12-18-2019
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2019
INDEX
Area Variance No. 57-2019 Gary Higley 1.
Tax Map No. 289.10-1-14
Area Variance No. 60-2019 Meghan & Daniel Frazier 6.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-11
Use Variance No. 1-2019 Tillman Infrastructure 16.
Tax Map No. 288.8-1-21
Nominations For Officers for 2020 31.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS.
REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH
APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2019
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE. ACTING CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
MICHELLE HAYWARD
JAMES UNDERWOOD
RONALD KUHL
BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
th
Appeals December 18. I’d like to point out from a safety standpoint that there’s doors in the back that
most of you entered from. There’s doors to the east here on either side of the windows and there’s a
door to the south in the far corner. If you’ve not been here before our procedure is simple. There should
be an agenda on the back table. We’ll call each application up, read it into our notes, into our record.
We’ll quiz the applicant. If there’s a public hearing advertised then we’ll open a public hearing and take
input from interested people. After that we’ll poll the Board, see where the project stands and proceed
accordingly from that point. So the first application tonight is AV 57-2019, Gary Higley. Roy, would you
read the application into the record.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II GARY HIGLEY AGENT(S) CIFONE CONSTRUCTION
CO. INC. OWNER(S): HIGLEY LAKE PROPERTIES, LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 23 JAY ROAD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 320 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE MAIN FLOOR AND 90 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO A
MECHANICAL STORAGE AREA. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,776 SQ. FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,779 SQ.
FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING SHED ROOF TO A PEAKED ROOF. THE ACCESS
TO THE MECHANICAL IS FROM THE EXISTING HOUSE SECTION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SETBACKS
AND PERMEABILITY. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN CEA. CROSS
REF SP 77-2019; SB 1422-21421; RC 147-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A. LOT SIZE 0.23
AC. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-14 SECTION 179-3-040
GARY HIGLEY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2019, Gary Higley, Meeting Date: December 18, 2019 “Project
Location: 23 Jay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 320 sq. ft. addition to the
main floor and a 90 sq. ft. addition to a mechanical area storage space. The existing home is 1,776 sq. ft.
with a floor area of 3,779 sq. ft. The project includes alteration to an existing shed roof to a peaked roof.
The access to the mechanical is from the existing house section. Relief is requested from setbacks and
permeability. Project subject to site plan review for new floor area in CEA.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setbacks and permeability.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes a 320 sq. ft. addition that is to be located 7.7 ft. from the North property line
where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for permeability where 66.2% is proposed
where 75% is required, 66.7% is existing.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
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. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties.
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 feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
location of the existing home and lot configuration.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate
relevant to the code. The relief is 12.3 ft. for the setback and 8.8% excess of hard surfacing on the
site.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered to be
self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to remove a portion of the home mechanical area to construct a 320 sq. ft.
addition to the main floor with a roofline to match the existing roofline and to add 90 sq. ft. to the
mechanical area at the lower level. The survey shows the location of the addition. The architectural
rendition shows the addition and mechanical room area.”
MR. MC CABE-If you’d come up to the table and identify yourself for the record.
MR. HIGLEY-Good evening. Gary Higley, 23 Jay Road, Queensbury, NY. We have an existing shed roof
coming off of the house. It’s a three room summer house for us, summer camp, and we’d like to put an
additional family room where this existing shed roof is right now. So we’re basically taking the exact same
existing area and just going up. We’re not changing, we are bumping up four feet up the driveway
because the back wall of the existing foundation is weak. It’s not going to fall down tomorrow, but since
we’re building this they want to replace that foundation.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. KUHL-Could I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MC CABE-Absolutely.
MR. KUHL-The four feet you’re talking about, Mr. Higley, is that where the change in your distance, the
front yard, you have 139.4 to the house and the new addition is 135.5. Where do we lose four feet?
MR. HIGLEY-Do you have the map of the floor plan of the house?
MR. KUHL-Right.
MR. HIGLEY-So if you look at the addition.
MR. KUHL-Before you answer that, let me ask you another question that confused me a little bit. Are you
going to just build on the existing foundation you have to build your room on top?
MR. HIGLEY-Basically, yes. The existing foundation is, comes out 12 feet. We would like to go 16 feet.
That’s where that other footage comes from.
MR. KUHL-I understand. Okay. Good.
MR. HIGLEY-We have to dig that foundation out and pour it in. So we are putting a family room in and
we’re adding four feet to it.
MR. KUHL-I believe the way the print says it’s Gary’s t.v. room.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
MR. HIGLEY-It does say that, yes.
MR. KUHL-Thank you. I just didn’t know where that four feet came from.
MR. HIGLEY-That’s where that four feet came from and that’s where the permeability changes also, that
.5 permeability is the four feet that are coming out from the house. Otherwise there would be zero
change in the permeability.
MR. KUHL-Thank you.
MR. HENKEL-That’s one of the questions I was going to ask about the permeability. Is there any way to
squeeze a little bit more permeability out of that by getting rid of some of that asphalt there?
MR. HIGLEY-I mean not really. This property’s been there for, this was my parents’ property. They lived
there for 30, 40 years, and Susan and I took it over last year in 2018. It needed some tender loving care.
So it was started to secure it up and ended up re-building it.
MR. HENKEL-The asphalt doesn’t look like it’s that old. It looks like it’s fairly new.
MR. HIGLEY-Actually it’s very old. It’s been there for probably at least, I think it was put in in the 1990’s.
MR. HENKEL-Would you be willing to get rid of some of that?
MR. HIGLEY-Well we’re going to re-landscape everything as soon as this is done.
MR. HENKEL-Because that permeability’s down there pretty good where it’s, you know.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? A public hearing is advertised for this project. So at this particular time
I’d like to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who has input on this
application. Seeing nobody, Roy, do we have any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is one letter. “As an adjacent neighbor to the Higley’s we have no objection to the
proposed addition.” And that’s Tracy Taylor 21 Jay Road and Vic Celadon, 29 Jay Road.
MR. MC CABE-So those are either side?
MR. HIGLEY-Both adjoining neighbors signed off on it.
MR. MC CABE-So no other public input, so at this particular time I’m to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Ron.
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the Higley’s have been good stewards of the lake and I
mean the loss of permeability from 66.2 to 66.7 is minimal. I think we’re offering them the minimum
amount of relief. I’d be in favor of this project as submitted.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. I think it’s a minimal request and it certainly will fit the character of
the neighborhood.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, the permeability bothers me a little bit, even though like Ron says it’s not much, but I
would be on board with the project as is.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think it passes the test. I would be in favor of it.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of it. The loss of permeability is minimal, and the neighborhood is fine with
it. So I’m in support.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s a .5 percent increase in permeability. It’s only 82 square feet larger than
what’s there presently and I think it will match the roofline of the house and make it match nicely.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. It’s a small lot so almost always on these size lots
permeability is a problem and the change is minimal. So I think we’re all set here. So I’m going to ask
Michelle to make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gary Higley.
Applicant proposes a 320 sq. ft. addition to the main floor and a 90 sq. ft. addition to a mechanical area
storage space. The existing home is 1,776 sq. ft. with a floor area of 3,779 sq. ft. The project includes
alteration to an existing shed roof to a peaked roof. The access to the mechanical is from the existing
house section. Relief is requested from setbacks and permeability. Project subject to site plan review for
new floor area in CEA.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setbacks and permeability.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes a 320 sq. ft. addition that is to be located 7.7 ft. from the North property line
where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for permeability where 66.2% is proposed
where 75% is required, 66.7% is existing.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 18, 2019;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to
nearby properties because it really is a minimal request for a change in dimensions that causes a
decrease in permeability of 0.5%.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been
included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial as noted above.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but that doesn’t have bearing on this resolution.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. _57-2019 GARY
HIGLEY, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of December 2019 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,
Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.
MR. HIGLEY-Thank you much. Thank you very much. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 60-2019, Meghan & Daniel Frazier.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; STUDIO A.; PHINNEY DESIGN GROUP; LITTLE, O’CONNOR & BORIE, P.C.
OWNER(S) MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER ZONING WR LOCATION 12 SHORE ACRES ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 4,915 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, 14,240 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA SINGLE FAMILY
HOME. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR A 500 SQ. FT. BUNKHOUSE, 315 SQ. FT. GAZEBO, AND A
ND
360 SQ. FT. PORTE COCHERE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR 2 GARAGE PORTE COCHERE, AND GAZEBO
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA AND PLANTING PLAN FOR
SHORELINE. CROSS REF SP 81-2019; AST 580-2019; DEMO 532-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
DECEMBER 2019 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD-CEA LGPC LOT SIZE 2.71 AC. TAX MAP NO.
227.17-1-11 SECTION 179-5-020.
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2019, Meghan & Daniel Frazier, Meeting Date: December 18,
2019 “Project Location: 12 Shore Acres Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a
new 4,915 sq. ft. footprint, 14,240 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes site work for a 500 sq. ft. bunkhouse,
nd
315 sq. ft. gazebo, 360 sq. ft. porte-cochere. Relief requested for 2 garage porte-cochere, and gazebo
accessory structure. Site plan review for new floor area and planting plan for shoreline.
Relief Required:
nd
The applicant requests relief for 2 garage porte-cochere, and gazebo accessory structure.
Section 179-5 -020 –garage
The applicant proposes a new home with an attached garage and a porte-cochere at the entrance of the
home. The porte-cochere is considered a second garage.
