Green Mountain Supply seeks outdoor storage at 63 North Ferry; BZA issues SEQR negative declaration and tables final action

On Feb. 5, 2025 the Board of Zoning Appeals considered an area-variance request from GMS Realty (operating as Green Mountain Supply) to allow outdoor storage at 63 North Ferry Street in the MUFW (mixed-use, form-based warehouse) district, where outdoor storage is permitted only in certain industrial districts.

Dan Hirschberg of Hirschberg and Hirschberg, representing GMS Realty, told the board the company seeks to demolish an existing building, repave the footprint and use secured, fenced areas for materials that are difficult to store indoors. “Electrical equipment. That'd be things some of the larger things might be transformers or switch gears,” Hirschberg said, describing the larger items that the company stores and moves frequently. He said the site would also hold poles and equipment boxes used on construction projects.

Hirschberg told the board the yard is already used for outdoor storage dating back to at least 2022; the application also includes a proposed lot consolidation (three lots into one) and a pending minor site-plan review. He said the applicant followed city erosion-and-sedimentation practices and does not expect additional stormwater detention; the applicant also said the outdoor materials would be inert (no energized equipment) and would comply with all hazardous-materials and storage standards required by the city during site-plan review.

Board members raised multiple concerns: whether the request should be considered as an area variance (dimensional/physical standard) or as a use variance (allowing a use otherwise not allowed), potential impacts on adjacent residential properties where new apartments have been built on nearby Broadway, truck access routes and whether truck access would run along local streets, and the adequacy of existing or proposed landscaping and visual buffering. A planning memo and past board practice were cited in discussion of the correct variance standard to apply.

After deliberation the BZA moved and seconded a motion to issue a SEQR negative declaration for the unlisted action; the board recorded yes votes from Paige, Martha and Adriana and issued the negative declaration. The board nevertheless tabled any final action on the variance and asked the applicant to return with additional documentation addressing environmental impacts, preliminary landscaping or buffering plans toward the adjacent residential property, clarification of truck access and confirmation of neighborhood outreach.

The applicant said fence screening and volunteer vegetation currently limit visibility from nearby properties and that additional landscaping would be provided as part of the site-plan review if required. The applicant also noted difficulty in demonstrating a use-variance economic hardship and emphasized past board practice treating similar requests as area variances; planning staff indicated they recommended treating the application as an area variance in this instance.

The BZA did not vote on the variance itself and set follow-up items for the applicant; the negative-declaration finding allows the project to proceed administratively toward site-plan review while the board evaluates variance standards and neighborhood impact issues at a later hearing.