Street can be an attractive part of this community,
and it seems to me that when you have an opportunity, when you’re doing your front entrance all over, they’re
doing the street all over, you’re moving the sign, I think your engineer, it’s incumbent upon your engineer to put
it where it goes, and to cut those, the height off it and make it conform. You should have a question there
anyway because when I walked out to that sign, in the grass that you mow, in that tall grass out there, you’ve
got the power for that sign in a PVC conduit running over the top of the ground in the deep grass going to the
light in your parking lot. Now I don’t know what inspector goes and looks at that.
MR. HELM-No, sir, we had to move the sign in winter conditions, and you’re absolutely right. We haven’t
buried the PVC yet, but we will take care of that.
MR. KOSKINAS-Burying PVC is not our purview, but it looks dangerous if a mower comes by. For me, the
setback of two feet, I don’t find extremely problematic. I think the height should conform. That’s easy to do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think if we were anywhere else, we would probably be looking for one of those
monument signs down on the ground, right?
MR. OBORNE-Especially given the ozone.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-That’s a requirement. Yes, they’ve tightened up the Sign Code.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And pretty much tried to get rid of the lollipop signs we used to call them.
MR. HELM-I guess I don’t understand how height is even an issue because it was never an issue before with
the Planning Board or zoning. It was an existing sign that just had to be moved to conform with the Main Street
corridor upgrade.
MR. OBORNE-In that ensuing months between that time, the zoning changed to that, as far as the Sign Code
goes. I know that that was the determination by the Zoning Administrator that you are required to have height
relief for this, at this point in time. It’s not uncommon. I’ve seen this when the zoning code changes. You get
caught up in that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But the Planning Board most likely approved the movement of this sign back from what it
was?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t recall.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t remember.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t recall.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’m going to open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak
on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is this going to go to the Planning Board again?
MR. OBORNE-No. This is strictly on you.
16
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s strictly going to be up to us. Do you guys want to make some commentary? Because
I think we probably should have everybody talk about this one.
MRS. HUNT-Well, I don’t have a problem with the 2.1 feet of setback relief. That’s minimal, but I think the sign
could be reduced easily to comply.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy, what do you think?
MR. URRICO-Well, it has always been my position that if the applicant had come to us with clean hands, if he
had just come to us with this application to begin with, that I would not approve 2.1 feet of relief, nor the height,
and I feel that’s where we are with this. So that’s where I stand. I would not approve either part of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think it could be moved the two feet. I look at it, we look at nonconforming buildings and we
let them put ads on nonconforming. Now this was a nonconforming sign by the new Code, but by the old Code
it was right, correct? By the old Code, it was (lost word).
MR. OBORNE-The setback wouldn’t have been, not the setback.
MR. KUHL-Not the setback. We’re talking about height.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. KUHL-Okay. So in reality it was a nonconforming sign that had to be moved to bring it into compliance.
You’re going to have to move it, and if you’re going to really be in compliance, you’re going to have to drop it
down, but I mean, I look at it, nonconforming, move it to the right area. So I think it should be moved. I think
your engineer made a mistake, and as you’ve just recently said, it’s not set in there yet. You didn’t bury
everything because it was the wintertime. So you can move it. I know you’re going to pour a footing, and move
that, but my thing would be move it to where it should be.
MR. UNDERWOOD-John, what are you thinking?
MR. KOSKINAS-I think the sign should conform, particularly in the new Main Street endeavors.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If we’re going to make it conform to the new Main Street regulations, have we got to lower
it way down? More than what they’re asking?
MR. OBORNE-Lower it down to 12 feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Twelve feet. So that’s going to mean a brand new piece of metal underneath that sign,
because you’re not just going to cut that thing off. Cut it and weld it? I don’t know. All right. It looks like you’re
not going to get approval for the request because you’ve got four, five of us that probably aren’t going to vote
for it tonight. So I don’t know what you want to do. Do you want to come back with a compliant sign, or
withdraw this application?
MR. OBORNE-Well, you wouldn’t have to come back with a compliant sign. You’d just move it to a compliant
location.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It looks to me like you’re going to have to lower the sign down to whatever the height
is and move it back 2.1 feet. So I don’t know what you want to do. Sorry about that.
MR. HELM-I guess I don’t have a choice.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So should we consider this as a withdrawal?
MR. OBORNE-You can, yes, if the applicant wants to withdraw and place it in a compliant location, that’s fine.
If the applicant wants to wait for a full Board, table, those are really your options at this point, or ask for a
denial. It sounds like they’re going to give you.
MR. HELM-Well, what is the full Board?
MR. OBORNE-Seven as opposed to five, and at this point you have four.