Section 179-5-020 –accessory structure size
The applicant proposes to construct a 500 sq. ft. bunk house and a 315 sq. ft. garage. The maximum size
of two accessory structures on a lot less than 3 acres is 500 sq. ft.
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. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties.
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 feasible alternatives may be available to
reduce the size of the accessory structures and to eliminate the second garage.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial
relevant to the code where only one garage is allowed. The accessory structure size may be
considered moderate.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered to be
self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a new home with associated site work and features for the project site. The
project includes a new driveway to be installed and the previous gravel area is to be revegetated. A sport
court is to be installed in the front yard area. The plans for the rear of the home include patio, pool and
spa areas –water features, also a garden area then the shoreline area of the home includes walking paths,
retaining walls and a beach area. The plans indicate the septic field to be located at the front of the
property near Cleverdale Road. The submission includes the site plan for the project site, landscaping
plans, elevations, and floor plans.”
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I also have an update. In reference to the Planning Board, I’m not sure if
you received the resolution in your packet of information. However, the Board understood yesterday at
the meeting that they removed the variance for the gazebo request. So it’s only for the second garage at
this time.
MR. KUHL-The gazebo is out?
MRS. MOORE-The gazebo they’re re-designing it so it’s part of the house and that’s to be reviewed by the
Zoning Administrator when it gets completed.
MR. MC CABE-So you look vaguely familiar, like the guy that used to come here. You better identify
yourself.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little, O’Connor & Borie
representing the Fraziers, Meghan Frazier & Daniel Frazier, and they’re here with me in the audience. We
have our engineer Tom Hutchins and we also have the architect Mike Finney. Although I don’t think we
really are going to get into architectural or engineering. This is a, we have withdrawn the variance for the
gazebo. The Planning Board did say that there was no environmental impact for the porte-cochere. So
we’re here just for the porte-cochere which Craig Brown has determined to be a garage which would
mean they would have two garages on the site as opposed to the allowed one garage. We have a three
car garage that’s 1100 square feet and this porte-cochere I think is 360 square feet, and we reserve the
right to differ with Craig because in the Zoning Ordinance a garage, private parking garage is defined as
being an accessory building or structure to a residential use, attached or detached, used primarily for the
storage of vehicles as no more than three vehicles. The important part is that the garage is used for
storage of vehicles. If you look at Black’s Law, a porte-cochere says it is basically a covering to allow
people to exit a vehicle without being subject to inclement weather. So there’s some differences in
opinion as to whether this is a garage or not a garage. However, because it’s 360 feet and because of
where it’s located we chose not to file an appeal to Craig’s decision. We think that there’s very minimal
impact from this. We’ve decided that the quicker way to get this resolved is to come to you and ask you
for a variance. This structure is 262 feet from Cleverdale Road. It’s hardly noticeable from anybody. It’s
probably 75 feet from each of the two side lines and it’s set at the front of the house and the background
of the setting will be the house itself and it won’t really be noticed as a standalone or a separate garage
and it is not intended to be used as a garage for storage of vehicles. If you look at the five tests that you
have, I think that you’re going to find that all of them have satisfied. I don’t think there’s an undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to any of the nearby properties because we
are going to have this for people to get in and out of their car in inclement weather. There is no logical
place to put this type of a cover other than at the main entrance of the house. I mean that’s where most
people will be getting in and out of when they’re going into the house. So the idea is if you want to have
a cover for this purpose, you put it at your main door. That’s where this is at the front of the house. It’s
not substantial when you look at it one, by size. It’s 360 feet, and most importantly by impact. It impacts
no one. It doesn’t impact anybody on Cleverdale Road. It doesn’t impact any of the neighbors on either
side. It really is insignificant as to being there. I don’t think it has any adverse impact. I think Staff in
some of their comments had indicated that. It is self-created but that’s not a fatal defect in the
application. So that’s basically it. We would answer any questions that you might have.
MR. MC CABE-So I’ll just point out that we’ve dealt with porte-cocheres and it’s our understanding in
Queensbury that they’re considered a garage, but that’s a stretch.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve had that discussion with Craig and he said that he’s had others, the Kellogg house,
and I don’t know he pointed out some others that were treated as a garage and he doesn’t want to vary
that. He didn’t think it was substantial or significant but he said that’s the practice and go get your
variance.
MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to ask are there questions of the applicant from the Board?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d just throw out some thoughts here. A porte-cochere is a design feature that you
often see on great camps in the Adirondacks whether they’re ancient ones from the turn of the century
or 100 plus years ago or newly designed for present day companies. I think also if you went around
Downtown Glens Falls and you looked at a few of the big old mansions around town, many of those have
the same thing, and in the old days they were designed for ingress and egress from a horse carriage or
something like that.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s within the definition of Black’s Law from the carot, exit from and enter to carriages.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think one of the problems that we have as a Board and as a Town, is that we
don’t oftentimes get the great camp concept placed before us. Oftentimes we’re just dealing with camps
on small lots and in this case that’s not the case. It’s a much larger lot and as you said it’s well set back
from the road, and I think, too, you know, even when you hold your design about the gazebo, you know,
great camps in the Adirondacks, if you go to any of them that have existed for over 100 years there’s
multiple buildings on site. So I think it’s probably time for the Town Board to get together and sit down
and come up with some guidelines, and I think the Adirondack Park Agency already has evolved them
pretty well as to what’s acceptable and that’s not, but I don’t really have a problem with what you’re
proposing. I think it’s perfectly fine.
MR. MC CABE-Well you’re jumping the gun a little bit. Anybody else have questions of the applicant?
MR. URRICO-I just would like to know what we’re asking for now, with the withdrawal of the gazebo.
MR. MC CABE-It’s just the second garage.
MR. URRICO-Just the second garage. We’re not asking for the accessory structure size?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. URRICO-The gazebo was only 315 feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-But we have a bunkhouse that’s 500 feet and the limit under three acres is a total of 500
feet.
MR. URRICO-So the porte-cochere is not considered a garage, it’s considered an accessory structure,
then?
MRS. MOORE-No, it’s considered as a garage.
MR. URRICO-Okay. So it doesn’t apply to the accessory structure size at all.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. URRICO-Unless we decide that it’s not a garage. If we decide that it’s not a garage, then it becomes
an accessory structure.
MRS. MOORE-So the interpretation from the Zoning Administrator.
MR. URRICO-But what I’m saying is that if we allow this to be a second garage because we consider it an
accessory structure.
MRS. MOORE-It’s specifically defined, yes.
MR. MC CABE-Ron, you had a question?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
MR. KUHL-I don’t know if I didn’t do my homework properly and I didn’t read all the documentation you
gave us, but are you asking us, are you getting your docks approved here, too, or does that come later? I
see pictures of docks here.
MR. O'CONNOR-They’re in existence. They’re already permitted by the Lake George Park Commission.
MR. KUHL-Okay, but you just didn’t show us a picture of it.
MRS. MOORE-They’re not subject to, the portions over the water are not subject to the Town of
Queensbury review.
MR. KUHL-Okay. I have another question. Are you going to leave all the trees in front?
MR. O'CONNOR-What do you consider the front?
MR. KUHL-Well as I drove into the property looking for Number 12, you know, and there was one house
there I said where are the other 11? You staked out where the house is, and from that position to the
road there are a lot of trees. Are they all staying or are you going to be farming them out?
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re going to save as much as we can. We had some discussions with regard to the
site which we’ll have to go through with the Planning Board, which may vary a little bit. If you see all the
plans it may vary the tree or the plantings that are there, but if you take a look at this sheet or landscaping
you’re going to find this very, it’s going to be very extensively landscaped and in fact we’re going to add
additional trees of what has been shown here on the Site plan, but that’ll be part of the Site Plan.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So a public hearing is advertised this evening, so at this particular
time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s comment from the audience, and I see one
right there. So you’re first. Would you give up the table for a second.
MR. O'CONNOR-One comment I’d make though is I think what we’re asking for is the Area Variance, and
I don’t know if, I think you’re going to get a lot of comments at the Site Plan, which we fully expect.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. O'CONNOR-And that would be tomorrow night before the Planning Board. So I’d just make that
statement I guess.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Sir? So state your name for the record, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JIM MEYER
MR. MEYER-Jim Meyer. I live at the property immediately south of the Frazier’s property. Just a quick
comment. I see no problem with this design or this layout, and I realize this isn’t the total Site Plan
Review, but I live right next door. I have no problem with it.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Great. Ma’am. State your name please.
ROBIN INWALD
MS. INWALD-I just have a handout for you.
MR. MC CABE-Start down here with the Secretary so we can put it in the record.
