AV 64-2003 Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls Zoning Board of Appeals – Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless your lands
are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review by the Queensbury
Planning Board.)
L:\RESOLUTIONS\2003\AV 64-2003 Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls.doc
Lewis N. Stone, Chairman Charles A. McNulty, Secretary
192 Lake Parkway 14 Twicwood Lane
Lake George, New York 12845 Queensbury, New York 12804
TO: Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls PROJECT FOR: Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls
The Clinton Exchange Aviation Mall
4 Clinton Square 558 Aviation Road
Syracuse, NY 13202 CONSTRUCT NEW DEPT. STORE &
SUBDIVISION OF MALL PROPERTY
The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated
meeting and has resolved the following:
Area Variance No. 64-2003, Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls
Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Approved __X_ Denied ___ Tabled ___ Withdrawn ___ SEQRA Review ___
[Tabled: applicant has sixty (60 days) to come back with the application]
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2003 PYRAMID CO .OF GLENS
FALLS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Aviation Mall, 558 Aviation Road. The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 56.52 acre
parcel of the Mall property into two parcels, 47.96 acres, and 8.56 acres respectively, to facilitate
a new major tenant’s requirement, which includes the construction of a new 127,550 square foot
department store to the existing store, which amounts to a 74,150 square foot addition to the
existing building. Specifically, the relief required, on the 8.56 acre parcel, which is the new
parcel, is 16.44 acres of relief from the 25 acre minimum requirement. The second point of relief
on that parcel is 130 feet, approximately, of relief from the 800 foot minimum lot width
requirement. Three, 11.6% of relief from the 14.5 minimum permeability requirement. Four, 30
feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement for both sides. Five, 30 feet of
relief from the 30 foot minimum rear setback requirement, which is Sections One through Five
per 179-4-030 for the ESC-25A zone. Six, 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road
frontage requirement per Section 179-4-090. For the parcel that will remain, which is 47.96, the
first piece of relief is 40 feet relief from the 40 foot minimum front setback requirement. Two,
30 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement for both sides. That’s One
Page 1 of 2
Zoning Board of Appeals – Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless your lands
are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review by the Queensbury
Planning Board.)
Contined resolution:
ZBA Meeting: Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Area Variance No. 64-2003, Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls
and Two per Section 179-4-030 for the ESC-25A zone. The criteria for considering such a
variance is the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood. On whole, I do
not believe there is any negative impact on the neighborhood or greater community. All the
requirements for the two parcels, as if they were combined, have been met. I think there’s a
benefit to the community, as the applicant and their agent have set forth, that the necessity to
attract or obtain a new tenant, which would be a benefit to the area. They have the requirement
of owning their own parcel for their own reasons, but I believe that, on the broadest sense, that
the chance for the Mall to obtain a positive tenant, and a tax paying tenant in the community,
outweighs any detriment, and the benefit to the applicant is clear there, attracting a financially
positive tenant for the operation of the Mall. Feasible alternatives I think are limited, in the
sense that it’s clear from the applicant’s agent that this new tenant in particular and other tenants
of this large size now, in some cases, require to own their own pad. So I guess there really is no
feasible alternatives in this particular case, other than creating this new parcel. As a condition to
the approval, the Board is stipulating that the reciprocal easement agreements be obtained
between the two parcel owners are obtained and maintained, and filed in the County Clerk’s
Office where they can be examined. I think the applicant understands that means that if
somehow, based on Chuck’s concerns, that those would have to come back before the Board if
you wanted to have those changed. Whereas the requirements for the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board did a Full EIS on the original
project, and the Zoning Board is determining in our motion that the proposed modifications do
not result in any new, or significantly different environmental impacts and therefore no further
SEQRA review is necessary by this Board. Having said that, I think the test falls in favor of the
applicant, and I would move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
Sincerely,
Lewis N. Stone, Chairman
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
LS/sh
cc: Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.
Page 2 of 2