MR. HELM-Well, I guess at this point, I’ll request to wait for the full Board and then I’ll discuss it with the
company and see where they want to proceed, if they want to proceed with that, otherwise I’ll contact you and
say that we’ll make it conforming or we want to hear with the full Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine.
17
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. So I’ll do a tabling motion.
MR. OBORNE-Tabling motion, that works.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And we’ll table you for up to 60 days, or until you get back to Keith with whatever the
outcome is, after you talk to your clients.
MR. HELM-Okay. Very good.
MR. OBORNE-If we can get a hard date on that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. It’s now July, so we’ll give you up until the first meeting in September.
st
MR. OBORNE-That would be the 21.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
RESOLUTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE 42-2011 GRJH, EXIT 18 CITGO
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE 42-2011 GRJH, EXIT 18 CITGO, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl
Tabled to the first September ZBA meeting-September 21.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood
NOES: None
MR. UNDERWOOD-The next item is Judith Riccio, 1208 Ridge Road, Area Variance 48-2011 and I’ll turn it
over to Roy.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2011 SEQRA TYPE II JUDITH M. RICCIO OWNER(S) JUDITH M. RICCIO
ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1208 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
DETAHED 576 SQ. FT. SHED/SHOP. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS,
MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT AND FOR A THIRD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. CROSS REF AV 6-
2009; BP 2008-575 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 13, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES
LOT SIZE 1.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.18-1-11 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020
KEVIN SPECK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2011, Judith M. Riccio, Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 “Project Location:
1208 Ridge Road
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. detached shed/workshop within the 75 foot side yard setback
for the RR-3A District.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. Side setback – Request for 53.9 feet from the 75 foot side setback requirement for the RR-3A district as per
§179-3-040.
2. Size – Request for an additional 296 square feet of relief from the 500 square foot accessory structure total
maximum allowable for parcels less than three acres as per §179-5-020.
3. Quantity – Request for a third accessory structure must be approved by this board. Note: Per §179-5-020 a
total of 2 accessory structures are allowed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood
may be anticipated.
18
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than an area variance. The proposed workshop could be placed in a more compliant
location; however, a request for side setback relief appears unavoidable.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 53.9 feet or 71% relief from the 75 foot
north side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the
ordinance. Further, the request for 296 sq. ft. or 59% relief from the 500 square foot maximum allowable
for lots less than three (3) acres as per §179-5-020 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the
ordinance. Finally, the request for a third accessory structure must be approved by this board.
Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical
calculation and not subjective reasoning.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created; however, lot
limitations appear to contribute to the relief request.
AV 6-09 Setback & Exp. of a N/C structure Approved
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
2/18/09
Staff comments:
?
According to the applicant’s agent, the workshop is also for storage as well as for small projects and
repair space.
?
Total square footage of accessory structure proposed is 796 square feet.
?
This project is not in the APA as denoted on the agenda.
Type II-no further action required
SEQR Status:
MR. SPECK-Hi. My name is Kevin Speck. I’m representing Judith Riccio in this matter. What we’re proposing
to do is build a 24 by 24, ultimately it will be a shop with a limited amount of storage space. Right now there is
a gazebo on the property which represents one accessory structure, and there’s also an eight by ten storage
shed. The eight by ten storage shed is basically for lawn equipment, snow blowers and that type of thing. The
gazebo is out in the back and it’s just a sitting area. I understand now that we’re looking for this shop, it’s a
third accessory structure. We would like to place the shop/storage area adjacent to the existing garage now.
There is going to be electric run to it. The electric that comes into the house is at the far end of the house, and
therefore we have to run the electric total length of the house past the garage into this storage area. So by
moving the storage area, or I mean the shop, any other place, to be more compliant with the setback, we would
be obviously extending our electric run, and the convenience of it being next to the house itself.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Was there any thought given to attaching it on?
MR. SPECK-There was. Initially there were plans drawn to have it attached to the house in ’08, and because
the existing garage is, I believe it was built in the mid 70’s or late 70’s, there was an issue of attaching a brand
new existing building onto something that was 30 or 40 years old. Right now the slab in the garage is cracked.
The foundation is cracked. So that was the issue with attaching something new to that and then having to deal
with that down the road. It didn’t make any sense.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the separation the right amount for fire, Keith, do you know on that? It’s only four feet?
MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not familiar with it, but I know it has come up before on issues.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think that deals with garages, and I guess it is going next to a garage.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And because it’s a workshop, it’s different.
MR. SPECK-There will be no access as far as a vehicle. It’s going to be a double 6-0, or double 3-0 door
which gives you a six foot opening. There’ll be no adjoining door through the side of that into the other garage.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Questions from you guys at this time?