MS. INWALD-Good evening. I’m Robin Inwald and I represent my family and the property next door
which is known as 183 Cleverdale Road and 38 Gunn Lane. I’m attending the hearings this week for three
reasons. First, l welcome my new neighbors to this beautiful part of the lake. I know the Fraziers and
their relatives, like my family, have been lucky to enjoy life on Lake George for multiple generations, and
their family, like mine, anticipates children, grandchildren, and more will continue to use and celebrate
important life events on our next-door properties for generations to come. As Dan Davies, our mutual
broker, mentioned, "It's in both of your (family's) DNAs!" So, I hope the Fraziers will love living on this
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
section of the lake as much as my family and I do! Second, l want to make sure the Boards take note of
the ingress/egress easement along the current driveway and the lands to its north on the 12 Shore Acres
property. Third, I would like to offer my view that this variance should be denied at this time for a number
of reasons, but particularly with regard to the basketball court that is located directly on our ongoing right-
of-way and will have a major impact on my family's two properties to the north at 183 Cleverdale Rd. and
38 Gunn Lane. A recent adjustment to relocate this 65'x 50' basketball court another 25' to the south
does not significantly change this situation. At this time, the Frazier's plans do not take into account our
right of way. This right of way is clearly documented on the 1978 Schoenherr-Nelson deed, the language
which speaks for itself. It is not specifically mentioned on the present Frazier deed, perhaps due to a failure
to understand that the residence of Ray Nelson and Jean W. Nelson in 1978 was the cottage at 38 Gunn
Lane, that was purchased by my mother in 1980 with the 1978 right of way intact. So this is the property
that Schoenherr had and he split it in half and sold half of it to Ray Nelson. At the time he did this sale
Ray Nelson lived down here at 38 Gunn Lane in a cottage that my mother later bought, and this right of
way here was granted to Ray Nelson and G. Nelson who lived right here at this house and it was needed
because they needed an access for all construction and everything else that was being done and we still
do need that. The unauthorized and later reversed transactions and deeds between Schoenherr and
Nelson in 1982 and 1984, did not affect my parents ' right of way to 38 Gunn Lane through the parcels of
12 Shore Acres and 183 Cleverdale Road. Our right of way includes the length of the 12 Shore Acres
driveway beginning at its Cleverdale Road entrance and ending at the house at 38 Gunn Lane, including
the existing 12 Shore Acres lands to the north of the driveway next to our properties. So right here what
we have is, this is the right of way here and it goes all the way down from Parkdale Road all the way down
to where the porte-cochere is planned to be in front of the house. A little bit sooner than that but at the
end of 38 Gunn Lane just down here, and what you can see in this slide is this is 1981, 1980/81, and you
can see in real pictures, but there are tracks all through here because this was being used as a construction
site and we’ve used it since. We had no work for the red barn and it was from using his right of way with
Mr. Schoenherr still living in the house and we also use the right of way through the other owners of the
house. This is the driveway going down to the house and so this whole area over here until it comes to
our property is the right of way. Okay. The right of way has been continuously used by our family and
numerous contractors for 40 years, and we currently and regularly use it to access the barns and septic
areas on our properties. Because of how our septic lines are aligned, we only can only access our tractor,
mowing equipment, and boats stored in the barn via this easement. It is additionally necessary when
repairs are needed to maintain these historic 1845 structures as featured in a November 17, 2019 Post-
Star article about my ongoing 27-year-long restoration project of the only two remaining large barns in
Cleverdale. Due to the increased noise from a basketball court that will carry to our nearby houses, and
the fact that this court is located on our ROW, I request the sports/basketball court be moved farther
south from our property lines, away from both our family's seasonal ranch house and this would allow for
more tree screening and less noise. It should be noted that the Meyer home on the south side of 12 Shore
Acres is located at lakeside, while the ranch house at 183 Cleverdale Rd. and the back of our house at 38
Gunn Lane all overlook the basketball court as currently located.
MR. MC CABE-I’m going to stop you for a second. We don’t have anything to do with the basketball court.
Are you saying that the right of way is through the porte-cochere?
MS. INWALD-No. What I’m saying is I’m simply talking about the right of way so that you become aware
of it, but I’m going to talk about the porte-cochere next. Yes, I understand that it is a civil matter but I
wanted the Board to review it.
MR. MC CABE-Well you’ve used up your time. So if you could address your comments just to the.
MS. INWALD-Well then I’ll finish quickly. Concerning the porte-cochere we don’t see the requisite
hardship necessary for the Board to grant a variance. However, assuming the Board does find hardship, it
seems likely the owners will use this area as a parking space for their most-used vehicle, as we would do
if our home had such a structure. Since the Fraziers have a large family that may not be fully
accommodated by a three-car garage, this proposed structure would act as a fourth relatively dry and
convenient area to park a car. Thus, it may well serve, in essence, as a second garage space on the
property. Concerning the entertainment Gazebo for which a variance was sought, I’ll just go very quickly
through these slides.
MR. MC CABE-The gazebo is not a part of it anymore.
MS. INWALD-Right. Okay. So in any case what I’m trying to say is we see this basketball court from all
areas that we use as our main entertainment area and so this will be a very strong problem for us. In
addition, the bunkhouse, this is the bunkhouse on the left here, and because the question is, this
bunkhouse looks very similar to the house without the garage that’s just been built last year, two years
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
ago on 34 Gunn Lane. So I guess the question is if the Board sees this as a second home or it sees it as
really a bunkhouse because it certainly has an area that’s easy to put a little refrigerator and a microwave
oven and this is in front of the house. So I had made a picture of the gazebo with the idea that maybe it
could be placed on the other side by the three car garage which would make, instead of looking kind of
like a, it’s very beautiful but it does look more like a home in the neighborhood when it’s on a hill with the
gazebo on the other side. So that was just a suggestion that I was going to make. In sum I just hope that
the Board understands that there are other areas with this property that are going to have a severe impact
on our families because our main entertainment center is directly where all this activity is going to be. So
we’re just asking that the Board be aware of that and make sure that that isn’t placed on a right of way
because that would make it very difficult if the right of way is allowed to be impeded by a basketball court
from the Zoning Board.
MR. MC CABE-The Zoning Board has nothing to do with the basketball court.
MS. INWALD-But you’re approving a site plan.
MR. MC CABE-We’re approving whether they can have the porte-cochere. That’s all we’re approving.
So we don’t really speak about the quality of the project.
MS. INWALD-So there’s no time when you do consider the effect and the impact
MR. MC CABE-This is the Zoning Board. You have the wrong Board. The Planning Board.
MS. INWALD-Okay. That’s fine. I just wanted you to be aware of the situation with this particular
property and the fact we’ve tried really hard and lived in harmony with all the other owners and we hope
to do the same with the new owners.
MR. MC CABE-And that’s important.
MS. INWALD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Do we have any written communication on this?
MR. URRICO-No, there is none.
MR. MC CABE-So would you like to come back.
MR. O'CONNOR-Just for the record.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Fraziers understand that this property is not as built upon as it’s going to be built
upon. They understand that it’s something new in the neighborhood and every time you do that you run
into people that think you ought to leave it alone and not do anything or people that live nearby thinking
they have a better plan of how you’re going to use your property. I think the issues that were raised are
site plan issues. They have nothing to do with the 360 foot Area Variance that we’ve asked you for for a
second garage if Craig is right. The Fraziers have been very open and very cooperative in trying to
cooperate and the basketball court is compliant as far as setbacks go, and it’s 25 feet and we’ve offered
to go to 50 feet. The driveway issue, we’ve offered to construct a driveway that would be satisfactory to
Ms. Inwald and we have not eliminated the gazebo, but we’ve changed the architecture of it. It was going
to be on stilts. It’s now going to be on a full foundation. It’s going to be enclosed. The area with the
access way to the gazebo is going to be enclosed as part of the house. So we’ve tried to accommodate
everything we can. We’re aware of the concerns about whether the bunkhouse is a second residence on
the 2.84 acre lot and we are taking steps to make sure that it is not.
MR. HENKEL-So that means it won’t have a kitchen in it. Right?
MR. O'CONNOR-It will not have a kitchen.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, because from the drawings it looks like it has a kitchen.
MR. O'CONNOR-I talked to Craig about that. I think Craig’s going to be satisfied with what we’re doing.
He wants to see the actual drawings. We made these decisions between Monday and Tuesday of this
week. So we don’t have the drawings that reflect everything that we’re talking about, but by the time
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
we move on we will. I don’t think we’ll have them tomorrow night. In fact, although you’re not the right
Board to ask, I would suggest that we table tomorrow night and put it on another Planning Board meeting.
We also have a two page letter of engineering comments that we’ve got to address, all of which we think
we can address for Site Plan, but we won’t have the response tomorrow and we won’t have the response
back from the engineering firm tomorrow. So maybe if you want to do that for me, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. We’ll talk, I’ll talk to you between now and tomorrow.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’ll tell the people in the audience that we will not be here tomorrow night for Site
Plan. Any other questions you want me to address?
MR. MC CABE-That’s all right now.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Just one quick question. I’m just wondering if it’s a definite that they won’t be here
for the Site Plan?
MRS. MOORE-So I’ll just quickly explain. If the applicant wishes to table the application they can. What
happens at the Planning Board meeting is that they will open the public hearing and leave it open, and
therefore if the applicant’s not present, then there’s no discussion about the application at that time.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So are we all done? So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board and I’m going to start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-To me it still comes across as a second garage. It’s a way we get around the second garage
requirement or lack of a requirement that we have, and I can’t approve it. I will be on the negative side
of that.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project. I see little to no impact. I believe it’s a large lot. It’s well set
back from the road. So I’m in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is a very large lot. It’s well set back from the road. It’s well set back from the
waterfront also. My concerns for the porte-cochere is just that, if I were making the call on it, although I
think Craig is just caught between a rock and a hard place by categorizing it as a garage. It’s really a porte-
cochere and it’s meant for ingress and egress for people moving from their vehicles to the home. I don’t
see that it’s a hindrance and I don’t have a problem with approving that. As far as the other things, the
gazebo and the bunkhouse, I think if you look at the size of the lot and you look at the square footage,
you could build on the lot. You’re probably talking about 20,000 square feet plus of build out on that lot,
and I think the design element of the bunkhouse, whether or not it’s before us or not is so small that it’s
minimal and I think it’s just a matter of design preference. It goes with the great camp, just like your
gazebo that you made go away by having a covered walkway leading out to it, and I think that’s a design
element that’s commonly seen on camps in the Adirondacks. So I’d be in favor of approving it.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I believe that what they’re asking for blends in very nicely with the architecture, their build out
of this building. I think the lot is big enough. I mean at 2.8 acres it supports it all. I think it’s a minimal
request at best and I’d be in favor of the project as it stands.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I agree with Mr. Kuhl, and just looking at the suggestions, according to the Staff Notes,
was to maybe consider losing the accessory structure, which they’ve done. So I think with just the one
variance I could support it.
