Glens Falls zoning board denies use variance for proposed 113 Bay Street restaurant

The Glens Falls Zoning Board of Appeals denied a use-variance application April 21 from a prospective tenant seeking to open a restaurant at 113 Bay Street, concluding the applicant failed to meet the four-part legal test required for a use variance.

Denver Seaman, a zoning staff member who presented the application, told the board that “a use variance is different part than an than an area variance. It requires what we call a strict scrutiny test, and all 4 questions on this application must be answered.” The applicant, a local chef who operates Scratch Kitchen at 199 Orange Street, described plans for a daytime café focused on breakfast, lunch and coffee with some meals-to-go and the occasional sale of flowers and plants.

The board’s discussion centered on the statutory four-part test for a use variance. Members agreed the applicant had not demonstrated the required unnecessary hardship. Board members noted the applicant does not own the property and therefore has less standing to show a property-specific financial hardship; one member observed that without ownership “you’re not losing anything by not being in there right now,” making it difficult to show the required financial proof. Another board member said the applicant had not provided documentation that permitted uses would be economically infeasible at the site.

The board also discussed whether the alleged hardship is unique to the property, whether the proposed restaurant would alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and whether the hardship was self-created. Members generally agreed the proposal would not change the neighborhood’s character and that concerns raised by a written neighbor inquiry about nighttime hours were answered by the applicant, but they concluded the hardship claim was self-created because the location is in an LNC zoning district where restaurants are not permitted.

Devon Roselle, the city’s zoning planning coordinator, said she had held pre-submission meetings with the applicant and the building owner and advised the applicant on how to document a hardship, but she emphasized the limits of a tenant’s ability to document owner financials. Roselle said it would be more appropriate for the property owner to pursue relief: “The property owner can request the rezoning by [city council], and that may be more appropriate,” she told the board.

A nearby resident, Colin Murphy, spoke in support of the applicant, saying the applicant’s need for larger space could reasonably be seen as leaving revenue “on the table” in a too-small location. The board also read an email from Lou Saraw expressing a concern about potential late-night operations; the applicant had stated the proposal would be daytime hours only.

After deliberation, a board member moved to deny the use-variance application, saying the board had “found that the applicant failed to prove unnecessary hardship with the application of the court test required by the state statutes.” The transcript records discussion about there being four board members present and procedural questions about voting, but it records the motion to deny as the formal action and the chair encouraging the applicant to seek rezoning or to coordinate with the property owner.

The board advised the applicant to pursue one of two paths: have the property owner apply for a use variance or seek rezoning through city council as part of the city’s comprehensive-plan and zoning process. The applicant was reminded that Department of State templates and staff guidance exist to support documentation of financials if the owner chooses to pursue an owner-led application.

Votes at a glance: Motion to deny use-variance application for 113 Bay Street — outcome: denied (motion recorded; individual roll-call votes and mover/second not specified in record).