MR. KUHL-The neighbors have no problem with it?
MR. URRICO-I don’t see any letters.
19
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
MRS. HUNT-What kind of shop is this, woodworking?
MR. SPECK-Yes.
MRS. HUNT-It’s not going to be used for commercial?
MR. SPECK-It’s nothing commercial. No, it’s strictly for his own use. It’s not for her. It’s for her husband.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you guys need to discuss on this?
MR. KUHL-It seems straightforward.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I will say it’s an almost two acre lot there, and it’s the country out there. It’s not like you’re
on top of each other, real close to anybody that you’re going to impose on, and it makes sense, you’re not
really going to see this from the road. No one’s going to know it’s there, probably passing by either. So, does
somebody want to take this one?
MR. KUHL-Sure.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AV 48-11-JUDITH RICCIO
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 48-2011 JUDITH RICCIO, 1208 RIDGE ROAD, Introduced by
Ronald Kuhl who moved its adoption seconded by Mrs. Hunt:
The applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. detached shed/workshop within 75 feet of the side yard
setback in the RR 3A district. The relief requested is side setback request for 53.9 feet from the 75 foot
setback; the size request for an additional 296 sq. ft. of relief from the 500 sq. ft. accessory structure total
maximum allowable per parcels less than three acres; request for a third ancillary structure must be approved
by this Board.
1.The belief is that minor impacts to the neighborhood will be anticipated;
2.We believe that the proposed workshop is placed in the right place for the person;
3.We don’t feel as if that it’s a moderate relief requested;
4.That there should be minor impacts to the physical and environmental conditions; AND
5.And yes we do believe that it’s self-created, BUT I RECOMMEND THAT WE APPROVE THIS
VARIANCE.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: None
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. Do you need any copies of the?
MR. SPECK-Yes. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The next item is Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts, 26 Lower Warren Street, Area Variance 50-
2011. Is this the exact same one you presented to us before, in essence?
AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2011 SEQRA TYPE II JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS JBAP AGENT(S) J.
LAPPER, ESQ.; S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR HUTCHINS ENGINEERING ZONING HI LOCATION 26 LOWER
WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,440 SQ. FT. COMMMERCIAL
PARTS BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS . RECOMMENDATION
CROSS REF SP 48-11; BP 2010-012; BP 2006-652; BP 2004-044; BP 94-620; BP 89-305; AV 54-2010; SP
63-2010; SP 59-2009; SP 54-2005; SP 16-2002; SP 19-1992; UV 40-1992 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JULY 13, 2011 LOT SIZE 13.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040
JOHN WRIGHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
20
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
STAFF NOTES
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2011, Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts JBAP, Meeting Date: July 20, 2011
“Project Location: 26 Lower Warren Street
MR. WRIGHT-I believe the building is a touch bigger this time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just, but in essence it’s pretty similar to what we looked at before. Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2011, Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts JBAP, Meeting Date: July 20, 2011
“Project Location: 26 Lower Warren Street
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 1,440 sq. ft., 12 foot tall metal storage building for auto parts.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. Side setback: 45.4 feet of side setback relief from the 50 foot side setback requirement for the HI District.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood
may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than an area variance. Placement of the structure in a compliant location would appear to be
feasible.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 45.4 feet or 91% relief from the 50 foot
side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical
calculation and not subjective reasoning.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 52-10: 900 sq. ft. storage shed, Side yard setback relief requested Withdrawn
SP 59-09: 900 sq. ft. storage shed Approved 12/15/09
SP 54-05: 7,500 sq. ft. Storage Bldg. Approved 10/18/05
SP 16-02: 1,300 sq. ft. Addition Approved 4/23/02
SP 19-92: Fence Approved 6/16/92
Staff comments:
?
The shed will be for parts storage and will not have electricity or water service.
?
Permeability, which stands at 11% for the parcel, will not be affected as the area for the concrete pad to
house the shed was impermeable crushed stone.
?
Planning Board Recommendation provided.
.
Type II-no further action required
SEQR Status:
MR. URRICO-And there was a Planning Board recommendation that based on their limited review they did not
identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was
approved seven, zero on July 19, 2011.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you.
21
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
MR. WRIGHT-Good evening. Again, I’m John Wright from Bartlett, Pontiff here on behalf of the applicant. The
applicant was last here on October 20, 2011. I was not, most of you were or all of you probably were. At that
time, the concern was with the neighboring property and a couple of the neighboring property owners spoke.