MR. MC CABE-John?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members, especially with Jim. I believe it isn’t a garage per
se but according to Code it is, and we definitely have approved, even though you’re not supposed to
compare projects, but we’ve approved much smaller lots with a second garage, garage. So with this like
this, I would approve it as is.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, approve it. I think it’s a beautiful structure. I think it will enhance the
neighborhood, and I don’t really see it as a second garage. I see it as a way to protect people that enter
the house from the elements. So, with that, I’m going to ask Ron to make a motion.
MR. KUHL-Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. I appreciate it.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Meghan &
Daniel Frazier. Applicant proposes a new 4,915 sq. ft. footprint, 14,240 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes
site work for a 500 sq. ft. bunkhouse, 315 sq. ft. gazebo, 360 sq. ft. porte-cochere. Relief requested for
nd
2 garage porte-cochere, and gazebo accessory structure. Site plan review for new floor area, hard
surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and planting plan for shoreline.
Relief Required:
nd
The applicant requests relief for 2 garage porte-cochere, and gazebo accessory structure.
Section 179-5 -020 –garage
The applicant proposes a new home with an attached garage and a porte-cochere at the entrance of the
home. The porte-cochere is considered a second garage.
Section 179-5-020 –accessory structure size
The applicant proposes to construct a 500 sq. ft. bunk house and a 315 sq. ft. garage. The maximum size
of two accessory structures on a lot less than 3 acres is 500 sq. ft.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 18, 2019;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to
nearby properties as this request blends in very well with the architecture.
2. Feasible alternatives are very limited. They’ve been discussed and the fact that this is considered
an auxiliary structure is a stretch. However, they have been considered by the Board and we
believe that this is a minimal request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial as it blends in very well. This is a 2.8 acre lot and this
structure blends right in.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created, but that’s a stretch also.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2019
MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Underwood:
th
Duly adopted this 18 Day of December 2019 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Urrico
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So I just want to point out to the Board that our next application here is a Use Variance
that’s a little unusual, and in addition it’s a public utility Use Variance. So there are only three criteria,
but the applicant has to meet all three criteria.
MRS. MOORE-Just to correct you. It’s similar to an Area Variance in the sense of all three criteria. You
don’t have to find in favor of all three.
MR. MC CABE-Right.
MRS. MOORE-So in an Area Variance you find in favor of all five criteria.
MR. MC CABE-There’s four in a normal Use Variance, but this is a special one. Right?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Roy, could you read into the record UV 1-2019, Tillman Infrastructure.
USE VARIANCE NO. 1-2019 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE AGENT(S) TONY
PHILLIPS OWNER(S) BURKE BROTHER’S BUILDERS, INC. ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 55 STATE
ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 260 SQ. FT. TOWER FOR UP TO THREE TENANTS.
PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR A 360 FT. ROAD WITH LEASE AREA OF 100 X 100. THE PLANS SHOW
LOCATION OF PADS FOR TENANTS. SITE TO BE GRAVEL AND LEASE AREA TO HAVE FENCE ENCLOSURE.
TOWER IS TO HAVE A LIGHT ON TOP TO BE COMPLIANT WITH FCC. CROSS REF SP 78-2019 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE 20.17 AC. TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-21 SECTION 179-
5-130
TONY PHILLIPS & DAVE BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 1-2019, Tillman Infrastructure, Meeting Date: December 18, 2019
“Project Location: 55 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a
260 ft. tower for up to three tenants. Project includes site work for a 360 ft. road with lease area of 100
x 100. The plans show location of pads for tenants. Site to be gravel and lease area to have fence
enclosure. Tower is to have a light on top to be compliant with FCC.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for construction of a new cell tower.
Section 179-5-130 Telecommunications Towers
The applicant proposes a new telecommunications tower to be located on a parcel in the Rural Residential
5 acre zone where cell towers are not a listed use.
Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
The four (4) criteria usually associated with a use variance are different in this case. Verizon Wireless is
considered a public utility under New York decisional law (Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg,
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
82N.Y.2d 364(1993) and a provider of “personal wireless services” under the Telecommunications Act of
1996. As a result of these decisions, the following are to be shown by the public utility in order to gain a
use variance:
1. That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and
adequate service. The applicant has provided information about the gap in service of this area.
The applicant has indicated the service would include 5g and other next generation technology.
Also, the applicant has indicated the project includes access for assistance for E911.
2. That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. The
applicant has provided information that indicates the current structure the applicant is using has
limited movement amongst the carriers and economically challenging.
3. Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility
should be correspondingly reduced. The applicant has provided site evaluation materials as
outlined in the code. The information indicated the project site is unmanned and will have an
access drive and one parking space. The site will be visited typically once a month for equipment
maintenance by the carriers.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to utilize a 10,000 sq. ft. area to install a 260 ft. lattice cellular tower and associated
equipment. The applicant has indicated that the area will be fenced in with a 75 x 75 ft. area and to
include equipment cabinets and a generator. The site is a new cell tower and is subject to a use variance
for utility usage. The application provides details of reviewing sites that have an existing tower for shared
use and locating in areas that allow new towers where neither met the needs of placement of a new
tower. The applicant has provided photo simulations and gap coverage maps.
Note there are two previous cell towers approved on Route 149.
1) UV 30-2000 and SP 58-2000 SBA @ 61 State Route 149 for 195 ft. tall tower. Rural Residential 3
Acre Zone. (Planning Board meeting 9/19/2000 and Zoning Board meeting of 5/17/2000,
6/15/2000)
2) Use Variance 45-2015 Site Plan PZ38-2015 Cellco Partnership @ 373 State Route 149 for 195 ft.
tall tower and the site contains an existing 297 ft. tall radio tower. Rural Residential 3 Acre Zone
(Planning Board meetings of 1/19/2016& 1/26/2016 and Zoning Board meeting of 1/20/2016)”
MR. MC CABE-Please identify yourself for the record.
MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. I’m Tony Phillips from Fullerton Engineering for Tillman and AT&T is part of
the project. This is Dave Brennan. He’s representing Tillman as the attorney. We’re proposing a 260
foot tower here, adjacent to the existing tower. I’m sure you’ve seen in the packet there for many
reasons. One of which is the AT&T has asked our firm to try and find locations. They gave us an area of
search to find another spot so they can locate a tower close to where the existing tower is. I’ll be honest
with this when I first got these assignments and started working with people, I was thinking this is a very
tough sell because we’re trying to put a tower next to an existing tower and I thought this is not going to
be a good thing, and the further I got into it I realized that the codes have created kind of a monopoly for
the existing tower owners. They’re basically saying that that tower can be the only guy in town to sell
space or going to be the only apartment building in town and everybody has to live there and he can
charge whatever he wants. So I looked at it that way and I said, you know what, this makes sense here
because, you know, they’re fighting this monopoly that they have to pay the rent no matter what the
charge is because they know that the jurisdiction is going to support them no matter what they do. So
they gave us a spot. They gave us a search menu which was a very tight search menu, 1,000 feet, 1,500
feet in most cases, to provide the same coverage or better for their clients, but give them an alternative
place to live, let’s say, and the reason we start way in advance on this stuff is because these leases start
expiring. The leases are like five years with renewals every five years. So we have to start looking for an
alternate spot for them way in advance so that they can get this stuff worked out because it takes years
to develop, you know, to get a site through planning and zoning and all that kind of thing. So this was,
this parcel worked for them. The RF engineers approved this parcel. The tower needs to be the height
that we’re proposing to give them the same because of the elevations of the property, you know, the
topography to get them the same or better coverage than what they have right now, and that’s about it.
There’s really not much more we can say about it. It’s a cell tower and it’s to provide for AT&T to offer
the First Net program which is the other big piece of it is that the technology that they have on that tower
right now isn’t all the way up to speed, you know, there’s more technology coming down the road.
There’s this First Net program which is the first responder’s network and the new tower would have this
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
equipment on it, and it’s a dedicated network for first responders that they have access to. When there’s
an emergency, things like that, everybody, as you know, when there’s a big event, something like that,
everybody’s on their cell phone at the same time. You can’t get a signal. This network would be a free
network for that type of thing, so that first responders could have a bigger channel to communicate. So
that would help first responders. So there’s many, many issues here, not just economic hardship. It’s
just, as they go down the road, they kind of did the math on this thing and found that over the course of
the life of a cell tower it could be almost a million dollars in savings in rent and time and all the things that
go into it because the current property owner, the current tower owner, which I think they might be here
and they might have an issue with us because they always do. They’re going to say well AT&T has enough
money and they didn’t do this and they didn’t do that. Well, you know, this is, they’ve tried. They’ve
tried to negotiate with SBA, the tower owner. They can’t come to terms with them on many, many cases,
and so that’s why we’re here because they’ve tried, and had they worked it out we wouldn’t be here.
They wouldn’t bring me in from out of town. They wouldn’t have Dave here and, you know, it’s not just
the money. It’s also the time it takes to improve the technology because every time the technology
changes they have to go touch the tower. They have to go back up on the tower, and there’s like a toll
booth. Every time they have to touch it they want more rent, they want more time, more approvals,
more red tape. Tillman Infrastructure which we’re representing will not charge them that. They will not
have any type of paperwork as far as technology goes. They like to know what’s going on, obviously, but
they won’t stop them from doing their technology. They can come on and off as often as they need to,
provided the tower handles it structurally. So there’s many benefits for being on another tower, having
a different landlord as you say, and that’s about it.
MR. MC CABE-So let me ask you, part of what you say here is this will support 5G. If you have 5G, will that
also, and let’s say your phone is only 4G, will the 5G signal be available to your phone?
MR. PHILLIPS-The 5G is a different technology. Their technology, they’re going to keep everything they
have and add the additional. As technology changes that will all be, they’re not eliminating any
technology right now as far as I know. They’re keeping everything the same and adding the new stuff,
the new technology, the new bandwidth, the new frequencies that are in use right now. So nothing’s
being eliminated. As equipment gets eliminated the old analog, the old cell phones, that type of thing,
that stuff will be phased out, but they’re not going to leave anybody without service, and that’s the other
thing, too, is the codes, the old use codes didn’t take into consideration the technology, the change in the
technology. The codes say we need a tower inventory two miles apart because they want, okay, well if
there’s a tower two miles away you should be able to use that tower. It doesn’t work that way anymore.
The technology has changed. People want to be connected all the time. There’s critical infrastructure.
People wanted in home coverage. A lot of people work from home now. They want their, you know,
everything to work. You want your Wi-Fi to work. You need a signal. It’s very frustrating when you can’t
get a signal, and so now these things need to be closer together, and they also support the 5G, which is
the small cell which brings things down a little bit closer to the road. So you have to have a macro site,
which this is a macro site, to bring it down to the mini sites or the small cell sites. So they all kind of work
in tandem.
MR. MC CABE-So let me ask you. If you have two cell towers very close together, do they interfere with
each other?
MR. PHILLIPS-No, because they use totally different frequencies. These frequencies are governed by the
FCC. They’re, you know, they highly control that.
MR. MC CABE-So Verizon’s frequencies are different than AT&T’s?
MR. PHILLIPS-Correct.
MR. BRENNAN-They’re different. They’re licensed frequencies and they are different so there’s not
interference, and right now on the existing tower AT&T is at the top location. Verizon is located below,
but there is no problem as it exists today with interference or if they were doing another tower placed on
the same property or next door. That happens fairly regularly, and there’s also, there are protocols in
place if there does turn out to be an interference issue. There is FCC mandated interference relief
provisions that the carriers would go through. So in my many years of doing this I’ve yet to see that come
up, and if it does come up it’s handled through the carriers we dealt with.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Go ahead, John.
MR. HENKEL-The problem is you’ve got two other towers. You’ve got the one on Ridge Road and you’ve
got the one off Oxbow on 149.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
MR. BRENNAN-So Ridge Road is the second one furthest on 149 and then Oxbow is the one between the
two?
MR. HENKEL-Right. Are there vacancies on those? Because you’re supposed to provide for two other
carriers other than the carrier that’s there.
MR. BRENNAN-So I can speak to, I did the permitting for the one on Oxbow about three years ago for
Verizon and that’s somewhat why I’m here today is because Verizon has an interest in this location as
well, and Verizon is on that one. I believe we’ve made, or are attempting to co-locate on the one on
Ridge Road eventually. That one is an AT&T site. The issue is neither of those sites replace this site.
They’re at the typical spacing, you know, of two or more miles, and so there is no overlap. Each of those
is independently functioning and provides service to their intended areas. So there is, I believe, Verizon
I believe is on each of them, but they’re putting antennas on those will not replace the need for a site in
this location which essentially at the corner of, the heart of your commercial district and so this site is a
key element. If you think back in time, the system is called a cell phone network. It’s a series of cells and
initially there was one cell and then you built out around it, and what happens, not to get too far into this,
is the frequencies are re-used. You use frequency one here, two here and back to one, and that’s how,
with a limited amount of frequency, they can re-use that frequency by alternating it between zones. With
the maturity of the network, we’re locked into that somewhat of a honeycomb or cell system right now
with these locations, and so this tower in this location is serving a critical area of two major State roads of
a lot of residences and a lot of commercial, and there’s no, obviously no way to decommission that and
say we’re just going to walk away from a site right at, essentially at that corner. It needs to be there for
both Verizon and AT&T. What has happened though, as Tony was getting into, is it’s become, over time,
it historically turns into a monopoly situation where, and I’ll go back a little bit so we’re on the same page.
At the earliest cell towers is a little bit of a history lesson, I guess, in zoning, although it pre-dates me, is
say Verizon would build a tower and then AT&T needed a tower, they wouldn’t share. Verizon would go,
no, we’re not sharing with you. You’re our competitor. So AT&T would build a tower. If you go down
the Northway right across the twin bridges there’s about three towers. It seems like you could stretch
your hands out and touch them. That’s because one guy built one and one carrier built the next one and
wouldn’t share. When all the codes started coming into place in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, that’s
what you see in the zoning world, it was the newest thing. The municipalities got wind of this and they
said that’s not going to fly. We’re not having a proliferation of towers so everybody can have one set of
antennas. In our code we’re going to force you to co-locate on existing towers first, and your code reflects
that as do every one I think that I’ve seen is that if there’s an existing tower you need to go there first, but
there’s caveats that you don’t have to go there if it’s structurally insufficient or if there’s demonstrated
financial problems. What we’re seeing with the majority of the industry is there’s now financial problems
and the fight right now, unfortunately you’re front row to it, is that Verizon and AT&T are getting priced
out of the market with the rent on this site, SBA, and there’s a letter in the application package from AT&T
back in 2018 asking for a re-negotiation of the rents which has been ignored. I’ve got a letter that I
handed to the Planning Board last night from Verizon making the same case, that this rent is, and Tillman
Infrastructure will say their rent is in the area of 50% cheaper than what is being asked at the SBA tower,
and that’s what’s driving this. The problem is the strict application of the code. If you ignore the financial
hardships, they’re the only game in town. They’re the only gas station that you can only buy gas from
and they’re not going to allow another one in, and so our proposal today is similar to your code which, as
you go down the hierarchy it says first go on existing towers, second go on existing tall structures if they’re
there, if there are no other existing tall structures. Third go in your industrial districts, your CLI and your
HI districts. We’re not near those, and then you start talking about whether you can build a new tower,
but all of that in your town, everything requires a Use Variance for that tower. So that’s what drives us
to your Board. One of your siting hierarchy is a second tower on the same site, two towers on one
property. That sounds good in the code book but in practicality it doesn’t work because almost every
lease says, there’s a competition provision in that lease or there’s a right of first refusal. So the existing
landlord typically cannot put a second tower on his property with the things 50 feet apart, so we did the
next best thing. We went one property to the west and said we would like to build it there, and Tony hit
on what I want to elaborate is the difference in height between the existing tower of 195 and the proposed
at 260 is because we’re not on, unfortunately up here you know it better than I do we’re not on a flat
plane. The elevation difference between the two properties, although they’re next door, is 54 feet I think
I calculated it at. To keep the antennas the same height above sea level our tower needs to be taller.
Otherwise we lose 50 feet and the signal degrades and we don’t have the same coverage. So that’s just
a brief explanation of why there’s a difference in heights.
MR. HENKEL-But didn’t they put a small Stewart’s on Aviation?
MR. PHILLIPS-I just did that one.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
MR. HENKEL-Right. So isn’t that helping out, instead of having all these towers all over? Isn’t that going
to start helping out if you do those?
MR. BRENNAN-It helps out, but it’s not the benefit that you would think, and so those cover about a 1,000
foot radius, maybe 1500 feet. The one at Stewart’s on Aviation Road just west of the high school is a
capacity relief issue for an area of high usage and that is a 4G site. Eventually those sites will also work,
as the Chairman was asking about 5G. They will also be, create the footprint for 5G, but the overall
network still is going to function on the macro sites providing an overall coverage footprint for the phones
to work and then the 5G is more, as Tony was saying, more basically down at the street level, at the tops
of Stewart’s, at the tops of telephone poles, but that’s going to be another, basically there’s going to be
two levels of this to work, and so as you’re driving down the street, you may or may not work on your
telephone poles, but if you’re out in a more rural area it’s going to be off the macro sites that are still two
miles apart, and so the one is not going to replace the other. The towers are not disappearing, although
in fairness your Code does say if the tower becomes disused, there’s no antenna, that that would be the
case with the SBA tower, that it’s supposed to come down. If after 12 or 18 months of disuse there’s no
antennas on it, it’s supposed to come down.
MR. KUHL-I’m going to ask you a question. You’re dropping Verizon and AT&T. Who’s owning the tower?
MR. PHILLIPS-Tillman Infrastructure.
MR. KUHL-Tillman. Okay. Is this a single source tower? Or are there going to be multiple sources on
that tower?
MR. BRENNAN-It’s multiple carriers. It’s listed as three right now.
MR. KUHL-I’m sorry?