They were concerned about the proximity of the proposed building to the property line. In the interim, our
clients have gone out and purchased that property, and so although it’s two separate entities, Larry Brown and
his brothers, LLC, now owns that neighboring property. So we feel like that mitigates, really, any of the impact
to the neighboring properties that this Board would have been concerned about, and as far as the other
aspects of your balancing test, it’s in the heavy industrial zone. This building will not, actually probably won’t
be visible from Warren Street, it’ll be hidden behind the other buildings, and I know that Staff noted that are
compliant locations that probably could house this shed on the property, which is true, except for the fact if it
were anywhere else on the property, it wouldn’t fit the applicant’s purpose in that, if you look at the map, there’s
basically a square there with concrete pads kind of all around. Those are all storage areas for parts where, you
know, all of that equipment that’s used to transport those parts is all used right in that area. It’s the most
convenient area for transporting the parts after the cars are disassembled. So the compliant locations
elsewhere on the property really don’t make sense and fit the purpose and that’s why we’re asking for this
variance. So if there’s any questions from the Board, we’d be happy to answer them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think last time you pretty well explained the flow of parts, not having to go hither and yon
like they’re hitting baseballs all over the field or something. So it makes sense, from what you did last time, and
I think the only issue last time was that that was the old gas station site next door. So most people were
wigged out about it, I guess. So that’s taken care of.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I believe the neighbors spoke at that meeting, didn’t they?
MR. WRIGHT-They did.
MRS. HUNT-So you’re talking about that southeast corner?
MR. WRIGHT-That’s right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And now that you own it, you only need relief from yourself.
MR. WRIGHT-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s easy to get.
MR. KUHL-Will that property be used for your business until, or will it be left for you?
LARRY BROWN
MR. BROWN-The property that was just purchased? We have no plans for expanding onto that parcel.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think you’d have to, because that’s heavy industrial, you’d have to get probably a
variance also.
MR. BROWN-A couple of reasons we wouldn’t be doing it. Number One, years ago when we originally looked
at that property, we had, I’m drawing a blank right now. We had somebody come down and look at the
property, and basically because there’s, you know, there’s some wetlands there, it would be impossible to meet
setback. To do anything on that property, you know, basically the way it looks now is probably the way it’s
going to look forever. We may clean it up a little bit, but we can’t do much with it. There’s a thumbprint on the,
I think it’s about two acres or whatever, but a very, very small thumbprint of what you can build on, by the time
we met 75 foot setback, it would be impossible to do anything there.
MR. KOSKINAS-If that’s the case, why don’t you incorporate it with your existing holdings and not require a
variance?
MR. BROWN-Well, the problem, if you look at the map that you guys have is you can see on one side of the
property, the east side of our property, it says SBLB, LLC, and then the parcel that we just bought in the
southwest it says SBLB II. My father is still the owner of Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts property. We’re working
through some estate stuff now. Hopefully at one point in time everything will be one, but as of right now, it’s
just not, you know, it’s an estate issue.
MR. KOSKINAS-The rationale supported by this Board in your last application really didn’t take into account
who owned the property, only that zoning is intended to protect adjacent property owners. That property
changes hands is a common thing. In this case, for me, in my own decision making, I can tell you that two
feet’s still two feet, and too close. So I wouldn’t support it, but if that property were incorporated somehow into
your existing holdings, you know, it wouldn’t be an issue, but the way it stands now, you could sell that
tomorrow to somebody else, and now that property owner has a two foot setback across the fence.
22
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
MR. BROWN-That property owner would know. That property owner would know what they’re getting into,
certainly especially once the building goes in, and that would be taken into account with the market value of the
property, and would be taken care of that way, in the future.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the last time, too, they explained by putting it way in the back there, too, you weren’t
going to affect out towards the road. You needed to keep that corridor for the operation of moving stuff around
along the side line there, too.
MR. BROWN-Keith, do you have an overhead? If you were to look at basically what we’ve got going is right,
our main showroom area, so this is our showroom area, okay. This area right here is an upstairs office for
administrative staff and warehouse in the back. There’s racking right here with car parts. There’s another rack
right there with car parts. Since then we’ve put another building right here. This is where we take the cars
apart in this building. This is storage of parts in the back, and right here is where we load and receive, this is
basically our dispatch and truck loading area, and so basically what we do is all parts that we remove for
immediate sales get removed in this building, and they either go into here for storage, here for storage, here for
storage, here for storage. This new rack that’s right here, that’s not on this photo, or this building that’s right
here, that we got approval for about two years ago, I believe, and what we’re looking to do is put this other
building basically right here. So as you can see from an efficiency standpoint is everything basically happens
right here, except for (lost word) vehicles. Now, the point that’s brought up is, okay, we do have a lot more
acreage out there, but, you know, I mean, why would we want to put the building, it just doesn’t make sense to
have it any place else. This is an efficiency area right here. This is where the majority of everything that
happens at our hub happens right in this area, if that makes sense, which I believe it does. That’s the new
building that’s not showing on the aerial that he did. It’s right there. You can see right here there’s racks
outside, there’s parts stored in there.