MR. BRENNAN-Three carriers. They have room for three carriers.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Is that the max it could be built for or could you have five carriers on that tower?
MR. BRENNAN-You could put more on there. It probably would have to be higher.
MR. KUHL-It goes by your square footage, where you have your electronics down at the bottom, too.
MR. BRENNAN-Yes, they can always expand the compound for that. The problem is as you add more
carriers you either have to go up or come down, and the people that come down won’t get the same
coverage.
MR. KUHL-Right. This is being built for three carriers is what you’re saying.
MR. BRENNAN-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-Doesn’t the government regulate that saying there has to be availability for two others?
Don’t they regulate that?
MR. BRENNAN-I’m not aware.
MR. MC CABE-Is the 911 one of those three?
MR. PHILLIPS-Well the First Net program that I talked about is part of AT&T’s project. That would be at
their RAD Center. We call it a RAD Center. That would be with their equipment. That would be in
addition to what they have now. They would be adding that equipment to what they call an antenna
array.
MR. BRENNAN-And the other tower that maybe you’re recalling, the next one due east about two miles
would be Oxbow. There was a requirement when Verizon built that tower to reserve space for the
County’s 911 system and I don’t know that it was built. I know that we set aside and had discussions with
the County and they were put in touch with Verizon to mount their antenna. I don’t know. At some
point I’m out of the loop. Those antennas are much different than a full sector array of panel antennas.
I think, the County, I was pretty involved with it because I think they have an 18 foot width is what they
were trying to put on top of it as I recall.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
MR. HENKEL-The other problem you’re saying it’s a five year lease. So after five years, they might want
to build a tower.
MR. PHILLIPS-Trust me. They tried negotiating. They tried. This is why they’re doing this way in advance.
They sent out letters back in 2016 they sent out to their tower, you know, they’re landlord saying, hey,
our lease is coming up, what can we do to talk about that. What can we do to save a little bit of money
here? What can we do to save some time? What can we do to cut the red tape? And it fell on deaf
ears. So once they’re in place, I mean, obviously this is a Use Variance. This is not something they’re
going to need all the time. This is strictly for, you know, this is an exception to the rule obviously. You
have a rule and you guys are entitled to make that exception if you want on a case by case basis.
MR. BRENNAN-So to answer your question, they’re five year terms. Typically the lease with the property
owner is 20 or 25 years and then it’s in five year increments that the tower owner can automatically renew
and so that gives the tower owner basically every five years the ability to say this tower’s no longer
needed. We can take it down.
MR. HENKEL-Do they actually do that? Do they actually take towers down?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The Town requires them to do it. We wrote that clause in a long time ago.
MR. PHILLIPS-I’ve not seen a tower come down except right now because the industry’s mature
representing another tower company and the leases are at the end of their 20 or 25 years. In some cases
the landlords are in, the renegotiation is not going well and so to the point of they’re looking at if you’re
out in the country and you’re at Farm A and that farmer’s not being nice with you, you’ll move next door
to Farm B. So there is, those come down at the end of 25 years, but they don’t typically come down
because the carriers no longer need them. It’s, if anything, we’re obviously here often because we’re
building more sites because of, I used to hesitate and I still probably will hesitate, but 20 years ago we
would ask who has a phone and somebody in the audience would say I will never have one of those. I’m
almost at the point of going who doesn’t have a phone anymore because I’m comfortable enough that
our market penetration across the carriers is phenomenal. The statics are saying 75% of 911 calls across
the country are coming in from hands free devices and I think it’s 55% of the homes have cut the cord and
gone wireless only and they no longer have landlines. So if anything they’re not coming down because
we’re needing more sites not less.
MR. URRICO-Can I ask a couple of questions on the safety and adequate service part. Right now Verizon
and AT&T they’re signals bounce off the current tower?
MR. BRENNAN-Yes, they are on that existing tower, yes.
MR. URRICO-So there is service there.
MR. BRENNAN-Correct.
MR. URRICO-How would this make it better for your subscribers?
MR. PHILLIPS-It makes it better, the propagation plots that were supplied by AT&T show a slight increase
in the quality of the coverage. It is, if you flip back and forth between them, you can see that the coverage
is a little bit better. It’s a subtle difference because the antennas at this height are going up about 18
feet. So you start seeing a difference, maybe in 10 foot or 20 foot increments you’ll start seeing a
difference in the plots. It’s a subtle difference. We are providing service from the site right now and so.
MR. URRICO-So it is not really a safety concern at this point, though.
MR. PHILLIPS-No, it’s not a safety concern.
MR. URRICO-You said a slight increase but really I don’t know if we’ve noticed, I don’t use AT&T or Verizon
but I have pretty good coverage in the area. So I don’t know what gap you’re talking about.
MR. PHILLIPS-I agree with you. We’re not suggesting that this is a coverage site or a gap site. This is a
proposal for a Use Variance because at the rents that are being proposed what it is doing is delaying and
siphoning off capital for, whether it’s site specific or across the board improvements, and so we’re making
an effort across the board where there are sites with rents that are above market to take that rent that’s
being paid and being sent down to Boca Raton, Florida as rent and we’d rather put that back into
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
equipment to improve service, upgrade service and deploy 5G. So it’s kind of a macro-economic kind of
thing. Is it that your phone doesn’t work at that corner right now? No, your phones do work.
MR. URRICO-So if those carriers move from one tower to the next tower, then the person that you’re
leasing property from on the first tower, what happens to them? Do they, are they responsible for moving
the tower or do they have to fight it in court to get the tower removed? What happens in that situation?
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, I don’t know that, I know that AT&T and Verizon are on that tower. I could not tell if
there was another carrier on it. So there may be someone else there, but basically this is a bit of a play
out of our system of economics where if someone’s not competitive. If you were, you know, leasing
space on Route 9 and you could get a storefront for the Gap or whatever at 50% of the going rate you
would eventually make a decision that it’s economically appropriate to spend the money and relocate as
part of your business model. So that’s what is going on here. It is not a typical situation. Like I said I’ve
got another site where the landowner is not negotiating. We’re talking about moving the tower. So it is
something new to the Boards because we’re at 20 years or more into this industry. It’ s a maturation
thing at this point. This one particular tower is not cooperating like the other ones are as far as dealing
with the rents, and so it’s gotten to the point and enough time has passed where both Verizon and AT&T
are investing the time and money to relocate and place that, instead of spending it on rent, spending it
on capital improvements.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think at this point we should probably focus on the variance being asked for because
this is a rural residential area. We probably should hear from the public because I think there’s probably
some public here that wants to give some comments.
MR. MC CABE-We will.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think they made some valid arguments for what they’re proposing, but at the same
time we have to do the balancing test for that end of it.
MR. KUHL-If I were to ask you what’s the cost justification for this. You’re asking for an additional tower
because you talk about capacity, correct?
MR. PHILLIPS-Capacity, coverage, technology.
MR. KUHL-Well show me where, or what’s your measurement for the need for more capacity?
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, just use. Every day the technology changes.
MR. KUHL-I spent 12 years as an engineer for a company that used to be a little New York Telephone
Company. So we had everything on capacity and we had to justify adding equipment so you could have
your dial tone on your hard wire phone.
MR. PHILLIPS-As you know, everybody has their laptop. Everybody has a tablet. Everybody has a
cellphone on them. There’s technology. They have games they’re playing on line, their kids, their
grandkids. They’re connected 24/7 and they need to have this technology there, whether it’s for school,
I mean even the schools are, you have to go home with your laptop and do all your homework at home.
By doing this, by increasing that technology, that brings the coverage back into the homes more. Your
signal will be stronger, in building coverage. AT&T, they don’t have to pay this extra rent, they may just
walk away and they may just say we’ll leave you at 4G because we don’t want to pay that high rent. We’ll
leave you at 4G and then the rest of the world will be in 8G. Because they’re not going to, let’s just say,
you know, the jurisdictions say, well we don’t care. We don’t care what you’re paying. We don’t care
about that. Okay well then AT&T might just say, okay, fine, we’ll just keep things the way they are and
not worry about increasing, not pay the extra rent that the tower company wants and just leave the
technology where it’s at. That’s the other side of it. So it gets passed down to the consumer one way or
the other, it gets passed down to the consumer, whether it’s in the service, the cost of the service or the
quality of the service or the technology changing, and it has to change because every day somebody comes
up with a, you know, Microsoft, if you use a Microsoft Windows, you have to use Microsoft gas, you have
to use all these different things that they’re forcing you to do whether we want to or not. As much as you
hate it you have to kind of get into it because your stuff won’t work, and you come home from work with
your laptop and you have a program that you use for work and you can’t get on line. It’s very frustrating.
In this area here you have a lot of outdoor sports, a lot of things that are going on as far as like tourists
coming in and that type of thing. That load gets increased big time and I’m sure in the summertime at the
lake and in the wintertime in ski areas. So all these things change. You have a lot of new people coming
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
in and out and they all have, you know, a demand on the service and on the technology. So it’s pretty
important to stay up to date on this stuff I think.
MR. MC CABE-So I think that Jim’s right. Maybe we ought to hear from the audience a little bit here. So
a public hearing has been scheduled for this evening. At this particular time I’m going to open the public
hearing and ask people in the audience for some input here.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
TOM SHEPARDSON
MR. SHEPARDSON-I’d like to say a few words.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. State your name for the record, please.
MR. SHEPARDSON-My name is Tom Shepardson. I’m an attorney with Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna in
Albany. I’ve been a land use attorney for the last two decades, represented Zoning Boards, Planning
Boards, you know, for many years. I’m currently representing the town and the city in the employment
of 5G in their municipalities. I’m pretty familiar with the technologies and I’ve gone through the
application. So I represent the other tower owner next door. They oppose this application. I’m going to
try to go through this briefly. I just threw a bunch of information at you that you haven’t had time to
read yet. So I’m going to try to summarize very quickly. Your Code is a pronouncement of the Town
Board and your Code says that you should encourage co-location, preserve landscape and minimize visual
impact . Well this is the antithesis of what the Town Board has proclaimed in its citing law. Towers are
restricted to certain areas, not in a rural residential area, and the siting criteria of the order of priority and
hierarchy of where the Town encourages towers to locate first is where they’re least preferred doesn’t
apply to this matter because there are certain zoning districts in the Town where they are allowed,
permitted or allowed to be sited. This isn’t one of those areas. So we are below the lowest possibly
preference for siting of the Town according to the Town’s Code, and just so you know we’ve had the
forethought at least when we built this tower, you know, 21 years ago, after getting all the approvals from
this Board, that we can go up. In your packet we’ve got information that the structure has been built in
such a fashion that it’s readily available to go higher if a tenant needs their equipment to be located
higher. So there’s no reason, there’s no public necessity for this tower at this site located approximately
500 feet away from our tower. Which leads me to the test that I think has been misstated. In your
packet, under my understanding of the Rosenburg and the public necessity test, the first two prongs, in
order to comply with that test, is there has to be a gap in coverage, Number One, and a cell tower is
necessary to remedy that gap, and there is nothing, you know, in the record. They don’t even try to
address those two prongs of the required test, and therefore because they can’t and they haven’t met
that test, it’s my opinion that the Board should be utilizing the standard Use Variance test to consider this
application. In your packet we’ve submitted some, our propagation maps that show our RF engineer’s
report that explicitly states that this building of this tower is going to be duplicative of our tower and it
constitutes an overbuild, an over concentration of cell towers in this location. In other words they’re
getting virtually the identical coverage with our site that they will be getting at the proposed new site,
and one of the Board members picked up on the language that I think counsel said that there is a slight
difference, and that certainly can’t constitute a basis to grant a Use Variance that there is a slight
betterment of coverage in an area to build the 260 foot tower. The third thing I’d like to hit on is SEQR.
As this Board is aware it must issue a determination of significance under SEQR. I’ve taken a look at the
EAF and there seems to be a bunch of holes in the environmental review that has been put forth in the
EAF. In particular it indicates that this site is adjacent to or within a significant archeological area. There’s
no cultural resources report. It indicates that there are going to be swales built for stormwater and it’s
going to be just dumped into the DOT’s stormwater facilities. How is that going to happen? Is there a
stormwater plan available? Are there wetlands on this site? Has anybody checked? So there’s a lot of
things in there that you don’t have any information about in order to make a determination of significance
as required under SEQR before taking action on this application. And I think I read a few places and heard
the applicant state that the intend to work with the Town in the future to try to alleviate these
environmental concerns and as you know that is not a good answer. The Board must have all this
information at first in order to make a determination of significance on this project. The last couple of
things. Where are the applications, the other applications that are required for this cell tower? The EAF
indicates that a Special Use Permit is a required permit. I found no Special Use Permit application. Where
is the Area Variance application for the height of this tower? It’s not existent. Where’s the Use Variance
application for the barbed wire fence that they’re going to put around this compound in this residential
district? It’s not existent as well. So it’s our position that the Board ought to take a pause. Wait. Have
the applicant give the environmental information to the Board, file the appropriate applications and then
take it from there. One of, you know, in the packet, once we heard, there is a letter. I don’t know where
it went. It was in January, I guess, 2018. Well the last lease negotiation, amendment to the lease occurred
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
in December of 2016. So one month later they apparently sent a letter that said, hey let’s re-negotiate
the lease that we just re-negotiated. When we heard about this application we contacted the AT&T
representative. We’ve heard nothing back. So to the extent that the applicant has indicated that my
client has not been forthcoming with discussions with AT&T, they’re mistaken. The last thing I have to
say is that if the Board decides to move in favor of this project, the applicant is indicating that there is
going to be some financial benefit to the community based on some perceived lower rent, and I would
ask that the Board impose a condition that any customer, future customer’s costs will be reduced by AT&T
for customers within this area that would be served by this site. Thanks for your consideration.
MR. MC CABE-Would anybody else in the audience like to speak on this matter? State your name for the
record.
RYAN MOLL
MR. MOLL-My name is Ryan Moll. I am a current homeowner of 63 State Route 149. I just wanted to
express my concerns over the construction of a second cell tower, especially in such close proximity to my
house. You can already see the Verizon tower from the road and currently you can’t see it from my house
as well, but I’m worried with it only being 300 feet away from the road I’m going to be able to see it from
my side window. I’m sure none of you probably want to look at a cell tower, especially not having two of
them in such close proximity to you, especially when he said it would only be a subtle or slight difference
in coverage. I’ve lived here my entire life. I know the only lack in coverage is really Stony Creek and
North Creek, especially having AT&T for a while in high school. I fail to see how the second tower is going
to cover Stony Creek or North Creek which is the only real lack of coverage because it’s going to be about
the same size as the current tower, and they said it would help emergency responders. I’ve never heard
emergency responders ever having an issue with this, especially with this being designated as a rural area.
I fail to see how a rural area is going to overload the cell tower that they need to increase the service. I
just have a lot of issues with a second cell tower being constructed right next to the current Verizon tower.
Based on those reasons I don’t think it’s justifiable, on top of all the construction and everything there.
So that’s it. I just wanted to express my concerns on it.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Anybody else?
JIM FOWLER
MR. FOWLER-Jim Fowler, 61 State Route 149. I am the current resident and owner of the property
adjacent to the property of the recent tower proposal and the owner of the property where the current
tower is located. My family has resided in the area for 61 years. We are grateful for the property that
we own in this location within the Town of Queensbury. Many friends and relatives have cherished this
piece of property for generations and my wish and my wife’s wish is for future generations to continue to
live on and enjoy the natural beauty of the land of our current property. I’m speaking on behalf of myself,
my wife, and future generations. Prior to the Year 2000 other neighbors were confronted with proposals
for construction of a cell tower, but many refused or were not approved for construction. Many
community members were against the idea of a cell tower being built, including my wife and myself. It
was a big source of contention within the community. However much consideration we agreed to the
construction of the tower on the property due to location, accessibility, and it being less of a visual
intrusion than other possibilities. The current tower is located on our back side lot, has road access from
our driveway and does not need a red flashing beacon due to its elevation. My biggest concerns with this
newly proposed tower are that it will be on the property line, in line with our immediate front yard. It
will be the first thing we see when we look out our front windows and will be fully visible from our master
bedroom with a red light flashing 24/7. We fear the flashing red light will prove more of a disturbance
and visual obstruction, especially at night being visible from our master bedroom, living room, kitchen
and dining areas and outside where we frequently enjoy the nighttime scenery. We feel the current
tower is an eyesore, but that this recently proposed tower will be more of an eyesore and pose more of a
disturbance without any additional benefit because any technological advancements that can be made to
the proposed tower can be placed on the currently existing tower as is the nature of communication
towers. We are also concerned with the potential for lost property value. It disheartened my family and
myself when 100 plus year old trees were removed from our property for the construction of the current
tower, and that feeling is compounded when we see the waste of resources in this proposal for a
construction of a tower on an adjacent piece of property approximately 500 feet away from the current
tower with no benefit to the community. Do we want our community to set a precedent that allows
corporations to unnecessarily destroy wooded areas and scenic views with towers and lights for corporate
benefit because the current tower is already in existence? Nothing in this proposal belays any benefit to
the community. It would only change the location. Resources were already expended with the
construction of the current tower. Why should more resources be expended now? If nothing is to be
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
gained, only lost, is it necessary to build another tower almost on top of, within 500 feet of an already
existing tower and poses more of a negative visual impact due to the flashing red beacon and presents no
additional benefit to the community. Thanks for hearing me.
MR. MC CABE-Somebody’s got a red beacon up there already.
MR. FOWLER-That is a 195 foot tower and I guess according to the FAA you have to be 200 feet to have a
light. That’s why when we did this 20 years ago we kept it at 195.
MR. MC CABE-What I’m saying somebody that’s out near you has one with a red beacon on it.
MR. FOWLER-Yes, at Oxbow Hill. Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. FOWLER-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-So other people, or anybody else? State your name, please.
KATHLEEN BURNS
MRS. BURNS-Kathleen Burns. I live on 6 Lewis Road which is across the Northway from where this
proposed tower will be. I own almost 100 acres there and 21 years ago they came and asked us if they
could put the tower on our property and we considered it. My husband is deceased, but we did consider
it, but with the length of the road that they would have to do and the fact that our neighbors didn’t want
it, so we didn’t do it . At that time it was really, as Mr. Fowler said, it was really a very difficult decision
for the Board to make to have the tower be in our area. The people were really against it. Right now as
I go out into our field and in our woods, I cannot see the tower that is there, but if you’re going to add,
the way I understood it you’re going to add 65 feet to the tower, I just think that the beauty of the
Adirondacks there, French Mountain is right there. Lake George is, you can see Lake George from there.