MR. KUHL-And that’s an example of what the new building will be?
MR. BROWN-It’s going to look basically, the only difference between the two buildings is this building right here
is 30 by 30. The one that we’re seeking approval for right now is 30 by 48. It will be the exact same colors. It
will be green and white schemed. It’ll be basically it’ll just be 18 feet larger on one side, and that’s what it’ll be,
and as you can see, you know, it’s all woods over on that property. Deb Roberts was the name I was looking
for earlier that I couldn’t think of, that did a walk around of the property for us. Deb Roberts from Roberts
Environmental.
MR. UNDERWOOD-She does wetland delineations.
MR. BROWN-Yes. That’s the property that we bought.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other comments from Board members? I’ll open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see anybody here from the public. Is there any kind of correspondence, Roy?
MR. URRICO-There’s no correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want to make any comments?
MRS. HUNT-I think our main concern was that the neighbors complained about the property and you
purchased it, eliminated that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the likelihood that you will hold on to that property and bring it into the fold, then, more
than likely?
MR. BROWN-I’m a little confused by the question.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know now you said there was an issue with the trust or your family or something like that.
MR. BROWN-Understood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But in general your hope was that it would eventually become part and parcel with the rest
of the operation?
MR. BROWN-Eventually, basically what’s going to happen is the, my father’s property, okay, it’s going to be
transferred. My brother Steven and I own both pieces of property. We both run and operate the business and
have for 15 years, and he’s retired in Florida, and as soon as we get through the estate stuff, that property’s
going to be ours, too. We are, I don’t know if I should even be bringing this up here, but we are, I think Keith
23
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
knows, we are working on trying to come up with a Site Plan Review for our property on the west, okay, I’m
sorry, on the east side of us, I get a little confused sometimes, but anyway it’s on the east side we’re trying to
come up with a site plan that’s going to, to present to you guys that we would be tying that parcel in with the
current almost 14 acre parcel, eventually. The problem with the parcel that we’re referring to that we just
recently purchased, you know, we can’t do, that property’s unusable. It is what it is, it’s not buildable. So it will
remain as green space. It has been since I can remember, since we’ve been involved with that property since
1980.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want me to poll you, then? Or how do you want to do it? Does
somebody want to, I guess I can take this one, if you want.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AV 50-2011-JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 50-2011 JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS, Introduced by James
Underwood who moved its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
26 Lower Warren Street. The applicant is proposing a 1,440 sq. ft. twelve foot tall metal storage building for
auto parts, parcel will area variances and that’s strictly the side setback, it needs 44.4 feet of side setback relief
from the 50 foot side setback relief for the Heavy Industrial district.
In making the determination the board has carefully considered and we find that:
1. There will be minor impacts-previously when this project was presented to us someone else owned the
property that would have been affected to the west side there, in this instance here the family has purchased
the property and the hope of the family is that eventually it will be conjoined; there is no anticipated
development that will occur on this property in the near future and it’s heavily wooded and screened from the
road;
2. Whether the benefit could be sought by a different method feasible for the applicant to pursue-it could be
placed elsewhere but again it was described for us that the structure of moving parts around makes this
structure needed where they wish to build it;
3. And as far as whether the requested area variance is substantial-91% relief from the side setback
requirements in very severe but again it will be relief from property that’s owned by family members;
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect–minor impact on the neighborhood are expected
but it is a recycling center for auto parts and it serves a useful purpose in the community;
5. The difficulty is self-created but as far as the approvals I go I don’t think that there will be any big net
change.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. Koskinas
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want any of these plans back? Do you need them for Planning Board or anything?
MR. OBORNE-You do need to submit four.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If you’re going to do your master plan you can keep them, then you want five more of
them.
MR. WRIGHT-Thank you for your time.
MR. BROWN-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I guess we’re all set for the evening. We have no minutes to approve or
anything.
thth
MRS. WHITING-Yes, you do. May 18 and 25.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Has anybody got a copy of it? I don’t know who was here or wasn’t here. Do you want to
hold off on it, then?
MR. OBORNE-I think that would be wise, to be honest with you, because I’m not sure what the roll was on
those.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess we’ll hold off and we’ll finish up here for the evening.
24
Queensbury ZBA Meeting: July 20, 2011
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 20, 2011,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Everyone
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Acting Chairman
25