I just think that there’s no reason to create another tower a few hundred feet from an existing tower,
especially when there doesn’t seem to be a need for it. A slight difference doesn’t seem to be enough
for me. So I just wanted to way that.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else? So if you gentlemen would come back. So I think there’s a couple of
questions that have to be answered here. So we’ve heard talk about coverage, and then we’ve also
discussed capacity. They’re really two different items aren’t they? Or else we wouldn’t have had to put
the little cell tower on top of the Stewart’s on Aviation there for Queensbury School because there’s
certainly coverage in that area, but we couldn’t handle the capacity. Is that true?
MR. PHILLIPS-That’s correct. That’s why that site was deployed there. Yes.
MR. MC CABE-So is this a similar thing? Because certainly we’ve seen the Outlets grow. Have they caused
a significant change in capacity requirements in this area?
MR. PHILLIPS-I don’t know that that’s changed. I think it’s not just the capacity. It’s also the technology
that’s changing. So it’s the technology more than anything that they’re talking about doing at the new
tower that’s being prevented or let’s just say stifled by the landlord.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So the other question is, you know, we’ve got an office building here and so you
want to rent an office but they’re charging you a really high price, so you want to build another office
building, a situation that’s a little bit more understandable to us and the value of you building the other
office building is you’re going to offer the office for a lot lower price. Is that a fair statement to make?
MR. PHILLIPS-It’s a fair statement to make. Correct.
MR. MC CABE-So the decisions that we have to make here is would we accept another office building.
MR. PHILLIPS-Right. The problem with this office building, though, it has to be in this location where
another office building could be down the road somewhere. This one has to be close to or right by the
existing one because the tenant is offering the coverage. We don’t want to lose any of the current
coverage. With regards to some of the statements that were made from the gentleman with SBA, with
the SEQR portion of it, the stormwater, we’ve already been working with the engineers on that as far as
the stormwater runoff. That’s all being worked out and we’re going to design it to their specs. As far as
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
the one neighbor seeing it from his front yard or whatever, we can go back further with it if we need to.
We wanted, the reason we put it there was to try and eliminate, try to limit the amount of trees that need
to be cleared to get back there.
MR. MC CABE-Can you make it like a pine tree like the one at Ridge?
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, we could do that. If you were in the sequoias you could have a nice 200 foot pine
tree, but, you know, I mean we can also look at the possibility of going lower. We’re not sure that would
work or not with the carriers. The problem is topography. To go lower, they may have to go lower which
now would change the coverage. So, I mean as far as getting it under 200 feet to prevent the beacon,
that’s also a possibility. We’re looking at a Use Variance which is the use of a cell tower, okay, and the
use could be conditioned. It could be conditioned on providing the proper storm plan, conditioned on
maybe pushing it back a little bit further, conditioned on maybe keeping it under 200 feet. I mean you
have the power to do that.
MR. MC CABE-Well, that would come under, am I right, that would come under the Site Plan Review?
MRS. MOORE-An element of that could be under Site Plan Review. You, as a Board, could evaluate some
of the, you’re looking at those three criteria but some of that three criteria include.
MR. MC CABE-Well, as it’s presented to us, SEQR is Unlisted here.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MC CABE-And so we don’t really have all of the information and we would assume that that would
come out in Site Plan Review.
MRS. MOORE-But you’re also doing your SEQR determination on that. So there’s some element, I mean
I apologize. There’s some element that you would have to have the information needed for your SEQR
determination.
MR. MC CABE-Well, we kind of faced a similar type thing with the RV park, where they wanted to, that
was Unlisted SEQR but they wanted to hard surface a portion of it, and so we had to assume where runoff
would go and certainly 149 there’s a ditch that would contain runoff.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So the applicant did explain that they’re addressing stormwater, which is typically a
Site Plan Review element, and that the application was forwarded to the Town designated engineer.
That’s why there’s comments back from the engineer on what elements they’re supposed to cover. So
they are working on that detail.
MR. BRENNAN-There’s a couple of things going on here. So if I could address a couple of the comments.
One is I’ve seen and heard a lot of things over my many years of going to these meetings since before I
even went to law school, and I will say I think it’s, the existing tower owner doesn’t have standing to come
in and complain about economics.
MR. MC CABE-Well, this is a public hearing. Anybody can express their.
MR. BRENNAN-They can express whatever they want. Whether or not you have to give it any credit is
another thing. So, you know, for this idea that somehow we’re harming the environment by building
another tower is a subterfuge for them covering, all that it’s about is economics for them. They don’t
want to lose the rental stream. So there’s case law which I’ll provide to the Board that says they have no
standing to protect their economics and they can’t come in and complain about the environmental effects
of this saying how is it that they can build 195 foot tower 500 feet away but we’re worried that somehow
we’re going to affect archeological resources. That is just plain and simple a distraction and a red herring
to divert you from what they’re really interested in which is an anti-competitive position.
MR. URRICO-I think we’re getting into areas that have nothing to do with the variance.
MR. MC CABE-Right. He should be able to defend statements made to him.
MR. BRENNAN-There’s a couple of things. The letter from AT&T dated January 2018 didn’t come out one
month after the last negotiation. Mr. Shepardson said that negotiation was December 2016. So that’s
a year and a month, not one month. This idea that if we do get approved that we need to demonstrate
that we’re going to directly pass the cost on to consumers. I certainly didn’t hear them offer to reduce
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
their rent in half which is what I was driving, as I was honest with you in this
discussion, that the rent is twice as high as it should be for the market rent. So
we didn’t hear that, that the existing landowner with the tower comes in and
complains about this, you know, I leave it to you whether you want to credit that
as a credible statement that somehow our tower would be a detriment but the
one that they get the rental stream for, that’s in jeopardy, again belies whether
that’s an honest assessment of the facts of this situation, but in fairness to the comments and in fairness
to the Board, if I were sitting on the other side of the table where I sit many times, I wouldn’t be asking
my board or advising them to make a decision tonight in light of getting the stack of paper from Mr.
Shepardson and all the comments you received and so we have a little bit of homework to do I think to
come back to you and answer some of those questions that have been raised during the meeting tonight
as well as by the Board to give you some additional information, and I don’t want to pre-suppose was
Laura was suggesting, but I think she was heading that way a little bit on some of these topics, but if you
have a different opinion I’m certainly willing to hear it, but I’m suggesting that there’s a little bit of
homework to be done here and come back with some additional information to give the Board some
additional time to weigh this.
MR. MC CABE-So you’re asking for a tabling.
MR. BRENNAN-I am. I’ve done cell towers for many, many years now and I will tell you that it is rare that
one gets approved on one night. I think the last one we did down the street, which, by the way, there’s
two towers on the same property. One of which has a light on it as you were pointing out, took a couple
of meetings to go through some of the details that you were asking for. In that case the second tower
derived from the fact that the first tower was structurally insufficient, which is one of the criteria where
you can have a second tower. The other one is a financial issue which is what we’re suggesting. So I’d
like the opportunity to present some additional information and then also you do have an obligation under
the State Environmental Quality Review Act before you act and I think we should take the time, if you’re
going to act one way or the other, and walk through that and make sure you have the information you
need to review that. That’s my request.
MR. MC CABE-So how much time do you need?
MR. BRENNAN-I apologize. I don’t know your schedule as well as ours.
th
MRS. MOORE-So our next deadline is January 15 for February meetings.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tillman
Infrastructure for a variance of Section 179-5-130 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order
to install a 260 ft. tower for up to three tenants. Project includes site work for a 360 ft. road with lease
area of 100 x 100. The plans show location of pads for tenants. Site to be gravel and lease area to have
fence enclosure. Tower is to have a light on top to be compliant with FCC.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for construction of a new cell tower.
Section 179-5-130 Telecommunications Towers
The applicant proposes a new telecommunications tower to be located on a parcel in the Rural Residential
5 acre zone where cell towers are not a listed use.
MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 1-2019 TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE, Introduced by Michael
McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Tabled until the first February meeting with pertinent information to be supplied by the middle of January.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of December 2019, by the following vote:
MR. MC CABE-And if you can’t make that, then we can table it further.
MR. BRENNAN-No, that’s a reasonable amount of time for us to come in, and we’ll get it in to the Planning
th
Office by the 15 and ask you to enjoy your holidays and we’ll come back and see you in February.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico,
Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. And thank the audience for being patience and hanging with us for this long
So for the Board, we’ve got some stuff to do. So, first of all, I’m going to make a motion.
MOTION TO APPOINT ROY URRICO FOR SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR THE YEAR 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle
Hayward:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of December 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico
MOTION TO APPOINT JAMES UNDERWOOD FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Brent McDevitt:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of December 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood
MR. HENKEL-And I’d like to make a recommendation.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD TO APPOINT MICHAEL MC CABE FOR
CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2020, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of December 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. McCabe
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So this concludes our meeting for tonight.
MRS. DWYRE-Were you going to approve the minutes?
MR. MC CABE-No, we’ll do the December minutes in January.
th
MRS. MOORE-So you have the November 20 minutes.
rd
MR. MC CABE-No, those ones you sent out, weren’t they the December 3? I thought we already did the
th
November 20.
MRS. MOORE-So what happened when you did the previous meeting minutes. You actually approved
th
October’s again because you specified October dates and not the November 20.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2019)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 20, 2019, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael
McCabe:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,
Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-So now that we’ve concluded our business, I make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s
meeting.
MR. URRICO-I second.
TH
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF DECEMBER 18,
2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,
Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-Have a great holiday everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe, Acting Chairman
27